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