Changing the Metacognitive Orientation of a Classroom Environment to Stimulate Metacognitive Reflection Regarding the Nature of Physics Learning

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1183-1207

  Thomas, Gregory P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Classroom environment; Metacognition; Metacognitive orientation; Physics education; Representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877582850     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.778438     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Azevedo, R. 2005. Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning. The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40 (4): 199 - 209. (doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2)
2. Biggs, J. 1988. The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32 (2): 127 - 138. (doi:10.1177/000494418803200201)
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Case, J. M. and Gunstone, R. F. 2002. Metacognitive development as a shift in approach to learning: An in-depth study. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (4): 459 - 470. (doi:10.1080/0307507022000011561)
5. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Davidowitz, B. and Rollnick, M. 2003. Enabling metacognition is the laboratory: A case study of four second year chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 33 (1): 43 - 69. (doi:10.1023/A:1023673122220)
7. Duit, R. 2009. Bibliography - STCSE: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education, Kiel: IPN - Leibniz Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
8. Duit, R., Neidderer, H. and Schecker, H. 2007. " Teaching physics ". In Handbook of research on science education, Edited by: Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. 599 - 629. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbraum.
9. Duit, R. and Treagust, D. 2003. Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 6 (25): 671 - 688. (doi:10.1080/09500690305016)
10. Duit, R. and Treagust, D. 2012. " How can conceptual change contribute to theory and practice in science education? ". In Second international handbook of science education, Edited by: Fraser, Barry J., Tobin, Kenneth G. and McRobbie, Campbell J. Vol. 1, 107 - 118. Dordrecht: Springer.
11. Durlak, J. A. 2009. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (9): 917 - 928. (doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004)
12. Duschl, R. 2008. Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social leaning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32 (1): 268 - 291. (doi:10.3102/0091732X07309371)
13. Ferguson, C. J. 2009. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40 (5): 532 - 538. (doi:10.1037/a0015808)
14. Flavell, J. H. 1976. " Metacognitive aspects of problem solving ". In The nature of intelligence, Edited by: Resnick, L. B. 231 - 236. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Fraser, B. J. 2012. " Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect ". In Second international handbook of science education, Edited by: Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G. and McRobbie, C. J. 1191 - 1239. Dordrecht: Springer.
16. Gabel, D. 1993. The use of the particle matter of nature in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (3): 193 - 194. (doi:10.1021/ed070p193)
17. Garner, R. and Alexander, P. 1989. Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24 (2): 143 - 158. (doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_2)
18. Gilbert, J. K. and Treagust, D. 2009. " Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education ". In Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modeling in science education Edited by: Gilbert, J. K. and Treagust, D. (Vol. 4, pp. 333-350). Dordrecht: Springer
19. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation, Beverly Hills: Sage.
20. Gunstone, R. F. 1994. " The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition ". In The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning, Edited by: Fensham, P., Gunstone, R. and White, R. T. 131 - 146. London: Falmer.
21. Gunstone, R. F. and Baird, J. R. 1988. An integrative perspective on metacognition. Australian Journal of Reading, 11 (4): 238 - 245.
22. Hesse-Biber, S. N. 2010. Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice, New York: The Guilford Press.
23. Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7): 14 - 26. (doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014)
24. Johnstone, A. H. 1991. Thinking about thinking. International Newsletter on Chemical Education, 36: 7 - 10.
25. Lipsey, M. W. 1998. " Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research ". In Handbook of applied social research methods, Edited by: Bickman, L. and Rog, D. J. 39 - 68. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Marshall, H. H. 1996. Implications of differentiating and understanding constructivist approaches. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4): 235 - 240.
27. Marton, F. 1988. " Describing and improving learning ". In Learning strategies and learning styles, Edited by: Schmeck, R. R. 54 - 82. New York: Plenum Press.
28. Pejuan, A., Bohigas, X., Jaén, X. and Periago, C. 2012. Misconceptions of sound among engineering students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21 (6): 669 - 685. (doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9356-6)
29. Prosser, M., Walker, P. and Millar, R. 1996. Differences in students' perceptions of learning physics. Physics Education, 31 (1): 43 - 48. (doi:10.1088/0031-9120/31/1/022)
30. Roth, W.-M. and Roychoudhury, A. 1994. Physics students' epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (1): 5 - 30. (doi:10.1002/tea.3660310104)
31. Schellings, G. and Van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M. 2011. Measuring strategy use with self-report instruments: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2): 83 - 90. (doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9081-9)
32. Schraw, G. 1998. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26 (1/2): 113 - 125. (doi:10.1023/A:1003044231033)
33. Thomas, G. P. 1999. Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students' learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29 (1): 89 - 109. (doi:10.1007/BF02461182)
34. Thomas, G. P. 2003. Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for evaluating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The metacognitive orientation learning environment scale - science (MOLES-S). Learning Environments Research, 6 (3): 175 - 197. (doi:10.1023/A:1024943103341)
35. Thomas, G. P. 2006. " Metaphor, students' conceptions of learning and teaching, and metacognition ". In Metaphor and analogy in science education, Edited by: Aubusson, P., Harrison, A. and Ritchie, S. M. 105 - 117. Dordrecht: Springer.
36. Thomas, G. P. (2009, August). Interpretive and mixed methods approaches to metacognition research: Providing context. Paper presented at the SIG 16 (Metacognition) Invited Symposium at the conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
37. Thomas, G. P. 2012. " Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations ". In Second international handbook of science education, Edited by: Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G. and McRobbie, C. J. 131 - 144. Dordrecht: Springer.
38. Thomas, G. P., Anderson, D. and Nashon, S. 2008. Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of students' metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (13): 1701 - 1724. (doi:10.1080/09500690701482493)
39. Thomas, G. P. and McRobbie, C. J. 2001. Using a metaphor for learning to improve students' metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (2): 222 - 259. (doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<222::AID-TEA1004>3.0.CO;2-S)
40. Tishman, S. and Perkins, D. N. 1997. The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (5): 368 - 374.
41. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. and Afflerbach, P. 2006. Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1 (1): 3 - 14. (doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0)
42. Vosniadou, S. 2008. International handbook of research on conceptual change, Edited by: Vosniadou, S. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
43. White, R. T. 1992. Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum and assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24 (2): 153 - 164. (doi:10.1080/0022027920240204)
44. White, R. T. 1998. " Decisions and problems in research on metacognition ". In International handbook of science education, Edited by: Fraser, B. J. and Tobin, K. G. 1207 - 1212. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45. Zohar, A. and Dori, Y. J. 2012. Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, Edited by: Zohar, A. and Dori, Y. J. Dordrecht: Springer.