This article was downloaded by: [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok]On: 06 November 2014, At: 01:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Changing the Metacognitive Orientationof a Classroom Environment toStimulate Metacognitive ReflectionRegarding the Nature of PhysicsLearningGregory P. Thomas aa Department of Secondary Education , The University of Alberta ,Edmonton , Alberta , Canada , AB T6G 2G5Published online: 02 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Gregory P. Thomas (2013) Changing the Metacognitive Orientationof a Classroom Environment to Stimulate Metacognitive Reflection Regarding the Natureof Physics Learning, International Journal of Science Education, 35:7, 1183-1207, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.778438

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.778438

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Changing the Metacognitive

Orientation of a Classroom

Environment to Stimulate

Metacognitive Reflection Regarding

the Nature of Physics Learning

Gregory P. Thomas∗

Department of Secondary Education, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada AB T6G 2G5

Problems persist with physics learning in relation to students’ understanding and use of

representations for making sense of physics concepts. Further, students’ views of physics learning

and their physics learning processes have been predominantly found to reflect a ‘surface’

approach to learning that focuses on mathematical aspects of physics learning that are often

passed on via textbooks and lecture-style teaching. This paper reports on a teacher’s effort to

stimulate students’ metacognitive reflection regarding their views of physics learning and their

physics learning processes via a pedagogical change that incorporated the use of a

representational framework and metaphors. As a consequence of the teacher’s pedagogical

change, students metacognitively reflected on their views of physics and their learning processes

and some reported changes in their views of what it meant to understand physics and how they

might learn and understand physics concepts. The findings provide a basis for further explicit

teaching of representational frameworks to students in physics education as a potential means of

addressing issues with their physics learning.

Keywords: Metacognition; Metacognitive orientation; Physics education; Classroom

environment; Representations

International Journal of Science Education, 2013

Vol. 35, No. 7, 1183–1207, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.778438

∗Department of Secondary Education, The University of Alberta, 341 Education South, Edmon-

ton, Alberta, Canada AB T6G 2G5. Email: gregory.thomas@ualberta.ca

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Issues with Physics Learning

There is no doubt that learning physics is a difficult task for many high school stu-

dents. The physics education literature is replete with examples of students’ learning

difficulties and alternative conceptions as noted in Duit’s (2009) bibliography. Duit,

Neidderer, and Schecker (2007) note that over 2,600 papers report research on stu-

dents’ alternative conceptions in physics. They suggest that, ‘physics is distinguished

from other sciences by its extremely high levels of abstraction and idealization,’ and

that physics originates from the reconstruction of the world ‘under the assumption

of theoretical principles’ (p. 605). They further propose that, ‘this shift in perspectives

is a major factor that makes it so difficult for students to learn physics’ (p. 605). Not

surprisingly, given the prevalence of studies on students’ alternative conceptions,

much physics research has focused on conceptual change, and conceptual change

has become a central pillar for reform of physics education and associated classroom

practice (e.g. Duit & Treagust, 2003, 2012; Vosniadou, 2008).

Duit and Treagust (2012) suggest that, ‘from a conceptual change perspective, lear-

ners need to use different representations of entities to make sense of difficult con-

cepts’ (p. 107) and that, ‘representations are ways to communicate ideas or

concepts by representing them either externally – taking the form of spoken language

(verbal), written symbols (textual), pictures, physical objects or a combination of

these forms – or internally when thinking about these ideas’ (p. 108). There is a

need for research that seeks means to address students’ physics learning and reasoning

processes as it relates to their use of representations and them connecting represen-

tations to their experiences within and beyond formal school experiences. Such

research, because it involves exploring different ways that students perceive physics

and how it can be understood, should attend to students’ views regarding the

nature of physics and also their physics learning processes. These factors directly

impact on students’ physics learning. There are indications of students’ views regard-

ing the nature of physics and also their physics learning processes from past studies.

Students’ Views Regarding the Nature of Physics and their Physics

Learning Processes

Students’ views regarding the nature of physics and their physics learning processes

are often intertwined. Roth and Roychoudhury (1994) asked, ‘What are students’

views regarding the nature of physics?’ and ‘What are students’ preferences for learn-

ing science?’ (p. 7). They reported that, ‘students’ views of the nature of physics could

be grouped along two dimensions, a cultural and an individual,’ the ‘culturally

mediated’ consisting of mathematical and conceptual concepts, i.e. the idealized

and abstracted, and the ‘individual/personal’ that is ‘constructed in everyday life

and during laboratory activities’ (p. 18). They found that learning processes charac-

terized by practice and memorization were associated with the cultural dimension,

and associated with mathematical and conceptual aspects ‘passed on to students

through textbook(s) and lectures’ (p. 18). The development of understanding

1184 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

reflecting constructivist epistemology was associated with the individual dimension,

and associated with experiences from everyday life and laboratory activities. Roth

and Roychoudhury’s findings were supported by Prosser, Walker, and Millar

(1996), who reported that students went about learning physics by (a) attending

class, and/or reviewing notes, and/or learning formulas, and/or doing exercises, (b)

seeing how principles worked, discussing with other students, and (c) relating to

real-world experiences. Prosser et al. found that

. . . most students adopted a ‘surface’ approach to learning in terms of attending classes,

reviewing notes, learning formulas, and doing exercises . . . few indicated that they were

seeking understanding in terms of how the major principles worked or relating their

knowledge to real world experiences – a ‘deep’ approach. (p. 47)

A surface approach to learning is characterized by students developing a lack of

connections between ideas and representations, typically focusing on expediency

and rote learning to minimally meet institutional requirements, and a lack of perma-

nence of what is learned (Marton, 1988; White, 1992). A deep approach is guided by

a search for meaning that characteristically results in well-developed organization and

connection of ideas and representations. Students employing a deep approach to

learning inter-relate new information with existing prior knowledge and operate at

a higher level of conceptualization that those employing a surface approach.

In physics education, a deep approach would be characterized by students employ-

ing learning and reasoning processes by which they consciously, as suggested above,

understand different forms of representations and use those different forms of rep-

resentations and combinations of them to make sense of physics concepts and their

experiences within and beyond formal school settings. This deep approach is consist-

ent with the aforementioned literature on improving students’ physics learning.

Seeking a Way Forward

Resolving the aforementioned difficulties that physics students have in negotiating the

demarcation between their experiences in real life or school physics laboratories and

the idealization and abstraction of physics concepts remains a concern. Suggestions

for the improvement of conceptual learning in physics have included (a) re-designing

curricula based on conceptual schemes as opposed to those that lack coherence and

are a conglomeration of isolated ideas and activities, (b) the use of analogies and

the development of analogical reasoning, (c) improvement of web- and computer-

based resources, and (d) general calls for constructivist centered approaches that

elicit and challenge students’ alternative conceptions. Pejuan, Bohigas, Jaen, and

Periago (2012) note that each of these approaches has promise, noting success in

interventions. However, they argue that a long-term strategy is needed.

The view in this paper is that there is a need to change students’ understanding of

what physics is and how students might/should approach their learning and thinking,

and to do this means there is a need to provide a meta-conceptual framework for tea-

chers and students to understand and to use. Based on the discussion above, any such

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

framework would need to assist teachers and students negotiate the demarcation

between their experiences in real life and/or school physics laboratories and the ideal-

ization and abstraction of physics concepts. Further, such a framework would need to

be appropriate for the content to be taught and the thinking required of students,

helping them understand and employ a deep approach to learning as previously out-

lined. This study relates to the use of such a meta-conceptual framework.

