Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Conceptual Understanding with Explicit Epistemic Intervention in Metacognitive Instruction: Interaction Between the Treatment and Epistemic Cognition

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of the metacognitive instruction in which students’ epistemic cognitions were explicitly addressed, on tenth-grade students’ conceptual understandings regarding force and motion. The participants of the study included 107 (49 female, 58 male) tenth-grade students at two public high schools. A quasi-experimental design was employed. Two intact classes of each school were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. The Force and Motion Conceptual Tests I and II were administered to assess the students’ conceptual understandings in force and motion. A survey was applied to probe the students’ prior epistemic cognitions in physics. The results of the study revealed that the metacognitive instruction was more effective than the expository teaching in terms of promoting students’ conceptual understandings. A statistically significant interaction between the treatment and the students’ prior epistemic cognitions was also observed. The students with higher pre-epistemic cognitions got higher conceptual scores in the experimental group whereas the conceptual development of the control group students was independent of their pre-epistemic cognitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first question in each group was adapted from the University of Washington Tutorials (McDermott & Shaffer, 2002) and Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992).

References

  • Adler, I., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2016). The effect of explicit environmentally oriented metacognitive guidance and peer collaboration on students’ expressions of environmental literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 53(4), 620–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183–200). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: a multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657–1682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell, and E.M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: vol. 3. Cognitive development (4th ed., pp. 77–166). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029–1062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, O. (2017). Conceptual understanding of acids and bases concepts and motivation to learn chemistry. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: a comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 483–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 554–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., & Gobert, J. D. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L., & Gunstone, R. (2004). Conscious knowledge of learning: accessing learning strategies in a final year high school biology class. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1427–1443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: a handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.

  • Danielak, B. A., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2014). Marginalized identities of sense-makers: reframing engineering student retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 8–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Lin, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221, 349–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 69(7), S54–S64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A. (2009). Defining personal epistemology: a response to Hofer & Pintrich (1997) and Sandoval (2005). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 138–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., Macrander, C., & Hammer, D. (2016). Epistemic cognition in science. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 113–127). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., McCaskey, T., Lippmann, R. and Redish, E. F. (2001). MPEX-II Survey Retrieved from http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/tools/MPEX-II.pdf

  • Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., McCaskey, T., Hodges, R., Redish, E. F., Hammer, D., & Bing, T. (2007). Maryland tutorials in physics sense-making. DVD, funded by NSF DUE-0341447.

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, N. D., & Pollock, S. J. (2005). Replicating and understanding successful innovations: implementing tutorials in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologists, 34, 906–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraas, J. W., & Newman, I. (1997). The use of the Johnson-Neyman confidence bands and multiple regression models to investigate interaction effects: important tools for educational researchers and program evaluators. In Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association.

  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (3th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a Wweb-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference (11.0 update). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiades, P. (2004). Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, A. D. T., Borges, A. T., & Justi, R. (2008). Students’ performance in investigative activity and their understanding of activity aims. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 109–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131–146). Washington DC: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hammer, D. M. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: how may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, M. (1993). Students’ ideas about their conceptualization: their elicitation through instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

  • Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: advancements and challenges. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education, 83(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y. S., Lai, T. L., & Hsu, W. H. (2015). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 53, 1316–1340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapon, S. (2017). Unpacking sensemaking. Science Education, 101(1), 165–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(4), 366–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koran, M. L., & Koran, J. J. (1984). Aptitude-treatment interaction research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(8), 793–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, J. (2008). Scaffolded development of inquiry skills in academically disadvantaged middle-school students. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 36–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Künsting, J., Kempf, J., & Wirth, J. (2013). Enhancing scientific discovery learning through metacognitive support. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: the role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26(5), 359–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (2002). Tutorials in introductory physics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, R. F., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2009). The effect of interactive lecture experiments on student academic achievement and attitudes towards physics. Canadian Journal of Physics, 87(8), 917–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish, E. F., & Hammer, D. (2009). Reinventing college physics for biologists: explicating an epistemological curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 77(7), 629–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66, 212–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ, R. S. (2014). Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science. Science Education, 98(3), 388–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryoo, K., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Designing automated guidance for concept diagrams in inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1003–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sins, P. H., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205–1229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., III, Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993/1994). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabo, R. J. (2014). Introduction to string theory and d-brane dynamics: with problems and solutions. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. (Fifth Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66, 338–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31(1), 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. Y. (2015). Scaffolding middle school students’ construction of scientific explanations: comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: the logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. C. (1998). Strategies in K-12 science instruction to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 82(4), 455–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, F. E. (1987). Introduction and overview: metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 1–19). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1994). Generative science teaching. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 29–38). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Wu, C. L. (2011). Exploring the development of fifth graders’ practical epistemologies and explanation skills in inquiry-based learning classrooms. Research in Science Education, 41(3), 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2016). The impact of the metacognitive 7E learning cycle on students’ epistemological understandings. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(2), 603–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerdelen-Damar, S. (2013). The effect of the instruction based on the epistemologıcally and metacognitively improved 7E learning cycle on tenth grade students’ achievement and epistemological understandings in physics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey).

  • Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Biggers, M. (2013). Fostering student sense making in elementary science learning environments: elementary teachers’ use of science curriculum materials to promote explanation construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 989–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W. X., Hsu, Y. S., Wang, C. Y., & Ho, Y. T. (2015). Exploring the impacts of cognitive and metacognitive prompting on students’ scientific inquiry practices within an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 529–553.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrew Elby for his valuable feedback and comments about this study.

Funding

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Boğaziçi University, Bebek, 34342, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sevda Yerdelen-Damar

  2. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ali Eryılmaz

Authors
  1. Sevda Yerdelen-Damar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Eryılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sevda Yerdelen-Damar.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yerdelen-Damar, S., Eryılmaz, A. Promoting Conceptual Understanding with Explicit Epistemic Intervention in Metacognitive Instruction: Interaction Between the Treatment and Epistemic Cognition. Res Sci Educ 51, 547–575 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9807-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9807-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation