Abstract
This chapter explores the power of metacognition in helping students to reflect upon and revise their underlying causal assumptions in service of deeper science learning and to transfer the concepts that they learn. In six eighth grade science classrooms, we introduced “metacognitive moves” into instruction about the nature of the causal patterns implicit in density and pressure-related concepts. Classes participated in a density unit followed by an air pressure unit making it possible to assess transfer, cognitive, and metacognitive statements, using pre- and post-assessment, interview data, writing samples, and key classroom conversations. Four categories of cognitive and metacognitive strategies emerged in students’ statements increasing in sophistication from explicit knowledge claims to engaging in reflective reasoning and examining the applicability and plausibility of concepts. There was a strong correlation between the number of metacognitive statements students made during their interviews and higher post-assessment scores. Students who made more metacognitive statements gave more relational causal responses on their posttests—reflecting greater ability to incorporate the complex causal concepts. Those students who made more metacognitive statements on their density posttest showed more transfer of understanding to air pressure. The notion of metacognition applied in this study consists of knowledge of persons (both interpersonal and intrapersonal), monitoring, and evaluation. Knowledge of persons invites awareness of students’ sense-making process. Monitoring and evaluation also occur in the context of students’ ideas, as students test their faith in a particular idea, assessing whether they really believe that idea and whether they should keep on doing so.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2006). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 10, 298–319.
Baird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 263–282.
Basca, B., & Grotzer, T. A. (2001, April 10–14). Focusing on the nature of causality in a unit on pressure: How does it affect students’ understanding? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Beeth, M. E. (1998a). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82(3), 343–356.
Beeth, M. E. (1998b). Facilitating conceptual change learning: The need for teachers to support metacognition. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 49–61.
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–516.
Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W. J. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 209–254). New York: Academic.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.
Chin, C. E., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1993). Learning, teaching, and testing for complex conceptual understanding. In N. Frederiksen & I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 181–217). Hillsdale: LEA.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139.
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.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grotzer, T. A. (1993). Children’s understanding of complex causal relationships in natural systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Grotzer, T. A. (2003). Transferring structural knowledge about the nature of causality: An empirical test of three levels of transfer. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Grotzer, T. A. (2004, October). Putting science within reach: Addressing patterns of thinking that limit science learning. Principal Leadership (pp. 17–21).
Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29.
Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Constructivism and metacognition: Theoretical issues and classroom studies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 129–140). Kiel: Institut fur die Pedagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Undersitat Kiel.
Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston, MA.
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning.Science Education, 72(5), 597–614.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331.
Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.
Houghton, C., Record, K., Bell, B., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000, April). Conceptualizing density with a relational systemic model. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, New Orleans, LA.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando: Academic.
Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2007). Conditional probability versus spatial contiguity in causal learning: Preschoolers use new contingency evidence to overcome prior spatial assumptions. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 186–196.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem-solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195–205.
Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction of children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.
Perkins, D., & Grotzer, T. A. (2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of complex causal models in students’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41, 117–165.
Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46, 22–32.
Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
Smith, C., Grosslight, L., Davis, H., Maclin, D., Unger, C., Snir, J., & Raz, G. (1994). Archimedes and beyond: Helping students to construct an understanding of density and matter. Cambridge: Educational Technology Center, Harvard University.
Sobel, D. (2004). Exploring the coherence of young children’s explanatory abilities: Evidence from generating counterfactuals. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 37–58.
White, R. T. (1992). Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum and assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 153–164.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. L. Minstrell & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: AAAS.
Zohar, A. (1994). Teaching a thinking strategy: Transfer across domains and self-learning versus class-like setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 549–563.
Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 59–82.
Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18, 337–353.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Rich Carroll, Lucy Morris, and Val Tobias and their students at Marshall Simonds Middle School in Burlington, MA, for their participation in this study. We would also like to thank David Perkins and the research team: Rebecca Lincoln, Gina Ritscher, Dorothy McGillivray, Becky DeVito, and Sun Kim, as well as Pamela and Bill Mittlefehldt for their insight and support.
This paper is based upon the work of Understandings of Consequence Project, supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant ESI-0455664, to Tina Grotzer and REC-0106988, and REC-9725502 to Tina Grotzer and David Perkins, Co-Principal Investigators. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. A portion of this work was presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, Philadelphia, PA, on March 23–26, 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Example of Materials-Based Metacognitive Activity in Density
Reflecting on What You’ve Learned About Changes in Density
In the past few classes, we have considered what causes differences in density at the microscopic level and how density can change. In your journal, please answer the following questions:
-
1.
Of what you’ve learned about what causes differences in density, what makes sense to you? Are there any pieces of what you’ve learned that seem especially clear to you? What about it makes it easy to understand?
-
2.
Of what you’ve learned about what causes differences in density, what doesn’t make sense to you? What pieces seem especially difficult to understand? What about them makes them difficult?
-
3.
Sometimes even when we understand an idea, we may not believe it. Comprehending an idea is not the same thing as believing it to be true. In terms of density, is there anything that you believe to be true? Why do you believe it to be true?
-
4.
Is there anything that you believe is not true? Why do you believe it is not true?
-
5.
Is there anything about what you learned about density that relates to other ideas you may have learned about? What are they? In what ways do they relate?
Appendix 2: Example of Teacher-Supported Metacognitive Activity in Density
Reflecting on Our Thinking as a Group
The more we can begin to understand our own thinking, the better we understand and process ideas in science. As an exercise to help us reflect on our thinking as individuals and as a group, we will watch a video from yesterday’s lesson. As you watch the video, look for ways in which you use each other to make sense of ideas, to consider the plausibility of ideas, and to connect ideas to other areas of learning. Here is a list of possible situations to look for:
Instances where…
-
When talking about his or her model, a student explains what makes sense to him/her. The student may explain why certain pieces are particularly clear and easy for him/her to understand. He or she may also talk about things that still seem unclear about an idea.
-
After one student shares his/her response, other students understand the original student’s model, they may understand parts of the model, or they may not understand the model at all.
-
Students discuss their different understandings. After one student shares his or her model, other students in the class add to the first student’s model to have the idea make sense to them.
-
Students talk about whether or not they believe a particular model. Sometimes even if a model makes sense, you may not necessarily believe it. Can you recognize any examples when a student (or a group of students) talks about “getting” a particular model but not necessarily “buying” it? In other words, instances when students debate whether or not an idea is true?
-
In the discussions, were there any instances when students referred to common experiences that you, as a class, have shared (or maybe not shared) that made thinking about this idea difficult to understand?
Were there any common experiences or understandings that the class shares that helped class members make connections about this idea to other areas of learning? Was there any common theme that students tended to refer to when explaining their ideas?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science +Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grotzer, T., Mittlefehldt, S. (2012). The Role of Metacognition in Students’ Understanding and Transfer of Explanatory Structures in Science. In: Zohar, A., Dori, Y. (eds) Metacognition in Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2131-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2132-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)