Enhancement of Metacognition Use and Awareness by Means of a Collaborative Intervention

Abstract

Current views on metacognition consider it a fundamental factor in learning and problem‐solving which in turn has led to interest in creating learning experiences conducive to developing its use. This paper reports on the effectiveness of a collaborative intervention in promoting college general chemistry students’ awareness and use of metacognition. The intervention starts with a cognitive imbalance experience as a trigger for metacognitive reflection, which is then followed by reflective prompting and peer interaction. A quasi‐experimental control and treatment design with 537 and 464 participants, respectively, was implemented. Assessment of metacognition was accomplished by using a multi‐method instrument that consists of a self‐report (Metacognitive Activities Inventory, MCAI) and a concurrent, web‐based tool (Interactive Multimedia Exercises, IMMEX). IMMEX has been shown to allow rapid classification of problem solvers according to their regulatory metacognitive skills. Compared to the control group, the treatment group showed a significant increase in metacognition awareness, as evidenced by the MCAI, increased ability in solving non‐algorithmic chemistry problems of higher difficulty, and with a higher per cent correctness (IMMEX). These findings are consistent with an overall increase in the use of regulatory metacognitive skills by the treatment group. We propose that the meaningful, purposeful social interaction and the reflective prompting instantiated by the intervention act as promoters of metacognition development. It is of particular relevance that these factors are not exclusive to the intervention employed here and can be embedded by practitioners in their instruction.

Keywords:

• Chemistry education
• University
• Assessment
• Learning environment
• Quantitative research

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under DUE Grant Nos 9155954, and 0512203. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Notes

1. The wording shown here is the same as originally used by Davidson et al. (1995). Students were instructed that in the context of the problem, “socks” and “stockings” referred to the same object.