Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Concerns persist regarding science classroom learning environments and the lack of development of students’ metacognition and reasoning processes within such environments. Means of shaping learning environments so that students are encouraged to develop their metacognition are required in order to enhance students’ reasoning and learning. Interventions should account for the nature of the subject material to be learned. This study employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate the efforts of university researchers and a classroom teacher to change the learning environment of a year 11 chemistry classroom. Changes in participants’ perceptions of their learning environment and corresponding changes in their metacognition and associated reasoning are documented. The teacher’s use of language that explicitly targeted students’ metacognitive knowledge altered their metacognition. Students reported changes in their learning environment and an increased awareness of how they considered chemistry might be learned. Classroom environment instruments can act as reliable indicators for monitoring changes in psychosocial dimensions of classroom environments that can be directly related to students’ metacognition.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connor, L. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37, 1–16. CrossRef
Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 169–191). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. CrossRef
Dorman, J. P. (2003). Cross national validation of the What Is Happening In this Class questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 6, 231–245. CrossRef
Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Psychosocial environment and affective outcomes in technology-rich classrooms: Testing a causal model. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 77–99. CrossRef
Edwards, J. (1991). Researching the direct teaching of thinking skills. In P. Davies (Ed.), The curriculum redefined: Learning to think—Thinking to learn (pp. 19–30). Paris: OECD.
Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossRef
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of My Class Inventory. Science Education, 65, 145–156. CrossRef
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Wiley.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. CrossRef
Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom school environment. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Ntherlands: Kluwer. CrossRef
Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). New York: Springer. CrossRef
Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. In Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particulate nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 193–194. CrossRef
Gabel, D. L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and its implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossRef
Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93–104. CrossRef
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its learning and teaching (pp. 131–146). London: Falmer Press.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jack, B. L. (2005). A study of factors affecting participation and performance of police officers undertaking the Queensland Police Service’s Management Development Program by distance education. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. CrossRef
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705. CrossRef
Lave, J. (1997). The culture and practice of understanding. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw. CrossRef
Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 39–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mahaffy, P. (2004). The future shape of chemistry education. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5, 229–245.
Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale manual (1st ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford.
Peters, E. (2007). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self- regulatory efficacy. Unpublished PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 384–414). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, molecular and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330–334. CrossRef
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal operational thinking in high school pupils, IV: Three years on after a two-year intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 351–366. CrossRef
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, G. P. (1999). Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students’ learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29, 89–109. CrossRef
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, 175–197. CrossRef
Thomas, G. P. (2004). Dimensionality and construct validity of an instrument designed to measure the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5, 367–384.
Thomas, G. P. (2006). An investigation of the metacognitive orientation of Confucian-heritage culture and non-Confucian heritage culture science classroom learning environments in Hong Kong. Research in Science Education, 36, 85–109. CrossRef
Thomas, G. P. (2009). Metacognition or not: Confronting hegemonies. In I. M. Saleh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Fostering scientific habits of mind: Pedagogical knowledge and best practices in science education (pp. 83–106). Rotterdam: Sense.
Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 131–144). New York: Springer. CrossRef
Thomas, G. P., Anderson, D., & 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, 1701–1724. CrossRef
Thomas, G. P., & Au, D. K.-M. (2005). Changing the learning environment to enhance students’ metacognition in Hong Kong primary school classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 8, 221–243. CrossRef
Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 222–259. CrossRef
Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 368–374.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. CrossRef
Walberg, H. (1968). Teacher personality and classroom environment. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 163–169.
White, R. T. (1998). Decisions and problems in research on metacognition. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1207–1212). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossRef
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000, April). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
- Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to enhance students’ metacognition regarding chemistry learning
Gregory P. Thomas
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta