I realized what I was doing was not working: the influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students’ study strategies in a general chemistry I course

Abstract

Many students transitioning from high school to college are faced with challenges of getting acclimated to college life and managing their time and heavy course load that is cognitively demanding. Students planning to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs in the United States are mostly required to enroll in general chemistry courses as prerequisites. Unfortunately, these courses are among the STEM gateway courses in which many first-year students struggle to get through, or are weeded out. This is partly due to the use of ineffective study strategies that require more than rote memorization, a common learning approach in high schools. One way to prepare first-year college students for STEM trajectories is by teaching them metacognitive strategies early in their study programs to enable early adoption and sustainability of metacognition knowledge and metacognition regulation skills as they progress to the advanced courses. While a handful of studies have investigated study strategies among students in the general chemistry courses as well as the impact of metacognitive activities on student performance in chemistry, very few in-depth qualitative studies investigating the influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students’ study strategies have been reported. Using open-ended questionnaires, this unique study investigated general chemistry students’ study strategies that they employed prior to a 50 minute metacognition lesson; strategies they reported to have gained from the instruction; and the influence of the metacognition instruction on students’ study strategies and performance in the final exam. Findings indicated more reported use of rote memorization over higher-order study strategies prior to the metacognition instruction, but more reported gains on higher-order study strategies and fewer strategies related to rote memorization immediately after the metacognition instruction. Furthermore, 67% reported a positive influence of the metacognition instruction on study strategies, with 7% lower DFs in the final exam compared to those who reported ‘no influence’. Findings revealed that most general chemistry students were unaware of effective study strategies; thus, there is a critical need to explicitly teach students in general chemistry courses metacognitive strategies.

---

Introduction

College students often find general chemistry 1 to be a very challenging rite of passage on their way to degrees in most programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Unfortunately, this gateway course “weeds out” many students from STEM (Seymour and Hewett, 1997; Bettinger, 2010; Le et al., 2014; Chen, 2015). Moreover, students who score DFs are unlikely to continue in STEM programs which negatively affects graduation rates and progression into the STEM workforce. One explanation for poor performance in introductory STEM courses is the overuse of rote memorization rather than higher-order thinking skills and effective study strategies (Taraban et al., 1999; Karpicke et al., 2009; Cook et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2014). For instance, a controlled study in a cognitive science laboratory conducted by Karpicke et al. (2009) with 177 undergraduates investigated study strategies among the participants. Findings indicated participants reported the use of more than one study strategy. Participants listed the strategies they use and ranked them from the most to least used strategy. Common study strategies reported, in the order of the most frequently to the least frequently used strategy, include: reading and rereading (84%), practicing problems (43%), use of flashcards (40%), rewriting notes (30%), small-group learning (27%), cramming (19%), among others. Again, reading and rereading was ranked the most frequently used strategy by 55% of participants. These authors also found that 58% of their participants indicated they would not self-test (recall/retrieve) even when presented with an option of restudying afterward in preparation for a hypothetical exam (Karpicke et al., 2009).

Zhao et al. (2014) conducted a study with general chemistry students in which they completed a structured pre-post survey on study strategies before and after a metacognition intervention (aspects of metacognition and Study Cycle) including applying thinking skills based on Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1976). Findings indicated that to score AB grades in college, most students indicated in the pre-survey that they would use lower-order thinking skills, such as remembering and understanding; however, they switched to higher-order thinking skills (i.e., applying and analyzing) after the metacognition intervention (post-survey). Participants also reported low use of evaluation and creative skills in scoring ABs in college for both surveys (Zhao et al., 2014).

Chan and Bauer (2016) also conducted a study with chemistry undergraduates by administering online surveys to ascertain the relationship between types of study strategies used and course achievement. They found a negative correlation between study strategies focused on memorizing answers or steps to solving problems and achievement. However, there was a positive relationship between achievement and use of study strategies involving peer instruction, as well as the use of self-assessment when studying.

Other studies have reported a limited use of planned study schedules among undergraduate students (Cepeda et al., 2006; Kornell and Bjork, 2007). For instance, Kornell's and Bjork's (2007) study with 472 undergraduate students comprised a structured survey on study habits. Findings showed that students’ study schedules were largely driven by deadlines or crises, such as upcoming midterm exams and quizzes rather than their own decision. When asked how they decided on what to study next, a majority (59%) indicated they made choices based on the most pressing due date or what was overdue, and only 11% indicated they planned their study schedules ahead of time and followed their study schedules. Kornell and Bjork (2007) also found that 80% of undergraduate students’ study strategies were improvised, and not taught to them in a formal manner. Together, these findings allude to the need to teach undergraduate students, including those studying chemistry, metacognition, and effective study strategies. From the few studies reported on metacognition in chemistry education at the college level (Kipnis and Hofstein, 2008; Delvecchio, 2011; Askell-Williams et al., 2012; Cook et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2014; Casselman and Atwood, 2017), most have focused on assessing student development of metacognitive skills through engagement in learning activities or assessments (e.g., Kipnis and Hofstein, 2008; Delvecchio, 2011; Askell-Williams et al., 2012; Casselman and Atwood, 2017); thus, metacognition is implicitly taught (Arslantas et al., 2018). We define metacognition as a conscious knowledge of what one knows and how they know it.

Development of metacognitive skills is associated with accrued benefits on student outcomes, such as improved conceptual understanding (Rickey and Stacy, 2000; Delvecchio, 2011) and problem-solving abilities (Rickey and Stacy, 2000), improved performance in science (Akyol et al., 2010), and increased self-efficacy in chemistry (Kirbulut, 2014). Nevertheless, research on study strategies and metacognition in general chemistry have mostly focused on quantitative measurements and a few mixed-methods approaches with more weight placed on quantitative components than qualitative (Cook et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2014; Chan and Bauer, 2016); thus, very few studies focused on in-depth qualitative investigations of study strategies in general chemistry courses have been reported. Additionally, little is known about how general chemistry students’ study strategies might change as a result of metacognition instruction on study strategies. Ultimately, this is important for equipping students with cognition and self-regulation skills (Flavell, 1979; Cook et al., 2013) beneficial for shifting from lower-order thinking to higher-order study strategies (Flavell, 1979; Cook et al., 2013). Unfortunately, Arslantas et al.'s review of metacognition implementation in postsecondary education revealed that seldom metacognition is explicitly taught in undergraduate chemistry courses (Arslantas et al., 2018). Subsequently, the authors called for investigations centered on the effects of explicit instruction in metacognition.

Cook et al. (2013) reported a metacognition model, in which students were taught metacognitive strategies after the first midterm exam, several weeks into the semester, and assessed the effect of the metacognition instruction on students’ performance. One caveat of this model is that students were not provided with opportunities to learn effective study strategies early in the semester. A related study by Zhao et al. (2014) revealed that most students reported more use of lower-order study skills over higher-order study strategies in a general chemistry course at the beginning of the semester; thus, infusing metacognition instruction in general chemistry courses early in the semester can be beneficial especially to students who might not be aware of other study strategies beyond rote memorization. Apparently, there is little evidence on the assessment of the impact of metacognition instruction on students’ study strategies.

This study is one of a kind to report findings on students’ self-reported study strategies, through a qualitative lens, as a result of metacognition instruction. Specifically, we investigated general chemistry students’ study strategies that they reported to have used prior to a metacognition instruction, the new strategies that they learned and have the potential for adoption in the course, and the influence of the instruction on their performance in the cumulative final exam. Through open-ended questionnaires, the authors sought to address the following research questions: (RQ1) What self-reported study strategies and habits do STEM majors in the general chemistry course employ in their courses prior to a metacognition instruction, and what new study strategies that have the potential for adoption do they report to have learned from the metacognition instruction? (RQ2) How does explicit teaching of metacognition influence general chemistry students’ study strategies and performance in the final cumulative exam? Metacognition framework (Flavell, 1979; Lai, 2011) was employed to guide data analyses and interpretations.

Metacognition framework

According to Flavell (1979), metacognition involves thinking about an individual's own thinking or cognition. Others have described metacognition as analogous to ‘having another brain outside one's normal brain to assess what the normal brain is doing’ (McGuire, 2015). Fig. 1 shows the metacognition framework employed in the current study. The framework draws from Flavell's and Lai's models of metacognition learning theory (Flavell, 1979). According to Flavell, metacognitive knowledge is awareness of one's own thinking or cognition. Individuals with metacognitive knowledge have the ability to identify what they know or do not know (strengths and weaknesses). Flavell also categorized knowledge as person-related, task-related, and strategy-related. Drawing upon Flavell's and others (Cross and Paris, 1988; Lai, 2011) description of metacognition, we developed a metacognition model focused on two overarching dimensions: metacognition knowledge and metacognition regulation. The metacognitive knowledge dimension encompasses three forms of knowledge: declarative, procedural, and strategy or conditional knowledge. For declarative knowledge, individuals possess factual knowledge and understand their own capabilities. Procedural knowledge, also known as task knowledge is demonstrated through the application of appropriate strategies to successfully complete a given task. It also includes knowledge about content and length, or amount of space.

Fig. 1 Shows the metacognition framework adopted from Flavell (1979) and Lai (2011).

Strategy or conditional knowledge involves awareness of existing strategies, how to apply them, and when and why they should be employed (Flavell, 1979; Tanner, 2012; McGuire, 2015; Stanton et al., 2015). According to Stanton et al., students with metacognitive knowledge can distinguish between the concepts they have mastered and ones to study further (Stanton et al., 2015). Metacognition regulation involves planning, monitoring, and evaluating one's learning (Lai, 2011). Therefore, one would expect that students who have metacognitive knowledge know what and how they learn; have the toolkit for effective learning strategies and procedures; and know when and why to use certain strategies. Additionally, students with metacognitive regulation skills know how to plan, or set goals prior to undertaking a task; can monitor their own learning including identifying hindrances to learning and learning boosters; and can evaluate their own learning including assessing the products from a given task (e.g., exam, homework, laboratory experiment, or a learning activity).

Study context

The study was conducted in the general chemistry I course, a 3-credit, one-semester sequence. The course meets thrice a week for a 50 minute lecture and is taken in conjunction with a laboratory component. The course attracts many students who have intentions to pursue STEM programs as their major. Typically, students who enroll in this course have diverse backgrounds and differ in the level of chemistry preparation, with a majority having taken one year of high-school chemistry while 15–20% have no chemistry background. There are usually two large lecture sections during the spring semester and three large lecture sections during the fall semester with each section capped at 270 students, and a small section for Chemistry and Biochemistry Majors comprising 40–80 students. In addition to being assessed on formative assessments, such as homework and quizzes, students enrolled in the course are assessed on three non-cumulative midterm exams, which are focused on 2- to 3-chapter topics, and a cumulative final exam. The final exam questions are usually weighted heavily on the chapters not previously tested in the midterm exams and comprise 3–4 questions from each of the previously tested chapters. The midterm exams last 1 hour and the final exam 1 h 50 min. The exams are scheduled about six weeks apart. However, the administration of Exam I was interrupted, for the current study, due to bad weather; thus, it was pushed closer to the Exam II, that is, three weeks apart. Therefore, students were studying for Exam I while learning the content for Exam II. Data for this study were collected from one lecture section during the spring semester in which students were explicitly taught metacognitive strategies, and effective study strategies and habits. The metacognition instruction is described in the subsequent section.

The metacognition instruction model

The current study was based on a metacognitive instruction model reported by the authors in a different study (Mutambuki et al., 2020). The metacognition instruction involved three phases. Phase I involved explicit instruction of metacognitive strategies through a 50 minute lesson presented on the second day of the class (Mutambuki et al., 2020). The lesson involved discussion of strategies from cognitive science research (Little and McDaniel, 2015) and discipline-based educational research (DBER) (McGuire, 2015; Stanton et al., 2015; Sebesta and Bray, 2017). Metacognition knowledge and regulation strategies (Flavell, 1979; Cross and Paris, 1988; Lai, 2011) including prompts for guiding students to plan, monitor, and evaluate learning were used. Students completed homework, where they described their study strategies prior to the metacognition lesson, as well as new strategies they learned and their potential for adoption in the course as a result of the lesson (Mutambuki et al., 2020). Having the students describe their “normal” study strategies after exposure to the metacognition instruction provided a platform for self-reflection and recollection of the study strategies they employed. Students are likely to forget some strategies in default of a list of strategies or study skills, for example, a survey containing a variety of study skills for students to choose from (Zhao et al., 2014; Chan and Bauer, 2016). Therefore, the detailed descriptions of study strategies employed by the participants prior to the metacognition instruction minimized an obvious re-listing of the strategies presented in the metacognition lesson.

For Phase II, students were reminded of the previously taught metacognitive strategies one to two weeks prior to help them prepare for each of the four exams (three midterm exams and a final cumulative exam). The assumption was that with the metacognition instruction administered early in the semester, students will gain effective study strategies and adopt them in preparation for Exam I, after which they can self-reflect and draw study plans in preparation for the Exam II. For Phase III, students were engaged in an intensive reflective activity, metacognition homework 2, after the first two midterm exams, which were scheduled three weeks apart. The reinforced-reflective activity involved asking students to identify the study strategies that worked and did not work for Exam I and Exam II, then developing a plan of study for the remaining two exams. With Exam I and Exam II scheduled quite close to each other, students were able to reflect on study strategies employed in both exams especially when studying for Exam I while learning the content for Exam 2. Students’ responses were reviewed and strategies perceived as either useful or not were discussed during the class by the instructor. Individual meetings were held with individual students, who struggled with various concepts during the instructor's office hours. Subsequently, students were reminded to follow through on their plan of study, derived from the reflective activity, prior to Exam 3 and the Final exam.

Methods

Research design

This study was approved by the institutional review board at Oklahoma State University. All the experiments were performed in compliance with the institution's policy and ethics on human subjects. Qualitative research methodology was employed. We capitalized on the strengths of qualitative research to collect rich descriptions that provided in-depth insights into study strategies and habits of students in a general chemistry I course that they employed prior to metacognition lesson, the strategies they perceived to have gained from the metacognition instruction, and impact of the instruction on their study strategies. Qualitative methodology allows researchers to investigate a phenomenon by capturing participants’ descriptions using their own words, rather than trying to fit into the researcher's descriptions of the phenomenon (Creswell and Poth, 2016).

Participants

Participants were STEM majors enrolled in the general chemistry I course. A total of 259 out of 270 unique participants consented to participate in this study. 239 participants who provided demographic information were at different levels in their study programs. There were 133 first-years, 82 sophomores, 20 juniors, and four seniors. Ethnic representations were 169 majority (White), 64 minority (African-American, Native-American, or Alaskan Hawaiian), 29 multiracial, 5 nonresident aliens, and one Asian. Additionally, there were 43 first-generation and 196 non-first-generation college students. About 90% of participants had 1-year of chemistry, including high school, while 10% did not have any chemistry background.

Data collection and analysis

Open-ended questionnaires were the primary means for data collection in addressing the research questions. Table 1 is a summary of the research questions investigated, corresponding data sources, data collection timeline, and the total number of participants who completed specific questionnaires. For RQ1 Part A, emergent coding was applied. Two researchers, CZ and JMM together coded about 20% of 259 respondents’ responses (52 participants’ responses) in which they grouped the responses into categories of strategies and study habits. We note that some participants provided more than one response; thus, a total of 633 responses were analyzed. One researcher, CZ, then continued the analyses of remaining responses by placing the responses under the previously identified categories while allowing new categories to emerge. A third researcher, BIJ, together with CZ reviewed the analyzed data within each category to secure coherence between the categories and the respective participants’ responses. The interrater reliability between the two researchers and CZ alone was over 90% for RQ1 Part A. The same procedures were applied for coding of 937 participants’ responses from 256 individual participants on the reported new study strategies learned that have the potential for adoption as a result of the metacognition instruction (RQ1 Part B). The interrater reliability between BIJ and CZ and CZ alone was below the acceptable level, 80% agreement; however, the differences were discussed and resolved by the two coders during the review phase with 100% agreement reached (Creswell and Poth, 2016). Frequency counts on reported strategies before and after the metacognition instruction were computed for comparison as shown in Fig. 2.

Table 1 Research questions, data sources, and data collection timeline, and the number of participants

Research question (RQ)	Data sources	Data collection timeline and the type of questionnaire	Number of study participants
RQ1	Metacognition homework I	Immediately after the metacognition instruction at the beginning of the semester; online open-ended questionnaire (Appendix A)	259
RQ2	End of semester metacognition survey	At the end of the semester, prior to the cumulative final exam; paper-based questionnaire (Appendix B)	166
	Cumulative final exam letter grades	End of semester cumulative final exam scores	150

---

Fig. 2 Shows study strategies employed prior to the metacognition instruction (N = 633 responses), and new study strategies participants reported to have learned and have the potential for adoption (N = 937 responses) immediately after the instruction.

A more experienced researcher, CZM, independently reviewed the responses against the categories developed and refined by CZ and BIJ. While there was no change in the number and types of categories generated by CZ and BIJ, there were discrepancies on the placement of some responses, which called for rearrangement within the correct categories. The third researcher, CZM, discussed the noted discrepancies and resolved the differences in coding of the participants’ responses with JMM, who has expertise in qualitative research. A total of 13 categories were generated among the coders for RQ1 Part A and 12 categories for Part B (Appendix C). Similar categories were then merged into major categories by CZM and JMM, bringing the final number of major categories for RQ1 Part A to 6 and for RQ1 Part B to 5. The generated major categories and subcategories, and representative participants’ responses for RQ1 Part A and Part B are provided in Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively.

For RQ2, investigating participants’ reported influence of the metacognition lesson on their study strategies, a total of 166 completed the end-of-semester survey (61.5% response rate). Seven of the 166 respondents provided two responses. Therefore, a total of 173 responses were included in the analyses. The survey responses were typed in a word document prior to analyses. The Metacognition framework dimensions and subdimensions previously described were applied in the coding of data while keeping an open mind for emerging codes. Metacognition framework was applied for this question to identify any metacognition-related strategies or skills developed and employed in the course as a result of the metacognition lesson. The coding involved an iterative process to secure coherence in coding. Researchers JMM and CZ together coded about 30% of the responses and identified salient categories related to the metacognition framework. CZ coded the remaining data by applying the identified categories while allowing for new ones to emerge.

A third researcher, BJ, together with CZ reviewed the developed categories against the responses to secure coherence and alignment with the metacognition framework dimensions with merging of similar dimensions applied as needed. The coded data were reviewed by a fourth researcher, CZM, who read through the individual participants’ responses against the categories generated by CZ and BIJ. The intercoder agreement between CZ-BIJ and CZM was over 90%. The final phase involved reviewing the generated categories against the responses by JMM for confirmation audit (Tashakkori et al., 1998) in which 100% agreement was established between JM and CZM. JMM and CZM together discussed the categories and merged similar categories into major categories. These categories were then classified as metacognition knowledge, or metacognition regulation skills. A summary of the metacognitive dimensions, major categories and sub-categories, and representative participants’ responses are presented in the results section. Additional participants’ responses are available in Appendices F and G.

Results

We present major findings addressing each research question below. Additionally, we provide representative examples of participants’ data to support the claims on findings. Additional participants’ data are provided in the Appendices.

RQ1. What study strategies and habits do STEM majors in the general chemistry Course employ in their learning?

Finding: Participants’ reported study strategies shifted from Lower-order study strategies (LOSSs) to gains in higher-order study strategies (HOSSs). Fig. 2 shows participants’ reported strategies they employed in their courses prior to the metacognition instruction and perceived new strategies learned and have the potential for adoption after the instruction. LOSSs, such as rote memorization strategies—reading and rereading, flashcards and quizlets, and memorization/cramming, and poor planning and procrastination were the most frequently reported among the participants. A few participants reported the use of HOSSs, such as practicing problems, reflective learning, collaborative learning, and self-assessment.

Reported strategies before and after the metacognition instruction shifted from LOSSs to mostly HOSSs and other effective study strategies after the metacognition instruction. Specifically, time management/planning/goal setting was the most frequently reported gain followed by reflective learning, utilization of outside-class resources, collaborative learning, and self-assessment. Rote memorization and practicing problems were less frequently reported after the metacognition instruction, whereas studying with notetaking and utilizing outside-class resources were equally frequently reported. We describe the detailed findings in the subsequent subsections. We begin by presenting the reported study strategies prior to the metacognition instruction followed by reported gains in study strategies as a result of the instruction.

Finding 1: Rote memorization strategies (LOSSs) were the most dominantly employed study strategies reported by the participants prior to the metacognition instruction . Table 2 shows a summary of major categories and subcategories generated from the analyses and selected participants’ responses. 236 out of 633 responses (37.3%) were associated with rote memorization strategies. Of the 236 responses, 56.4% (133 responses) related to reading and rereading notes or textbooks, 32.2% (76 responses) pointed to use of flashcards and quizlets to memorize definitions, terminologies or formulas, and 11.4% (27 responses) were about memorizing or cramming information in preparation for exams or quizzes. Higher-order study strategies (157 out of 633 responses, 24.8%) were second to rote memorization strategies. Of these strategies, 31.2% comprised practicing problems similar to what students expected in the assessments (49 responses); 27.4% were on reflective learning, in which participants reported drawing diagrams and pictures to retrieve information on specific concepts, identifying key points learned in each lecture and areas of struggle, or reflections on knowledge gaps; and self-assessment (27 responses, 17.2%) through self-quizzing on specific concepts.

Table 2 Common study strategies and habits reported by STEM majors in general chemistry, and examples of the participants’ responses

Major categories (N = responses, %)	Subcategories (N = responses, %)	Selected participants’ responses
Rote memorization (lower-order study strategies – LOSS) (N = 236, 37.3%)	Reading and rereading (N = 133, 56.4%)	– I reread the information until I can memorize it without hesitation.
		– What I have found that has worked for me when studying is repetition.
		– My current study habits include rereading chapter sections, rereading the sections allow me to look through all of the information again, and to reiterate the concepts that I learned in the pre-reading and lecture.
	Flashcards and Quizlets (N = 76, 32.2%)	– Flashcards help me remember definitions or formulas needed on the test.
		– I mainly use flashcards when I cannot understand specific vocab words and I need to fully understand their definitions.
		– Things like quizlets and flashcards work really well for me.
	Memorization/cramming (N = 27, 11.4%)	– For one, I try to cram all the subjects that I am studying into one study session and sometimes I get really confused.
		– Typically, I cram the night before an exam.
		– I will cram right before an exam because I get overwhelmed.
Higher-order study strategies (N = 157, 24.8%)	Practicing problems (N = 49, 31.2%)	– I find practice problems from each chapter in the book and redo/practice these problems until their fully learned.
		– I do practice problems and see how well I do and then decide which problems I should work on more.
	Reflective learning (N = 43, 27.4%)	– I reflect upon key points from daily lectures and review areas in which I struggle or have misunderstandings.
		– I draw diagrams and pictures of processes and phenomena.
	Collaborative learning (N = 38, 24.2%)	– I study in a group because when I study alone I get easily distracted.
		– I also always study with other people in the class to further help me understand.
		– I also do my best to explain the material I am learning to others that way I can make sure I truly understand the content taught in the lecture.
	Self-assessment (N = 27, 17.2%)	– Test my understanding through quizzes over the subject that I find on the internet.
		– I spend most of my time testing myself and trying different types of problems.
		– I quiz myself over my notes and have others quiz me if they are up to it.
Poor planning and procrastination (N = 68, 10.7%)	—	– Procrastination is my biggest problem when it comes to completing work. I always end up waiting until the last minute to complete work, study for tests, and end up cramming the information.
		– I do have a terrible procrastinating habit. I work better under deadlines so when the stress of a deadline is put on me, I get it done.
		– I have a habit of waiting until the day before/day of the exam or quiz to begin studying.
Time management and planning (N = 65, 10.3%)	—	– I pre-read lecture material, take detailed notes, and review all material within the same day.
		– I also try my best to read the textbook before class so that I am prepared for lecture.
		– My current study habits are to first do all assignments, readings, and other required things in a reasonable time frame.
Studying with notetaking (N = 56, 8.8%)	—	– I read and highlight the book whether it be hard copy or paperback and keep note of the words that are bolded or italicized.
		– While studying I tend to highlight definitions and key concepts that are major materials for upcoming tests and of high importance.
		– My current study strategies are to read through the textbook while taking notes.
Utilizing outside-class resources (e.g., videos, office hours, supplemental instruction (ESI) sessions (N = 51, 8.1%))	—	– If still confused about a concept, I look up educational videos to hear it taught in a different way.
		– When studying/learning new material I find it beneficial to seek out further instruction on the topic from outside sources such as educational videos.
		– I try to attend study sessions with TA's or my professor.
		– In the case of lower scores, I begin by finding large problem areas and scheduling meetings with my teacher or an ESI leader to review them.
		– I tend to get a tutor and go over the material that I am testing over.

---

In addition to the study strategies mentioned above, some participants’ reported study habits related to planning to learn or study and the use of resources outside classrooms. Specifically, 10.7% (68 out of 633 responses) responses pointed to poor planning and procrastination in completing assignments or preparing for high stakes assessments, for example, exams. In contrast, about the same percentage of responses (10.3%, 65 responses) were associated with good time management, planning learning, or setting goals. For instance, participants mentioned reviewing lecture material before and/or after each lesson, and developing and following charted schedules to enable completion of tasks within a reasonable timeline (Table 2).

For studying, 8.8% (56 responses) indicated participants took notes while studying (studying with notetaking) rather than mere reading. Some also mentioned highlighting key concepts likely to be assessed in tests while studying. Lastly, a few participants (51 responses, 8.1%) mentioned utilizing resources outside class to facilitate mastery of the material. Mentioned resources included learning videos from the internet, supplemental instruction (ESI†) sessions led by peers on problem-solving in specific disciplines, or help from course instructors and teaching assistants (TAs) during their office hours. Examples of participants’ responses are presented in Table 2 as well as in Appendix D.

Overall, rote memorization strategies were the most dominant study strategies reported among the participants. This finding may suggest that most students in the introductory general chemistry courses employ rote memorization study strategies which might be ineffective for excelling in these courses. Additionally, the use of metacognitive strategies, such as planning for lessons and setting goals, and HOSSs—reflective learning and self-assessment were less popular among participants in this study.

Finding 2: A large number of participants reported new study strategies and adoptable on mostly HOSSs, and good time management and planning/setting goals in the course.

Higher-order study strategies

Results on new strategies learned and those having the potential for adoption were combined. A total of 937 responses were reported. As shown in Fig. 2, the dominantly reported strategies revolved around higher-order study strategies (453 responses, 48.3%). Mentioned higher-order study strategies included: reflective learning (307 responses, 67.8%), collaborative learning in which students work with each other in small groups to accomplish a common goal (59 responses, 13.0%), self-assessments or self-testing (57 responses, 12.6%), and practicing problem sets (30 responses, 6.6%). Participants said:

[Reflective learning]: When I am going to start learning about a new topic, I will ask the declarative questions like, “okay, what do I already know about this topic?” [Also] asking myself questions after each lecture hopefully but also definitely after every homework, quiz, and test.

[Collaborative Learning]: I am going to start studying with my friend in my class that understands chemistry well and could help reword things that may or may not be challenging to me.

[Self-Assessment]: I will monitor my progress by self-testing, as well as quizzing myself to check my retention of the information.

[Practicing Problems]: I would like to start studying more practice problems before a test rather than just memorization.

Time management, planning, or setting goals

Many participants (325 responses, 34.7%) also mentioned they learned new strategies on time management, planning for lessons, or setting goals for a lesson or the entire course. Students indicated that these strategies could potentially be adopted for the course. Specifically, participants reported having charts to guide their study and study timetables ahead of exams and quizzes. They also mentioned reading chapters and intended lesson sections in preparation for the lecture. Examples of participants’ responses are below:

A few adjustments I could make to my current study habits are to not procrastinate on my assignments or studying itself…. Procrastinating on one class or assignment will often times put me behind schedule either for additional assignments or other subjects I should be studying for at that particular time.

I think time management will benefit me the most. I have always struggled with putting assignments off and it ultimately hurts my grade when I am rushing to get assignments turned in.

I should set learning goals for myself to reach so I can stay on the right track.

Other gained strategies with potential for adoption included: utilizing outside-class resources (65 responses, 6.9%), such as attending supplemental instruction (ESI†) sessions and office hours, and using supplemental learning materials including online educational learning videos and simulations; and studying with notetaking (51 responses, 5.4%). Some participants said:

[Utilizing Outside-Class Resources]: … “I need to utilize multiple resources, such as watching videos.” … “I will go to the Professor, or my TA whenever I have questions on the [content] material; this way I will not fall behind and feel overwhelmed before tests.” … “I will actively go to the ESI,† sessions.”

[Studying with Notetaking]: I also want to start taking notes while reading. I tend to only read without taking notes. … I thought that just reading is alright but it does make sense that you do not actually fully get help to only read.

Interestingly, a few participants (43 responses) mentioned they will continue utilizing rote memorization strategies (43 responses, 4.6%) including reading and rereading, using flashcards or quizlets, and memorization or cramming in the course.

[Reading and rereading]: I know re-reading my notes is going to be really important for me to retain the information.

[Flashcards/Quizlets]: Using flashcards has helped me a lot in the past when I did study more… Also using tools such as quizlet really helps me a lot because it is hard for me to stay engaged when I do study.

[Memorization/Cramming]: I could probably find a more effective way to memorize information other than flashcards.

Additional responses are provided in Appendix E. The finding suggests that the metacognition lesson was beneficial in uncovering new study strategies among study participants. Many participants reported they learned higher-order study strategies and would adopt them; rather than rote memorization strategies. Nevertheless, the findings revealed that some participants were resistant to switch from rote memorization (Fig. 2).

(RQ2) How does explicit teaching of metacognition influence general chemistry students’ study strategies and performance in the final cumulative exam?

A Majority of Participants Reported Gains in Metacognition Knowledge and Metacognition Regulation Strategies

Descriptive analyses of participants’ coded responses revealed that 67% (n = 115) of the total respondents (N = 172) reported a positive influence of the metacognition lesson on their study strategies and habits. About 32% of the respondents (n = 55) reported no influence, while 1% (n = 2) were nonresponses. Further descriptive analyses conducted by applying the metacognition framework indicated 69.6% (n = 80 responses) of reported adjusted strategies were attributed to metacognitive knowledge, and 30.4% (n = 35) to metacognitive regulation skills. A summary of reported metacognitive skills and strategies gained is shown in Fig. 3. We articulate specific metacognitive knowledge and regulation skills the participants reported they gained from the metacognition lesson below. Additionally, we provide selected representative participants’ responses to support our claims on the findings. More participants’ responses are available in Appendix F.

Fig. 3 Shows the reported influence of the metacognition lesson on general chemistry students’ study strategies. The strategies were, in turn, classified as metacognitive knowledge (blue bars) and regulation learning strategies (orange bars).

Finding 1: Participants’ reported gains in metacognition knowledge—strategy or conditional and declarative knowledge. Metacognition knowledge skills reported by participants related to the following strategy or conditional knowledge, and declarative knowledge. For strategy or conditional knowledge, participants expressed gains in knowledge of effective study strategies (21.7%, n = 25); applying suitable learning strategies (17.4%, n = 20); and adopting a problem-solving approach (5.2%, n = 6). For declarative knowledge, participants reported they developed the ability to identify and address knowledge gaps on chemistry concepts (17.4%, n = 20), and improved understanding of concepts (7.8%, n = 9) due to the metacognition lesson (Fig. 3). We describe these findings in detail below.

Knowledgeable of effective study strategies

Of the 115 responses, 21.7% reported gains in knowledge of effective study strategies. Some students reported a lack of knowledge of effective study strategies prior to the metacognition lesson, while others stated that the lesson helped them to adopt more strategies, or change their current ineffective study strategies. For instance, some participants said:

“I realized that what I was doing was not working, so I changed it and got better grades.”… “The metacognition lesson taught me new study methods that I otherwise wouldn’t have done.”… “Metacognition lesson showed me what I have been doing wrong and what I chose replaced that bad learning behavior with.”

Applying suitable learning strategies

Twenty participants (17.4%) mentioned the ability to identify and select effective-learning strategies due to the metacognition lesson. Some participants reported metacognition enhanced their understanding of chemistry concepts; thus, making it easier to prepare for the exams. For example, participants remarked: “Metacognition allowed me to practice sets of problems that would be similar on the test. It was a good study source.”… “It allowed me to study better for exams, which increased my grade on the 3rd test [Exam 3].” Others mentioned they began “practicing problems” rather than memorizing and “studying with notetaking” over just reading the notes. Participants remarked:

“It [metacognition] helped me learn to practice concepts instead of memorizing information.”… “It [metacognition] made learning concepts easier and faster because the practicing made concepts ingrained in my head.” …“Using different study tools and reading [studying] with notes helped hard concepts stick.”… “When reading, I take notes and I began studying easier now.”

Improved problem-solving approach

Six participants (5.2%) mentioned metacognition helped them to use a logical approach and critical thinking when solving chemistry problems. For instance, participants said: “It [metacognition lesson] helped me stay checked in on the steps I am using when solving a problem.”… “[It] helped me think actively about problems when solving them.”

Identifying and addressing knowledge gaps

These declarative knowledge abilities were reported by twenty metacognition participants (17.4%). They highlighted benefits of the metacognition lesson in helping them to recognize: areas of struggle and adopt effective study habits; what they know, did not know, and what they needed to work on; and to identify strengths and weakness in their learning:

“Metacognition helped me to realize where I went wrong with studying for a test and change my habits for the next test.”… “It helped me analyze what I already know and what I need to work on.”… “I went over my homework and exams every time to make sure I understand what I originally got wrong.”… “it has helped me determine my strengths and weaknesses in my study habits.”

Improved understanding of concepts

Eight participants (7.0%) generally stated that the metacognition lesson was beneficial in enhancing their understanding of concepts. Participants said: “Taught me how to study effectively so that I could learn and not just memorize the material and understand concepts better.”… “It taught me to try comprehending and reinforcing concepts rather than memorizing them.”

These participants’ descriptions suggest that metacognition instruction not only increased perceived awareness of effective study strategies, but also enhanced participants’ perceived knowledge of concepts, bolstered their selection of suitable study strategies, and helped them to identify and address their learning gaps.

Finding 2: Participants reported gains in metacognitive regulation skills. As shown in Fig. 3, major metacognitive regulation skills mentioned included: planning—planning, preparing for lessons, or setting goals (18.3%, n = 21); and monitoring—improved thinking about learning (10.4%, n = 12). Two participants (1.7%) also expressed the ability to evaluate or self-reflect on their learning (evaluation skills). The first two major constructs are presented below.

Planning—planning, preparing for lessons, or setting goals for lessons

Twenty-one participants mentioned adaptations to early planning and setting goals for exams, or preparing for lessons as a result of the metacognition lesson. Some participants said: “Metacognition has helped me better plan and strategize my learning goals.”… “Metacognition helped me prepare for class.”… “[It] helped me study earlier for exams.” Other benefits mentioned were: developing study plans, better time management, and utilizing resources, for example, supplemental instruction (ESI†) and textbook: “[The] metacognition lesson helped me create a little study plan, what to study, where to study, and how to understand/concentrate on a problem.”… “Metacognition helped me to manage my time.”… “I attended ESI† [supplemental instruction] sessions…”

Monitoring— improved thinking about learning

Eleven participants reported the lesson improved their thinking about learning. Some mentioned that they started to consciously think about their study habits: “Metacognition really helped me far more on what I was studying. I thought about what I was doing more.”…. “It made me think about the problem more critically and not cram for exams.” These participants’ descriptions show that the metacognition instruction was beneficial in advancing participants’ metacognitive regulation skills. Overall, these findings suggest that explicit teaching of metacognition may enhance students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation skills necessary for adapting to and excelling in a course. Additional responses are provided in Appendix G.

Reported positive influence of the metacognition lesson was associated with lower DFs

Findings also showed that out of 150 participants who completed the end of semester questionnaire and took the final exam, 66% reported a positive influence and 34% no influence of the metacognition lesson on their study strategies. Results from descriptive statistics (Fig. 4) showed that about 51% of participants who reported a positive influence of metacognition scored ABCs compared to 43% who scored the same letter grades but reported ‘no influence’. Additionally, there were fewer DFs for 50% of participants who reported a positive influence of metacognition compared to 57% who reported no influence. This finding suggests that the adoption of metacognitive strategies may lower the DF grades in a course.

Fig. 4 Shows the reported use of metacognition and versus performance, in terms of letter grades, in the cumulative final exam in general chemistry I course.

Together, these findings suggest that explicit teaching of metacognition can increase students’ awareness and adoption of effective study strategies in the course. Moreover, metacognition instruction may improve performance in a general chemistry course, if the metacognitive strategies are adopted.

Discussion

Findings on initial study strategies employed by the participants prior to the metacognition instruction indicated that LOSSs were the most dominant. Specifically, rote memorization focused on repeated reading was reported by a majority (56.4%) of the participants. Surprisingly, the reported use of LOSSs was 12.5% more than HOSSs, which were associated with a few responses (24.8%). Additionally, other than a small fraction of the participants who mentioned the use of reflective learning, self-assessment, planning for learning or setting learning goals, and utilization of resources, the finding on the employed strategies prior to the metacognition instruction revealed the limited use of varied metacognitive strategies and skills.

These findings are consistent with the literature (Karpicke et al., 2009; Cook et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2014). For instance, Karpicke et al. found 84% of reported study strategies among undergraduates were focused on reading and rereading, 40% on flashcards, and 19% on memorization/cramming. Zhao et al. (2014) also found that most students in general chemistry courses reported the use of lower-order thinking skills, such as remembering and understanding, and perceived these strategies would lead to AB grades in college. These authors’ findings also indicated limited use of higher-order study strategies, for example, preparing for lessons or setting learning goals and reviewing lecture notes after class (self-reflection on learning). Together, these findings indicate most students in general chemistry courses choose to apply rote memorization strategies and capitalize on LOSSs with hopes of excelling in the courses. One explanation for the dominant use of LOSSs might be due to the lack of explicit teaching of effective study strategies in high school and early in college years.

Immediate assessment of participants’ reported gains on new study strategies likely to be adopted after the metacognition instruction indicated that HOSSs were the most frequently (48.3% responses) reported compared to LOSSs (4.6% of responses). Specifically, there were more responses on gains and likeliness to adopt HOSSs, such as reflective learning, collaborative learning, and self-assessment after the metacognition instruction compared to reported study strategies prior to the instruction (Fig. 2). However, reported gains on practicing problems were fewer after the metacognition lesson. This is not surprising as practicing problem sets might appear apparent to some students due to the nature of STEM courses they pursue; however, many students may be oblivious to the use of this approach in chemistry.

Notably, changes in participants’ responses before and after the metacognition instruction revealed a shift from rote memorization strategies and toward better time management and planning or setting goals after the instruction. During the metacognition instruction, students were taught how to best manage their time outside class by prioritizing tasks based on importance and urgency, such as drawing charts in which they can document tasks as (1) important and urgent, (2) not important but urgent, (3) important but not urgent, and (4) not important and not urgent. Additionally, students were encouraged to utilize google calendars or planners to schedule their daily tasks (e.g., homework and study times in preparation for quizzes or exams). For study times, they were encouraged to identify the time when they are most productive and utilize it for reflective learning to boost retention of the material, and to consider rewarding themselves, such as engaging with their hobbies, only after meeting their set goals. For reflective learning, students were encouraged to reflect on their learning experiences and think about what they learned. Specific strategies that were emphasized to enhance reflections included writing down the most important points they learned from the lessons without consulting their notes, identifying patterns on different concepts and drawing diagrams, such as simple flow charts, to show relationships between concepts (Nilson, 2016).

Interestingly, a few participants mentioned they will adopt rote memorization, even after the metacognition lesson. One explanation might be that such strategies might have previously worked out for these participants; hence, seeing no value in ditching them. Remarkably, current findings indicated a large increase in responses related to reflective learning—reviewing lessons prior to and after classes, a metacognition regulation skill, after the metacognition instruction. That is, 264 more responses to those reported prior to the metacognition instruction.

The current findings contradict the findings reported in Zhao et al.'s study in which general chemistry students in their study reported decreased tendency to plan for and review lessons prior to and after the lectures, respectively, after the metacognition intervention. The current findings suggest that offering metacognition instruction early in the semester can be beneficial in increasing participants’ awareness of new effective study strategies and metacognitive skills they may find valuable or potential for adoption in the course. Ultimately, this may catalyze the adoption of HOSSs over LOSSs especially for students who are not aware of the former. The ineffectiveness of LOSSs, such as rote memorization on performance in general chemistry is well founded (Zhao et al., 2014; Chan and Bauer, 2016). These authors found that students who reported the use of HOSSs performed better than their counterparts who reported the use of LOSSs. For instance, Chan and Bauer found the use of HOSSs, such as peer instruction, collaborative learning, and reflective learning was significantly and positively correlated with performance. Conversely, rote memorization strategies, “memorizing answers or steps to solving problems,” were significantly and negatively correlated with performance (Chan and Bauer, 2016). Often, both quantitative and conceptual problems in a general chemistry course I require students to use strategies than enhance deep understanding and retention of the material; thus, employing rote memorization can be ineffective especially for cognitively demanding chemistry concepts that students face later in the course (Mutambuki et al., 2020).

Findings on the influence of the metacognition instruction on students’ study strategies over the course showed that a majority of the participants reported benefits in enhancing their metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation skills. Not surprisingly, responses on the use of metacognitive knowledge strategies were twice on the reported use of metacognitive regulation skills, with knowledge of effective study strategies (metacognition knowledge) being the most frequently reported benefit of the instruction. Identifying and addressing gaps in knowledge or learning gaps and applying suitable learning strategies (metacognitive knowledge), and planning/preparing for class or setting goals for the course (metacognition regulation) received equal responses and were among the frequently reported benefits. Improved thinking about learning was the second top reported metacognitive regulation skill. Strikingly, only two participants mentioned the impact of the instruction on evaluating their learning. This might be partly due to minimal modeling of this practice by the instructor in the classroom after the instruction. Embedding graded or ungraded assignments in which students can be asked to summarize the important points from the day's lesson then turn in the writeup for feedback should be considered in future metacognitive training to enhance the adoption of this skill. Overall, the large number of positive responses indicates that most students were receptive to learning metacognitive strategies.

A minority of participants reported no influence of the metacognition lesson in adjusting their study strategies (Fig. 3). For students who reported ‘no influence’, this might be partly due to being aware of metacognitive strategies, or delayed activation of the metacognition skills (Flavell, 1979). Interestingly, descriptive statistics on the responses revealed about 8% more ABs and 7% lower DFs for participants who reported positive influence and use of metacognition compared to those who reported ‘no influence’ (Fig. 4). This finding is consistent with findings from other related studies on metacognition training at the college level. For chemistry education studies, Cook et al. (2013) found that attending a 50 minute metacognition lesson increased performance in the general chemistry course by one letter grade. Casselman and Atwood (2017) also found that students performed better in midterm and final exams when engaged in developing study plans and predicting their exam scores compared to their counterparts who did not engage in these tasks. Based on the current metacognition model described herein, Mutambuki et al. (2020) also reported a 10% higher mean score in the final cumulative exam for students exposed to a 50 minute metacognition instruction and active learning combination compared to their counterparts who were subjected to active learning alone in a general chemistry I course, after controlling for ACT math scores. Descriptive statistics further revealed 10% lower DFs in the final cumulative exam, as a result of the metacognition instruction, for the treatment group over the comparison group (Mutambuki et al., 2020).

Similar results have been reported in biology education studies (Stanton et al., 2015; Sebesta and Bray, 2017). These authors’ findings revealed that students who did not employ effective study strategies, or follow their generated plans of study drawn from exam wrappers scored poor grades compared to their counterparts who implemented their study plans or metacognitive strategies (Stanton et al., 2015; Sebesta and Bray, 2017). Specifically, Sebesta and Bray found that a majority of students who reported not to have followed their study plans maintained their low grades (CDFs) or scored a lower letter grade (BCDF) in the subsequent exam, while a majority of those who were adaptive maintained ABs grades or their grade increased to ABCs. In their study, Stanton et al., revealed four categories of students on “metacognitive-regulation continuum, namely: “not engaging”—students unwilling to reflect and adjust approaches to learning; “struggling”—students willing to reflect and adjust but do not know what to do; “emerging”—students who know what to do, but choose not to follow through; and “developing”—students who follow through. Current study participants can be categorized into these groups, except the “struggling” category. In the light of the Stanton et al.'s developed categories, our findings revealed that by the end of the semester, a majority of our participants were in the “developing” category. Furthermore, unlike Karpicke et al.'s study in which they found that students self-tested for the feedback about what they knew and did not; rather than as a means to enhance meaningful learning (Karpicke et al., 2009), current findings indicated that the metacognition instruction was beneficial in helping participants to identify and address their learning gaps when studying.

By and large, current findings indicate explicitly teaching metacognitive strategies to students early in the semester can increase general chemistry students’ awareness of effective study strategies and metacognitive skills, and promote adjustment from ineffective study strategies over time. However, the change might not be instant for many students till they face more cognitively demanding assessments (Mutambuki et al., 2020), which can trigger a shift from LOSSs to HOSSs. Additionally, adoption of metacognitive strategies can improve performance in general chemistry courses (Cook et al., 2013; Casselman and Atwood, 2017; Mutambuki et al., 2020). We, however, note that based on the current study design, is it difficult to assess if the reported adopted study strategies impacted the grades of the higher performing students, or more likely, these students were also “better students” when it comes to adopting metacognitive strategies. In retrospect, it can be argued that students who would benefit most from the metacognition intervention are those who did not see the value in learning the metacognitive strategies, that is, the lower performing students. Further research is needed to address this issue.

Conclusion and implications for practice

Conclusion

The objectives of this study were to investigate current study strategies employed by STEM majors enrolled in a general chemistry course prior to a metacognition instruction (RQ1), and perceived new study strategies gained and are adoptable in the course; and the impact of the metacognition instruction on general chemistry students’ study strategies and performance in the cumulative final exam (RQ2). Findings revealed that prior to the metacognition lesson, most participants in the course reported rote memorization (i.e., reading and rereading, the use of flashcards and quizlets, and memorization/cramming—LOSSs) as the dominant study strategies, with few metacognition skills and HOSSs mentioned by a small fraction of participants. However, there was an increase in the reported new study strategies gained and perceived to be adoptable in the course. These higher-order study strategies (HOSSs), such as reflective learning; collaborative learning; self-assessment; and practicing problem sets. Other reported strategies gained were: time management, planning, or setting goals; utilizing outside-class resources; and studying with notetaking. Gains in rote memorization were less frequently reported after the instruction.

Findings from the end of semester questionnaire revealed that the metacognition instruction positively influenced participants’ study strategies, particularly in adopting metacognitive knowledge strategies and regulation skills. Top benefits reported included knowledge of effective study strategies, identifying and addressing learning gaps, applying suitable learning strategies—metacognitive knowledge strategies, and planning/setting goals or preparing for class, and improved thinking about learning—metacognitive regulation skills. The least reported impacts of the instruction on metacognitive knowledge strategies were improved thinking about learning and improved problem-solving approach, and reinforced self-reflection on learning—metacognitive regulation skill. Consequently, many students who reported a positive influence of the metacognition lesson scored more ABs and fewer DFs in the cumulative final exam compared to those who reported “no influence”.

Implications for practice

The reported dominant use of rote memorization prior to the metacognition implies a lack of awareness of metacognitive strategies; hence, there is a need to explicitly teach general chemistry students effective study strategies early in the semester, and regularly revisit them to support students in the adoption stage. Stanton et al.'s study with biology students showed that while some students recognized that strategies based on rote memorization were ineffective, they did not know what to do to change their study habits and strategies (Stanton et al., 2015). Therefore, many students can benefit from early exposure to metacognitive strategies. Additionally, in a separate study utilizing the current model, the authors found that students who were exposed to the metacognition instruction were more persistent in the course, documented 8% less withdrawals from the course, compared to their counterparts who were not exposed to the instruction. A higher number of students in the comparison group left the course after exam I compared to the treatment group (Mutambuki et al., 2020). Findings from other chemistry-related studies highlighted herein also emphasize the need to infuse metacognitive strategies with instruction in general chemistry.

Importantly, the scarce studies on metacognition instruction and models reveal the critical need for more tested metacognition instruction models to advance this research area. Future research studies can compare different models with different spaced-assessment activities for reflections and assess the impacts on students’ adoption of metacognitive strategies, and on performance. One such model could be teaching metacognitive strategies at the beginning of a course, then asking students to reflect on their study strategies before and after each exam; write the strategies that worked and did not work for an individual assessment; and develop a plan of study to prepare for subsequent assessments. Ultimately, findings from different models can inform future adoption and implementation of effective metacognition instruction in chemistry and other STEM courses.

Moreover, while qualitative methodologies provide rich opportunities for describing a phenomenon, self-reported data may not necessarily reflect the actual experiences or practices employed by the participants. For example, participants might underestimate or overestimate their study strategies—Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger and Dunning, 1999); thus, generating inaccurate results. Future studies should therefore utilize data triangulation, such as open-ended surveys, interviews, and structured surveys to secure the credibility of self-reported data (Creswell and Poth, 2016).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

This work was in part supported through the Edward E. Bartlett Endowed Chair fund at Oklahoma State University.

References

1. Akyol G., Sungur S. and Tekkaya C., (2010), The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to students' science achievement, Educ. Res. Eval., 16, 1–21.
2. Arslantas F., Wood E. and MacNeil S., (2018), International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice, ACS Publications, pp. 57–77.
3. Askell-Williams H., Lawson M. J. and Skrzypiec G., (2012), Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons, Instr. Sci., 40, 413–443.
4. Bettinger E., (2010), American universities in a global market, University of Chicago Press, pp. 69–98.
5. Bloom B. S., (1976), Human characteristics and school learning, McGraw-Hill.
6. Casselman B. L. and Atwood C. H., (2017), Improving general chemistry course performance through online homework-based metacognitive training, J. Chem. Educ., 94, 1811–1821.
7. Cepeda N. J., Pashler H., Vul E., Wixted J. T. and Rohrer D., (2006), Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis, Psychol. Bull., 132, 354–380.
8. Chan J. Y. and Bauer C. F., (2016), Learning and studying strategies used by general chemistry students with different affective characteristics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 675–684.
9. Chen X., (2015), STEM attrition among high-performing college students: scope and potential causes, J. Technol. Sci. Educ., 5, 41–59.
10. Cook E., Kennedy E. and McGuire S. Y., (2013), Effect of teaching metacognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 961–967.
11. Creswell J. W. and Poth C. N., (2016), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
12. Cross D. R. and Paris S. G., (1988), Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension, J. Educ. Psychol., 80, 131–142.
13. Delvecchio F. L., (2011), Students' use of metacognitive skills while problem solving in high school chemistry, PhD Dissertation, http://hdl.handle.net/1974/6703, (Accessed July 2020).
14. Flavell J. H., (1979), Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol., 34, 906.
15. Karpicke J. D., Butler A. C. and Roediger III H. L., (2009), Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479.
16. Kipnis M. and Hofstein A., (2008), The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 6, 601–627.
17. Kirbulut Z. D., (2014), Modeling the Relationship between High School Students' Chemistry Self-Efficacy and Metacognitive Awareness, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ., 9, 177–196.
18. Kornell N. and Bjork R. A., (2007), The promise and perils of self-regulated study, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 14, 219–224.
19. Kruger J. and Dunning D., (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 77, 1121–1134.
20. Lai E. R., (2011), Metacognition: a literature review, Always Learn.: Pearson Res. Rep., 24.
21. Le H., Robbins S. B. and Westrick P., (2014), Predicting student enrollment and persistence in college STEM fields using an expanded PE fit framework: A large-scale multilevel study, J. Appl. Psychol., 99, 915–947.
22. Little J. L. and McDaniel M. A., (2015), Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text, Mem. Cognit., 43, 85–98.
23. McGuire S. Y., (2015), Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation, Stylus Publishing, LLC.
24. Mutambuki, J.M., Mwavita, M., Muteti, C.Z., Jacob, B.I. and Mohanty, S., (2020), Metacognition and active learning combination reveals better performance on cognitively demanding general chemistry concepts than active learning alone, J. Chem. Educ., 97(7), 1832–1840.
25. Nilson L. B., (2016), Teaching At Its Best: a Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, Bolton, MA: Anker Pub. Co.
26. Rickey D. and Stacy A. M., (2000), The role of metacognition in learning chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 77, 915.
27. Sebesta A. J. and Bray E., (2017), How should I study for the exam? Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in introductory biology, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 16, ar30.
28. Seymour E. H. and Hewett N. M., (1997), Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
29. Stanton J. D., Neider X. N., Gallegos I. J. and Clark N. C., (2015), Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: when prompts are not enough, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 14, ar15.  DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135.
30. Tanner K. D., (2012), Promoting student metacognition, CBE—Life Sci. Educ., 11, 113–120.
31. Taraban R., Maki W. S. and Rynearson K., (1999), Measuring study time distributions: Implications for designing computer-based courses, Behav. Res. Methods, Instrum. Comput., 31, 263–269.
32. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. and Teddlie C. B., (1998), Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, Sage Publications.
33. Zhao N., Wardeska J. G., McGuire S. Y. and Cook E., (2014), Metacognition: An effective tool to promote success in college science learning, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 43, 48–54.

---

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/d0rp00217h

---