An Effective Tool to Promote Success in College Science Learning by Ningfeng Zhao, Jeffrey G

Home , Metacognition

Metacognition: An Effective Tool to Promote Success in College Science Learning By Ningfeng Zhao, Jeffrey G. Wardeska, Saundra Y. McGuire, and Elzbieta Cook

Metacognition has been shown to lead to deeper, more durable, and students aware of the gap between more transferable learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). This superficial and real learning and how article describes a case study in which metacognition was introduced to to help them develop effective learn- undergraduate science (chemistry) classrooms. Students came to understand ing strategies through metacognition. the difference between superficial memorization and real learning through We begin by presenting the surveys specific classroom interventions, which were also designed to help students used to gauge students’ effective use develop metacognitive learning strategies. The aim of the study was to of learning strategies prior to and instruct educators how to incorporate metacognition in college science after the classroom intervention. We classrooms, and the improved cognitive and affective learning of students then describe the intervention and indicated its significance. On the basis of students’ reflections, we assert that discuss its impact on student perfor- implementation of these strategies will contribute to increased learning not mance and how it changed students’ just in chemistry but also across other courses and curricula. perceptions of themselves as skilled learners. We conclude by presenting the limitations of the study and im- he constructivist theory of ing” (Cooper & Sandi-Urena, 2009, plications for future research. learning (Bodner, 1986, p. 240) and “monitoring and con- 2001) posits that students trolling one’s mental processing” Instruments construct knowledge from (Rickey & Stacy, 2000, p. 915). Table 1 shows the Effective Learning Ttheir own experiences. Knowledge In the classroom setting, metacog- Strategies Survey. The questions in construction includes cognitive nitive learning demands that students the survey appear in a specific order learning, acquisition of content develop a plan for learning the con- designed to prepare students for the knowledge, and the ability to apply tent, monitor their learning process intervention to follow. The first two that knowledge to new situations through reflection, and adjust their questions help students differentiate (Bretz, 2001). In order to engage plan accordingly (“self-regulate”) among the various levels of intellec- in constructivist learning, students in order to ensure deeper, more du- tual behavior according to the revised must possess the necessary learning rable, and more transferable learning Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & strategies, but not all do. In addition (Francisco, Nicoll, & Trautmann, Krathwohl, 2001), in which each lev- to the cognitive domain, real learn- 1998; Schraw, Brooks, & Crippen, el builds on the foundation that pre- ing also includes the affective and 2005; Tsai, 2001). Our consulta- cedes it. Although traditionally Re- metacognitive domains (Vermunt & tions with students have suggested membering and Understanding might Verloop, 1999). The affective learn- it is crucial to introduce them to be adequate for high school, higher ing domain comprises a student’s metacognitive learning strategies, levels of learning (e.g., Applying and attitude about learning, willingness thereby giving them the opportu- Analyzing) are required in college to actively engage in learning activ- nity to self-regulate (Hoffmann & and Evaluating and Creating are criti- ities, and skill in evaluating his own McGuire, 2009). Our findings apply cal skills for graduate school (Bereit- ability and performance in a subject especially to students who come to er & Scardamalia, 2005; Biggs, 1999; area. In 1976, Flavell defined meta- college with few time-management Louisiana State University Center for cognition as “knowledge concern- or learning skills (Robbins et al., Academic Success, 2013). Statements ing one’s own cognitive processes 2004; Tai, Sadler, & Loehr, 2005). In 3–12 correspond to the learning strat- and products or anything related this article, we do not present the full egies we suggest to students during to them” (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). scope of the philosophy underlying the intervention. These strategies con- Often metacognition is described metacognition; instead, we aim to in- stitute the stages of the Study Cycle as “thinking about one’s own think- struct educators how to make college (Christ, 1998). Each statement targets

48 Journal of College Science Teaching Metacognition: An Effective Tool to Promote Success active participation in class, absorp- ser, Kampmeier, & Varma-Nelson, to measure students’ self-concept with tion of material, and self-assessment 2010). During the intervention we five distinct subscales: chemistry, outside class (Hoffmann & McGuire, also suggest that students engage in mathematics, academic skill, academic 2009, 2010). Statements 3–6 appear real time learning, continuously mon- enjoyment, and creativity. For each rather straightforward: Come to class itor their thinking, and try to tease out subscale students rate themselves on a prepared by previewing materials, ar- any confusion (S9–S10) in class or scale from 1 to 7, from very inaccurate rive on time, take notes by hand, and while applying the Study Cycle. We to very accurate regarding phrases that review those notes after each class. advise students that when they are do- might describe themselves. Statement 7 corresponds to the intro- ing homework problems, they should duction of the Intense Study Session study the text and lecture information Classroom intervention (ISS), the core of the Study Cycle. before solving the relevant problems The classroom intervention was con- The student begins the ISS by setting and without referring to the solved ducted in General Chemistry I (fall specific, well-defined goals, followed examples (S11). To test their levels of 2011) and II (spring 2012) courses by 30–50 minutes of intense learning learning, students are advised to take at a large, public, research-intensive activities such as actively reading the “self-exams” (S12). They are explic- university. Both courses counted for textbook; working on problems; and itly taught that both the correct proce- 3-credit hours and were taught through creating supplemental materials like dure (instead of the answer alone) and three 55-minute lecture periods per flash cards, concept maps, and out- the ability to work a problem without week. The intervention was designed lines. After a short break (~10 min- using an example are essential for to help students gauge and improve utes), the student is encouraged to good performance on exams. their learning strategies through spend another 5 minutes reviewing In order for students to realize the metacognition. The first exam was what he or she has just studied. The required levels of learning (S1–S2), as administered, graded, and returned ISS should be repeated often, and stu- well as become metacognitively aware during the 3rd week of each semes- dents should also undertake weekly of their own engagement (S3–S6) and ter. This particular timing allowed reviews of the course content. State- learning strategies (S7–S12), they students to gather adequate informa- ment 8 corresponds to the recommen- were asked to complete the Effective tion about the demands of the course dation that students join study groups Learning Strategies Survey (Table 1) and their performance. The exam was outside the classroom (Bowen, 2000). shortly after the first exam. In addition, then reviewed at the beginning of the During the intervention, it is recom- we used the Chemistry Self-Concept first lecture of the 4th week. Toward mended to students that they not just Inventory to assess students’ percep- the end of the lecture, each student ask questions but also answer other tion of themselves as learners of chem- spent 5 minutes listing the top three students’ questions. Peer-teaching ex- istry (Bauer, 2005; Lewis, Shaw, Heitz, reasons for his or her successful or perience has been repeatedly shown & Webster, 2009). The Chemistry unsuccessful exam performance and to lead to deeper understanding (Gos- Self-Concept Inventory was designed approximately 15 minutes taking the

TABLE 1 Effective Learning Strategies Survey.

S1 What is the level of learning you need to make A’s or B’s in high school? (a) Remembering, (b) Understanding, (c) Applying, (d) Analyzing, (e) Evaluating, (f) Creating S2 What is the level of learning you need to make A’s or B’s in college? (a) Remembering, (b) Understanding, (c) Applying, (d) Analyzing, (e) Evaluating, (f) Creating S3 I preview the lecture material before I go to class. S4 I attend class on time. S5 I take notes in class by hand. S6 I review my notes and textbook after each class. S7 I study with concentrated time and specific goals. S8 I join study groups. S9 I understand the lecture and classroom discussions while I am taking notes. S10 I try to determine what confuses me. S11 I try to work out the homework problems without looking at the example problems or my notes from class. S12 I review the textbook, lecture notes, and homework problems and do practice test before the exam. Note: Survey scales for S3–S12: 1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = usually, 4 = always

Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 49 Effective Learning Strategies Survey students understand both the distinc- afterward. Surveys were conducted and Chemistry Self-Concept Inven- tions between the levels of learning again during the last lecture of the se- tory. The following lecture period (Hoffmann & McGuire, 2010) and mester. In fall 2011, the survey data was devoted entirely to introducing the higher levels of thinking required were collected twice—once before the concepts of metacognition and in college. The rest of the lecture was the metacognition lecture (presurvey) the Study Cycle. Students’ top three devoted to the concept of metacog- and at the end of the course (postsur- reasons—their self-reflections—were nition and its relevance to effective vey). Seventy-eight out of 91 students first presented to demonstrate the use- learning as well as the details of the took the presurveys, and 77 out of 90 fulness of the metacognitive learning Study Cycle. Throughout the remain- students took the postsurveys. The strategies. During the next 15 min- der of both semesters, students were results from General Chemistry I in utes the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy reminded to metacognitively moni- fall 2011 (discussed next) inspired the was applied to the story of “Goldi- tor their learning strategies before collection of paired pre- and postdata locks and the Three Bears” to help each exam and solicited for feedback from 49 students enrolled in General

TABLE 2 Results of the Effective Learning Strategies Survey.

Questions Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Pre α = 0.97 Pre α = 0.70, Post α = 0.69 Post α = 0.97 First-time participants Dual participants

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post (N = 78) (N = 77) (N = 38) (N = 38) (N = 11) (N = 11) S1 What is Remembering & 87.9% 96.1% 94.7% 97.3% 100% 100% the level of Understanding learning you Applying & 8.97% 2.60% 2.63% 2.63% 0.0% 0.0% need to make Analyzing A’s or B’s in Evaluating & 1.28% 1.30% 2.63% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% high school? Creating S2 What is Remembering & 55.1% 3.90% 60.5% 21.05% 27.27% 0.0% the level of Understanding learning you Applying & 38.5% 89.6% 31.6% 76.3% 63.6% 100% need to make Analyzing A’s or B’s in Evaluating & 6.41% 6.49% 7.89% 2.63% 9.09% 0.0% college? Creating S3 I preview the lecture material before I 2.47 2.21 2.21 2.08 2.45 2.00 go to class. S4 I attend class on time. 3.86 3.57 3.55 3.53 3.91 3.73 S5 I take notes in class by hand. 3.77 3.48 3.53 3.55 3.55 3.55 S6 I review my notes and textbook after 2.60 2.44 2.26 2.18 2.45 2.45 each class. S7 I study chemistry with concentrated 2.28 2.52 2.66 *2.92 2.82 2.82 time and specific goals. S8 I join study groups. 1.96 2.12 2.11 2.13 1.91 2.18 S9 I understand the lecture and 2.90 2.95 2.79 2.92 3.00 3.12 classroom discussions while I am taking notes. S10 I try to determine what confuses me. 3.58 3.66 3.45 3.58 3.73 3.82 S11 I try to work out the homework 2.63 3.23 2.63 *3.00 3.00 3.18 problems without looking at the example problems or my notes from class. S12 I review the textbook, lecture notes, 3.44 3.56 3.39 *3.68 3.82 3.73 and homework problems and do the practice test before the exam. Note: Red indicates a decreased tendency, blue indicates an increased tendency, and bold font highlights any significant changes. *indicates significant difference against the presurvey at p < .01.

50 Journal of College Science Teaching Metacognition: An Effective Tool to Promote Success

TABLE 3 Results of the Chemistry Self-Concept Inventory.

Chemistry Self-Concept Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Inventory First-time participants Dual participants Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post (N = 78) (N = 77) (N = 38) (N = 38) (N = 11) (N = 11) Chemistry Self-Concept 4.52 4.85 4.36 4.29 4.87 4.75 Math Self-Concept 5.00 5.17 4.88 *5.10 4.95 5.05 Academic Self-Concept 5.44 5.46 5.24 5.30 5.70 5.77 Academic Enjoyment 5.20 5.20 4.80 *5.09 5.52 5.42 Creativity Self-Concept 4.55 4.63 4.80 4.80 4.82 4.84 Note: Red indicates a decreased tendency, blue indicates an increased tendency, and bold font highlights any significant changes. *indicates significant difference against the presurvey at p < .05.

Chemistry II in spring 2012. Among couldn’t figure out why I didn’t the workload increased, and students them, 11 students were identified as know it. had less time to prepare for the class or dual participants as they were ex- review the material on a regular basis. posed to the learning strategies in There were not examples of These results suggest the importance both fall 2011 (taught by the first au- problems like the ones on the test. of informing students of the learning thor) and then again in spring 2012 I have never seen these problems expectations and requirements during (taught by the second author). before. [There were] a few prob- the early stage of college courses and lems [that] we never introduced continuing to remind them of metacog- Results and reflections in class. nitive learning strategies throughout The results of the presurvey indicat- the semester. ed that students almost unanimously You [the instructor] went through Interestingly, there was a generally agreed that only Remembering and materials fast in lecture, and peo- increased interest in the application Understanding were necessary in ple answered [questions] quickly of the strategies encompassed by the high school (Statement 1). Corre- [so] I didn’t follow. next six statements (S7–S12), as il- spondingly, only 38.5% (fall 2011) lustrated by students’ replies to the and 31.6% (spring 2012) of students These responses corresponded to pre- and postsurvey (Table 2 in blue). realized that Applying and Analyzing information we learned during our Introduction to the Study Cycle ap- skills were required in college (State- consultations with students, indicating peared to help students incorporate ment 2) in the presurvey, whereas that they lacked metacognitive learn- some effective learning strategies and 89.6% and 76.3% of students indicating strategies and had a hard time judg- assess their chemistry learning through ed their importance in the postsurvey, ing how thoroughly they had learned. metacognition despite the increased respectively. The Cronbach α coeffi- At first, the data for Statements 3–6 workload. For the paired study in cient values of the Effective Learning seemed counterintuitive. Although the spring 2012, significant increases Strategies Survey were mostly above Study Cycle encouraged preparation were shown from paired sample t-test 0.7 for Statements 3–12 (Table 2), before and engagement during the in Statement 11: “I try to work out the suggesting that the survey items have class, when compared with the pre- homework problems without looking relatively high internal consistency. survey, the postsurvey demonstrated at the example problems or my notes Students provided a variety of rea- a generally decreased tendency for from class” and Statement 12: “I re- sons for their low performance on the students to apply these strategies dur- view the textbook, lecture notes and first exam, and the top three reasons ing both semesters (Table 2 in red). A homework problems, and do the prac- are summarized below: change in workload might be a reason tice test before the exam.” These two here. As the presurvey was conducted strategies focused on the efficiency I studied but blanked out during early on in both semesters, when work- and assessment of students’ learning, [the] exam. I thought I knew it but loads were relatively light, students which might have contributed to the I didn’t. It made perfect sense on might have been overly optimistic increased performance on the exams [the] board [during lecturing], but about their time management skills. (discussed next). Although statistical not when I did it [in the exam]. I As each semester progressed, however, randomness could account for the

Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 51 insignificant differences between the in chemistry self-concept (Table 3 eral Chemistry II, such as kinetics pre- and postsurveys, the same patterns in blue), suggesting that through and equilibrium calculations, might of change (i.e., decreased tendency for metacognition and implementation of have contributed here. Again, through S3–S6 and increased tendency for S7– effective learning strategies, students metacognition and effective learning S12) in both semesters might suggest a became more effective and confident strategies, students felt more confi- change in students’ learning strategies. chemistry learners. The postsurvey dent in applying their math skills to The Chemistry Self-Concept In- in spring 2012 showed significant chemistry topics. Consequently, they ventory is an effective instrument improvements in math self-concept reported improved academic enjoy- with proven reliability (Bauer, 2005). and academic enjoyment from paired ment. Somewhat surprisingly, the In fall 2011, the postsurvey showed sample t-test for the first-time partici- postsurvey in spring 2012 showed higher means in almost all catego- pants (Table 3 in blue). The intensive a decrease in the chemistry self- ries, with the largest improvement involvement of mathematics in Gen- concept (Table 3 in red). Although not significant, this decrease might FIGURE 1 be related to the breadth and depth Student exam performance for the fall semesters. of topics involved in the full-year general chemistry courses. Consid- ering the much more intensive study each of these topics requires, students might have realized the limits of their chemistry knowledge and/or become more critical of themselves. Data collected from the 11 dual participants (those who were also participants in fall 2011) in spring 2012 were analyzed separately. Not surprisingly, they had a better understanding of the required levels of learning in college, as well as generally higher means in both presurveys when compared with their peers in spring 2012, who had not learned the strategies in fall 2011. For the postsurvey of the Effective Learn- ing Strategies Survey, they also had generally lower means for Statements 3–6 and higher means for Statements FIGURE 2 7–12 (Table 2). For the Chemistry Self- Concept Inventory, there were similar Student exam performance for the spring semesters. improvements in math, academic, and creativity self-concepts, and decline in chemistry self-concept (Table 3). The first author taught General Chemistry I in fall 2011, 2010, and 2009, and the second author taught General Chemistry II in spring 2012, 2011, and 2010 with the same curricu- lum and schedule. In this pilot study, comparisons were not established for equivalence of students or exams from year to year. Nevertheless, exam questions were selected from the same test bank (http://www.wileyplus.com) with already predetermined levels of difficulty for each question (i.e.,

52 Journal of College Science Teaching Metacognition: An Effective Tool to Promote Success easy, medium, or hard). In addition, FIGURE 3 corresponding exams were made by the same instructor with an effort to The percentiles of A, B, and C grades for the spring semester. keep them comparable. For example, in General Chemistry I, the first exam always focused on elements and compounds, as well as mole and stoichiometry calculations. Of the 12 questions, there were two easy, seven medium, and three hard ones. Thus the comparison of students’ performance from each year might be indicative of differences in learning. As shown in Figure 1, although the mean score for the first exam in fall 2011 was comparable to those from fall 2010 and 2009, the performance on the second and third exams was much better. The improvement might be attributed to the introduction of metacognition and the Study Cycle after the first exam. However, such improvement was less these responses: to have a tendency of decreased engage- significant in spring 2012 for the first- ment as the course progressed (e.g., they time participants. Nevertheless, the I have continued to look at the spent less time previewing and review- dual participants provided the most effective learning strategies you ing), they had an increasing interest in compelling evidence of improved introduced to the class last week. I applying the effective learning strategies performance due to metacognitive have been going to group tutor- during both semesters. The improved awareness, as they greatly outper- ing sessions (offered from the exam performance and Chemistry formed their peers in the spring for University Center for Academic Self-Concept Inventory demonstrated all four exams (Figure 2). Despite the Achievement) and they helped the effectiveness of teaching students lack of increased performance on exam tremendously . . . about metacognition and self-regulation. means, the distribution of scores of the In addition, the increased performance first-time participants in spring 2012 I have taken a new approach to of the dual participants in spring 2012 looked very different from those of studying by using some of your indicated the importance of introducing the previous two springs, as shown in suggestions and it does seem metacognition during the early stage Figure 3. The percentiles of A, B, and to be helping. By prereviewing of students’ college experience and C grades in spring 2012 showed an the chapter before lecture and its potential to cumulatively facilitate increasing trend over the exams, dis- studying the notes online, I better student learning. The introduction and tinguished from the overall decreasing understand the material as you go implementation of these strategies will trends of spring 2011 and 2010. This over it . . . likely contribute to increased learning suggests the positive impact of the not just in chemistry, but also across application of metacognitive learning Thank you for setting aside our other courses and curricula (Pintrich, strategies. class time for this, because I feel 2012). that it was really informative and The limitations of the study could Conclusions and future work helpful. I identified a few prob- also guide our future work. The dual Students’ voluntary responses were lems with my own study meth- participants might have influenced solicited and recorded through email ods, and have since made some the study results by disseminating after each exam. A total of 18 re- changes as you suggested . . . particular learning strategies outside sponses were collected in fall 2011 of the study, affecting other students’ and 11 responses in spring 2012. All Students’ responses indicated the performance. In addition, although the respondents agreed that the learning value of the introduction of the Bloom’s dual participants completed General strategies introduced via the interven- taxonomy, concept of metacognition, Chemistry I and II in two successive tion had helped them become more and the Study Cycle in college science semesters (fall 2011 and spring 2012), effective learners, as exemplified in classrooms. Although students appeared some of the first-time participants in

