SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1

Investigation of the Effects of Using Metacognitive Activities in Chemistry Laboratory on the Development of Conceptual Understanding

Deniz Sarıbaş
Hale Bayram
Pages
27–49
Publication Date
2016-01-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results revealed that the experimental group’s scores for conceptual understanding in particular topics were significantly higher than those of the control group’s, although both groups displayed some confusion about reaction rate and chemical equilibrium.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz This study investigated the effects of using metacognitive activities in a chemistry laboratory, on the conceptual understanding of university students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A sample of freshman students was randomly assigned to either of two groups, the control group or the experimental group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results revealed that the experimental group’s scores for conceptual understanding in particular topics were significantly higher than those of the control group’s, although both groups displayed some confusion about reaction rate and chemical equilibrium.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Metacognition · executive functions · efforfull control

Özet

Öz This study investigated the effects of using metacognitive activities in a chemistry laboratory, on the conceptual understanding of university students. A sample of freshman students was randomly assigned to either of two groups, the control group or the experimental group. Students in the control group conducted the experiments as they would do in conventional laboratory sessions. The students in the experimental group conducted the same experiments but also received a treatment including metacognitive prompts, feedback, reflection, and pre- and post- laboratory instruction discussions. The results revealed that the experimental group’s scores for conceptual understanding in particular topics were significantly higher than those of the control group’s, although both groups displayed some confusion about reaction rate and chemical equilibrium.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sarıbaş, D., Bayram, H. (2016). Investigation of the Effects of Using Metacognitive Activities in Chemistry Laboratory on the Development of Conceptual Understanding. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1, 27–49. https://ajindex.com/articles/52755

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Andersen, H., & Nersessian, N. J. (2000). Nomic concepts, frames, and conceptual change. Philosophy of Science, 67, 224-241.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Beeth, M. E. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 82, 343-356.
  3. Bektasli, B., & Cakmakci, G. (2011). Consistency of students’ ideas about the concept of rate across different contexts. Education and Science, 36(162), 273-287.
  4. Boujaoude, S. (1993). Students’ systematic errors when solving kinetic and chemical equilibrium problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 196). Cakmakci, G., Leach, J., & Donnelly, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1795-1815.
  5. Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80(5), 579-610.
  6. Colbert, C. Y., Graham, L. West, C., White, B. A., Arroliga, A. C., Myers, J. D. et al. (2015). Teaching Metacognitive Skills: Helping Your Physician Trainees in the Quest to “Know What They Don’t Know”. The American Journal of Medicine, 128(3), 318-324.
  7. Darmofal, D. L. (2002). Enhancing conceptual understanding. M. I. T. Faculty Newsletter, 15(2), 1-4.
  8. DeBacker, T., & Nelson, M. (2005). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type and ability. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245-254.
  9. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340, 305-308.
  10. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543-547.
  11. Ellis, A. B., Cappellari, A., Lisensky, G. C., Lorenz, J. K., Meeker, K., Moore, D. … Rickert, K. (2000). Concept Tests. University of Wisconsin Boards of Regents. (http://www.jce.divched.org/JCEDLib/QBank/ collection/ConcepTests/) last retrieval date: 07.09.2012
  12. Erdoğan, M., Uşak, M., & Özel, M. (2009). Prospective biology and chemistry teachers’ satisfaction with laboratory and laboratory facilities: The effect of gender and university. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 60-71.
  13. Fay, M. E. & Bretz, S. L. (2008). Structuring the level of inquiry in your classroom. The Science Teacher, 75(5), 38-42.
  14. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitiv