Metacognitive activity in the physics student laboratory: Is increased metacognition necessarily better?

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 41-56

  Lippmann Kung, Rebecca ^a   Linder, Cedric ^a,b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WESTERN CAPE   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Group work; Metacognition; Physics teaching; Sense making; Student laboratory

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548220930     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-007-9006-9     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.
2. Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., Quera, V., & Robinson, B. F. (1997). Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 357-370.
3. Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1-41). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
4. Butterfield, E. G., Albertson, L. R., & Johnston, J. C. (1995). On making cognitive theory more general and developmentally pertinent. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies: Issues in growth and development (pp. 181-205). Mohwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
6. Fong, C., & Woodruff, E. (2003). Web-based video and frame theory in the professional development of teachers: some implications for distance education. Distance Education, 24(2), 195-211.
7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
8. Gardner, W. (1995). On the reliability of sequential data: Measurement, meaning, and correction. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 339-359). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
9. Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Metacognition, instruction, and the role of questioning activities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (vol. 2, pp. 103-136). Orlando: Academic Press.
10. Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-385.
11. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193-223.
12. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. F. (2004). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
13. Hayes, J. R., & Hatch, J. A. (1999). Issues in measuring reliability. Written Communication, 16(3), 354-367.
14. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.
15. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
16. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85(6), 758-768.
17. Kramarski, B., & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38(2-3), 77.
18. Kung, R. L. (2005). Do students know the purpose of the laboratory? Presentation at the American Association of Physics Teachers Summer National Meeting, Salt Lake City.
19. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
20. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94-128). New York: Macmillan.
21. MacLachlan, G., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and Interpretation. Portland, Or.: Melbourne University Press.
22. Mevarech, Z., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 85.
23. 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: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
24. Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhaustive within and between study analyses of think-aloud data. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 262-296). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
25. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
26. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66-73.
27. Trumper, R. (2003). The physics laboratory-a historical overview and future perspectives. Science & Education, 12, 645-670.
28. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311-330.
29. Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J., & Verheij, J. (2003). Learning styles: Self-reports versus thinking-aloud measures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 357-372.
30. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327-354.
31. Zion, M., Michalski, T., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of meta-cognitive instruction embedded within asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 957-983.