Metacognition in Science Education: Past, Present and Future Considerations

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter builds on Richard White’s (1998) chapter in the previous edition of this International Handbook of Science Education. In that chapter, White focused on decisions and problems in research on metacognition. My intention in writing this chapter is to review progress in the area of metacognition over the past 10 or so years, particularly in science education, but also, as space permits, across the fields of education and cognitive psychology in general. My reasons for drawing broadly from the literature for this chapter relate to a growth in interest in the study of metacognition across education and psychology that is evident, for example, in the establishment of a Special Interest Group (SIG) on metacognition within the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) and the publication of the journal Metacognition and Learning, the flagship publication of that SIG.

Keywords

Learning environments Learning sciences Metacognition Research methods Teaching 

References

  1. Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91, 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., Nashon, S. M., & Thomas, G. P. (2009). Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Research in Science Education, 39, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., Thomas, G. P., & Ellenbogen, K. M. (2003). Learning science from experiences in informal contexts: The next generation of research. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 1–6. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v4_issue1/foreword/index.htm Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., Thomas, G. P., & Nashon, S. M. (2009). Social barriers to meaningful engagement in biology field trip group work. Science Education, 93, 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study – The PEEL Project. Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
  6. Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (Eds.) (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
  7. Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2006). Metacognitive development: A view beyond cognition. Research in Science Education, 36, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavanagh, J. C., & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connor, L. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year biology class. Research in Science Education, 37, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dunlosky, J., Bottiroli, S., & Hartwig, M. (2009). Sins committed in the name of ecological validity: A call for representative design in education science. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 430–440). New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. Research in Science Education, 36, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 learning and teaching (pp. 131–146). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Grasser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Hacker, D. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2003). Not all metacognition is created equal. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95 (Fall), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hennessey, M. G. (2003). Metacognitive aspects of students’ reflective discourse: Implications for intentional change teaching and learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 103–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Leou, M., Abder, P., Riordan, M., & Zoller, U. (2006). Using “HOCS-Centered Learning” as a pathway to promote science teachers’ metacognitive development. Research in Science Education, 36, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peters, E. (2007). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://mars.gmu.edu:8080/dspace/handle/1920/2831?mode=full Google Scholar
  27. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas, G. P. (1999). Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students’ learning processes. Research in Science Education, 19, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas, G. P. (2003). Conceptualisation, 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
  30. Thomas, G. P. (2006). An investigation of the metacognitive orientation of Confucian-heritage culture and non-Confucian-heritage culture science classroom learning environments in Hong Kong. Research in Science Education, 36, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas, G. P. (2009). Metacognition or not? Confronting hegemonies. In I. M. Saleh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Fostering scientific habits of mind: Pedagogical knowledge and best practices in science education (pp. 83–106). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 222–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White, R. T. (1998). Decisions and problems in research on metacognition. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1207–1213). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  35. Yürük, N. (2005). An analysis of the nature of students’ metaconceptual processes and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ conceptual understanding of forces and motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  36. Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Secondary EducationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations