Chapter 5 Draft
4-Phase EMPNOS
2-21-07
Erin E. Peters
Discussion
This study used a quasi-experimental, control/experimental group design to test an intervention intended to teach students to be metacognitively aware of their scientific thinking, and measured potential changes in content knowledge, nature of science knowledge, metacognition and self-regulatory efficacy. It was hypothesized that students exposed to the intervention would report a higher level of content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition and self-regulatory efficacy. The results support the hypothesis partially, in that there was a significantly higher gain in content knowledge and nature of science knowledge for the experimental group receiving the embedded prompts than in the control group. Students who were instructed in the 4-phase developmental prompts based on the nature of science not only gained in their understanding of the nature of science, but also gained in their understanding in the science content. Students who were exposed to the metacognitive prompts could have understood science to be more than a collection of facts (Chin & Brown, 2000; Crawford, 2005; Crawford, Kelly & Brown, 2000; Gijlers & deJong, 2005; Hogan, 1999b). Students who had instruction in the nature of science could have been able to construct a broader conceptual framework on which to hang the content learned in the modules, resulting in a gain in both content and nature of science knowledge. No significant gains were reported between the experimental group and the control group in metacognition or self-regulatory efficacy. This result could be due to the method of instruction for the embedded metacognitive prompts. Due to the dual role of the teacher/researcher, all phases of the metacognitive prompts were given as an independent homework assignment in order to avoid confounding variables attributed to teacher/researcher coaching. The students in the experimental group may have experienced more self-regulatory efficacy if there were more explicit and active self-regulatory strategies such as keeping track progress in metacognition in the units (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005; Weinert, 1987).
Within the groups, it was hypothesized that differences would occur within both experimental groups and control groups on all pre- and post-measures. Significant differences were found within the experimental group on metacognition, content knowledge, and nature of science knowledge. Significant differences were found within the control group on metacognition and content knowledge. Gains in both groups in metacognition could have occurred because of the design of the inquiry units. All four of the units had a component of constructivist learning as students were required to observe phenomena, record behavior and speculate on a personal theory of why the phenomena happened. Students were also required to work in groups which results in active discussion of ideas. Student metacognition could have increased in both groups because they were required to pose and defend their own ideas within their groups. Students were required to think about their thinking in order to express it coherently and logically defend their original ideas. The gain in content knowledge for both groups could have also occurred because of the design of the inquiry unit. Since students had to construct their explanations for phenomena, they had ownership of the content and were able to make the content fit into current conceptual frameworks (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). The gain within the experimental group in nature of science knowledge could have been due to the extended exposure to the concepts of the nature of science. Since the experimental group was the only group exposed to the four phase checklists and questions about the nature of science, their knowledge in this field increased (McComas, 2005; Lederman, 1992).
It was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation among all five variables, which was partially supported by these data. The three highly correlated measures were the VNOS-B and TEMK, the MONOS and TEMK, and the MONOS and MOLES-S. The VNOS-B and TEMK have correlations because the content test asked students to explain phenomena and their personal theories behind the mechanisms of the phenomena. Knowledge of the nature of science is important in being able to explain personal theories behind phenomena (Duschl, 1990). The MONOS and TEMK have correlations because the MONOS is based on the seven aspects of the nature of science (Lederman, 1992, McComas, 2005) which forms a foundation with which students can understand content regarding physical phenomena. The MONOS and MOLES-S were found to correlate highly because they are both instruments that explore metacognition.
It was hypothesized that the experimental group would outperform the control group on the self-efficacy measure, which was not supported. There were significant differences within each group, but there were not significant differences between the groups. The control group’s self-efficacy steadily increased while the experimental group’s self-efficacy dipped down when the mid-test was given and rose to a high for the post-test. This could have occurred because the experimental group was asked to justify their thinking through the checklists and prompts. Their self-efficacy decreased when they were novices at answering these types of questions, but became more confident when they received more practice and feedback through the checklists and questions (Zimmerman, 2000).
The
focus group transcripts showed that students who used the 4-phase EMPNOS talked
more about the development of their knowledge than the control group. The
control group tended to focus on listing the content their learned when asked
about how they thought in a scientific way during the focus group discussion.
The experimental group tended to speak about their explanations about why the
phenomena occurred (
Implications
for Instructional Practice and Limitations
Teaching science as a series of disconnected facts has been shown to be ineffective (Chin & Brown, 2000; Crawford, 2005; Gijlers & deJong, 2005; Hogan, 1999) and does not help students form ideas about how scientific knowledge is created and verified (Duschl, 1990; Clough, 1997). Often teachers have only a surface understanding of the discipline of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Bianchini & Colburn, 2000; Chin & Brown, 2000; Nott & Wellington, 1998) and need additional resources to teach about the nature of science. Four-phase embedded metacognitive prompts based on the nature of science (4-phase EMPNOS) can aid in connecting content knowledge to nature of science knowledge resulting in an increase in understanding in both areas (Herbert, 2003). Four-phase EMPNOS provides a tangible pedagogy that can be easily inserted into previously developed lesson plans. Teachers can choose the aspect of the nature of science that is best illustrated in a particular topic. Using the 4-phase EMPNOS checklists and questions, teachers can insert phases one through four of the chosen nature of science aspect into their lesson plans. The intervention is cost effective and compliments teachers’ current curriculum.
Teachers can use 4-phase EMPNOS to scaffold understanding through a developmental process and enrich student understanding of both content knowledge and knowledge about how the content is developed and verified in the scientific community (DeSautels & Larochelle, 2006). Students gain practice in the ways of knowing in science and have explicit instruction that is connected to the knowledge that they construct. Students do not often have an understanding of the scientific community and the construction and verification of knowledge (Hogan & Maglienti, 2001). Students who use 4-phase EMPNOS gain experience in checking their thinking against scientific thinking which helps them to understand what knowledge is scientific and what knowledge is not scientific. This intervention also helps students to become more proficient in metacognition, which helps in gaining content knowledge (Costa, Calderia, Gallastegui & Otero, 2000). When students can begin to think about their thinking, they can become independent learners and can conduct inquiries into scientific phenomena on their own.
Limitations of this study are the small sample size and the convenient sample used because the classes were already formed. The sample also consisted of few minorities and had a large special education student component, which could have affected results. Further studies are planned to expand the student sample, to add more self-regulatory processes into the developmental intervention, and to add released questions from a national examination to the TEMK in order to compare the study sample to a national sample.