Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 403–436 | Cite as

Metacognition in chemical education: question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment

  • Zvia Kaberman
  • Yehudit Judy DoriEmail author
Article

Abstract

Posing questions about an article might improve one’s knowledge—a cognitive function, or monitor one’s thought processes—a metacognitive function. This study focuses on guided question posing while using a metacognitive strategy by 12th grade honors chemistry students. We investigated the ways by which the metacognitive strategy affected students’ skills to pose complex questions and to analyze them according to a specially designed taxonomy. Our learning unit, Case-based computerized laboratories, emphasizes learning through chemical case studies, accompanied by tasks, that call for posing questions to which the answer cannot be found in the text. Teachers equipped their students with a metacognitive strategy for assessing the quality of their own questions and characterizing them according to a three-component taxonomy: content, thinking level, and chemistry understanding levels. The participants were 793 experimental and 138 comparison chemistry students. Research instruments included interviews and case-based-questionnaires. Interviews with students revealed that using the metacognitive strategy the students had been taught, they were capable of analyzing the questions they generated with the taxonomy. The questionnaires showed that students significantly improved their question posing skill, as well as the complexity level of the questions they posed. A significant difference was found in favor of the experimental group students. Stimulating students to generate complex questions with a metacognitive strategy in mind enabled them to be aware of their own cognitive process and to self-regulate it with respect to the learning task.

Keywords

Question posing skill Metacognitive strategy Case studies Higher order thinking skills Chemistry understanding levels 

References

  1. Abed, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2007). Fostering question posing and inquiry skills of high school Israeli Arab students in a bilingual chemistry learning environment. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention program in high school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. J. (1994). Really raising standards. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Aldridge, M. (1989). Student questioning. A case for freshmen academic empowerment. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 5(2), 17–24.Google Scholar
  5. Arzi, H., & White, R. T. (1986). Questions on students’ questions. Research in Science Education, 16, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnea, N. (2002). Updating high school chemistry syllabus: the process of change. 17th International Conference on Chemical Education (17th ICCE). Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, R. R. (2000). The critical role of students’ questions in literacy development. The Educational Forum, 64, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, Y. (1987). Students visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weiner & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. B. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–282.Google Scholar
  12. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and the practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications LTD.Google Scholar
  14. Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum studies, 20, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dori, Y. J. (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the “Matriculation 2000” project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1998). The “Mole environment” studyware: Applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems—Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environment case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1413–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies. Can we improve higher order thinking skills of non-science majors? Science Education, 87.Google Scholar
  23. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitve aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weiner & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Gabel, D. L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 301–326). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  29. Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 843–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garner, R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gillespie, C. S., Ford, K. L., Gillespie, R. D., & Leavell A. G. (1996). Portfolio assessment: Some questions, some answers, some recommendations. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39, 480–491.Google Scholar
  32. Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hartman, H. J. (1994). From reciprocal teaching to reciprocal education. Journal of Developmental Education, 18(1), 2–8. 32.Google Scholar
  34. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamol-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
  35. 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
  36. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed method research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaberman, Z. & Dori, Y. J. (2008). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of high school chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. In press.Google Scholar
  39. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(4), 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. King, A. (1994). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in guided student-generated questioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 6(12), 127–148.Google Scholar
  42. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marbach-Ad, G., & Claassen, L. (2001). Improving students’ questions in inquiry labs. American Biology Teacher, 63, 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Eduction, 69, 191–196.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council. (1996). National education standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  47. Notle, R. & Singer, H. (1985). Active comprehension: Teaching a process of reading comprehension and its effects on reading achievement. The Reading Teacher, 39, 24–31.Google Scholar
  48. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
  50. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
  53. Sasson, I., & Dori, Y. J. (2006). Fostering near and far transfer in the chemistry case-based laboratory environment. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: advance in studying and designing powerful (computer-based) learning environments (pp. 275–286). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven Classroom: Student questions as course curriculum in Biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57, 278–281.Google Scholar
  56. Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Singer, H. (1978). Active comprehension: From answering to asking questions. Reading Teacher, 31, 901–908.Google Scholar
  58. Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Intelligence as thinking and learning skills. Educational Leadership, 39(1), 18–20.Google Scholar
  59. Thomas, G. P. (2003). Conceptualization, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The metacognitive orientation learning environment scale—science (MOLES-S). Learning Environments Research, 6, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to imrove students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 222–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wanger, R. K., & Stenberg R. J. (1984). Alternative conceptions of intelligence and their implications for education. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 179–223.Google Scholar
  65. Watts, M., Gould, G., & Alsop, S. (1997). Questions of understanding: Categorising pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review, 79, 57–63.Google Scholar
  66. Watts, M., & Alsop, S. (1995). Questioning and conceptual understanding: The quality of pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review, 76, 91–95.Google Scholar
  67. White, R. T., & Arzi, H. J. (2005). Longitudinal studies: Designs, validity, practicality, and value. Research in Science Education, 35, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55, 227–268.Google Scholar
  69. Woodward, C. (1992). Raising and answering questions in primary science: Some considerations. Evaluation and Research in Education, 6, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195–197.Google Scholar
  72. Zoller, U., Lubezky, A., Nakhleh, M., Tessier, B., & Dori, Y. J. (1995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. conceptual chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(11), 987–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations