Advertisement

The Inquiry Laboratory as a Source for Development of Metacognitive Skills

  • Mira KipnisEmail author
  • Avi Hofstein
Article

Abstract

The study described in this article is based on a long-term comprehensive series of investigations that were conducted in the context of teaching high school chemistry in the laboratory using inquiry-type experiments. The students that study chemistry according to this program are involved in an inquiry process that included all the inquiry skills namely: identifying problems, formulating hypotheses, designing an experiment, gathering and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions about scientific problems and phenomena. While conducting these activities in small collaborative groups, they were encouraged to discuss their ideas about the scientific phenomena they were observing with their classmates and they were provided the time needed to accomplish it. A case study of inquiry activity of a group of three students is described and analyzed using a model of metacognition that was presented by Schraw (1998). The transcripts of the interviews of 20 students were analyzed using a model of Flavell et al. (2002). It was found that while performing the inquiry activity, the students practiced their metacognitive abilities in various stages of the inquiry process. The analysis of the interviews indicated that the students that participated in the research expressed their metacognitive knowledge regarding the inquiry activity. Thus, it is claimed that an inquiry-type laboratory that is properly planned and performed can give students an opportunity to practice metacognitive skills, which are regarded in recent years as one of the key goals in our attempt to broaden the scope of learning skills developed through learning science.

Key words

inquiry-type laboratory laboratory work metacognition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, J.R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, J.R. & White, R.T. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in the classroom. In D.F. Treagust, R. Duit & B.J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 190–200). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blosser, B.F. (1983). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 165–169.Google Scholar
  5. Bryce, T.G.K. & Robertson, I.J. (1985). What can they do? A review of practical assessment in science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E.H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching (pp. 20–46). Washington DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  7. Conner, L.N. (2000). Inquiry, discourse and metacognition: Promoting students learning in a bioethical context. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  8. Davidowitz, B. & Rollnick M. (2003). Enabling metacognition in the laboratory: A case study of four second year university chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 33, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dori, Y.J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z. & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 1–5.Google Scholar
  10. Flavell, J.H., Miller, P.H. & Miller, S.A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed., pp. 163–167). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J. & Hacking, M.W. (1995). Refocusing the chemistry lab: A case for laboratory-based investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41, 26–32.Google Scholar
  12. Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gourgey, A.F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science, 26, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunstone, R.F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical work. In B.E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 67–77). Milton Keynes, England: The Open University.Google Scholar
  15. Gunstone, R.F. & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159–182). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical working school science. School Science Review, 70, 33–40.Google Scholar
  17. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201–217.Google Scholar
  18. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofstein, A. & Walberg, H.J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 70–89). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Hofstein, A., Shore, R. & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M. & Mamlok-naaman, R. (2005). Developing students ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C.S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: Handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A. & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 94–127), New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Lunetta, V.N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262 ), Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (2005). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  30. Standards. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/index.html.
  31. Rickey, D. & Stacy, A.M. (2000). The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 915–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Sciences, 26, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas, G.P. & McRobbie, C.J. (2001). Using a methaphor for learning to improve students methacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 222–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, R.T. (1986). Origins of PEEL. In J.R. Baird & I.J. Mitchell (Eds.), Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study - The PEEL project. (pp. 1–7). Melbourne: Monash University Printery.Google Scholar
  36. White, R.T. & Mitchell, I.J. (1994). Metacognition and the quality of learning. Studies in Science Education, 23, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yore, L.D. & Treagust, D.F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingThe Weizmann Institute of Science, The Weizmann InstituteRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations