Currently, my main research interest revolves around the assessment of metacognition use and its impact on chemistry problem solving. A corollary of this work is the development of instruction instruments which promote the use of metacognition. Having a reliable assessment instrument also allows the evaluation of instructional methodologies which are already being used. By improving use of metacognition we hope to not only help students in their college careers but also to contribute in their preparation to become independent and efficient practitioners and citizens.

Most commonly, metacognition is defined using descriptions such as thinking about one’s own thinking, the capacity to reflect upon one’s actions and thoughts (1) or knowledge and regulation of one’s own cognitive system (2, 3). Research evidence supports the description of metacognition by two main components: metacognitive knowledge or knowledge of cognition, and metacognitive skillfulness or regulation of cognition (4; 5). Knowledge of cognition refers to the explicit awareness of the individuals about their cognition, that is: knowing about things (declarative knowledge), knowing how to do things (procedural knowledge) and knowing why and when to do things (conditional knowledge). Regulation of cognition is the executive component that comprises the repertoire of activities used by individuals to control their cognition (6). Researchers have identified a number of different regulatory activities, three of them being constantly present in most recounts: planning, monitoring and evaluating. In our research, we focus on the regulatory component of metacognition since it is the one that decisively affects the efficiency in problem solving.

Despite the efforts to raise awareness about and promote instruction and use of metacognition, work in developing its assessment has not paralleled this interest (7) and there is a current need for instruments to measure metacognition and related constructs (8). The intrinsic difficulties in characterizing individual’s patterns of thought and strategy development might be the cause for such gap.

As part of our work, we have developed an assessment of metacognitive activity use in chemistry problem solving that uses two different instruments administered at two different times, that is, an across-method-and-time design. The first instrument, the Metacognitive Activities Inventory, MCA, consists of a self report instrument that can be administered and analyzed easily and rapidly at any time during the instructional cycle. The second component, IMMEX, is an on-line method that tests students’ metacognitive skills using readily available technology for rapid collection and analysis of a large number of performances. We have reported the design and characteristics of this multi-method instrument, as well as the convergence of its component instruments.

We have studied the effect of metacognitive instruction on self reported metacognitive use and on problem solving ability. For this purpose, we have developed a metacognitive intervention that uses small group collaboration to create an environment that promotes use of metacognition. Students solve a non-chemistry problem to later discuss and reflect about the processes and products of their problem solving. The intervention is completed over a period of one week in three separate sessions. Results suggest that there is a significant improvement in metacognitive awareness, and problem solving ability and solve rate. Parallel to this study, we have investigated the effect of cooperative problem based lab projects on problem solving strategy and ability. It has been suggested that this type of instruction properly elicits the use of metacognitive skills through several mechanisms. Using the cooperative lab work as a treatment, we have found sound evidence that supports this claim. Students in the treatment group significantly outperformed their peers in the control group in terms of their problem solving strategy, ability, and solve rate.

We have complemented our quantitative studies by designing and conducting a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. The qualitative component of this work is phenomenography-based, and the core of the evidence has been collected by means of semi-structured student interviews. Use of this approach has facilitated our understanding of how the metacognitive interventions (paper and pencil, lab project, online problems) have led to the outcomes measured using the quantitative methods. Based on analysis and interpretation of the phenomenological outcome space we proposed two main promoters of metacognitive development (in the case of cooperative project based projects): meaningful and purposeful social interaction and reflective prompting.

Currently, we are engaged in a qualitative study involving first year teaching assistants participating of the cooperative problem based general chemistry laboratory. The goals of this project are twofold: first, gathering of additional data to document how the learning environment is promoting the development of metacognition awareness and use in general chemistry students; second, assessing the impact that facilitating this metacognition-rich learning environment has on the TA's own metacognition, problem solving skills, and science epistemological views.

Literature Cited

1. Brown, A. In Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding; Weinert, F. E., Kluwe, R. H., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: New Jersey, 1987; pp. 65-116, 87.
2. Palincsar and Brown, 1987
3. Schraw, G.; Dennison, R. S. Contemporary Psychology 1994, 19, 460-475.
4. Schraw, G.; Moshman. D. Educational Psychology Review1995, 7, 351-371.
5. Schraw, G. In Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice; Hartman, H. J., Ed; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; pp 3-16.
6. Veenman, M. V. J. In Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen fur Forschung und Praxis; Artelt, C.; Moschner, B., Ed; Waxmann: Berlin, 2005; pp 3-29.
7. Sperling, R. A.; Howard, B. C.; Miller, L. A.; Murphy, C. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2002, 27, 51-79.
8. Tsai, C.-C. J. Chem. Educ.2001, 78, 970-974.

Relevant presentations and articles

back to top