A representational framework originally proposed by Johnstone (1991) and further

developed by Gabel (1993) and Gilbert and Treagust (2009) is commonly used to

conceptualize the three forms of representation that chemical phenomena can take.

The model is triarchic, suggesting that macroscopic, molecular/sub-micro, and sym-

bolic representations are all important for understanding chemistry phenomena. It is

proposed in this paper that the same representational framework can be used for

helping students understand how to reason about physics phenomena and about

physics learning as the conscious inter-relating of these three forms of representation.

This view of understanding a physics phenomenon does not immediately privilege one

form of representation over another, but sees the representations as integrated to form

a cogent holistic set of propositions, observations, mental images, equations, and

symbols that can be used to explain physics phenomena across contexts within and

beyond school. In this way, it challenges the aforementioned experience–mathematics

dualism by stimulating students to consider all three forms of representation and the

relationship/s and connections between them. It also expands the experience–math-

ematics dualism by drawing explicit attention to the particulate, molecular/sub-micro

level of representation that also should be part of a student’s understanding of many

physics concepts.

It is further argued that for students to understand the nature and value of represen-

tations in physics, there is a need to explicitly teach them about such representations

and how they can be used to engage in deep learning. Expecting that students will be

able to infer the understanding and value of representations for their thinking and

learning from their tacit use by teachers in physics classrooms contradicts what was

noted earlier about students’ conceptual learning difficulties. Students need to

develop conscious knowledge, control, and awareness of their thinking and learning

processes, i.e. metacognition, regarding representations, and their use.

Metacognition and Metacognitive Reflection

The aforementioned students’ views of physics learning and their physics learning

processes and approaches are elements of students’ metacognition: their knowledge,

control, and awareness of thinking and learning strategies (Flavell, 1976; Thomas,

2012; White, 1998). Research into metacognition in science education has a history

of over 30 years. However, research on metacognition in physics education is less fre-

quent in the literature than it is in chemistry and/or biology education. This may be

due the concentration in physics education on alternative conceptions, conceptual

change strategies, cognitive reasoning strategies such as the use of analogies, and

1186 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

physics curriculum reform. Whatever the reasons, developing students’ metacogni-

tion is a key to improving their science learning (Thomas, 2012; Zohar & Dori, 2012).

Schraw (1998) and Thomas (2012) argue that a key to developing and enhancing

students’ metacognition is a teacher-led explication to students regarding thinking

and reasoning strategies that are subject specific and that accompany consideration

of science material to be learned. Such deliberate teaching is suggested so that stu-

dents can begin to develop conscious and reportable declarative, procedural, and con-

ditional metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive declarative knowledge of physics

students includes their views and beliefs regarding the nature of physics and physics

learning as previously discussed. Metacognitive procedural knowledge is an individ-

ual’s knowledge of how to perform cognitive and learning activities and tasks and

how they personally do so. It includes the aforementioned self-reported learning pro-

cesses. Metacognitive conditional knowledge relates to knowing when to use pro-

cedural knowledge and why it is important and appropriate to do so in a given

context. The views of Schraw and Thomas regarding the embedding of metacognitive

instruction in content-rich environments support those of Gunstone and Baird (1988)

and Gunstone (1994), who argued that adaptive metacognition is best developed

when training for metacognition is integrated with authentic content within contexts

that have meaning to students. Further, Case and Gunstone (2002) argued that, ‘that

metacognitive development can be viewed as a shift in the approach to learning used

by a student’ (p. 459) often from a surface to a deep(er) approach.

Changes in students’ approaches to learning can be stimulated via changes to their

classroom environments. In particular, there is a need to increase the metacognitive

demands placed on students to consider what might be new and/or alternative learn-

ing frameworks and processes. Metacognitive demands are those levied on students to

be aware of and metacognitively reflect upon how they learn, and how they might alter

and improve their science learning and learning processes (Thomas, 2003). The

teacher is a key determinant of the level of metacognitive demand in science class-

rooms. Students are typically stimulated to engage in metacognitive reflection

through teachers’ pedagogies that directly target specific cognitive processes or

ways of learning subject material. In some cases, metacognitive reflection gives rise

to metacognitive conflict, a state in which learners are challenged to compare the intel-

ligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness of their conceptions of learning and the value

and efficacy of their existing learning processes against new suggestions for those con-

ceptions and processes (Thomas, 2012). Shifting students’ views of physics learning

and their physics learning processes would involve them metacognitively reflecting on

their views of physics and their physics thinking and learning processes. This reflec-

tion might potentially also elicit metacognitive conflict.

The use of a language of thinking is known to be a key element influencing the level

of metacognitive demand in classrooms (Tishman & Perkins, 1997). One form of

language, metaphor, has been used to help students conceptualize what it means to

learn science and to develop a shared language of learning that can be used for class-

room communication by the teacher to direct students’ attention to particular ways of

thinking (Thomas, 2006; Thomas & McRobbie, 2001). It follows that attempts to

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

develop and enhance students’ metacognition in relation to their understanding and

use of representations, so as to realign their views of physics and physics learning and

their physics learning processes, would attend to teacher pedagogy including the

language they use when they are teaching.

Study Goals and Research Questions

This study aimed to develop a basis for further research into the use of the aforemen-

tioned triarchic model of representations in physics education. The discussion above

attended to (a) the difficulties students have learning physics, (b) their conceptions of

learning physics and self-reported physics learning processes, (c) the characterization

of deep learning as a process of constructing connections between representations, (d)

the potential for using a triarchic model of representations for invoking student think-

ing suggested as necessary for the development of understanding, and (e) the impor-

tance of the explicit development of students’ metacognition in relation to their views

of physics learning and their learning processes. In doing so, it established and

explained the rationale for this study and for the following research questions:

(1) Does a change in teacher pedagogy centered on the explicit teaching of students

regarding the use of a triarchic model of representations alter the metacognitive

orientation of a physics classroom so that students engage in metacognitive reflec-

tion related to the use of macroscopic, molecular/sub-micro, and symbolic rep-

resentations when considering physics phenomena, and

(2) If students engage in this reflection, what are the consequences of that reflection

in relation to their views of physics learning and their physics learning processes?

Research Design

Conducting research into metacognition in classroom settings can be problematic

(Garner & Alexander, 1989; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006). If

credible assertions are to be made regarding the efficacy or otherwise of any interven-

tion aimed to encourage metacognitive reflection, it is appropriate to seek multiple,

both quantitative and qualitative, forms of data to explore the classroom learning

environment and the students’ metacognition. The value of employing mixed-

methods is outlined by Marshall (1996), who argues that collecting data ‘with mul-

tiple methods over time allows researchers to consider the reciprocal interactions

among the psychological, social and cultural aspects, and to shift the focus to fore-

ground any of these, depending on the purpose’ (p. 238). Arguments have been

made for the use of mixed-methods methodologies in both learning environments

(Fraser, 2012) and metacognition research (Azevedo, 2005; Thomas, 2009, 2012;

White, 1998). As this study sought to understand whether changes to students’ psy-

chosocial classroom learning environment over time influenced their metacognitive

reflection regarding the use of representations, the use of a mixed-methods method-

ology was appropriate. Finally, it has been argued that mixed-methods research is a

1188 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

pragmatic approach to research allowing researchers to ‘select methods and

approaches with respect to their underlying research questions, rather than with

regard to some preconceived biases about which research paradigm should have hege-

mony in social science research’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 23). In this study,

each of the methods was selected for its value, known from past studies, in gathering

data relevant to answering the research questions. Each brought with it its own

capacity to elicit different forms of data; each with its own epistemological status

that might be useful in constructing credible answers to the research questions. No

one form of data was privileged in either analysis or reporting. The aim was to try

to help readers create for themselves a multi-faceted, yet coherent sense of under-

standing regarding how students’ metacognitive reflection was influenced or other-

wise in response to an intervention that sought to change their learning

environment. In what follows the site details, participants, and entry provisions are

described. This is followed by a description of the methods employed. Then, the

data analysis procedures and reporting considerations are outlined.

Site Context, Participants, and Entry Provisions

This study was conducted in a large metropolitan school in Western Canada. The

school’s population of over 2,200 was from predominantly middle class business

and professional families. The students in the year 11 physics class within which

this study took place were all 16–17 year olds and comprised 16 males and 13

females. They were enrolled in Physics 20, a year 11 course, as part of their high

school diploma studies. The stream that the students were in was considered univer-

sity/college bound and all were taking advanced math and one other science, usually

chemistry.

The teacher, Bruce, volunteered for the study for his own professional development

and to improve his students’ learning. He was a teacher with over 10 years teaching

experience and was considered an exemplary teacher within his school and province.

Bruce had completed a Master’s degree in education in the year prior to the research

being conducted. Therefore, he was conversant with some of the literature regarding

contemporary directions in science education. An element of his Master’s study had

focused on the use of visual journals in physics teaching. The interest in visual journal

use arose from his view that it was necessary for students to explore connections

between art and science, and from his own personal experiences both as an artist

and a physics major. Journal use was not connected to either developing or monitoring

students’ metacognition as is the case in some research. Nor was it linked in any way to

encouraging student use of representations as described above. Rather, it was a con-

tinuation of his exploration of their use as a tool to help students connect science and

art. Bruce had begun using the visual journals prior to the commencement of the

research. They were exercise books with plain lines inside them. Their use was not

suggested as part of the study and they were not part of Bruce’s altered pedagogy.

However, as explained below, there were no restraints imposed on Bruce with

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

regard to his pedagogy and he was free to continue to ask students to use the journals

in his classroom as he saw appropriate.

Bruce understood that his participation in this study would involve him altering his

teaching practice in line with the aims of the study, but that he would ultimately deter-

mine and have control over classroom activities. Access was granted to the school via

permission from the local school board and the principal. Bruce and all students and

their parents gave their informed consent and/or assent in line with the ethics require-

ments of the university of the author and the existing Regional School Board sanc-

tioned approval processes and trends regarding research in schools. All the names

of participants used in this paper, including that of Bruce, are pseudonyms.

Methods and Data Collection

Consistent with the research questions, the methodology in this study was designed to

provide pre- and post-insights into (a) the metacognitive orientation of the classroom

learning environment, (b) students’ views of what they considered to be meant by

‘learning physics,’ (c) how they considered they knew when they had learnt physics,

and (d) how they considered they learned physics. The pre-pedagogical change quan-

titative data were collected before Bruce altered his pedagogy and the post-data were

collected after he had been engaging in his altered pedagogy for six weeks. As this

study explored students’ metacognitive reflection regarding their physics learning

and any impetus for that reflection, it was necessary to seek data to inform assertions

regarding the classroom environment, including the teacher’s discourse. It was also

important to know if there was any shift in the level of metacognitive demand in

the classroom. A summary of the methods employed and what aspect of the study,

(a)–(d) above, each attended to is given as Table 1.

To gain information regarding the metacognitive orientation of the classroom

environment, the Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale-Science

Table 1. Overview of methods used and the research target of each method

Research target of

the method

Method

MOLES-

S survey

Interviews

with

students

Constructivist

connectivity scale

of SEMLI-S

Classroom

video and

audio

Classroom

observation

Nature of the

classroom

environment, esp.

metacognitive

orientation

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Students views of

physics learning and

their physics

learning processes

∗ ∗

1190 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(MOLES-S) (Thomas, 2003) was used, pre- and post-pedagogical change. The meta-

cognitive orientation of a classroom learning environment is the ‘extent to which that

environment supports the development and enhancement of students’ metacognition’

(Thomas, 2003, p. 175). The MOLES-S is a 35-item questionnaire consisting of 7

sub-scales with each sub-scale having 5 items. Each item is scored using a 5-point

Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Each of the sub-scales of

the MOLES-S provides a measure of students’ perceptions in relation to a psychoso-

cial dimension of the classroom environment, each of which is related to the develop-

ment of metacognition via metacognitive reflection. In particular, the Metacognitive

Demands and Teacher-Student Discourse sub-scales are germane to the purposes of

this study.

Intensive classroom observation and interviews with students were also used to

understand the classroom environment. The author engaged in persistent observation

(Guba & Lincoln, 1989) over the 12 weeks of the study apart from 20% of lessons that

were taken up with testing, administration, and excursions and other activities not

related to physics instruction. The research involved pre-intervention data collection,

two weeks of development of the pedagogical change ideas and implementation plans

with Bruce, and six weeks of Bruce enacting the pedagogical change. Lessons

observed were video recorded for review and analysis using a video camera at the

rear of the classroom. The teacher also wore a radio microphone so that his classroom

dialogue could be recorded for future analysis, and so that there would be a second

record of his discourse should the audio from the video recording not be of sufficient

quality.

Interviews were also used explore students’ beliefs about what they considered

‘learning physics’ meant and how they considered they learnt physics, i.e. the learning

processes and strategies they employed. Interviews are a form of self-report that have

attracted attention in metacognition research in the recent times (e.g. Schellings &

Van Hout-Wolters, 2011; Veenman et al., 2006). The position in this paper is consist-

ent with the view that metacognition is an inner process and that its presence or other-

wise must be inferred as it cannot be observed directly (Thomas, 2009, 2012; White,

1998). Numerous studies in science education (e.g. Case & Gunstone, 2002;

Davidowitz & Rollnick, 2003; Thomas & McRobbie, 2001) have employed interviews

for exploring students’ metacognition and metacognitive reflection and this study

adds to that literature on use the use of interviews for this purpose. Interviews

seeking feedback from students regarding Bruce’s pedagogical change and its influ-

ence or otherwise on them were conducted at the conclusion of the six-week

change period so as not to influence students’ thinking during the implementation

itself. The interviews were sequenced using a hermeneutic dialectic circle (Guba &

Lincoln, 1989). This meant that initial respondents were randomly selected and

new respondents were added to the circle of interviewees until the information

received from them either became redundant or fell into two or more constructions

that varied in some way. Twelve students were interviewed pre- and post-pedagogical

change for about 20 min on each occasion. The interviews canvased students’ views

on their classroom environment, their views of physics learning and what it meant to

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

learn physics, their physics learning processes, and the pedagogical change and its

value or otherwise for them.

Finally, to gain further insights into participants’ learning processes, the Construc-

tivist Connectivity sub-scale of the Self-Efficacy Metacognition Learning Inventory-

Science (SEMLI-S) (Thomas, Anderson, & Nashon, 2008) was used. This seven-

item sub-scale explores students’ perceptions of whether they construct connections

between information and knowledge across various science learning locations and

contexts. Items are scored on a five point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5

(almost always). This sub-scale was appropriate for seeking data to assist in establish-

ing whether or not students were seeking to make connections between content and

contexts; a previously noted and desired characteristic of physics learning.

Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed in this study. Accordingly,

analysis of the various data sets was done with reference to existing practices for each

form of data. The video and observation data were reviewed on a daily basis. Emer-

ging assertions were developed regarding the classroom environment, especially its

metacognitive orientation, primarily through the author’s interpretation of Bruce’s

discourse. During the day-to-day classroom observations, the author would note

times when, if ever, Bruce spoke to students regarding their physics thinking and

learning processes or what it meant to learn physics. He would also note the directions

Bruce gave the students and what Bruce attended to in whole class and individual dis-

cussions and note the times of those events. After class, he reviewed the video and

audio recordings with reference to the times noted when in class as well as in their

entirety. This was to ensure that he was not privileging any particular ‘on-the-spot’

perception recorded during classroom visits. Through the analysis of videos on a

daily basis, it was possible to build credible assertions regarding the classroom learn-

ing environment and the students’ and teacher’s interactions within it. Examples of

Bruce’s discourse with the whole class and with individuals reported in the results

are drawn from these data sets.

The interview data were reviewed on the same day they were collected. This close

temporal proximity of data analysis to data collection is an important element of

engagement in a hermeneutic dialectic circle. The students’ responses to questions

were interpreted and categorized as to whether they provided insights into (a) the

classroom environment, particularly in relation to the characteristics of classroom

environments known to develop and enhance metacognition, (b) their views of

physics learning, or (c) their physics learning processes. Once categorized as such,

they were further sorted to reflect variations across responses within those categories.

The assertions emerging from this analysis were used as a basis for seeking confirming

and disconfirming data in subsequent interviews. They were also used to further

assess the assertions arising from the other forms of data, and vice versa, an

element of the triangulation procedure as noted below. In the results section, the

student quotes are drawn from the interview data. These quotes are selected as

1192 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

typical exemplars of what was reported by students regarding (a), (b), and (c) above

and are chosen to illuminate the assertions regarding students’ views.

In the analysis of the statistical data, pair-samples t-tests were undertaken to seek

the extent of any variation/s between scores for each sub-scale, pre- and post-pedago-

gical change. Effect sizes were also calculated for each of the pre-/post- scores of each

sub-scale. ‘Effect sizes assess the magnitude of the findings that occur in research

studies’ (Durlak, 2009, p. 918) and are ‘resistant to sample size influence,’ thus pro-

viding a ‘truer measure of the magnitude of effect between variables’ (Ferguson, 2009,

p. 532). Cohen (1988) suggested that an effect size of 0.20 could be interpreted as

small, of 0.50 as medium, and 0.80 as large. Lipsey (1998) further suggested that

an effect size of 0.20 ‘is a reasonable minimal effect size level to ask research to

detect – it is large enough to potentially represent an effect of practical significance,

but not so small to represent an extreme outcome for intervention research’ (p. 45).

However, more recently, the appropriateness of considering the above effect sizes as

strict boundaries distinguishing degrees of intervention value has been questioned.

Ferguson suggests that, ‘effect size estimates are just that, estimates’ (p. 532). He

goes on to add that rigid adherence to such guidelines is not recommended. Durlak

adds that it is important to consider the clinical or practical significance of the findings

as well as the magnitude of the effect size, that ‘an intervention with a weak effect size

but no risks may be valuable,’ and ‘that same intervention may be less desirable if the

risks are considerable’ (p. 536). The interpretation of the effect sizes calculated from

the statistical data in this study therefore acknowledged the above cut-offs as general

rules of thumb. Finally, the risks involved in the intervention were considered when

proposing any practical significance of the intervention based on effect size

calculations.

In the results section, assertions are presented that are consistent with the findings

from the analysis of data across the data sources. As given in Table 1, each facet of

interest in this study was explored using at least two methods. The use of multiple

data sources, triangulation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), helps maximize the possibility

that assertions are consistent with a variety of data. This study seeks to explore the

consequences of a pedagogical change on students’ views of physics learning and

their physics learning processes. To establish any reasonable link, it is necessary to

thoroughly explore the findings from each method and integrate them if possible

(Hesse-Biber, 2010). There is no intent in what follows to privilege the findings

from one method over another. It is hoped that the reader can see how one form of

data complements the other/s to give more comprehensive insights into each of the

facets of interest than if fewer methods had been used, and how this practice lends

credibility to the assertions. Only assertions supported by the respective multiple

data sources as given in Table 1 are presented.

Results

The data and interpretations are presented to reflect the chronological nature of

changes or otherwise to the classroom environment and students’ views and self-

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

reports over the course of the study. The pre-pedagogical-change nature of the class-

room environment including its metacognitive orientation and students’ views of that

environment is presented first. This is followed by students’ views of what it meant to

learn physics and how they considered they learnt physics prior to Bruce’s pedagogical

change. Then, a description of the pedagogical change that Bruce engaged in is

reported. Finally, students’ post-pedagogical-change views are presented.

Pre-Pedagogical Change

Nature of the Classroom Environment

Prior to Bruce changing his pedagogy, the students characterized the classroom as

being a place where they were assigned work and then often left to themselves to do

it, as exemplified by Bradley, ‘. . . it’s [learning] is very much up to you . . . most of

the time it’s just examples on the board, and then go and do the work,’ and Nizat,

‘we do note taking, lab, note taking, lab, exam . . . repeatedly . . . just solve it [the

problem] on your own. We’re definitely left to work out things for ourselves.’ Students

also noted an emphasis on mathematically oriented problem solving: ‘We’re just doing

mathematics kinds of things,’ (Degas), and ‘Physics mainly focuses on problem

solving and how the formula is derived and applied in the problem solving’ (Lanie).

Students clearly perceived that Bruce did not often ask them to think about how

they learned physics or to consider new ways of considering and/or learning physics

as suggested respectively by, Craig, Jim, and Lanie: ‘he doesn’t teach us new ways

to learn science . . . he says we have to work it out for ourselves,’ ‘How [we learn

physics]? No. We’re not asked much about how we learn physics. The focus is on

content rather than how to learn it,’ and ‘We don’t talk about how we learn science.

We just talk about physics concepts.’ They noted however that Bruce asked them spor-

adically to use the visual journals. As previously explained, research into the use of

visual journals as a means to get students to see connections between art and

science had formed the basis of Bruce’s Master’s project. However, there was no indi-

cation from Bruce in his classroom discourse or the students in interviews that the use

of these journals was connected to developing their thinking processes or metacogni-

tion. Students were not able to explain the intent of the journal use and suggested that

their use was not particularly beneficial for them: ‘He does the visual journals some-

times . . . only twice actually. He gives us a topic, asks us to draw how we think about it

or write down things. We haven’t done that in science classes before’ (Bradley). Nizat

also noted,

he tells us to draw stuff [in the journals] . . . twice over the two semesters. All we have to

do is to draw what we are thinking about a topic . . . any diagram we might have seen. I’m

not sure if it’s really productive.

Despite students’ perceptions, what Bruce’s use of the journals does indicate is that

he was willing to try to engage in pedagogical change to try to improve his students’

learning.

1194 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Students’ claims that minimal attention was paid by Bruce to ask them to think

about how they learned physics or to consider new ways of considering and/or learn-

ing physics were supported by findings from the analysis of the classroom field notes,

video, and Bruce’s classroom discourse. Bruce attended closely to the subject matter

and a closely managed set of activities that consisted of laboratory activities,

problem solving sheets, and classroom discussions. The claims are also supported

with reference to the pre- MOLES-S data (Table 2), suggesting less than adequate

(Thomas, 2003) levels of metacognitive demand and student–teacher discourse

related to learning processes and how to improve them. This was despite Bruce’s

use of the visual journals that were a pedagogical innovation he had initiated, and

students’ views that he was encouraging and emotionally supportive of their learning

endeavors.

Students’ Views of What it Meant to Learn Physics and their Physics Learning Processes

Students’ views of what it meant to learn physics reflected those previously reported

in the literature. No new views were identified. Physics was seen by some as a search

to facilitate understanding of everyday events, reflecting the individual/personal

dimension. All students who identified with the individual/personal dimension

also claimed that their understanding of real-world phenomena was at the same

time evaluated by them with reference to their results on formal assessment tasks

in which phenomena were represented by abstract equations and formulae. In

those assessment tasks, they needed to be able to solve numerical problems, a situ-

ation reflecting the aforementioned culturally mediated dimension. These students

did not exclusively hold one view or the other, and seemed able to accommodate

and reconcile views and learning processes commensurate with both dimensions.

Jim, for example, suggested, ‘. . . to know physics? What comes to me is the

numbers . . . being able to problem solve.’ This view reflected the culturally

mediated dimension. He also claimed that he committed himself to ‘being able

to memorise and being able to use and modify formulas,’ adding, ‘If I can memorize

it then I can just start popping numbers in and muddle until it works out.’ However,

he also claimed, ‘I like to link stuff. I like to see my physics applied to the rest of the

world,’ suggesting an individual/personal view. Bradley suggested, ‘Physics is about

how things work and how physical things interact . . . how doing one thing will make

another thing happen,’ also indicating an individual/personal orientation. He

suggested additionally that to know physics he relied on ‘how quizzes and tests

are going,’ reflecting the culturally mediated dimension.

Nizat also elucidated a view that reflected an individual/personal orientation,

suggesting that to doing physics was, ‘to learn about how objects move in either a

perfect world or an imperfect world.’ He, like Jim, also identified the relevance of

the culturally mediated, suggesting, ‘. . . my understanding is by when I’m asked a

question can I answer it or not: I check when I get something [assessment] back.

“Oh, I did good,” or “Oh, I did bad.”’ He too characterized his learning processes

as connecting and inter-relating ideas as follows:

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 2. Mean pre-pedagogical change and post-pedagogical change scores, Cronbach alphas and effect sizes for the students’ responses to

MOLES-S classroom environment scales (N ¼ 29)

Metacognitive

demands

Student–student

discourse

Student–teacher

discourse

Critical

voice

Distributed

control

Encouragement and

support

Emotional

support

Pre

Mean 14.76 15.62 13.41 18.55 12.72 17.90 19.45

SD 4.49 4.60 4.87 4.21 4.10 4.13 3.75

a 0.81 0.84 0.90 0.80 0.84 0.75 0.88

Post

Mean 17.13∗∗ 15.93 14.34 17.86 12.51 18.65 18.89

SD 3.78 3.90 4.56 4.69 4.81 4.03 4.16

a 0.78 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.87 0.82 0.92

Effect

size

0.54 0.07 0.20 20.15 20.04 0.18 20.14

∗∗p , 0.01 (max. possible score for each sub-scale ¼ 25).

1196

G.

P.T

hom

as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Someone tells me something. I try to see if it actually makes sense, if it’s congruent with

what I already know . . . and sometimes I would just integrate it in, or I try to make it fit

with other stuff or associate it with other things.

Some students also made reference to connecting ideas and prior knowledge but

did not provide any indication of an individual/personal orientation. For example,

Craig advised, ‘I make sense of it [physics] by trying to connect with other things I

learnt before . . . you can put them altogether. I just learned that by myself.’ Taken

together Jim’s, Bradley’s, Nizat’s, and Craig’s reports of linking and connecting

ideas are consistent with the aforementioned deep approach to learning, even if

their orientation was not always of an individual/personal nature.

Finally, a third view was offered by students who did not at all reflect an individual/

personal orientation and who reported using learning processes consistent with a

surface approach to learning. These students, exemplified by Sharon, did not

report seeking meaning or consciously connecting ideas. Rather, they focused on

memorization and these views reflected the aforementioned culturally mediated

view of physics learning.

Most physics revolves around manipulating different equations or formulas. If you know all

your formulas then you know what to use so it’s easier to solve some problems. I make notes

and I read them over and over again until it stays in my head. When I’m writing an exam and

I think about it I can see my notes. That’s how I remember stuff. This is important for me.

Students’ pre-pedagogical views of physics learning and their physics learning pro-

cesses and approaches are elements of their metacognition. As Gunstone (1994) has

suggested, all students are metacognitive to some extent in that they all possess some

knowledge, control, and awareness of thinking and learning strategies. All students

suggested views of their physics learning processes; some more articulately than

others. However, none suggested a view of physics or of physics learning processes

based on the representational framework, as proposed previously in this paper for

helping students structure their thinking about physics and their physics learning

processes.

Bruce’s Pedagogical Change

Bruce was not given insights into the students’ responses or the pre-pedagogical

insights and assertions that emerged from the data collection and analyses prior to

his pedagogical change. His intention in collaborating in the study was to improve

his approach in a research-informed manner. Bruce’s changes were premised on the

understanding that he would have complete control over what he did and said in

class. He was in no way told what to do. The role of the author was to provide

ideas that he might use to inform his change, as he determined. Bruce was free to

modify his pedagogy as he saw appropriate and this makes this study highly naturalis-

tic and ecologically valid (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Bruce engaged in a pedagogical change informed by two aforementioned elements:

the triarchic representational model and metaphor. He sought to develop

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

students’ knowledge of the three representational forms so that they could use them to

structure their thinking, and he sought to use the metaphors to assist students to

clarify and understand the type of thinking that was entailed regarding each form.

He aligned the metaphors of ‘artist,’ a person who makes and records observations,

‘mathematician,’ a person who uses mathematics to describe phenomena, and

‘poet,’ a person who seeks to uncover and understand the essence of life and

events, for the thinking required, respectively, at macroscopic, symbolic, and molecu-

lar/sub-micro levels. These were his ideas for metaphors and the author was obliged to

allow Bruce to use them as he saw appropriate, as per the ethics of the research and the

understanding between the author and Bruce. He introduced this representational

framework and the metaphors to students in the first lesson of a unit on waves, as

follows:

[Bruce has drawn a large triangle on the board with the letter ‘A’ at the apex, ‘M’ on the

lower left-hand side corner, and ‘P’ on the lower right-hand side. He has written the

words ‘learning,’ ‘thinking,’ and ‘understanding’ in that order, one on top of the other

in the center of the triangle.] I want to talk about something that will assist us on our

journey . . . the journey of understanding. When we look at learning science [points to tri-

angle], in particular the physical sciences, physics, chemistry, we can approach learning

in a variety of ways. I doubt if you’ve ever had a chance to step back and think about how

you learn or what it means to understand science, or even to learn science. A lot of the

time we step back and take a macroscopic view [writes ‘macroscopic’ at the apex]. In

essence, when you step back, you get the whole picture. You begin to describe things

as you see them empirically. For example, I can see the Sun, the color it is, and so on.

We begin to describe the world very empirically, much like an artist would [he adds

‘rtist’ to the ‘A’ already written to form the word ‘Artist.’]. A macroscopic view, you

step back, take a look at the whole system, and you begin to make sense of it as you

see it and describe it. We’ve [already] been doing that in our visual journals. For

example, when I got you to do a visual journal entry on electricity I saw some people

drawing these big huge lightning strikes [makes a zig-zag pattern in the air with his

hand]. That’s a macroscopic view of electricity . . . you see what happens, and you

begin to describe that. On a different view, you can look at something as symbolic

[writes the word ‘Symbolic’ on the lower left hand corner]. This is where we start to

grab things like symbols, equations, vectors; the symbolism we use to describe some-

thing. We begin to describe the world much more like a mathematician [he adds ‘athe-

matician’ to the ‘M’ to make the word ‘Mathematician’]. Think of that. Symbolic view is

the symbols, equations, numbers. Remember, symbols can also be diagrams that include

those symbols as well. There’s also another part to this . . . this would be more of a micro-

scopic view [writes microscopic on the lower left hand corner]. This is when you begin to

visualize and think about things on a very, very small scale. You begin to zoom in. When

we start to look at, for example electrons and electric fields we zoom right in [and ask]

‘what would that electron do?’ and ‘How would it be influenced given the potential

difference in that region of space?’ [Student asks: ‘Theoretical?’] Very theoretical! We

begin to describe things much like a poet [he adds ‘oet’ to the ‘P’ to make the word

‘Poet’]. You’ll hear me say this as we talk. And you begin to start to think, ‘Well,

really down at on a microscopic, molecular level what’s happening?’ Then we start to

visualize what’s occurring. Today in this lesson and from lessons here on, I’m going to

ask you describe things using a macroscopic view, [and] as a mathematician, [and] as

a poet [points to each corner in turn]. The idea is that this will help give you some struc-

ture to your learning and thinking.

1198 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bruce’s dialogue above, ‘I doubt if you’ve ever had a chance to step back and think

about how you learn or what it means to understand science, or even to learn science,’

suggests he had not drawn students’ attention to such matters in class previously. It

also suggests that his use of thinking journals was not intended for that purpose.

Nor was that purpose for their use communicated to students. However, when he

suggests, ‘We’ve [already] been doing that in our visual journals,’ he attempts to

show how the visual journals might be connected to their forthcoming consideration

of the representations for thinking about physics learning that he was introducing.

Bruce repeatedly throughout the classes directed students’ attention to the use of

the representational levels through discourse directed to the class as a whole, and

also when talking with individual students. For example, eight days after introducing

the representational model to students he performed a demonstration for the whole

class on sympathetic resonance using tuning forks of similar harmonic likeness

mounted on wooden boxes. He drew students’ attention to the type of thinking he

wanted them to engage in regarding the phenomenon:

It’s just me hitting a tuning fork [He hits one of the tuning forks]. This is ‘C.’ [Hits other

tuning fork] Hopefully you can hear that these (tuning forks) are the same frequency.

[Hits the first tuning fork again.] So even when I sound them together [hits left and

then right tuning fork one after the other quickly] . . . you get the idea that they’re sound-

ing the same. First I’ll show you the phenomenon and I want you to think about it on

those three levels, with those three metaphors, artist, mathematician, and poet. [Holds

both tuning forks.] Everyone ready? The phenomenon of resonance. [Hits one tuning

fork and stands back. Picks up the tuning fork that he hit and the other tuning fork is

vibrating at C frequency] Didn’t touch it. [Referring to the tuning fork that is still vibrat-

ing] I’ll show you again and I’ll let you do some visual thinking. [Repeats the

demonstration]

Bruce’s conversations with individual students also provided insights into his

changed pedagogy. For example, as he was walking around the class after the reson-

ance demonstration, he suggested to a student, ‘Remember to think about it [the

demonstration] on those three levels. Try to use all of them.’ On another occasion,

when he was asking a student about her progress with a textbook task, the following

interaction took place between them:

Bruce: How’s that [the task] coming?

Student: Oh, good.

Bruce: Good. Yes. Those explanations, do you love ‘em? Again, when they have you explain,

think about the artist, mathematician and poet . . . philosopher. There’s put (standard) answers

that you can find in the back of the book but I think you can think more deeply about it.

Bruce was not only using revised language with students when addressing the whole

class; he was using it with individual students. In the pre-pedagogical change period,

there are no examples of Bruce speaking with his students in these ways. Bruce’s

changed discourse gives an indication of the new metacognitive demands he placed

on students regarding how they might re/conceptualize physics learning and the cog-

nitive processes they could use to learn physics.

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Post-Pedagogical Change

Students noted Bruce’s pedagogical change and it stimulated them to metacognitively

reflect on what it meant to learn physics and how they went about learning physics. In

what follows, the influence of those changes on the metacognitive orientation of the

classroom learning environment and the students’ views of what it meant to learn

physics and their physics learning processes are outlined.

Nature of the Classroom Environment

Students identified changes in the learning environment, clearly relating these to

changes in Bruce’s discourse and the nature of the tasks they were asked to engage

in. Specifically, they reported an increase in metacognitive demands related to Bruce

asking them to consider and use the representational model and related metaphors.

All students who were interviewed clearly identified substantial differences between

pre- and post-classroom environments. For example, Timmo noted, ‘We’ve discussed

more about how we can consider different concepts as opposed to just what the con-

cepts are.’ Alain suggested, ‘He’s focusing on everybody’s learning strategies and

[has] been focusing a lot on those three ways, microscopic, macroscopic and symbolic.

When we use our visual journals he wants us to use all three or a specific one.’ Craig and

Jim gave further detail regarding those changes suggesting, respectively:

. . . he keeps mentioning about this artist and mathematician stuff . . . three different ways.

Every time you do a lab he’s asking you to keep thinking about how to see this in different

perspectives, like an artist, a mathematician, and a poet. (Craig)

There’s that little physics triangle that he’s been using. He hasn’t done before. It’s some-

thing different. It’s different ways of looking at physics from three different viewpoints . . .

trying to get a better understanding of it . . . artist was the macroscopic viewpoint, the

wide base . . . looking at it [a phenomenon] from what you can actually see. Mathemati-

cian is more like the numbers behind it. The microscopic viewpoint is the poet, focusing

on atoms and their behavior. I haven’t consciously thought about breaking it down like

that [before]. (Jim)

Changes in the metacognitive orientation of the classroom are further evidenced

from MOLES-S data (Table 2). Students reported a statistically significant increase

in metacognitive demands. The magnitude of the effect size (0.54) also suggests a

variation in metacognitive demands pre- and post-. Other elements of the classroom

environment measured by the MOLES-S remained essentially unchanged apart from

student–teacher discourse (effect size ¼ 0.20). This is not surprising given that Bruce

did speak with individual students as well as to the whole class regarding their physics

learning. These positive shifts in factors known to contribute to the metacognitive

orientation of classroom learning environments are worth noting, but they become

potentially educationally important if they can be connected to student metacognitive

reflection that might influence their views of what it meant to learn physics and their

physics learning processes.

1200 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Students’ Views of What it Meant to Learn Physics and their Physics Learning Processes

Students responded to Bruce’s pedagogical change in several ways that are outlined

below. However, what was common among all students was that they could under-

stand the intent of Bruce’s use of the representative framework and the metaphors

he used to communicate with them in relation to this framework. There was clear evi-

dence that Bruce had stimulated metacognitive reflection in all students who were

interviewed. Those who, as previously noted, accommodated views aligned with

both individual/personal and culturally mediated dimensions reported that Bruce’s

changed pedagogy made them re/consider their views of physics learning and the posi-

tive value of what Bruce was communicating to them. They considered that it had

broadened their view of what it meant to learn physics and how it might be differently

and potentially better understood. Bradley, for example, stated:

. . . the levels of thinking thing he came up with. There’s poet, artist and mathematician.

The artist looks at broad ideas, mathematician looks at the mathematical formulas, and

poet looks really close in. How useful it is depends on how it’s used. It can be pointless or

useful in some cases. It’s useful when it’s something you haven’t thought about in that way

before and you’re being introduced to it, like thinking about resonance in all the different

ways . . . I did think about the resonance differently and it did help. I thought about it

more molecularly, the compression and the decompression and it actually made me

understand the closed column resonance and where the nodes and antinodes were

located and why they were there.

Jim, too, noted the influence of the pedagogical change on his views of physics

learning, how he considered he went about that learning, and the value of these

changes:

It [the representational framework] gives you different viewpoints on it [physics]. You can

understand stuff better if you look at it from different angles. I’m finding it easier to

understand now. Before I could do the math, but I wasn’t really sure if I was understand-

ing. Now it actually makes a bit more sense. Now you know what you have to be able to

understand to understand. Before I didn’t know exactly what understanding ‘it’ means,

and now I do. Being able to understand means being able to look at ‘it’ from all different

angles. I’m connecting ideas more than I used to. For example, I’m looking at the physics

of a soccer ball sometimes when I ‘blasting it’ halfway down the field. That’s new. You see

a kick, but if you did it in slow motion you’d see the ball impact[ed] first and then fly away.

What you’re doing is compressing all the molecules inside it and when they reform them-

selves, that’s the ball flying away. I haven’t thought about it in this way before. I could

come up with a symbolic equation, F ¼ ma. The force I have acting on the soccer ball

is equal to the mass of my foot, or perhaps my leg, times its acceleration. I’m always con-

fident with the numbers, but now I’m even more confident when it comes to the non-

numeric stuff. The metaphors act as a switch because I’m [now] used to him saying that.

Craig, in the pre-pedagogical change interview, had described his learning process

as involving connecting new information with prior knowledge. However, he con-

sidered that Bruce’s new suggestions interfered with his learning, and that he

should be left to consider the physics in his own way, as he had done before. Craig

gave indications of engaging what Biggs (1988) referred to as a predominantly

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

achieving approach to learning. Despite having metacognitive knowledge consistent

with the development of understanding through seeking meaning between new infor-

mation and his prior knowledge, he focused on the temporal nature of content-

focused tasks and did not want to be distracted from maximizing his chances of

getting high marks. He sought to orient his learning strategies to what he considered

pragmatically necessary. Craig’s interview response to questions regarding the peda-

gogical change suggests he experienced metacognitive conflict.

It hasn’t been that useful for me . . . if he just lets you think, [or] do whatever you want,

maybe you can understand more clearly. But when he tells you to think in different per-

spectives you have to first of all think, ‘What does each perspective mean?’ That takes a lot

of time. It’s kind of difficult. I would like to be able to do it as simply as possible . . . no

instructions, just the topic, just the physics.

Timmo also suggested that the value of the thinking associated with Bruce’s peda-

gogical change was evident for him, but not useful in the context of what can be con-

sidered as mandated, culturally mediated assessment tasks. Even though he saw it as

valuable, he suggested he was still focused on the examination result:

I’m not sure if it’s useful for me. In so far as school is to prepare us for the test and there-

fore pass the test and continue on [to college/university] it’s not that useful, because it’s

not going to be curricularly tested. In [developing] the understanding it does help . . . it

helps us link [ideas] to outside school. The triangle just pops up as an image in your

mind. It helps separate ideas [about a concept].

Those students who had previously only reported a surface approach to learning

physics reported that they had engaged in the thinking entailed by the representational

framework and the metaphors. Sharon stated that she knew she was being asked to

think, ‘about a topic in three different ways . . . from a mathematician’s perspective,

from a poet’s perspective, and from an artist’s perspective. It helps me.’ Her view of

what it meant to understand physics had moved from being solely concerned with

manipulating formulas and equations to include, ‘being able to grasp an idea and

apply it in a different situation,’ suggesting she was beginning to look beyond the cul-

turally mediated perspective. Similarly, Cheryl, who had previously considered that

the way to improve her physics learning was ‘to do more problems. Do more practice’

modified her view. She suggested:

He uses the new triangle thing. It helps because you see what’s happening. You get into

more detail and it helps you see the actual meaning of what’s happening. Like with the

tuning forks, you can ‘see’ how the molecules help the sound to transfer.

The aforementioned intimations from students suggest that many of them were

consciously seeking to connect physics ideas more with what they already knew

from their prior knowledge and from within and outside class. This proposition is

supported by findings from the analysis of pre- and post-data collected from the

Constructivist Connectivity sub-scale of the SEMLI-S. A statistically significant

increase in the class mean of the scale from 22.9 to 25.38 (p , .01, t ¼ 22.67,

df ¼ 28) was found. An effect size of 0.36 was also calculated. Taken together, these

1202 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

statistical findings suggest an effect of practical significance in relation to students

connecting ideas. Given the importance of students being able to connect ideas and

different representations of physics phenomena and the low levels of risk to students

from the pedagogical change Bruce engaged in, this finding is noteworthy. When con-

sidered alongside the qualitative findings, it seems clear that the pedagogical change

that Bruce engaged in stimulated students to consider their views of what it meant to

learn physics and their physics learning processes via metacognitive reflection.

Discussion

This paper began with an overview of the difficulties students have learning physics

and possible reasons why this is the case. Students should be seen as self-reflective

learners (Duit & Treagust, 2012) and this notion is at the heart of conceptual

change approaches. But what should students reflect on and how can reflections be

structured? The position in this paper is that, as well as consider the science itself, stu-

dents should consider how they come to understand the science. This means they

should engage in metacognitive reflection regarding both what it means to learn

physics and their physics learning processes. It was proposed that new ways are

required to explicitly direct students to consider these matters.

What is apparent from this study is that students, even with what might be con-

sidered exposure to a short period of pedagogical change, could understand their tea-

cher’s revised intentions for their thinking and learning processes, and how they might

think about what it meant to know and learn physics. It was through the explicit teach-

ing of these ideas to students using the triarchic representational framework and

accompanying metaphors that students came to these understandings. Students

could use the language of both the representations and the metaphors to report on

what was happening in the classroom, how it was different from their previous experi-

ences, and how it affected or otherwise their metacognition and learning processes.

Their reports are evidence of metacognitive reflection.

