Research in Science Education 33: 43–69, 2003. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Enabling Metacognition in the Laboratory: A Case Study of Four Second Year University Chemistry Students
Bette Davidowitz1 and Marissa Rollnick2 1 University of Cape Town 2 Wits University, South Africa Abstract This paper explores the Competency Tripod model and flow diagrams as two resources for enabling students’ metacognition in the chemistry laboratory. It focuses on four selected students’ statements in interviews, questionnaires and their performance in practical reports, examinations and tests. These students were from diverse backgrounds and all were successful in the sense that they passed the course. All four students were found to engage in metacognitive practices, all found flow diagrams extremely useful, all understood the Competency Tripod model but only two found it useful. Possible reasons for this are explored. Key Words: case study, chemistry, laboratories, metacognition, practical work
The fundamental purpose of this paper is to investigate the enhancement of metacognition by giving an insight into four different second year university chemistry students as they tackled the practical component of their course. University chemistry departments throughout the world invest large sums of money in providing practical experience for their students but seldom inquire about what is being achieved in these sessions (Nakhleh, 1994). By taking a close look at the experience of four different students, insight was obtained into how they monitored their learning in this situation, and hence what they gained from the practical component. The chemistry laboratory is a complex learning environment for any student. Students are expected to acquire practical and communication competencies while at the same time learning chemical concepts. In spite of this, studies have shown that for most students the main concern is task completion (Berry, Mulhall, Gunstone, & Loughran, 1999). Students do not assimilate much of the declarative and procedural knowledge which forms part of the agenda of those designing the practicals. White (1996) argues that the critical task for teachers is to establish significant and enduring links between episodes and declarative knowledge. This study investigates the effectiveness of a resource called the “Competency Tripod” as a device to enhance students’ metacognition (Flavell, 1981; Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998) during laboratories. The Competency Tripod model was introduced to help students to become aware of their thought processes as they tackled a laboratory task and to encourage them to take an alternative and more metacognitive view of their practical sessions. When students used this resource it was intended that they would make the link
44
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
between different components of a laboratory task and reflect on the development of their own understanding. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of the Competency Tripod and flow diagrams in the enhancement of metacognition.
Background The present study focuses on tertiary level laboratories where instructors tend to be practising scientists rather than trained teachers or science educationists. In university laboratories there are often problems with the articulation of the teaching of content and the practical work based on that content. Even though overt links are sometimes made, students frequently are not able to link the laboratory activities (episodes) with the material covered in lectures (Domin, 1999). Preparation in advance is essential if students are to make these links. Meester and Maskill (1995) recommended some form of enforced preparation before the laboratory session. They assert that: Preparation problems with respect to students entering the laboratories are only solved via extrinsic motivational factors, (Do it or you can’t begin; do it or you won’t be allowed to begin) instead of intrinsic factors (it will cost you less time; you will get quicker more reliable results, etc). (p. 718)
Flow diagrams (Bucat & Shand, 1996) are also a useful tool to help students prepare for their practical sessions. Davidowitz and Rollnick (2001) found flow diagrams successful as a tool for encouraging students to read their laboratory manual before coming to the practical session, allowing students to begin to manage both the information and the time spent in the laboratories. Students using coherent flow diagrams were able to carry out their experiments without having to refer to the instructions in the practical manual. Flow diagrams have a close relationship to concept maps and have been identified by Rickey and Stacy (2000) as a useful metacognitive device, so it was thought that they may play a role in enabling metacognition. What students gain from laboratory sessions is also linked to their perception of the purpose of an experiment (Millar, Le Maréchal, & Tiberghien, 1999). Hart, Mulhall, Berry, Loughran, and Gunstone (2000) make an important distinction between the aim and purpose of a scientific experiment. Most experiments designed for students have a section labelled “aim” which refers narrowly to a content aim of the experiment, while an instructor will often have far broader learning objectives and ideas embedded in its design. The “purpose” will be broader and more substantive, and include why the activity comes at this point in the teaching sequence, how the teacher intends the activity to link with other class experiences before and after, why the activity is of this form. (Hart et al., 2000, p. 656)
It is important that students be made aware of the purpose of an experiment as this will influence their approach to learning. Zhang and Watkins (2001) cite extensive
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
45
research that demonstrates that academic ability accounts for only a minimal variation in academic performance. However they identify the use of effective learning approaches as one of the more important factors in determining a student’s success. According to Ramsden (1992) “an approach describes a relation between the student and the learning he or she is doing” (p. 44). Attempts to change the approach involve changing not the students but rather their experiences and perceptions. Marton and Säljö (1976) distinguish between a deep and surface approach to learning. Students who learn just the facts, that is rote learning, are often unable to separate the main points from secondary details. This approach may allow them to pass examinations but are about “quantity without quality” (Ramsden, 1992). The only way to achieve understanding is to apply a deep learning approach where facts are learned in relation to concepts. Students who learn in this way engage with the material and feel a sense of achievement and satisfaction from understanding the task at hand. In recent research, Chin and Brown (2000) articulated the kinds of strategies that students at school used when they adopted a deep approach to learning science. Although targeted more specifically at learning scientific concepts, they found that a deep approach was characterised by an interrelation of different strategies that combined to provide an integrated whole. To help students engage in deep processing, a key issue is to reach an understanding of students’ thought processes in the laboratory. Traditional laboratory sessions may not allow students sufficient time or opportunity for deep processing of information (Rollnick et al., 2001). Part of the difficulty in processing this information is alluded to by Johnstone (1997) who presents an information processing model which clearly shows how students are limited by the amount of information they can process at one time. Furthermore what students process is acted on by what he calls a perception filter which is influenced by students’ existing schema. Johnstone and Letton (1991) talk about the importance of the signal to noise ratio in determining how much information a student is able to process in an experiment where there is a mass of extraneous information. Therefore it is important to design laboratory experiments which are free from distractions from the purpose of the experiment and clearly elucidate the intended outcome. As early as 1982, Hofstein and Lunetta (1982) provided a critique of current research into practical work, calling for more sensitive instruments and better research designs in order to elucidate problems and issues related to practical work. The present study attempts to respond to this call through an in depth look at tertiary laboratories. This is an area which has received little attention in the literature. An alternative theoretical model of laboratory work is offered by Rollnick, Allie, Buffler, Kaunda, Campbell, and Lubben (1999) who isolated several factors as being key to determining students’ thought processes in a laboratory, also using a systems approach. These were declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and communicative competence, all linked by the social interactions necessary to internalise them. They proposed that the internalisation of a laboratory task is influenced by a decision making cycle, involving selection, reflection and organisation of ideas. Declarative knowledge is characterised as conceptual structures relating to the subject matter content that the learner has preceding and following laboratory work.
