USAGE OF METACOGNITIVE PROMPTS IN A SCIENCE LABORATORY

COURSE

Birgül Çakır Hamide Ertepınar Özgül Yılmaz Tüzün

Department of Elementary Department of Elementary Department of Elementary
Education Education Education
Agri İbrahim Çeçen University Middle East Technical Middle East Technical
University University University
Agrı/Turkey Ankara/Turkey Ankara/Turkey
cbirgul@metu.edu.tr hamide@metu.edu.tr ozgul@metu.edu.tr

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine the preservice science teachers’ (PSTs) metacognitive
processes by using metacognitive prompts in a science laboratory course. The data were obtained
through PSTs’ laboratory reports which contains metacognitive prompts and PSTs’ models developed
based on their observations and inferences. PSTs were formed 8 groups each included 3 to 4
students and two groups were randomly selected for the analysis of this study. The data were
analyzed through qualitative methods. It was found PSTs, who activated their procedural knowledge,
constructed effective models which enabled them to carry out necessary investigations during the
laboratory activities.

Keywords: metacognition, metacognitive prompts, preservice science teachers

INTRODUCTION
Metacognition is the ability which provides one to understand and monitor the cognitive processes
(Zimmerman, 1989). Two basic types of metacognition are executive management strategies for
planning, monitoring, evaluating and revising one’s own thinking processes and products, and
strategic knowledge about what information and strategies/skills one has (declarative), when and why
to use them (contextual/conditional) and how to use them (procedural) (cited in Hartman, 2001;
Flavell,1987).
Use of metacognition is necessary for learning since metacognitive knowledge and strategies have
important roles in thinking, reasoning and problem solving. Although the studies on metacognition
show that metacognition has an important role on learning, many srudents are unaware of their
thinking processes, strategies and their thinking products. (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000).
In this study metacogvitive prompts are used. Prompts are questions that encourage students to add
more details and ask for thinking deeply to evoke metacognitive skills (Peters, 2008). These prompts
help students to write their metacognitive reflections which includes their learning process, strategies,
comprehension levels, their success or failure in their tasks and the evaluation of their performance
(Bangert-Drowns, Hurler & Wilkinson, 2004). Therefore, prompts were given students to evoke their
metacognitive skills.
METHOD
The participants were preservice science teachers who attended an inquiry based laboratory
application course in a large public university in Ankara, Turkey. Totally 29 PSTs took this course and
they worked as a group of 3 or 4. Of these groups, 2 groups were selected randomly to for the
purpose of this study. Since each of these two groups included 4 PSTs, 8 PSTs constituted the
rd
particpants of this study. All PSTs in this study were 3 graders and they took the same background
lessons. The data were obtained through the PSTs responses to the laboratory reports, which
included metacognitive prompts. 6 activities were covered throughout the course and an activity was
selected to focus for this study. This activity’s name was black box which was designed by Lederman
and Abd-El-Khalick (1998). For this study metacognitive prompts and model request were added to
this activity. Through developing a model the researchers tried to understand alternative working
models of the black box that appear on particpants’ minds during the activity.PSTs’ strategies for
designing their own model and their knowledge of cognition were examined with respect to
metacognition.
The analysis was made through content analysis techniques as one ofthe qualitative analysis
techniques. For this purpose PSTs’ written responses to laboratory methods were examined with
respect to content.
PROCEDURE

Balack box activity provides students to make observations and inferences. It is a closed box and
there was a system in it which provides more liquid than one added (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalic,
1998). In this study, PSTs drew their own model individually depending on their observations and
inferences. The purpose of this activity was the distinction between observation and inference, the
importance of subjectivity, creativity in science. The activity was completed in three hours.

RESULTS

Answers for observation and inference:

Some examples for observations from their answers are: 200 ml transperant liguid is poured from the
top of the box and 550 ml homogenous transparent liquid is taken. Box have one entrance from the
top and one exit wit a pipe in the bottom.
Some examples for inferences from their answers are: There are some liquid in black box. There is a
system in the box which is designed for the release some amount of liquid.
Examples show that students know the differences between observation and inferences.
The prompt for observation and inference was “What do you coclude about the value of
observations and inferences in the scientific method?” Duygu wrote that “In order to make hypothesis,
observations and inferences are important for science. Scientists use observation to make their
inferences and make prediction with using their inferences. They make hypothesis by using their
prediction.” In terms of metacognitive statements, she explicitly refers her undertsanding and knew
why to use observations and inferences. It shows that she used conditional knowledge. Students knew
the difference but they did not refer how they make inferences and how scientists make inferences.
Prompt for their models is that “What experiences gave you ideas to help you make sense of your
model?” The question requires procedural knowledge which is a type of cognition of knowledge in
metacognition. PSTs who activated their procedural knowledge wrote those answers. Burcu wrote that
“the rivers flow due to the potential difference . In my model, I tried to create a big potential difference
between 2nd beaker and the hole, so it caused the flow of water from the hole”. Mehmet wrote that “Im
inspired by the work of dam that so much amount of water is activated by opening of barier. Because
water which is behind the barrier pushes the water in dam after barrier open. Here, I thought opening
of barrier as tearing of paper. Increasing pressure both of two event leads flowing huge amount of
water.” Esra draw a model based on her chemistry knowledge and wrote that: “ In chemistry labs, I
observed the elements which are solving eachother while the others do not solve. In this model, I
thought that there is a material which is solved with water and is not solved with colorless liquid.”
These students’ models were logical and capable of work. On the other hand, there are other students
who did not activate cognition of knowledge. These students’ models were not capable to work.
Aslıhan was one of them and wrote that “my previous knowledge and physics and chemistry lessons
help me make sense of my model.” She did not refer any metacognitive statement in her answer. As a
result, PSTs are aware of the differences between observation and inference but most of them did not
aware of the metacognitive skills. It is also concluded that PTSs who activated metacognitive skills
created models that are capable to work.

REFERENCES:
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based Writing-to-Learn
interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F.E. Weinert & R.H.
Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Peters, E.E. (2008). Self-regulation of scientific epistemologies: a metacognitive prompting intervention. US-Sino
workshop on mathematics and science education.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary
instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York: The Guildford Press.