Research in Science Education (2006) 36: 51–67 DOI: 10.1007/s11165-004-3953-9
© Springer 2006
Metacognitive Development: A View beyond Cognition Jennifer Case1 and Richard Gunstone2 1 University of Cape Town 2 Monash University, Melbourne Abstract A series of studies were conducted to investigate students’ metacognitive development in a second year chemical engineering course. The first of these was an exploratory study involving observation together with some limited interviewing. This was followed by a major study with two phases, the first of which involved a series of individual interviews with eleven students over the duration of the course, and the second of which involved a follow-up interview with each student two years later. In the first phase of the major study a theoretical framework characterising metacognitive development as a shift in approach to learning was utilised. The present paper draws on the findings of the second phase of the major study to both confirm the validity of this framework and also point to some of its shortcomings, specifically regarding the necessity of a certain emotional state in order for metacognitive development to take place, and the importance of the formation of a professional identity. It is suggested that metacognitive development needs to be characterised in broader terms than the usual cognitive focus in order to more fully account for students’ experiences of learning. Key Words: approach to learning, chemical engineering, cognition, metacognitive development
This paper draws on a series of studies that were conducted in a second year chemical engineering course at the University of Cape Town (UCT). The course had been redesigned in order to more explicitly promote conceptual understanding and metacognitive development amongst students and these studies sought to uncover to what extent this took place. Furthermore, it was hoped that aspects of this context that might either promote or hinder such metacognitive development might be identified in order to provide findings that would have practical application in the designing of teaching and learning environments in tertiary science and engineering courses. In the first year of this research project an exploratory study was conducted (reported in Case, Gunstone, & Lewis, 2001). This involved observations of the course lectures and tutorials, analyses of the journal entries from the whole class (as part of the course redesign, student journal tasks were introduced), as well as in-depth individual interviews with five students at the end of the course. In the following year phase 1 of the major study took place, involving primarily a series of interviews over the duration of the course with a purposively selected sample of eleven students, together with the collection of a range of other course materials from these students (reported in Case & Gunstone, 2002, 2003a, 2003b). Phase 2 of the major study took place two years later, and involved a follow-up interview with each of the same eleven students. It is phase 2 that is the chief focus of this paper.
52
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
Theoretical framework Metacognition, described by Baird (1990) as the “knowledge, awareness and control of one’s own learning” (p. 184), has been a productive focus for many science education researchers over the last two decades (White, 1998). Efforts to promote enhanced metacognitive abilities amongst students (termed metacognitive development) have been seen as the key to improving teaching and learning (e.g., Baird & Northfield, 1992). The concept of metacognitive development has origins in cognitive psychology and information processing (Flavell, 1976) and thus focuses on cognitive aspects of student learning. While many previous considerations and investigations of metacognitive development have also recognised the significance of non-cognitive issues, this has often been at the very general level of acknowledging the importance of students’ motivation to undertake metacognitive development. The central focus of the present paper is to provide an expanded and more informed view of non-cognitive issues of importance to metacognitive development. In the aforementioned exploratory study we sought to document the nature of metacognitive development amongst the students in the course. Using Baird’s (1990) definition above as a guiding theoretical framework we identified four aspects of metacognitive development in this context: (1) knowledge and awareness of learning (conception of learning); (2a) organising one’s learning; (2b) monitoring of learning; and (3) purpose for learning beyond the subject itself. The first category encapsulated Baird’s knowledge and awareness elements while also incorporating the notion of conception of learning, identified by Säljö (1979) in an early study of student learning. The next two categories, which we subdivided into (a) organising one’s learning (how one utilises resources) and (b) monitoring of learning (self-assessment), related to Baird’s control aspect. The final category involved aspects of development that have not usually been addressed in studies of metacognitive development, including increased focus towards a developing a career and the development of life skills to support this end. Phase 1 of the major study reported in this paper utilised the notion of metacognitive development as applied in the science education literature, encapsulating Baird’s (1990) definition, but also drew on the student learning literature, specifically the research that has been conducted on undergraduate students’ approaches to learning. Deep and surface approaches to learning were first proposed by Marton and Säljö (1979). Students using a deep approach have the intention of understanding what they are learning, while those using a surface approach have other intentions such as memorising work for a test. Approaches to learning are not stable individual characteristics of students, but are rather assumed to be fundamentally influenced by the educational contexts in which students find themselves (Ramsden, 1988a). This means that teaching and assessment need to be designed to elicit deep approaches to learning (Linder & Marshall, 1997). Following injunctions by key researchers in this area (Entwistle, 1997; Ramsden, 1988b) to be sensitive to the possibility of there being approaches other to deep and surface in particular disciplinary contexts in this phase of the study we
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
53
followed a research approach which allowed approaches to emerge from the data. Two approaches strongly resembling the classic deep and surface approaches were identified, initially termed ‘conceptual’ and ‘information-based’ (Case & Gunstone, 2003a), but later modified to ‘conceptual deep’ and ‘surface’ respectively in order to bring the terminology in line with other work in the literature (Case & Marshall, in press). A third, intermediary, approach was also identified. Initially termed an ‘algorithmic’ approach and later termed ‘procedural surface,’ this new approach involved a focus on solving problems, but with a surface intention, for example, remembering calculation methods to be applied when faced with similar problems in the examination. The congruence between notions of metacognitive development and approaches to learning is apparent. Approaches to learning are characterised by means of the motives and strategies involved. Biggs and Moore (1993) assert that metacognition can also be defined as a combination of motives (knowledge and awareness) and strategies (control). In a similar vein, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) defined metacognition as “the will and the skill.” In phase 1 of the major study it was therefore decided to conceptualise metacognitive development as a shift in a student’s approach to learning (Case & Gunstone, 2002). Students’ approaches to learning were identified, and any changes in the use of approaches were taken to be evidence of metacognitive development. The findings of phase 2 provided support for the validity of this framework, which combines Baird’s notion of metacognition with a focus on changing approaches to learning, but also pointed to some of its limitations. While this framework did allow for a description of student learning that had some explanatory value, in phase 2 there were a range of issues focusing on the whole person that had not been accounted for in the framework. It is the consequent reconsideration of that theoretical framework in the light of these other issues that is the purpose of this paper.
Data Collection Phase 1 of the major study took place during the first semester of 1999. Eleven purposively selected students were followed as they undertook a core second year chemical engineering course, referred to in this paper as Course X. The major data came from a series of semi-structured interviews that were held periodically over the duration of the course. During the interviews students were asked to reflect on their experience of the course. Other data such as journal entries and course assessments were also gathered from these students. During phase 2 of the study, which took place two years later, additional data were collected from the same students. In 2001 each of the eleven interviewees from the original study was again contacted and an individual interview was held with each of them. During this interview students were asked to discuss their academic experiences in the intervening two years, as well as to reflect back on their experience of Course X two years previously. At this stage of their studies, only two of the eleven
54
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
students (John and Eddy) were ‘on track,’ that is, doing fourth year study two years after their second year. The remainder of the students were still doing third year subjects. These outcomes were slightly poorer than the overall class, of whom 28% (compared to 18% of the interviewee sample) were on track. An aspect of this research design which needs some elaboration concerns what one considers students’ later reflections on Course X to represent, compared to their phase 1 comments while they were actually doing this course. To assume that these form two measures of the same event and would therefore provide some form of validity check would, we argue, be flawed. Rather, we suggest that the two sets of data are representative of students’ perceptions, which may change over time, with no set of perceptions being more ‘valid’ than another. One would usually expect some degree of congruence between these two sets of perceptions as they are both based on the same actual experience, but it is likely that new ideas might have developed, and some original perceptions may have been altered and/or discarded. This exploration of the longevity and possible change of such perception is a feature of this paper because little if any such data on the persistence of such perceptions in relation to metacognitive development is found in the literature.
Research Findings Phase 1 Since metacognitive development was characterised in this study as a shift in approach to learning, the study had as its starting point the identification of students’ approaches to learning. It was not assumed however that only deep and surface approaches as originally formulated might be found in this course context, and as it turned out three approaches particular to this context were identified amongst the students: 1. a conceptual deep approach, in which the intention is to understand concepts, 2. a procedural surface approach, in which the focus is on remembering calculation methods (not previously identified in the literature), and 3. a surface approach, in which the intention is to gather and remember pieces of information. For each interviewee, a dominant approach was identified at particular stages of the course. These are summarised in Figure 1. When the final course results were published, it became apparent that significant use of a conceptual deep approach during the course appeared to be necessary for passing the course as only the first five students in Figure 1 passed the course. Some of the other students provided evidence of varying degrees of change from a procedural surface approach towards a conceptual deep approach (shown by the arrows on Figure 1), but apart from Lindiwe, the extent of their change seemed insufficient for them to pass the course. One student, Nomsa, used a combination of surface and
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
55
Approach to learning Surface
Nomsa Maria Shakira
Procedural surface
Lindiwe Geoff Thembi Andrew Nomsa
Conceptual deep
John Eddy Mike Thabo −−−−−−−−−−→ −−−−−−−→ −−−−−−−→ −−−−−→
The arrows in the figure indicate changes in a student’s approach to learning that were noted over the duration of the course. The length of the arrows indicates the extent of the change as judged by numerous indicators reported in detail in Case (2000). Lindiwe was judged to have achieved a complete change towards the exclusive use of a conceptual deep approach by the end of the course, while Geoff and Thembi were partly using this by the end of the course, and Andrew had only ‘dabbled’ with a conceptual approach at various times. Nomsa is in both columns because she used a combination of surface and procedural surface approaches throughout the course.
Figure 1: Approaches to learning identified in phase 1 of the study. procedural surface approaches throughout the course. The last two students did not provide evidence of any appreciable change in their approaches to learning. The limited degree of adoption of a conceptual deep approach amongst many of these students was of considerable concern as the course environment had been deliberately structured to elicit such an approach. The study therefore also attempted to establish what might have inhibited change in students’ approaches to learning. From an analysis of these students’ perceptions of the course context as they undertook the course in 1999 it was concluded that issues of time were dominant, and that many students felt that there was not enough “time to think” or to risk changing an approach that had previously worked, that is to alter an approach that had previously resulted in good examination marks.
Phase 2 The findings from phase 2 are now presented in somewhat more detail, since it is these that largely provide the evaluation of the theoretical framework that is the
56
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
focus of this paper. In this section we first of all consider the phase 2 findings in the light of the phase 1 framework, that is, metacognitive development as a shift in approach to learning. This involves an analysis both of students’ approaches to learning during their second year (as seen two years later) as well as any changes that occurred subsequently. Following this we deal with three themes that emerged in the phase 2 study which are not easily accommodated within the previously elaborated framework, namely students’ assertion of the importance of simply “working hard,” the finding that emotional states were significant enablers or inhibitors of metacognitive development, and finally the influence of students’ perceptions regarding the formation of their identities as future engineers. Reconsidering approaches to learning during second year On one level, students’ descriptions of their learning during Course X in 1999 as recorded in these 2001 interviews largely matched the approaches that were identified for each student in the original study. The only significant departure from the original classifications occurred in the case of Thembi, who appeared to have used a conceptual deep approach for the first part of the course, and only thereafter fell back on a procedural surface approach when she failed to understand the material on energy balances. In discussing her experience of repeating Course X she said she focused on “understanding more than like doing examples over and over again and trying to learn the method per se” (page 1, lines 28–29). Following up this comment the interviewer then asked her about her experience of Course X the first time: JC: So when you did Course X the first time you were trying to practice lots and lots of problems? Thembi: Actually only on the second half, because the first half was quite intuitive stuff – just basic mass balances but the energy balances [in the second half] I never quite got a grip of, so I tried to do a lot of examples but they were always different. You can’t exactly learn something like that. I obviously did try to understand it but, you know, I tried to do a lot more so that I could get used to it per se which never really worked. (Thembi, page 1, lines 32–37)
That this initial use of a conceptual deep approach was missed in the original study might be due to Thembi’s extreme nervousness and consequent reticence to talk in the first few interviews. This modification in fact provides a better match with the conceptual data from the original study, in which it was considered rather puzzling that Thembi had demonstrated good conceptual understanding in the first part of the course using what was assumed to be a procedural surface approach. These perspectives from phase 2 of the study suggest that the characterisation of Thembi in Figure 1 should be changed to as follows in Figure 2. The arrows indicate that she initially used a conceptual deep approach, then changed towards using a procedural surface approach, and finally moved part way towards full use of a conceptual approach again. Apart from this instance, all other students strongly confirmed the approaches that had been identified in the original study. This would seem to suggest that the approaches identified in the original study were not merely consequences of the interview situation but were rooted in students’ experiences and perceptions.