46
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
These conceptual structures influence the ability to process any subject contentrelated information which arise in the laboratory. This is due to the theory laden nature of observation (Hodson, 1990). Procedural knowledge refers to the conceptual structures relating to the manipulative and cognitive aspects of methods of scientific experiments that the learner has prior to, and after doing laboratory work. Procedural knowledge encompasses comprehension of the purposes of experimental procedures, an ability to assess the plausibility of data collected, the ability to make sensible predictions of experimental results and the ability to carry out a critical analysis of sources of error in the experiment. Communicative competence rests on the premise that language is not merely a set of grammatical structures but a system of communication. It is thus a broader issue than just reading and writing and encompasses an understanding of when and how to use scientific language. Influenced by the model developed by Rollnick et al. (1999), we evolved a tool for student use which we called the Competency Tripod, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Competency Tripod. Students are asked to imagine a tripod, a common piece of laboratory apparatus usually used with a wire gauze, which lies on top. A tripod is a three-legged object in which the legs are held together by a ring. Each of the legs of the tripod can be matched to an important aspect of practical work. The three legs are: 1. declarative knowledge 2. communicative competence 3. procedural knowledge. The ring of the tripod is the link that students can make between the various components. When this link is made with the three components, students have successfully constructed the Competency Tripod which like any laboratory tripod, is stable and functional. The wire gauze represents two other factors which are important during any laboratory session and these are human interactions and time management. They make an impact on all aspects of the experiment.
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
47
It is hoped that by engaging with this analogy, students will reflect on how they learn in the laboratory and extend their awareness to the various aspects which lead to the successful execution of a practical exercise. Thus the Competency Tripod model is intended as a resource which enables metacognition (Rickey & Stacy, 2000; White, 1992). Flavell (1981) describes cognitive and metacognitive processes and works with metacognition as a monitoring process. He divides metacognition into metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences. Metacognitive knowledge consists of long-term stored knowledge which may be retrieved and used during a cognitive endeavour. Metacognitive experiences are conscious ideas, thoughts or feelings related to any part of the endeavour. Gunstone (1994) also provides a useful working definition for metacognition which will be the understanding incorporated in this study. He considers a metacognitive learner as, “. . . one who undertakes the tasks of monitoring, integrating and extending their own learning. . . . Correspondingly, there are good learning behaviours” (p. 135). The role of the teacher is to enhance their learners’ metacognitive abilities by helping them to develop appropriate metacognitive knowledge about learning strategies so that they can take control of their learning. Thomas and McRobbie (2001) showed that metaphors or models can be successful in enabling metacognition but require persistent reminders from the teacher. This usually involves the teacher’s incorporation of the metaphor or model into their classroom discourse so that students and teachers develop a “shared classroom language.” In this study we examine how students’ metacognition could be enhanced by providing suitable resources, in particular flow diagrams and the Competency Tripod model referred to above, for conceptualising their laboratory activities. Hence the introduction of the latter resource was an attempt to influence the approach of students towards laboratory sessions. In order for the Competency Tripod to function as a metacognitive device, it is important that the students first appropriate the model. Kirschner and Whitson (1997) consider appropriation as an important alternative to the cognitive scientists conception of internalisation (Vygotsky, 1978) where learners adopt a new idea by transferring it from the interpsychological to the intrapsychological plane. Appropriation refers to the adaptive imitation of the larger culture’s usage of social practice by apprentices as in the sphere of sociocultural theory. In our view, students participating in laboratory work at university level can be thought of as apprentice scientists, defined in Lave’s (1997) terms as legitimate peripheral participants. Flavell (1981) provides an important link between cognitive actions and metacognitive knowledge and experiences. Deep approaches to learning as characterised by Ramsden (1992) could be seen as cognitive actions in Flavell’s terms and thus result from metacognitive thinking. Figure 2 shows a model of student learning developed by Ramsden. The model shows that learning approaches result from students’ perception of task requirements which in turn are partly influenced by orientation to studying. A central feature of orientation to studying is metacognition. Metacognition is a necessary prerequisite for deep approaches, but shallow approaches do not necessarily indicate a lack of metacognition. On the other hand, if no metacognitive thinking is present, only surface approaches can result.
48
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
Figure 2: Student learning in context. Learning outcomes also depend on the approach taken by the student (Ramsden, 1992). Deep approaches are related to better quality outcomes and higher marks. Case, Gunstone, and Lewis (2000) studied the impact of a student’s perceptions of his development. The student, who perceived that he was coping with a particular course, eventually failed the final examination. This was despite strategies used in the course to encourage metacognitive development on the part of the lecturer. Incorrect perceptions of approach can hamper students’ achievement. On the other hand, students who adopted a deep approach to learning showed significant metacognitive development. With these theoretical perspectives in mind, we developed the aims for the study as follows: 1. To what extent does the use of resources like the Competency Tripod model and flow diagrams enhance students’ metacognition with respect to laboratory work? 2. What link exists between students’ metacognition and their use of deep and surface approaches to learning?
Methods and Design After consideration of suitable research methods it was decided that the most appropriate approach to answering the research questions above was that of a case study (Stake, 1994), as this allowed for greater insight into students’ ideas. This approach, being interpretative in nature, allows for an in-depth look at a few cases while enabling readers to relate to their own contexts. Moreover the purpose of the research was to gain an in-depth view of students’ learning approaches. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2001, p. 182), case studies strive to catch the close up reality and thick description of participants’ lived experiences in a particular situation. Inevitably it blends a description of events with an analysis of them. In this study the laboratory work of 113 second year chemistry students at the University of Cape Town was investigated in detail. The class consisted of both science
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
49
and chemical engineering students. Various modifications were made to the practical course based on a pilot study of a similar group of students in the previous year. During the first practical session of the year, both the Competency Tripod model and flow diagrams were introduced to students. They were directed to an explanation of the Competency Tripod in one of the appendices of the practical manual. To make the analogy more real, the researcher used an actual tripod to illustrate the new resource. The tripod had been taken apart so that the individual legs could be screwed into the ring as the presentation took place. Each leg was referred to in terms of the three components, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and communicative competence. As each leg was screwed into the ring, an explanation of each component was given. When all three legs were connected, the students were able to see how the ring kept the three components together. They were encouraged to think of their practical sessions in terms of the Competency Tripod so they would have to provide the unifying factors to link the components together. A wire gauze, representing time management and human interaction, was placed on top of the tripod showing the students that these factors would impact on all aspects of the laboratory exercise. To encourage students to include the Tripod model in their thinking, they were asked to classify the post-laboratory questions from selected experiments as testing procedural knowledge, declarative knowledge or communicative competence. In some cases questions actually tested more than one of these capabilities. In the first laboratory exercise, several of the questions were classified for the students. Extra marks were awarded if students correctly classified other post-laboratory questions. It was hoped that this would encourage the students to engage with the Tripod model, though there was a risk that some students would do it merely for the extrinsic reward of extra marks. As many of the students were second language speakers of English, careful attention was paid to language in the manual and some experimental procedures modified in an effort to reduce the signal to noise ratio referred to by Johnstone and Letton (1991). A further reminder of the Competency Tripod model was given at the beginning of the second semester during a pre-laboratory briefing. In the same laboratory session, the flow diagram was also introduced (Davidowitz & Rollnick, 2001). The researcher explained what was required in terms of the flow diagram. An example of an experiment with the accompanying flow diagram was presented to the students and included in the practical manual. Students were told to show flow diagrams to the teaching assistants at the start of the practical session and they were not allowed to carry out the practical unless they had produced a flow diagram. This was done in order to ensure that the students had studied the laboratory manual prior to the laboratory. The importance of pre-laboratory preparation has been emphasised by a number of authors including (Meester & Maskill, 1995; Rollnick et al., 2001). During the practical course flow diagrams were commented on but not used in assessment. In addition, staff training strategies were put in place to familiarise the laboratory demonstrators with the new approaches. The training took the form of a half day workshop for teaching assistants where they were alerted to the purpose of the intervention and briefed about the Competency Tripod model and the flow diagrams. It was considered to be essential to familiarise the teaching assistants with
50
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
the Competency Tripod, flow diagrams and other issues thought to be important by the researchers.
Data Collection Data were collected as follows: • Journal notes recording events in the laboratory in detail were taken by a teaching assistant acting as a participant observer. These notes were written up immediately after the laboratory session. Particular attention was focussed on two experiments (see below). • An evaluation questionnaire was developed and piloted in order to gain feedback from the students on their reaction to the practical course in general and their use of flow diagrams and the Competency Tripod in particular. This information gathering questionnaire was piloted with a similar group of students the previous year. • A fixed response questionnaire on students’ views about practical work developed by Bennett, Rollnick, Green, and White (2001), was administered to all 113 students pre- and postinstruction. The instrument consisted of 12 multiple choice questions each addressing a different aspect of laboratory work. The original designers used a panel to assign predetermined ratings to each response based on whether the response was considered to represent a positive or negative attitude to practical work on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 representing the most positive attitude. Average scores over the 12 questions were then calculated for each student and an overall average computed for the class. • Opportunistic data such as course work assessment, marks derived from class tests and two major contextualised writing tasks referred to as the “writing project” were collected. Laboratory reports were photocopied for those students who worked in the laboratory where field notes were taken. This amounted to about a third of the class. • A stratified sample of 12 students based on gender, background and course of study (science and chemical engineering) were interviewed. These interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The interview questions were designed to amplify responses from the evaluation questionnaire. These multiple data sources allowed for triangulation to increase trustworthiness of the results (Janesick, 1994).
Case Study Participants and Their Contexts Both science and chemical engineering students register for the second year chemistry course at the University of Cape Town. The majority of students in the class entered the mainstream first year course after matriculating from high school. A smaller number of students entered from an Academic Development Programme.
51
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
This programme caters for under-prepared students from disadvantaged backgrounds and students in this programme spend two years acquiring the equivalent of the mainstream first year course. This is an in depth case study of four very different students selected from the twelve interviewees; two science and two chemical engineering students. Data from a wide variety of sources as detailed above were collected to provide a rich description of the students’ learning as they engaged with the laboratory course. In order to study any effects on the students’ metacognition, it was found to be helpful to examine relationships between the various data sources and look at each student. It was decided to look closely at detailed profiles of four very different students whom we will call Amina, David, Sipho and Tebogo. They were selected by looking for students who were performing adequately (all turned out to be average or above average) and to provide a spectrum in terms of background and gender. Hence we selected two engineering and two science students, two female and two male. There was also a diversity in terms of ethnic background. Ethnic background is still an important factor in South Africa because historical divisions in the education system have produced students with greatly differing approaches. Thus the sample was stratified in terms of background but not performance.
