The Effect of Embedded Metacognitive Prompts based on the Nature of Science (4-Phase EMPNOS) on Metacognition
Problem
Even with modest gains in understanding of the nature of science, teachers still have difficulty translating this knowledge into classroom practice. A study of a group of preservice teachers with adequate knowledge of the nature of science showed that there was not much instruction involving the nature of science due to a preoccupation with classroom management and the mandated curriculum (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Lederman, 1998). Research has also shown a gap in in-service teacher well-developed conceptions about the nature of science and classroom practice (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Mellado, 1997; Southerland, Gess-Newson & Johnston, 2003; Tobin & McRobbie, 1997). The mechanisms that help operationalize the understanding of the nature of science into classroom instruction are poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention which attempts to develop student metacognitive strategies that are based on the nature of science.
Metacognition can be defined as the executive functions that control actions or the ability to recognize thinking patterns and evaluate them (Weinert, 1987). There has been some evidence that developing metacognition can enhance the incorporation of content knowledge in students. The use of metacognition has been shown to improve content knowledge (Magntorn & Hellden, 2005) and solution quality (Wetzstein & Hacker, 2004). Based on the findings of these studies, students may develop more conceptual ideas rather than rote factual knowledge earlier in their student careers in science when they develop their metacognitive skills. This study examines the possibility of prompting students into checking if their thinking corresponds to established scientific thinking. One drawback of current studies investigating metacognition is the reliance on spontaneous student production of metacognitive awareness. A greater understanding of methods used to train or scaffold students’ metacognitive strategies is needed. This study incorporates a developmental, self-regulatory strategy in order to train students to be aware of the correspondence between their reasoning and the nature of science.
Self-regulation can help students monitor their learning progress accurately through frequent feedback. Self-regulated learners adopt learning orientation, whereas naïve learners adopt performance orientation (Zimmerman, 1998). Naïve self-regulators seldom verbalize and are unaware of imagery as a guide and tend to rely on the results from trial-and-error experiences to implement new methods of learning (Costa, Calderia, Gallastegui & Otero, 2000). Four phases which Zimmerman (2000) has identified (observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation) help students to develop from going through the motions of an activity to being concerned about understanding their ways of knowing. This study gives students metacognitive tools embedded into an inquiry activity to check if they are thinking like scientists, which may be able to aid student progression from performance orientation to learning orientation. Skillful self-regulators attribute negatively evaluated outcomes mainly to strategy use, learning method, or insufficient practice, where naïve learners tend to attribute them to ability limitations. Students may be taught positive self-regulation feedback loops by using metacognitive prompts that promote the nature of science. More research in developing a thinking strategy or ethic to evaluate the scientific merit of information can change how students develop their scientific way of knowing.
Learning and applying the aspects of the nature of science helps students to see that science is more than a collection of facts. Students using metacognitive strategies can evaluate their thinking to determine if it aligns with the rigorous requirements of the scientific discipline. This study uses an intervention (4-Phase EMPNOS) in a quasi-experimental setting to find out if students can be taught to think scientifically on a metacognitive level and seeks to answer the following questions:
Design
Ninety-seven
eighth-grade science students from an urban middle school in the mid-Atlantic
region of the
The Metacognitive Orientation Scale (Thomas, 2002b) is designed with a social constructivist view in mind and considers that knowledge is not constructed in a vacuum, but is developed through interactions with the learning environment. Thomas (2002a) argues that most measures in the science classroom regarding metacognition involved lengthy interviews and observations and that the development of a large-scale measure of metacognition in the classroom would be useful. Eight aspects of metacognition which were supported by the research literature were measured on the MOLES-S: (1) metacognitive demands, (2) teacher modeling and explanation, (3) student-student discourse, (4) student-teacher discourse, (5) student voice, (6) distributed control, (7) teacher encouragement and support, and (8) emotional support. The MOLES-S is a 35-item instrument that includes the eight aforementioned dimensions based on a Likert-scale. The MOLE-S reported an Alpha reliability ranging from 0.72 to 0.87 for each of the seven scales and all of the scales showed to be statistically significant. The discriminant validity ranged from 0.34 to 0.49 for each scale.
The MONOS (Author, submitted) 16-item survey was designed to test five different student perceptions: a) attitude about the subject of science, b) use of metacognition regarding the use of empirical evidence to support ideas in science, c) use of metacognition regarding accurate record keeping, peer review and replication of experiments help to validate scientific ideas, d) use of metacognition regarding the role of technology in science, and e) ability to explain reasoning in making conclusions. Each of the topics was chosen because they exemplify skills that are valuable in teaching science as a way of knowing. Reliability as measured by Alpha test for the instrument is .89.
The intervention, 4-Phase Embedded Metacognitive Prompts based on the Nature of Science (4-Phase EMPNOS), consists of four modules that cover the content of electricity and magnetism at an eighth grade level. Each module is based on inquiry methods (National Research Council, 1996) and asks students to make observations and inferences about phenomena. Module one investigates behaviors of permanent, ceramic magnets and emphasized the nature of science aspect that empirical evidence is used to support ideas in science within the prompts. Module two investigates phenomena involved with static electricity and focused on laws and theories play a central role in developing scientific knowledge, yet they have different functions. Module three investigates models that explain current electricity and included embedded metacognitive prompts on accurate record keeping, peer review and replication of experiments help to validate scientific ideas. Module four investigates electromagnetic interactions and focused on the aspect that science is a creative endeavor (McComas, 2005). Metacognition is taught throughout the units based on Zimmerman’s (2000) model of the 4-phases of self regulation: observation, emulation, self-control and self-regulation. For example Module 1 for the experimental group would be based on magnetism content and have four sections of embedded developmental phases of metacognitive prompts based on the nature of science aspect of empirical evidence is used to support ideas in science throughout the unit. Phase one of the metacognitive prompts illustrated and example of explicit metacognitive thoughts. Phase two of the metacognitive prompts asked students to reproduce their metacognitive thinking in the same style as the example. Phase three of the prompts asked students to answer questions regarding their thinking with a checklist of supporting processes. Phase four of the prompts asked students to reflect on their thinking in a more difficult and independent way. Students in the control group received the four inquiry modules that address content through student observations and inferences about phenomena, but did not receive the 4-phase metacognitive prompts.
Findings
A quantitative analysis of data indicates that although both control and experimental groups increased scores on the MOLES-S (n = 82) and the MONOS (n = 80), the experimental group showed a significant increase over the control group. With regard to research question 1, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on SPSS, using the F-value, to test the difference between the experimental and the control groups on the post-test controlling for pretest differences, and showed a significant difference between the control and experimental groups, F (1, 51) = 1.942, (p ≤ .029). The amount of variance due to the intervention was reported as 77.4%.
With regard to research question 2, a t-test performed on MONOS score gains for both groups showed a higher gain for the experimental group, t(69.142) = 2.069, ( p ≤ .042). Both groups may have increased their metacognition due to the open-ended nature of the inquiry units as it may have encouraged students to think more critically about the investigations. The embedded metacognitive prompts may have had more of an effect on students’ metacognition because the prompts scaffolded their awareness of metacognition because the prompts first showed an example of metacognitive thinking, then asked students to reproduce the same kind of thinking in a different situation, then asking simple questions about student reasoning with support and finally more difficult questions about student reasoning without support. Being engaged in a developmental way with metacognitive thinking may have helped students who didn’t previously think about their thinking to do so. Additional data collected in this study include pre- and post-tests of student content knowledge, student knowledge about the nature of science and pre-, midpoint, and post-tests of self-regulatory efficacy which will be analyzed in the future.
Contribution to
Teaching and Learning
To date, few specific, measurably successful suggestions for pedagogy resulting in a deeper understanding of the nature of science have been proposed (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Beeth & Hewson, 1999; Davis, 2003). This study attempts to draw from the understandings found in the literature regarding the nature of science, metacognitive processes and self-regulatory processes to develop a phase method of evoking metacognition of the nature of science. Recently there has been convergence in the literature about the important aspects of the nature of science, and this study attempts to implement the seven identified aspects of the nature of science in learning modules to guide student thinking processes to become more scientific. This study also incorporates findings from recent literature that metacognitive prompts often do not aid student thinking if the student does not have the skills to think metacognitively (Davis, 2003), and operationalizes Zimmerman’s ideas that four stages can be used to train self-regulation. This study extends Zimmerman’s ideas into the realm of metacognition, and the results help to illustrate processes and interactions that will help scaffold metacognitive thinking to naïve scientific thinkers. All students who were given the inquiry units increased their metacognition, but students who were given the developmental prompts had a greater increase in their metacognition about the nature of science. Curriculum oriented toward asking developmental questions regarding scientific thinking in addition to content and process may aid students in a deeper understanding of the nature of science.
The field of the nature of science still requires a great deal of exploration. In order to fully understand how people learn such a nonrepresentational subject as the nature of science there needs to be more dialogue between the scientific community and science teachers (Glason & Bentley, 2000), more understanding of student views of the nature of science (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett & Simmons, 2002), and more understanding of how teachers who have a sophisticated view of the nature of science can incorporate these ideas into classroom practice (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004). The findings of this study give a clue to one method of addressing teaching of the nature of science.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating
the
development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of the nature of
science.
Science Education, 10, 101-143.
Abd-El-Khalick, F.,
instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 36, 404-420.
Akerson, V. L. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A
yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
40, 1025-1049.
Beeth, M. E. & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 60, 738-823.
Costa, J., Calderia, H., Gallastegui, J. R. & Otero, J. (2000). An analysis of question asking on scientific texts explaining natural phenomona. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37, 602-614.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12(1), 91-142.
Glasson, G. E. & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84, 469-485.
Magntorn, O. & Hellden, G. (2005). Student-teacher’s ability to read nature: Reflections on their learning in ecology. International Journal of Science Education. 27, 1229-1254.
McComas,
W. F. (2005). Seeking NOS standards: What content consensus exists in
popular books
on the nature of science. Paper presented at the meeting of National
Association for
Research in Science Teaching,
Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. Science and Education, 6, 331-354.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.
Peters, E. E. (manuscript submitted). Scientific Thinking in Eighth Grade
Students: Attitude and Metacognition
about the Nature of Science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching.
Southerland, S. A., Gess-Newsome, J. & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 669-691.
Thomas, G. P. (2002a). The social mediation of
metacognition. In D. McInerny & S. Van Etten (Eds.),
Research on Sociocultural Influences on
Motivation and Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 225-247).
Thomas, G. P. (2002b). Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The metacognitive oritentation learning environment scale – Science (MOLES – S). Learning Environments Research, 6, 175-197.
Tobin, K. & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science & Education, 6, 355-371.
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.
Wetzstein, A. & Hacker, W. (2004). Reflective verbalization improves solutions – The effects of question-based reflection in design problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 145-156.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A. & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles
of academic regulation: An analysis of
exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self- regulated
Learning: From Teaching to Self-reflective Practice (pp. 1-19).
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social
cognitive perspective. Handbook of Self-Regulation.