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
57
Approach to learning Surface
Procedural Conceptual deep surface ←−−−−−−−−−− Thembi −−−−−−−→
Figure 2: Revised dominant approach to learning for Thembi. Changes in approaches to learning since second year With regard to their learning in courses subsequent to Course X in 1999, all students felt that they were now generally using what could be described as a conceptual deep approach. Many students were also able to describe at least one subsequent course in which they had resorted to a procedural surface approach usually when they couldn’t manage to understand the material even though they had tried. They reported that frequently this resulted in failure of the course. For example, Geoff made the following comment about his approach to a third year course which he failed at this first attempt: So I failed Course Y for the same reason . . . because I was learning questions. I must be honest. I did part of that again [when I repeated it] because it was a course that I just wanted to get out of the way but [this time] I sort of understood what was going on, you know now, as opposed to learning formulas and stuff like that. (Geoff, page 2, lines 19–21)
For those students who were not using a conceptual deep approach at the end of Course X, two distinct patterns of subsequent change in approaches to learning were identified. The first pattern might be considered as a linear progression that one might expect from the very terminology of a change/shift in approach to learning, although only two students, Geoff and Nomsa, gave descriptions which fitted this kind of experience. Both described a kind of ‘conversion/enlightenment’ event in which they had realised the limitations of a procedural surface approach and decided to substantially change their approach to learning. For Geoff this change had been prompted by the experience of failing the second year course: Like before I came into engineering, I thought “Let me just pass the course and I get my degree and then I live happily ever after.” But now I am starting to see that you must understand the stuff. And then failing Course X . . . was like the part where I realised that I can’t get through like this anymore. I have got to sit down and figure out what is going on. I can’t let things pass. (Geoff, page 2, lines 16–19)
For Nomsa this change came about at the beginning of the following year when a classmate had advised her that she should alter her approach. [A friend Thabang who noticed me always carrying books around said the following one day:] “Nomsa, I am really worried about you. You seem to be forever studying but I am sorry to say this but when I look
58
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
at your marks, you are not really getting what one has to get.” At first I was quite shocked. I was like “How can he be so rude” but then I thought “No, let me just follow this up” . . . and I asked him exactly what’s what. [I said:] “What is your problem? Whatever if I’m studying consistently and I’m a slow learner I’m not as intelligent as you” and so he was like “Let me tell you this, how to study.” [I said:] “I read a section and then I do problems on that and I cram the whole procedure.” And he was like “No, that’s where you’re going wrong. You must first grab the concepts and understand.” So I took it from there. (Nomsa, page 2, lines 47–58)
Most of the remainder of these students did not describe such a clear shift in approach to learning. These students felt that they had just started working harder and that this had enabled the full implementation of a conceptual deep approach. Lindiwe reported that she had put time into working through problems. Andrew said that he had made more use of tutorials and working with peers and generally being more organised. Shakira said she was working more consistently, and Maria claimed she was actually doing the tutorial problems that she had not been doing before. Thembi didn’t fall under either of these two groupings. Rather she was someone who continued to try to employ a conceptual deep approach where possible, but she frequently fell back on using memorisation when the strategies she employed to try to understand the material didn’t work, as she did in the second year Course X. Students’ assertions regarding the importance of investing time and “working hard” Following on from the previous section, it was striking that for all students the most prominent issue in their perceptions of the course was reported as the importance of working hard rather than working for understanding. When describing how they had changed their learning over the intervening years, all students, without exception, said that they were working much harder. Andrew was most probably the most extreme example in this regard, who used the term “work(ing) hard(er)” no less than thirteen times during the interview in comments such as: Course X was like a stumbling block, an eye-opener. I worked harder I think and the group work helped me a bit. (Page 1, line 21) ‘Cos I thought at that time [second year] that I was working hard, but if I look at it now, I wasn’t actually working hard and I am working harder now . . . (Page 3, lines 12, 13) It is dumb of me not to . . . but I am working hard. The thing is you work hard but I think you should work harder as time goes on. (Page 5, lines 61, 62) I work hard but sometimes you waste time here but I think everyone does that. (Page 13, lines 46, 47)
Students generally ascribed improvements in marks or courses passed to working hard, which they equated mostly to devoting more time to the material. When asked what it is that the chemical engineering programme demands from a student, most of them did not say to work for understanding, but rather to work hard, specifically to invest time in one’s studies, as shown in the following responses to this question:
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
59
Hard work. That’s usually my answer. Everybody asks you like “Is chem eng difficult?” because they ask you what you study and you say chemical engineering and it is “wow it is like so difficult.” No, the only thing you need is hard work, hard and consistent work . . . (Eddy, page 6, lines 49–51) For one thing it wants too much of my time. And I’m . . . a lazy person. (Lindiwe, page 6, lines 11, 15) Well you have to be focused yes. That is what I would say. (Maria, page 9, line 23)
Some students also discussed conceptual issues in relation to the question of what the programme demanded of students, but all who did so related this issue to the issue of working hard and managing their time. For example, John noted the prominence of time pressure but related this to having to juggle many different conceptual demands: You have to juggle. You have to get your mind around things that you can’t always understand and can’t always deal with directly. In certain parts you have to handle pressure and you have to handle stress. . . . You have to become a Jack of All Trades, and you have to be able to do a lot of different things. You have to be able to do theory, you have to be able to do application, you have to think for yourself, you have to work in groups, you have to work just as an individual. (John, page 9, lines 12–16)
Mike also began his response with the simple answer, “A lot of work,” but similarly to John related this directly to the conceptual challenges in the course: A lot of work. [laughs] I think a lot of understanding of the general concepts and actually not only an understanding but a practical knowledge to put it to paper and to be able to take that knowledge and put it with the actual outside world into a real situation. I think the courses later on in third year actually just prepare us for the outside world I think, and you are just using the concepts that you learnt before, to put you in the position as a chem eng graduate, so it is a lot of conceptual practice and getting you ready for the outside world. (Mike, page 10, lines 19–23)
These findings emerging from phase 2 of the study are particularly interesting in the light of the findings of phase 1 with regard to students’ perceptions of devoting time to studying the material in the course (Case & Gunstone, 2003b). In phase 1 it was noticeable that time was a prominent issue for all students regardless of the approach they took, but that those using a conceptual deep approach made different decisions around how they allocated their time. Specifically, these students recognised the importance of investing time in developing understanding. This could be seen as a key to the success in the course. The results from phase 2 reported above suggest that the time issue was not reduced in its prominence in any way as these students progressed through their studies, but that some of them came to realise that quantity of time spent on their work was not the real issue. Rather it was the quality of what they do with that time that mattered. Importantly though, using a conceptual deep approach does not take away from a student the need to still invest significant time in their studies.
60
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
Emotional state as a significant enabler/inhibitor of learning A key question that emerged during phase 1 of the study concerned the reason why so few of the students managed to implement a conceptual deep approach during the second year course, despite many of them having realised the importance and value of such an approach. The approach to learning literature suggests that students’ choices of approach results from their perceptions of the educational environment. The highly time-pressured environment of the second year course in 1999 appeared to be a strong determinant of the prominence of procedural surface and surface approaches amongst such students. In phase 2 a related but deeper issue became evident. Students’ emotional state was found to be a substantive factor either enabling or inhibiting students’ application to study, and also their adoption or otherwise of a conceptual deep approach to learning. Time remained a dominant aspect of students’ perceptions of the context in phase 2, as noted above, but on its own provided insufficient explanation of students’ learning behaviour. Additional evidence obtained from a consideration of broader personal issues will be discussed in this section. A striking difference between the phase 1 interviews and those conducted two years later in phase 2, was the range of personal information that students volunteered, particularly in talking about their emotional states both during Course X and in the following two years. Maybe with the two years of time between experiencing Course X and being interviewed in phase 2 (and, possibly, growth in personal maturity) it is not only possible to personally reflect on what one was going through at the time, but also easier for students to share such thoughts with another person at this stage. Mike was the most salient case in point. During phase 1 the interviewer (first author) had been aware that his mother had passed away at the start of the year, but at the time he had been adamant that he was fine, didn’t volunteer to talk about this, and so she didn’t push the issue. Two years later he admitted that he had been in a terrible emotional state for the whole of that year and most of the next. I really struggled to sit down and concentrate. I would sit down and my mind would be here and there. Not like your mind is always here and there, but actually sort of nothing . . . like I could read through a page and understand nothing and then towards the end of last year again my third year, my ‘second’ second year, it sort of came together, right at the exams. (Page 1, lines 32–35)
He repeatedly returned to this theme of disengagement from his study while doing Course X during the phase 2 interview. Another student who had had severe emotional distress during Course X was Shakira, who had lost two friends in a car accident shortly after the course had started. At the time we had spoken about this loss only briefly. In the phase 2 interview she did not spontaneously raise this issue as Mike did, but in response to a question from me towards the end on whether this had been a significant experience for her at the time she said: I think it was. I think it changed my whole approach to varsity. My attitude as well. I just felt like I mean like everyone had such a short time, so I just felt am I doing the right thing. Should I be spending all my
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
61
time . . . and then I used to dream a lot as well I think, especially as that was the beginning of Course X . . . It was then that I got lost as well. It was after that that I thought I could never pick myself up. I could never grasp everything . . . so I think it was the beginning of everything. I just let it all like fall apart around me and pick it up after that. I was just happy to leave it as it was. I didn’t fight and start studying again. (Shakira, page 8, lines 14–24)
It is quite striking from this quote how Shakira’s state of mind had such a dramatic effect on her ability to consciously engage in any real way with the course, let alone develop a conceptual deep approach. Another student who seemed to have had considerable emotional difficulties during Course X was Lindiwe, whose father was very ill and died shortly afterwards. This had the biggest impact on her studies in subsequent courses. First of all she tried to throw herself into her work in order to deal with it and also feeling pressure to be responsible for her mothers’ sake. By third year she felt burnt out and said “I just felt like ‘Ag, I don’t care’ ” (page 2, line 3). She started just doing what she felt like with her time, and ended up failing quite a few courses. It seems extraordinary that three of these eleven students should have experienced such direct loss during their studies, but there were also others who had emotional difficulties. Both Thembi and Thabo had also alluded to personal issues that had intruded on their abilities to study. Given that five of these eleven students explicitly discussed quite personal matters, it may be that there may have been others with issues that they did not feel able to discuss, or might not have even consciously articulated for themselves, at this stage. General experience in counselling students at UCT suggests that the majority of students have to deal with fairly significant personal trauma during their undergraduate years, given the frequently disfunctional social environments of post-apartheid South Africa and the impact of issues such as HIV/AIDS, poverty and crime. What these various accounts point to is the critical importance of a range of personal issues to enable a student to actually apply themselves to their studies and consequently to give themselves an opportunity to adopt a more metacognitive and conceptual deep approach to learning. Although this seems entirely self-evident, it is notable firstly that in the data collection process in phase 1 of the study these issues were not raised, and secondly that the theoretical framework used in phase 1 did not easily incorporate these aspects. There is the need for the development of a broader, more nuanced student learning theory in relation to metacognition that can incorporate these sorts of issues more readily. The importance of the formation of an engineer identity The final theme that emerged in the analysis of these interviews was not something that appeared in the original research objectives for phase 2 of the project, but which emerged from analysis of the data. This concerns students’ development towards identifying with the engineering profession. This emerging professional identity appears to have also been a significant ‘enabler’ of a conceptual deep approach
62
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
(and consequent successful learning outcomes). In consideration of this issue, two distinctly different sorts of responses were identified in the data. In the first type of response, students displayed significant positive growth towards identifying as engineers, and envisaging themselves in this career. For example, John said he enjoyed the subjects more from third year as they were more engineering oriented. Although he still didn’t see himself working in a plant, he had been offered a really interesting masters project and was very excited about the career possibilities that might follow from this. Eddy was still with the same bursary company and continued to enjoy his vacation work. He was also pleased that the company had been so supportive when it looked like he was going to have to repeat a fourth year subject. Geoff strongly related his change to a conceptual deep approach to what he was going to need to be able to do as an engineer and said “You know an engineer knows what he is doing. He doesn’t just ‘know’ how to do a problem” (page 2, lines 7, 8). He was pleased he had managed to pick up a bursary. Andrew had also managed to acquire a bursary during third year and, although he was going to have to do some shift work initially, he was looking forward to the work. Although he didn’t mention specific career plans, Mike said he liked the practical side of the engineering subjects (which Andrew did too) and also that he was interested “in the business side of things.” What is significant to note is that of these students, John, Mike, and Eddy all used a conceptual deep approach consistently through Course X and Andrew and Geoff both made some development towards such an approach. Furthermore, at the time of writing this paper all five of these students have graduated (in either four or five years) and three of them are currently engaged with postgraduate study. In the second type of response to the issue regarding career identity, students expressed considerable distress about their prospects as engineers. For example, Thabo said of the bursary company where he was doing vacation work, “I can’t stand the place, not at all . . . not at all” and went on to speak of a place with strong racial polarisation and conservative attitudes. At the end of the year he was wondering whether he should just abandon his plans to do chemical engineering at all. Lindiwe said that although she was starting to see herself as a chemical engineer, she still wondered if she’d be any good, as she felt like she didn’t really know anything. She was also concerned whether, as a foreign student, she’d be able to find work after graduation. Although Nomsa had a bursary with an industrial company, she said “Sometimes I doubt I will ever be . . . like in the industry and stuff.” Thembi said she “didn’t realise how much I was crowding myself by choosing a trade-oriented course” and had picked up quite a few arts subjects in the intervening years which she had really enjoyed. Although Shakira had really enjoyed vacation work with her bursary company, she had struggled to see the relevance of the courses she was doing, and had many times of wondering why she was doing the degree. She had also had a holiday working overseas (not in chemical engineering) and it seemed it was generally the idea of working that appealed to her and conflicted with still being in university. Importantly again, of five students giving this response, two did not make any use of a conceptual approach in Course X, two made some development towards such an approach, and only one student consistently used this approach throughout
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
63
the course. Maybe more strikingly, of these five students, at the time of writing, two had graduated and the other three had left the programme. Maria did not specifically mention anything about her career plans or feelings about becoming an engineer, positive or negative and is not included in either of the groups discussed in this section. What is illustrated above is the substantive relationship, not necessarily unidirectional or exclusive, between approach to learning and identity formation. Students using a conceptual deep approach in the second year Course X, as well as those subsequently succeeding in the degree, appeared to more frequently be those who felt positive about becoming an engineer. Of course it is not clear whether positive identity formation is a requirement for or a product of using a conceptual approach to learning. Nonetheless this resonates strongly with to the findings of the exploratory study (Case et al., 2001) in which “purpose for learning beyond the subject itself” was suggested as an important aspect of metacognitive development. This latter point raises issues that are often described with the generic term motivation. We briefly return to this in the conclusion of this paper. Although the original study wasn’t aimed at investigating race and gender issues, knowing the students it is difficult not to notice that these issues appear to also be related to identity formation. The first group consists of white and coloured males, while the second group has African females and a male, and an Indian female. In another research project (Case & Jawitz, 2004) we have explored the impact of vacation work in either enhancing the growing engineering identity or limiting its development.
Discussion During phase 1 of the major study, the theoretical framework which focused on metacognitive development characterised as a shift in approach to learning proved to be a productive and appropriate tool for describing student learning. Approaches to learning were identified, and these correlated strongly with students’ learning outcomes. The question that was raised at this stage was why so few students had managed to substantially shift their dominant approach to learning in this course, despite being fully aware of the need to do so. In metacognitive terms this can be seen as an issue relating to students’ control over their learning processes, but it was difficult to establish why some students had not managed to exert this control. The only explanation that could be advanced at that phase of the study was that time pressure had led many students to perceive that there was no time available to adopt a conceptual deep approach. Phase 2 of the study allowed for review of the theoretical framework, and also further illuminated the issue of why students seem to have struggled to change their approach. As highlighted above, it is clear that the notion of approach to learning is a useful one, and allows careful documentation and analysis of student learning. The approaches to learning identified in phase 1 largely matched those identified in
64
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
phase 2, and it was also seen that some students had indeed managed to shift their approach to learning over the longer period of the intervening two years. One of the new themes emerging from phase 2 of the study is relatively easy to incorporate into the initial theoretical framework. Students asserted that “working hard” was more important than anything else, and this seemed somewhat disappointing, given what is known about approaches to learning, that is, working hard with an inappropriate approach is unlikely to yield a successful outcome. However, drawing on the original Baird formulation of metacognitive development, it would appear that what is being signalled here is the key issue of control. In phase 1 of the study it was noted that students often displayed the requisite knowledge and awareness of the importance of a conceptual deep approach but were unable to exert the necessary control. What is being pointed to here is the importance of control, a salient issue for a body of students who were largely aware of the shortcomings in their existing learning approaches. The two other themes that emerged in this phase of the study do not fit so easily into the initial theoretical framework. Firstly, the importance of one’s emotional state as an inhibitor or enabler of metacognitive development emerged as a key theme in phase 2 of the study. This links again to issues of control, but suggests that students exerting control over their learning processes is not simply an issue of willingness as has been suggested in previous studies of metacognitive development (e.g., White, 1998). There is a range of broader personal and emotional issues that may have a noticeable impact on a student’s ability to carry out the approach to learning that they see as optimal for their contexts. Secondly, phase 2 of the study shows that in a tertiary context, particularly one as vocationally focused as engineering, identifying with a career can also have a significant impact on one’s learning. As already discussed, this relates to the third category identified in the exploratory study, termed there ‘purpose for learning beyond the subject.’ That this issue has emerged independently in two studies where chemical engineering students have been asked to talk about their learning, would seem to suggest that it is indeed of crucial importance and worthy of further investigation in this and other contexts.
Conclusion Drawing on the results of three studies of student learning in the context of a second year chemical engineering course, some important conclusions regarding an appropriate theoretical framework to characterise metacognitive development are proposed. Firstly, the elements of knowledge, awareness and control identified by Baird (1990) can be seen to be present in these explorations of student learning and this must therefore be regarded as a useful operational framework for conceptualising metacognitive development. Secondly, it has been seen that the conceptualisation of metacognitive development as a shift in approach to learning is a useful one. In both phase 1 and phase 2 of the major study students’ approaches and shifts in approaches
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
65
were identified, and related strongly to their academic success. Thirdly however, analysis of the data from phase 2 of the study suggests that these frameworks are insufficient for conceptualising factors impacting on students’ metacognition if considered on their own, and that a broader framework incorporating other non-cognitive issues needs to be developed. Two that emerged in the present study were the critical role played by a student’s emotional state, influenced by personal experiences external to the course, and the significance in this particular degree context of a student beginning to develop an identity as an engineer. We therefore propose a modified broad framework which conceptualises metacognitive development, at least in this advanced professional learning context, as (i) being in an appropriate emotional condition in order to (ii) exercise “knowledge, awareness and control” regarding (iii) the use of an appropriate approach to learning, with a view to (iv) learning to becoming a professional. Such a reformulation of this research field would enable a move from the narrowly cognitive focus on student learning frequently found both in the science education and higher education literature towards a broader perspective that is properly able to take account of students as whole and complex individuals. It is clear that our proposed new broad framework encompasses issues of motivation, particularly (but not only) at points (i) (“appropriate emotional condition”) and (iv) (“learning to become a professional”). We referred earlier to motivation as a generic term. In doing this it is our intention to reinforce the very wide usages that are made of this term. It is for this reason that we are reluctant to engage at any length with the literature on motivation, and make only two concluding comments. First we note that both the data reported here and the proposed framework we have derived from these data point to strong affective components of motivation for these students and the ways motivations have impacted on their approaches to learning, and, in some cases, to other affective issues at times subsuming motivational influences. Hence, to the extent that we think about motivation and these data, we do so in terms of students as independent agents making both rational and irrational choices. Second, we note the specific context of the two studies discussed here – the context of tertiary level professional education. The consequent impact of end goals (to become an engineer) as a focus for considering motivation has varying relevance for different students. More interesting in the present context is how our proposed framework, in particular point (iv), would translate into other undergraduate contexts where the intentions of lecturers and many students are maybe not so focussed by professional preparation (e.g., arts), and into even more general education contexts such as lower secondary school. Correspondence: J. Case, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa E-mail:
[email protected]
66
JENNIFER CASE AND RICHARD GUNSTONE
References Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183–200). London: Routledge. Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Printing Services. Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Case, J. M. (2000). Students’ perceptions of context, approaches to learning and metacognitive development in a second year chemical engineering course. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Case, J. M., & 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. Case, J. M., & Gunstone, R. F. (2003a). Approaches to learning in a second year chemical engineering course. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7), 801–819. Case, J. M., & Gunstone, R. F. (2003b). Going deeper than deep and surface approaches: A study of students’ perceptions of time. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 55–69. Case, J. M., Gunstone, R. F., & Lewis, A. E. (2001). Students’ metacognitive development in an innovative second year chemical engineering course. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 331–355. Case, J. M., & Jawitz, J. (2004). Using situated cognition theory in researching student experience of the workplace. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 415–431. Case, J. M., & Marshall, D. (in press). Between deep and surface: Procedural approaches to learning in engineering contexts. Studies in Higher Education. Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb. Higher Education, 33, 213–218. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (1997). Introducing and evaluating metacognitive strategies in large-class introductory physics teaching. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 411–422). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I – outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11. Pintrich, P., & Groot, E. D. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
METACOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: BEYOND COGNITION
67
Ramsden, P. (1988a). Context and strategy: Situational influences of learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 159–184). New York: Plenum Press. Ramsden, P. (1988b). Studying learning: Improving teaching. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 13–31). London: Kogan Page. Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions. Gothenburg, Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Göteborg. White, R. T. (1998). Decisions and problems in research on metacognition. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1207–1213). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