Analysis of Data and Findings The data from the questionnaire were subjected to interpretative analysis. The two authors analysed the data separately and compared classifications in order to validate the responses. The researcher’s journal notes, laboratory reports and the transcripts of the interviews were also analysed separately and results were compared to seek confirming or disconfirming information. The class record and examination marks for all students are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Overall Performance of the Four Students. Student
Practicals and tutorials (%)
Tests (%)
Writing projects (%)
Examination (%)
Final mark (%)
Amina David Sipho Tebogo
75 75 77 84
71 48 59 44
74 79 66 54
64 46 59 58
68 55 63 60
Class average
70
51
62
50
54
52
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
For all the students in the class, an in-depth study was carried out on two practical exercises – the first experiment done by the students called the copper cycle and a later experiment analysing the amount of manganese in steel. The copper cycle is an exercise designed to introduce students to several new laboratory procedures. The relevant chemistry knowledge is not complex and would have been acquired during the first year course so the purpose is primarily skills development. The analysis of the amount of manganese in steel is a more complex exercise. Not only do the students have to manage a series of analytical steps, they have to interpret their data and compare their results with the specifications from a manufacturer. Each of the students’ practical reports was first analysed carefully for its overall declarative, procedural and communicative content and awarded a score between one and five using the rubric shown in Table 2. The criteria established in the rubric were checked by peer validation and reasonable agreement on the ratings was obtained. The ratings obtained for the four students in the case study are shown in Table 3. Students’ responses in the interviews and questionnaires were analysed and journal notes were also checked for evidence of students’ actions in the laboratory. A detailed analysis follows for each of the students. Table 4 summarises the four students’ perspectives on key issues. The levels of procedural and declarative knowledge and communicative competence were determined according to the ratings given in Table 2. Attitudes to flow diagrams and practicals were assessed from the results of the two questionnaires and the interview. Approaches to learning were determined by comparing attributes outlined by Ramsden (1992, p. 46) while levels of metacognition were established by analysing interview and questionnaire data. Finally, uptake of the Competency Tripod model was assessed by students’ responses to the interview and questionnaire. Amina Amina is an English speaking mixed-race female who entered the mainstream programme. Her intention was to major in Chemistry and Applied Chemistry. Her performance in all aspects of the course was above average. Her overall performance was the highest of the students selected for the case study. As can be seen (Table 3), Amina’s reports were rated fairly high on communicative competence, but average on declarative knowledge. The declarative knowledge involved in the copper cycle experiment was reasonably accessible and she appeared to have little difficulty with this. However, she did not perform as well on the considerably more demanding manganese in steel experiment. Her rating on procedural knowledge was poor for both experiments. Her problems with procedural knowledge are exemplified by her comment in her report that the value of 1.6% that she obtained for the percentage of manganese in steel was close to the 1.1% given to the students as the manufacturer’s specifications. Amina’s inability to recognise the relatively large percentage difference between 1.1% and 1.6% illustrates her lack of appreciation of the significance of the difference between the values.
Procedural knowledge • post lab procedural questions omitted • readings widely spread or inaccurate • total disregard for significant figures • no use of terms such as precision and accuracy • does not use statistical treatment of data • key steps missing in flow diagram • few post lab procedural questions correctly answered • uses anomalous readings in data analysis • ignores significant figures • no use of terms such as precision and accuracy • unaware of inaccurate results
Declarative knowledge • few content questions answered correctly • understanding of relevant theory shown in explaining findings absent • no links made between theory and practice
• few content questions answered correctly • little understanding of relevant theory shown in explaining findings • no links made between theory and practice
Ratings
1
2
Table 2 Rubric for Determining Ratings for Practical Reports.
• report lacks coherence – conclusions inconsistent with data and aims • poor use of scientific language • report poorly structured • limited ability to use different forms of data representation, e.g., tables, graphs
• report lacks coherence – conclusions inconsistent with data and aims • absence of scientific language • report unstructured • data poorly presented or absent • many surface errors in language • phrases lifted from lab manual or text book, evidence of plagiarism
Communicative competence
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
53
• at least half of post lab procedural questions correctly answered • fails to identify anomalous readings • errors in use of significant figures • lack of use of terms such as precision and accuracy • ignores inaccurate results • poor statistical treatment of data • satisfactory flow diagram • most post lab procedural questions correctly answered • identifies anomalous readings • few errors in use of significant figures
• at least half of content questions answered correctly • some awareness of relevant theory shown in explaining findings • few links made between theory and practice
• most content questions answered correctly • understanding of relevant theory shown in explaining findings
4
• report coherent – conclusions consistent with data and aims • competent use of scientific language • report well structured and laid out
• report mostly coherent – conclusions consistent with data and aims • reasonable attempt at use of scientific language • structure visible in report • limited ability to use different methods of data representation, e.g., tables, graphs • surface errors in language • difficulty in using own words
• many surface errors in language • phrases lifted from lab manual/text book
• does not use statistical treatment of data • poor logic in flow diagram
3
Communicative competence
Procedural knowledge
Declarative knowledge
Ratings
Table 2 Continued.
54 B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
5
Ratings
Procedural knowledge • appropriate use of terms such as precision and accuracy • attempts to investigate inaccurate results • some use of statistical treatment of data • good flow diagram • all post lab procedural questions correctly answered • identifies anomalous readings and treats them appropriately • correct use of significant figures • appropriate use of terms such as precision and accuracy • consistently investigates cause of inaccurate results • competent use of statistical treatment of data • creative flow diagram
Declarative knowledge • some links made between theory and practice
• all content questions answered correctly • relevant theory invoked in explaining findings • appropriate links made between theory and practice • inconsistencies between results and theory critically argued
Table 2 Continued.
• report coherent – conclusions consistent with data and aims • excellent use of scientific language • report well structured and laid out • critical discussion of results • multiple methods of data representation used and understood, e.g., tables, graphs • no surface errors in language • uses own words
• multiple methods of data representation used, e.g., tables, graphs • few surface errors in language • largely uses own words
Communicative competence
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
55
56
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
Table 3 Ratings Assigned to Students’ Reports. Student Practical Declarative Procedural Communicative Overall knowledge knowledge competence Amina Copper cycle
David
Sipho
3.5
2.5
4
Mn in steel
2.5
2.5
3
Copper cycle
4.5
4
4.5
Mn in steel
2
2
3
Copper cycle Mn in steel
3.5
4
4
Coherent report
4
4
4
Coherent discussion of actual results, good grasp of concepts
4
4
4
4
4.5
4
Good answers to questions, understands source of errors Very coherent report, excellent discussion of results
Tebogo Copper cycle
Mn in steel
A coherent report, language usage is good Coherent report but several flaws, e.g., incorrect calculations Coherent answers to questions, language good No calculations or comparisons with specifications
57
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
Table 4 Summary of Findings for the Four Participants. Findings
Amina
David
Sipho
Tebogo
Procedural knowledge Communicative competence Declarative knowledge Attitudes to practicals Attitudes to flow diagrams Approach to learning displayed Level of metacognition displayed Usefulness of Tripod model
low
low
high
high
very good
very good
good
good
good
below average
above average
above average
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
deep
deep
deep
medium
deep and surface high
high
high
not useful
marks only
very useful
very useful
Further evidence of Amina’s limitation with respect to procedural knowledge is revealed by her answer to two questions specifically designed to probe her understanding of the interaction between the mean and spread of data. Her responses indicated that she understood that data points needed to be clustered together (small spread) in order to be reliable. However, like many of the students in her cohort (Davidowitz, Lubben, & Rollnick, 2001) she found it difficult to interpret the data when presented with a problem where the means of two samples were different and the spread was the same. Buffler, Allie, Lubben, and Campbell (2001) attribute reasoning of this nature as ascribing to a mixed paradigm, as opposed to point or set paradigm in comparing data sets. Students in the set paradigm are able to identify the importance of both the mean and the spread, whereas Amina focuses her attention purely on the mean. Her flow diagrams were both verbal and pictorial and contained a series of linear steps one after the other. The flow diagrams were coherent and logical enough to be used instead of the manual, see Figure 3. Analysis of field notes reveal that Amina paid meticulous attention to detail in her laboratory work and constantly sought reassurance from the teaching assistant.
58
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
Figure 3: Amina’s flow diagram for the copper cycle. For example, she “asked me to check if the solutions were cooled and I replied they were” (Field notes, experiment 5). The attitude survey showed that she maintained a positive attitude towards practicals throughout the course. Her ratings on a scale of 1–7 moved from a preinstruction value of 5.6 to a postinstruction value of 5.9. (The class average was 5.5 for both the pre- and postinstruction questionnaires.) Ramsden (1992) notes a students’ feelings of personal fulfilment and satisfaction may arise from taking a deep approach to learning. Her enjoyment is encapsulated in the following quote. I enjoy working with chemicals and stuff like that, I enjoy every practical that I do, like the transition metal experiment . . . . How you see the colour changes . . . . (Amina interview, Q8)
She also commented in both her practical reports that “This practical was enjoyable and interesting” (Amina, practical reports, experiments 1 and 5). The attitude survey showed that her appreciation of the importance of declarative understanding in practicals grew during the period of instruction from, “I don’t really think about the theory we have done when I am doing the practicals” (Amina, attitudes, preinstruction, Q1), to “When I do things myself in the lab, I understand them better” (Amina, attitudes, postinstruction, Q1). This is further illustrated by a statement she made in an interview held at the end of the instruction period:
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
59
No I did not do the practicals as completely separate, I did get to understand the theory more even though we didn’t do it at the same time – by actually doing the practicals I can see where the theory comes into play. (Amina interview, Q13)
Here Amina shows her capacity to reflect on the work she is doing in the laboratory. This reflection shows her ability to monitor and integrate her learning thus demonstrating her capacity for metacognition. In terms of Ramsden’s model, Figure 2, her ability to connect practicals and theory altered her orientation to studying, hence her perception of task requirements and finally her approach to practical work becomes more than algorithmic. She did not appropriate the Competency Tripod model (Kirschner & Whitson, 1997). Her comments show that she was keen to please but the model belonged to somebody else. . . . maybe I am wrong in saying it was irrelevant to what you actually want us to think about, but I just didn’t understand why you wanted us to use (it) maybe if I understood why I would be able to use it more thoroughly and stuff like that. (Amina interview, Q6, our emphasis)
On the other hand, she was very enthusiastic about the requirement to draw flow diagrams, something she did very well. That was a most brilliant idea in that it helped you to prepare for the practical and without the flow diagrams we would not be able to do, to understand the practical thoroughly and also do it as good as you can or as you actually did. (Amina interview, Q7)
In interview with Amina it emerged that she used concept maps regularly elsewhere in the course even though these were not introduced as a resource. Her approach to learning was also socially orientated: During the year you and you partner have to meet a lot so you can like work on the practical together ‘cause working together on practicals is very important, you can’t do it yourself because you need feedback from somebody else who also did the practical. (Amina interview, Q9)
In terms of the legs of the tripod we have identified some weakness in Amina’s procedural knowledge. Her declarative knowledge was considered adequate and her communicative competence good. In terms of the aspects related to the gauze on the tripod, here she shows ability to relate socially to her colleagues and use their assistance constructively. The interview and field note evidence shows that all this is achieved in a reflective way, showing her capacity for metacognition. Yet she does not consider the Tripod model sufficiently useful to enable this. This was clear in the way that she did not accept the Competency Tripod model. She had a perception of an instructor’s agenda (Hart et al., 2000) which she needed to understand in order to take it on board. She will, however, not use it without a clear understanding. Both resources which were made available for her to use in order to make the most of her practical experience – flow diagrams and the Competency
60
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