This being so, it is important to recognize that the representational framework and

metaphors chosen by Bruce were appropriate for the content that students were to

consider in the physics course at the time of his pedagogical change. It is likely that

the same framework and metaphors may not be appropriate for all topics in

physics, e.g. kinematics. This realization should not be seen as a problem. Rather,

it can be suggested that a key to improving physics education, and science education

in general, relates to researchers and teachers considering what representational fra-

meworks for various content areas in physics, and across all areas of science education,

might be used to help structure students’ metacognition and their cognitive processes

necessary for their development of conceptual understanding of topics. Even within

chemistry education where the triarchic representational framework has its origins

it is not explicitly taught to students, denying them the opportunity to develop meta-

cognition and cognition in relation to its potential value and use for their learning. On

another level, it could be further proposed and argued that an even more important

lesson that students might learn from such an approach is that representational

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

frameworks can be used to organize thinking and learning within and across all science

subject areas. Such meta-conceptual epistemic learning should be a higher-order goal

of science education (Duschl, 2008).

Bruce stimulated the students to engage in metacognitive reflection. Even if the stu-

dents did not all concur with the proposals regarding how to think and learn about

physics, they were compelled through Bruce’s changed pedagogy to at least consider

them. Variations in students’ consent to change how they learn science have been pre-

viously reported in the literature (e.g. Thomas, 1999, 2012) and this study again high-

lights the personal nature of metacognitive reflection and change. If students’

metacognition regarding their views of what it means to learn physics and how to

learn it are to be changed and improved, there is a need to empathetically confront

students to consider these matters. The findings from this paper suggest teachers

can initiate such student contemplation and that it is possible to do so as part of every-

day classroom practice.

The claims made in this paper and their generalizability to other contexts should be

considered in relation to the data collection methods used and the analysis of those

data. A key element of the methodology was the hermeneutic dialectic circle. The

aim of employing such an approach was to uncover and understand consensus

views held and expressed by members of the class regarding the issues under investi-

gation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Early in the process in both pre- and post-pedagogi-

cal change sections of the study, the researcher sought to identify the variety of views

existing within the class regarding the nature of the learning environment, the views of

what it meant to learn physics, and their knowledge, control, and awareness of their

use or otherwise of particular desirable oriented physics learning processes. As the

process proceeded, he sought to gain information to further elucidate and provide

detail on those views. The result of this process is a set of consensus views regarding

the issues under investigation. Consensus in this case does not mean that all students

agreed with each other on what was appropriate. It means that the variety of views had

been identified and detailed to a point where no more variety and detail might be

uncovered through additional interviewing. When data and analysis from this

approach is coupled with that from the other methods employed, it is possible to con-

struct an understanding of the influence of the pedagogical change on students’ views

and learning processes and how metacognitive reflection was stimulated by the

teacher. The use of multiple methods enables the reader to foreground various

aspects of the study as necessary. Further, it enables the reader to consider generaliz-

ing the findings to other contexts. This is because the nature of the intervention and

students’ responses to that intervention are embedded in a particular classroom

environment context that has also been examined and described using data obtained

via multiple methods.

Science education research, like other forms of scholarly endeavor, most often

moves forward incrementally with new findings adding to what is already known

and suggesting new research possibilities. This short-term study adds to what is

known about how to begin to change what students consider it means to learn

physics and how they might re/conceptualize and evaluate their existing physics

1204 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

learning processes. The findings identify an intermediate point, a transition space for

students, between the idealizations and abstractions of physics and their concrete,

everyday experiences, and the issues that some students have consciously understand-

ing the need for them to be able to coordinate different representations of physics

phenomena. Further, longer-term research building on these findings should investi-

gate whether this and other ways of explicitly seeking to assist students to use various,

subject/content-appropriate representational frameworks to make sense of physics

and other science areas result in short- and/or long-term changes and/or improve-

ments in students’ (a) conceptual understanding, (b) achievement outcomes, and

(c) cognition and metacognition. For such changes to occur, teacher driven pedago-

gical changes to the classroom learning environment are necessary. However, as

clearly articulated by Timmo, such investigations will be framed by what students

consider pragmatically important, and this might not necessarily correspond with

the intentions for physics learners as articulated in the existing science education

literature.

Acknowledgements

This study was part of the Using metaphor to develop metacognition in relation to scientific

inquiry in high school science laboratories project funded by the Social Science and

Humanities Research Council (Canada). Contract Grant Sponsor: Social Science

and Humanities Research Council (Canada). Contract Grant Number: SSHRCC

File Number 410-2008-2442.

References

Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning. The

role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

Biggs, J. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education,

32(2), 127–138.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Case, J. M., & Gunstone, R. F. (2002). Metacognitive development as a shift in approach to learn-

ing: An in-depth study. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 459–470.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Davidowitz, B., & Rollnick, M. (2003). Enabling metacognition is the laboratory: A case study of

four second year chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 43–69.

Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography – STCSE: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel:

IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.

Duit, R., Neidderer, H., & Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching physics. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman

(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 599–629). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbraum.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science

teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 6(25), 671–688.

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2012). How can conceptual change contribute to theory and practice in

science education? In Barry J. Fraser, Kenneth G. Tobin, & Campbell J. McRobbie (Eds.),

Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 107–118). Dordrecht: Springer.

Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric

Psychology, 34(9), 917–928.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and

social leaning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of

intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J.

Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education

(pp. 1191–1239). Dordrecht: Springer.

Gabel, D. (1993). The use of the particle matter of nature in developing conceptual understanding.

Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193–194.

Garner, R., & Alexander, P. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Edu-

cational Psychologist, 24(2), 143–158.

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic

representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple represen-

tations in chemical education: Models and modeling in science education (Vol. 4, pp. 333–350).

Dordrecht: Springer.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacog-

nition. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist

approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131–146). London: Falmer.

Gunstone, R. F., & Baird, J. R. (1988). An integrative perspective on metacognition. Australian

Journal of Reading, 11(4), 238–245.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose

time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Thinking about thinking. International Newsletter on Chemical Education,

36, 7–10.

Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In L.

Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 39–68). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marshall, H. H. (1996). Implications of differentiating and understanding constructivist

approaches. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 235–240.

Marton, F. (1988). Describing and improving learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies

and learning styles (pp. 54–82). New York: Plenum Press.

Pejuan, A., Bohigas, X., Jaen, X., & Periago, C. (2012). Misconceptions of sound among engineer-

ing students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 669–685.

Prosser, M., Walker, P., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences in students’ perceptions of learning

physics. Physics Education, 31(1), 43–48.

Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about

knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.

Schellings, G., & Van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2011). Measuring strategy use with self-report

instruments: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 83–90.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1/2),

113–125.

1206 G. P. Thomas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Thomas, G. P. (1999). Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing stu-

dents’ learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 89–109.

Thomas, G. P. (2003). Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for evalu-

ating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The metacog-

nitive orientation learning environment scale – science (MOLES-S). Learning Environments

Research, 6(3), 175–197.

Thomas, G. P. (2006). Metaphor, students’ conceptions of learning and teaching, and metacogni-

tion. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science edu-

cation (pp. 105–117). Dordrecht: Springer.

Thomas, G. P. (2009, August). Interpretive and mixed methods approaches to metacognition research:

Providing context. Paper presented at the SIG 16 (Metacognition) Invited Symposium at the

conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amster-

dam, The Netherlands.

Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations.

In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science

education (pp. 131–144). Dordrecht: Springer.

Thomas, G. P., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to

investigate elements of students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The

SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701–1724.

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.

Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368–374.

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and

learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1),

3–14.

Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Rou-

tledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

White, R. T. (1992). Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum and assessment.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 153–164.

White, R. T. (1998). Decisions and problems in research on metacognition. In B. J. Fraser & K. G.

Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1207–1212). Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (Eds.). (2012). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Physics Learning and Metacognition 1207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 0

1:19

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14