Metacognitive engagement during field‐trip experiences: A case study of students in an amusement park physics program

Abstract

This paper reports on a study that investigated students' metacognitive engagement of in both out-ofschool and classroom settings, as they participated in an amusement park physics program. Students from two schools that participated in the program worked in groups to collectively solve novel physics problems that engaged their individual metacognition. Their conversations and behavioral dispositions during problem solving were digitally audio-recorded on devices that they wore or placed on the tables where groups worked on the assigned physics problems. The students also maintained reflection journals on the strategies they employed to manage their own understanding as well as learning processes.Prior to the amusement park physics discourse, the students completed a specially-developed questionnaire instrument. This provided signposts of the students' metacognitive engagement during group problem-solving at the park and subsequent related physics learning tasks back in the classroom. This data, added to field notes arising from observations, and formal and informal interviews during post-visit learning activities provided the data corpus on the students' metacognitive engagement. Analysis of this data revealed three types of metacognitive engagement during group learning tasks: collaborative and consensus-seeking, highly argumentative, and eclectic, resulting from high levels of dissonance. In both cases, evidence of individual students' deeper understandings, which manifested through students' cognitive and social behaviors, demonstrated the invocation of metacognition to varying degrees. The novel physics problems tackled by the students created situations where discrepancies between their prior knowledge and the direct experiences enabled them to explicate their thinking through dispositions of behavior.

The effect of explicit environmentally oriented metacognitive guidance and peer collaboration on students' expressions of environmental literacy

“…Each component separately had a significant positive affect on students' expressions indicating emotional involvement within the inquiry process. Possibly, both components improved students' inquiry skills (Zion et al, ), critical thinking (Magno, ), and meaningful learning (Nielsen et al, ), and therefore fostered students' engagement and emotional involvement in their environmental inquiry process. In addition, a synergistic effect of both components was found for types of values and attitudes expressed by the students: students from the Meta‐CIC group mentioned significantly more types of environmental values and attitudes than students from the other research groups.…”

“…First, the skills which are at the core of environmental literacy, such as: using creative thinking, searching for and organizing information, thinking and planning ahead, and evaluating the consequences of potential actions (Roth, ) are related to the skills which metacognition supports and scaffolds (Schraw & Dennison, ). Research also suggests that students' active engagement in metacognition is a key to developing deeper conceptual understanding (Nielsen, Nashon, & Anderson, ) and critical thinking (Halpern, ; Ku & Ho, ; Magno, ). Both conceptual understanding and critical thinking are crucial to environmental literacy: They enable individuals to perceive and interpret the relative health of environmental systems, tackle multivariable environmental problems, and be actively involved in the implementation of valid and applicable solutions (Mogensen, ; Roth, ; Wals et al, 2013; Wals & Jickling, ; Wals & van der Leij, ).…”

“…Research has shown that collaborative learning has the potential to develop metacognition (e.g., Larkin, ; Nielsen et al, ; Siegel, ). According to Frith (), collaboration and metacognition are mutually related.…”

Highlighting the wider relevance of science centre evaluations: a reflection on the evaluation of a physics engagement programme

“…of physics as something that they can do, and could continue to pursue in the future [Anderson and Nashon, 2007;Aroca and Silva, 2011;Eratuuli and Sneider, 1990;Nielsen, Nashon and Anderson, 2009]. It has been argued that the hands-on exhibits of science centres allow learners to engage with scientific phenomena in memorable ways while unique objects and displays presented in science museums provide the historical and social context to the everyday relevance of science [Bamberger and Tal, 2008;Dewitt and Hohenstein, 2010;Morris, 1990].…”

“…As Osborne and Collins [2000] have shown, participation in practical science activities is a key factor in fostering student interest, and thus prolonged engagement. It has therefore been argued that schools and ISE institutions ought to work collaboratively to provide a range of mutually enhancing learning experiences for students [Anderson and Nashon, 2007;Bell et al, 2009;Nielsen, Nashon and Anderson, 2009]. On the basis of these studies, it would seem that developing a science centre-based physics engagement programme, targeting schools and families, would be a good idea.…”