Tripod were seriously considered. The use of flow diagrams clearly fitted her systematic learning style, demonstrated by her meticulous approach to practical work as revealed by the field notes. However, the Competency Tripod appeared too remote for her to appropriate. She also showed a shift in her appreciation of the importance of theory in relation to practicals suggesting that understanding and mental stimulation were important to her and that she was capable of deep learning. The results were good marks and thorough preparation and approach. Her procedural knowledge was average; she was more focussed on internalising theory and data handling was not a high priority for her. David David is an English speaking white male who entered the mainstream programme. He was registered for Chemical Engineering. His performance was average and he tended to perform better in writing projects than in examinations. As in the case of Amina, Table 3 shows that David’s ratings for the copper cycle are higher than those for the more challenging manganese in steel experiment where his declarative and procedural knowledge were below average. He did not answer the questions designed specifically to probe his understanding of the interaction between the mean and spread of data. His flow diagrams were mainly verbal (Figure 4 shows a typed section of one of his diagrams) and consisted of a series of linear steps one after the other. They contained all the information required and could be used instead of the practical manual. His attitude survey showed a less positive response to practicals than Amina (4.9 preinstruction and 5.3 postinstruction). He did, however, state that practical work was important in chemistry for helping understand theory, “. . . because when I do things for myself in the lab, I understand them better” (David attitudes, postinstruction, Q1). During the interview David showed appreciation of the Competency Tripod but did not adopt it: I found it was really an added bonus mark when you were asked to state for your questions, put it either as a conceptual, communication or procedural – if you got that right you got extra marks. It never really helped me, sometimes if I looked at a question and it is a communication question then I knew what I was aimed at. (David interview, Q6)
The quotation suggests that his appreciation of the Competency Tripod was limited to the extrinsic goal of obtaining bonus marks and that he did not see intrinsic value in the approach. He was very enthusiastic about the flow diagrams saying: Excellent, I thought it was brilliant . . . I liked it, you can sit down and draw pictures so you know what you are doing when you come into the lab . . . you don’t have to rush to finish. (David interview, Q7)
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
61
Figure 4: Part of David’s diagram for the copper cycle. David was concerned about the fact that the theory and practicals were not always synchronised in the laboratory. Our very first practical was X-ray crystallography and we had absolutely no idea what to do, we just kind of crunched the numbers and put down the thing – we just had to crunch numbers and hope for the best. (David interview, Q8)
Here he admitted to adopting a surface approach to cope with the demands of certain experiments but was not happy about doing so. Such a comment is consistent with Ramsden’s (1992) assertion that students express their dissatisfaction at being obliged to use surface approaches to cope. On the other hand, he found a later experiment involving propagation of errors and simple statistical tests more satisfying. The purpose of this experiment was to allow students to apply some of the statistical tests covered in lectures to their experimental results. It was a deliberate attempt by the lecturer to try to encourage students to make the link between content knowledge and the laboratory activity. David’s remarks also reflect the findings by Hart et al. (2000) who found that students who had little or no content knowledge for a particular practical found it difficult to derive any meaning from the activity or the results that they obtained. It is not surprising that David was
62
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
able to make better sense of the practical when he was aware of both the aim and purpose of the experiment. For the statistics practical I never understood half the stuff until I had actually done the practical where the practical helped me to understand the theory. (David interview, Q8)
David felt that procedures were one of the most important things that he learned during the practical course. . . . practical procedures, using equipment properly especially things like the fume cupboard . . . using the suction filters, not just an elaboration on last year. (David interview, Q9)
David’s awareness of the importance of challenge as a way of extending his own learning is evidence of his ability to think metacognitively. The demonstrator was very nice, very sharp, one of those people who does not give you the answers, gives you a clue and makes you think about it which is quite nice. (David interview, Q11)
Field notes reveal that, though fond of joking in the laboratory, David sought help when necessary and was generally competent in experimental techniques. He worked well with his laboratory partner and on at least one occasion they managed to work out a reaction mechanism together. In summary, David resorted to algorithms when he did not understand the content. He enjoyed procedures and manipulating apparatus. His oral and written communication skills were good. His attitude to learning showed that he was able to use a deep or surface approach, whichever was appropriate to the task. Students’ approaches are a way of responding to the learning environment and they will choose the strategy that will bring rewards in the form of good grades or pleasing the instructor (Ramsden, 1992). Sipho Sipho is a black male for whom English is a second language. He entered the Academic Development Programme a year earlier than the other students. He intended to major in Chemistry and Applied Chemistry. His performance was also above average in all aspects of his work. Unlike Amina and David, Sipho was rated higher on the more difficult manganese in steel experiment (Table 3). He had a good grasp of both the concepts and issues related to procedural knowledge and reported a calculated value for the manganese in steel of 2.53% and was able to reflect on several possible sources of error, despite the use of second language idiom in his writing: It is suspected that the analytical balance cheated during weighing . . . . The large percentages of manganese calculated suggests that masses of steel were more than required. (Sipho, practical report, experiment 5)
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
63
Like Amina, his answers to the two questions specifically designed to probe understanding of the interaction between the mean and spread of data indicated that he understood that data needed to be clustered together (small spread) in order to be reliable. In contrast to Amina, when faced with data where the means of two samples were different and the spread was the same, he wrote, “I cannot just say results agree or not before I do the appropriate tests” (Sipho, practical report, experiment 5). He concluded that since the standard deviations for the two sets of readings were the same, the difference in the means may be due to random errors and that the two sets of readings agreed with each other. His flow diagrams consisted of pictures and text, and long arrows linking items were a standard feature. They were logical and could be used in place of the laboratory manual. His responses to the attitude surveys were positive (5.9 preinstruction and 5.6 postinstruction) and included, “I think we normally find out how people came to formulate theories by doing experiments” (Sipho attitudes, preinstruction, Q1), as well as, “When I do things for myself in the lab, I understand them better” (Sipho attitudes, postinstruction, Q1). Sipho was enthusiastic about the Competency Tripod, “(The model) does help ‘cause now I tend to link all those things” (Sipho, interview Q6). In support of this statement he later said: (The tripod made a difference) when answering some of the questions in the prac manual, e.g., is this communication or practical skill – you have to think what those concepts mean. (Sipho, interview Q6)
He realised that it was important to have time to reflect and think about his practicals: If I compare the practicals this year with first year, there is a difference, understanding has increased. In first year just doing them and the write-ups and handing back the same day so there was not much of understanding, couldn’t link things . . . . (Sipho interview, Q6)
A recognition of understanding was a theme that ran through his answers to many of the questions in the interview. For instance, in response to a question probing what he thought the best aspect of the course he answered, “As I said before, it gives the more understanding (sic) of what was done in lectures” (Sipho interview, Q8). He said that the most important things that he learned during the practical course were: . . . to be responsible, to do your things in time; be reliable to yourself in performing the experiment you say – I have to understand this thing because as time goes on I will be the one designing this thing so if I don’t understand the one which was designed for me how will it be in the future if I have to stand on my own . . . what is going to happen to me in the outside world? (Sipho interview, Q9)
Sipho understood and appropriated the Competency Tripod model and showed a high level of procedural knowledge. His reflection on the use of the model, his own understanding and his ability to monitor his learning to produce better learning behaviours provides a series of clues to the character of his metacognitive knowledge.
64
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
His communication skills were good apart from a few surface errors typical of an English second language student. Tebogo Tebogo is a black female for whom English is a second language. She entered the mainstream programme and was registered for Chemical Engineering. She excelled in practical work and was above average in other aspects of her course work (see Table 1). Tebogo’s reports were both very good (Table 3), in particular her discussion on the discrepancy between her results and the manufacturer’s specifications of the amount of manganese in steel. The discussion showed that her high level skills related to the procedural knowledge rendered her capable of judging the quality of data related to range and spread of results. On obtaining a large discrepancy between her own result and the manufacturers’ specification, she performed a competent error analysis on her results and provided a critical evaluation of her experiment. Her less positive responses to the pre- and postattitude surveys (6 and 4.7, on a scale of 1–7) were in strong contrast to the positive attitudes noted during the interview. Analysis of her questionnaire reveals that she considered the chemistry practicals as a task to be completed and not directly relevant to her intended career as a chemical engineer. It is possible that she changed her viewpoint in the interview to try to please the interviewer who was also the person in charge of the practicals. Field notes reveal that she was not particularly competent in the laboratory – for example, she recorded an unexplained increase in mass of a sample which was later found to be wet. This is in sharp contrast to her competent communication and data interpretation skills. Tebogo found the Competency Tripod useful to link practicals to chemical concepts and communication skills: . . . first year we sort of just went through the procedure of doing the practical without knowing which is procedural and which concepts we are applying and like communicating the ideas; now since we learned about these declarative, practical and communication we sort of know how to link the three in a way of combining the procedural, the experimental, the concepts you are using and sort of communicate the ideas, what methods you are using and all that stuff. (Tebogo interview, Q6)
Like all the other students she was enthusiastic about the requirement to draw flow diagrams. Those that she drew were clear and logical and were a combination of pictorial and text elements. She was able to distinguish between material that she understood and areas where she felt unsure of herself. . . . at least I had an idea that OK here I don’t understand what is going on and I am looking forward to getting an explanation for that so I don’t delay much. I didn’t have to go back to my manual when I have written it (flow diagram) and the time I spent I think it was important cause I remember one other time I wrote a wrong flow diagram (she misread the schedule) and I was so disorganised that day ’cause I had to read it, the experiment, rushing, it disturbed me that day, I did not know what was going on, I didn’t even have any questions. (Tebogo interview, Q7, our emphasis)
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
65
Tebogo is aware of the difference between what we have referred to as deep and surface approaches. She knows that she can only ask meaningful questions when she has some understanding of the task, in this case the experiment in the laboratory. Two important issues emerge here. Firstly she is aware that being able to ask questions is a sign of understanding. This shows a high level of metacognition. Secondly she is concerned that she is unable to ask questions. She clearly did not feel good about having to use the shallow learning approaches necessitated by her lack of understanding. Tebogo felt that one of the best aspects of the practical course was that it was, “Useful for bettering our marks, and linking it to the theory we did in class” (Tebogo interview, Q8). For her, the most important thing that she learned during the practical course was: Learning to think what I am doing cause sometimes we will do the practical and you would not know what is going on and the demi (TA) will come and say “hey, have you thought of what you are doing?” . . . now you start thinking what’s going on; you sort of get an idea of what you are doing and then somewhat you find this is related to what we are doing in class and it is so interesting. (Tebogo interview, Q9, our emphasis)
Tebogo used elements of a deep approach to learning. She was able to relate the practical activity to the concepts covered in the lectures, thus she was often aware of the purpose of the experiments. She also found that making this link was a satisfying achievement. Tebogo understood and used the Competency Tripod model. She showed high levels of metacognition and procedural knowledge in doing so.
Discussion and Conclusions The first research question addressed the students’ use of the two resources provided – flow diagrams and the Competency Tripod model. One resource which was found to be universally successful was the use of flow diagrams – all students endorsed this practice most enthusiastically. Flow diagrams are aimed at eliminating “noise” (Johnstone & Letton, 1991) from practical sessions and enhancing procedural knowledge. Evidence in this paper suggests that they also succeed as metacognitive resources by asking students to engage with the instructions in the laboratory manual. Flow diagrams can enable a deep approach but do not guarantee it. It is not easy to pinpoint the actual stimulus that enabled the development of metacognitive processes in these students. The intervention carried out with the class certainly put in place several resources aimed at stimulating metacognitive processes. As far as this model was concerned, two of the four students – Sipho and Tebogo – appropriated it, while David and Amina admitted to being influenced by it, but did not find it useful. Perhaps they did not fully understand the purpose of the Competency Tripod model and thus could not adapt it to their learning style. An examination of the four students’ laboratory reports showed that all understood the model in that they were able to classify correctly post laboratory questions in terms of the model. Understanding of the model is an important prerequisite for use but
66
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
its comprehension does not necessarily imply adoption. In the words of Thomas and McRobbie (2001): Even when a language of learning was available to help students understand and possibly improve their learning, some students chose not to adopt new ideas and practices. The variable effects of the intervention highlight the individual nature of student change and the need to acknowledge the possibility that no single intervention might result in the same outcomes for each student. (p. 251)
In addressing the second research question in this study, Ramsden’s framework, Figure 2, demonstrates that those students using deep learning approaches would of necessity, be metacognitive. As mentioned earlier, metacognition is a prerequisite for deep approaches. While surface approaches can result from a lack of metacognitive thinking, it is possible for students using a surface approach to engage in metacognition. As Gunstone (1994) argues, all learners are metacognitive to some degree. However, it is the level of metacognition displayed by the students in this study that suggests a link with deep approaches to learning. All four students in this study expressed strong intentions to understand, a prerequisite for deep learning in Ramsden’s view and thus could be said to adopt deep learning approaches. In particular Sipho showed evidence of a high level of metacognition in that he felt that attaining independence of thought was the ultimate objective this he linked strongly to his intention to understand. These remarks are in line with Ramsden (1992) who notes that: When we talk about a student understanding something, what we are really saying is that he or she is capable of relating to a concept or topic in a way that an expert in the subject does. (p. 40)
Sipho realised that his studies are a preparation for his future as a professional and that his approach to learning would affect the outcomes. According to McGinn and Roth (1999): The aim of science education informed by science and technology studies would not be to impart a few scientific facts, but for students to begin their participation in ongoing science discourses. Some students (traditionally a small number) will traverse trajectories that lead to full participation in scientific laboratories. (p. 19)
It is clear from Sipho’s remarks above that he is one of a small group of students who has begun, in McGinn and Roth’s terms, to participate in scientific discourse. At the time of writing, three years later, he is employed as a chemist in a large industrial company. Tebogo, too, showed evidence of engaging in high level monitoring of her own thoughts. For example, she appreciated the importance of understanding as a precondition to asking questions. David, however, resorted to shallow approaches when he did not understand, and was quite comfortable with using this strategy as a way of solving an immediate problem. For example, David was very concerned that this link was not apparent when the lectures and practicals were not synchronised and resorted to algorithms
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
67
to cope. On the other hand, he showed appreciation of deep approaches in that he clearly enjoyed intellectual challenge, consistent with Ramsden’s (1992) claim that most students will alter approaches to suit the demands of the task. Amina, however, showed awareness of the importance of theory and was not satisfied with mere algorithmic approaches. One issue which raises concerns and merits further investigation are the mixed messages given to students. In a research exercise such as this, deep approaches such as those used by Sipho and Tebogo are valued as evidence of good learning behaviours. However, the rewards given in the University environment in the form of test and examination marks do not reflect this. It is not possible to establish directly if the Competency Tripod model was responsible for enabling metacognition in students but like dropping a pebble into a pond, its introduction certainly provided ripples which could be identified as metacognition. It is possible to conclude that the climate created by the use of the various resources did enable metacognition in these students.
Acknowledgements Financial assistance from the Foundation for Research Development in South Africa and the University Research Committee of the University of Cape Town. Richard Gunstone, Monash University, Fred Lubben, University of York and Greg Thomas, University of Hong Kong for helpful comments on this paper. Correspondence: Bette Davidowitz, Chemistry Department, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa E-mail:
[email protected]
References Bennett, J., Rollnick, M., Green, G., & White, M. (2001). The development and use of an instrument to assess students’ attitude to the study of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 833–845. Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(1), 27–31. Bucat, R. B., & Shand, T. (1996). Thinking tasks in chemistry. Perth, WA: Department of Chemistry, University of Western Australia. Buffler, A., Allie, S., Lubben, F., & Campbell, B. (2001). The development of first year physics students’ ideas about measurements in terms of point and set paradigms. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1137–1156. Case, J., Gunstone, R., & Lewis, A. (2000, April). The impact of students’ perceptions on their metacognitive development: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, USA.
68
B. DAVIDOWITZ AND M. ROLLNICK
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning deeply in science: An analysis and reintegration of deep approaches in two case studies of grade 8 students. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 173–197. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison K. (2001). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer. Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2001). The use of flow diagrams as an effective strategy for learning in laboratories. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 57, 18–24. Davidowitz, B., Lubben F., & Rollnick, M. (2001). Undergraduate science and engineering students’ understanding of the reliability of chemical data. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(2), 247–252. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547. Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press. Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The Importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131–146). London: The Falmer Press. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook for science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201–217. Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching – science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262–268. Johnstone, A. H., & Letton, K. M. (1991). Practical measures for practical work. Education in Chemistry, 28(3), 81–83. Kirschner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Editors’ introduction. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). Qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
ENABLING METACOGNITION IN THE LABORATORY
69
McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28, 14–24. Meester, M. A. M., & Maskill, R. (1995). First-year chemistry practicals at universities in England and Wales: Organizational and teaching aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 705–719. Millar, R., Le Maréchal, J.-F., & Tiberghien, A. (1999). ‘Mapping the domain.’ Varieties of practical work. In J. T. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education: Recent research studies (pp. 33–59). Frederiksberg, Denmark: Roskilde University Press. Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Chemical education research in the laboratory environment. How can research uncover what students are learning? Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 201–205. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London and New York: Routledge. Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. M. (2000). The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(7), 915–920. Rollnick, M., Zwane, S., Staskun, M., Lotz, S., & Green, G. (2001). Improving prelaboratory preparation of first year university chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1053–1071. Rollnick, M., Allie, S., Buffler, A., Kaunda, L., Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (1999). Towards the development of a model for describing students’ thought processes in a laboratory situation. In J. Kuiper (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th annual meeting of the South African Association of Research for Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 366–371). Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 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(2), 222–259. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, R. T. (1992). Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 153–164. White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 761–774. Zhang, L. F., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive development and student approaches to learning: An investigation of Perry’s theory with Chinese and U.S. university students. Higher Education, 41, 239–261.