Vol. 43, No. 4, 2014 53 Metacognition: An Effective Tool to Promote Success

spring 2012 might not have, which Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & metacognitive knowledge in learning, could have potentially affected their Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people teaching, and assessing. In R. performance. As a self-reporting instru- learn: Brain, mind, experience, and Hodges, M. Simpson, & N. Stahl ment, the Effective Learning Strategies school. Washington, DC: National (Eds.), Teaching study strategies in Survey did help students reflect on the Academies Press. developmental education: Readings on ways they learn and how they facilitate Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak’s theory of theory, research, and best practice (pp. and assess their learning. However, the education: Human constructivism 229–238). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. validity and reliability of the survey and meaningful learning. Journal of Martin’s. have not been tested. Because we used Chemical Education, 78, 1107–1110. Rickey, D., & Stacy, A. M. (2000). The no control groups, the effect sizes of stu- Christ, F. L. (1998). Strengthening your role of metacognition in learning dents’ improvements could not be deter- study skills. In R. Zarn (Ed.), Getting chemistry. Journal of Chemical mined. However, adoption of standard the most out of your university Education, 77, 915–920. exams could ensure the equivalency experience (pp. 5–10). Long Beach, Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, of exams from year to year and more CA: California State University. D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. properly measure the improvement in Cooper, M. M., & Sandi-Urena, S. (2009). (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill students’ cognitive leaning. n Design and validation of an instrument factors predict college outcomes? A to assess metacognitive skillfulness in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, References chemistry problem solving. Journal of 130, 261–288. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. Chemical Education, 86, 240–245. Schraw, G., Brooks, D. W., & Crippen, R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive K. J. (2005). Using an interactive, learning, teaching and assessing: aspects of problems solving. In L. compensatory model of learning to A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of improve chemistry teaching. Journal of educational objectives (Complete intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, Chemical Education, 82, 637–640. edition). New York, NY: Longman. NJ: Erlbaum. Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Loehr, J. F. Bauer, C. F. (2005). Beyond “student Francisco, J. S., Nicoll, G., & Trautmann, (2005). Factors influencing success in attitudes”: Chemistry self-concept M. (1998). Integrating multiple introductory college chemistry. Journal inventory for assessment of the teaching methods into a general of Research in Science Teaching, 42, affective component of student chemistry classroom. Journal of 987–1012. learning. Journal of Chemical Chemical Education, 75, 210–213. Tsai, C. (2001). A review and discussion Education, 82, 1864–1870. Gosser, D. K., Jr., Kampmeier, J. A., & of epistemological commitments, Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2005). Varma-Nelson, P. J. (2010). Peer-led metacognition, and critical thinking Beyond Bloom’s taxonomy: team learning: 2008 James Flack with suggestions on their enhancement Rethinking knowledge for the Norris award address. Journal of in internet-assisted chemistry knowledge age. In M. Fullan (Ed.), Chemical Education, 87, 374–380. classrooms. Journal of Chemical Fundamental change (pp. 5–22). Hoffmann, R., & McGuire, S. Y. (2009). Education, 78, 970–974. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Teaching and learning strategies that Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality work. Science, 325, 1203–1204. Congruence and friction between learning at university: What the student Hoffmann, R., & McGuire, S. Y. (2010). learning and teaching. Learning and does. Buckingham, England: Society Learning and teaching strategies. Instruction, 9, 257–280. for Research into Higher Education American Scientist, 98, 378–382. and Open University. Lewis, S. E., Shaw, J. L., Heitz, J. O., Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: & Webster, G. H. (2009). Attitude Ningfeng Zhao ([email protected]) is an A theory of knowledge. Journal of counts: Self-concept and success in assistant professor in the Department of Chemical Education, 63, 873–878. general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Chemistry and Jeffrey G. Wardeska is Bodner, G. M. (2001). The many forms of Education, 86, 744–749. Professor Emeritus in the Department of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Louisiana State University Center for Chemistry, both at East Tennessee State Education, 78, 1107–1134. Academic Success. (2013). How University in Johnson City. Saundra Y. Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative I learn: High school vs. college. McGuire is Retired Professor of Chemis- literature review of cooperative Retrieved from https://cas.lsu.edu/sites/ try and Director Emerita of the Center for learning effects on high school and cas.lsu.edu/files/attachments/LL1%20 Academic Success and Elzbieta Cook is college chemistry achievement. High%20School%20vs%20College_0. an instructor in the Department of Chem- Journal of Chemical Education, 77, pdf istry, both at Louisiana State University in 116–119. Pintrich, P. (2012). The role of Baton Rouge.

54 Journal of College Science Teaching