Perspective Chapter: Metacognitive Approaches for Teaching Scientific Communication to Chemistry Students

Abstract

Learning to communicate clearly in STEM fields requires mastery of discipline specific vocabulary and norms of writing style and citations, along with following general rules for quality writing. For many students, this is too much to grasp all at once. A consciously metacognitive approach in teaching oral and written communication can improve student learning, retention, and performance in scientific communication. However, the role and application of metacognitive approaches may differ in the sciences and writing studies. We discuss different communication settings in which metacognitive approaches drawn from chemistry education and from writing studies may both be applied: the laboratory report, the seminar presentation, literature reviews, and oral examinations. In each of these settings, students benefit from metacognitive activities, such as reflections, co-creating the curricular environment, oral exams, and course discussion. Our observations in the context of undergraduate chemistry courses are broadly applicable to all STEM education.

1. Introduction

In this chapter, we review information about metacognition and writing studies and then describe several course design elements that employ metacognitive approaches to STEM education, specifically in the setting of written and oral communication. The approaches described derive in large part from experience in the chemistry classroom; however, similar approaches may be adapted to other disciplines.

1.1 Learning to communicate about science: the example of chemistry

Obtaining an undergraduate education requires students to master many skills and multiple forms of knowledge. Accreditation guidelines also indicate that students should be able to convey this knowledge, and other information, effectively. For instance, the Middle States accreditation guidelines, Standard III.5.b. indicates that an institution should offer “a curriculum designed so that students acquire and demonstrate essential skills including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, technological competency, and information literacy” [1]. The American Chemical Society undergraduate accreditation requirements (ACS-CPT Guidelines) include, “… writing and speaking opportunities that allow students to learn how to communicate technical information: (1) clearly and concisely, (2) in a scientifically appropriate style for the intended audience including non-technical audiences, (3) ethically and accurately, and (4) utilizing relevant technology” [2]. Of course, the specifics of these general categories will differ from discipline to discipline, necessitating specialized knowledge that should be imparted by experts.

In Write like a Chemist, [3] Robinson and colleagues describe some basic genres of writing in chemistry, such as posters and journal articles, as well as how to identify their basic characteristics. This practice, known as genre analysis, requires the reader and writer to identify certain elements that will be important to a final written product, such as:

• Audience

• Purpose

• Organization

• Grammar and other writing conventions

• Scientific content.

Many manuals for scientific writing lay out specifics of these genre conventions; however, Robinson and colleagues, by suggesting that genre analysis is necessary to learn writing for a specific scientific discipline also indirectly suggest a need for metacognitive approaches to such learning. In other words, they ask readers and writers to think about the reasons for communication, the accepted formats that are legible to target audiences, and whether, or not, certain texts meet their intended goals.

Vanderbilt University’s guide to metacognition, by Nancy Chick, defines this term as “the processes used to plan, monitor, and assess one’s understanding and performance,” and as such requires “a critical awareness of a) one’s thinking and learning and b) oneself as a thinker and learner” [4]. Without these critical skills, it is impossible to communicate effectively. Chick also quotes experts who indicate the necessity for learners to “know about” rather than merely “practice” metacognitive skills [5]. In other words, it is not enough to train students to engage in specific practices; one must also raise an awareness that learning is an active process and promote the idea of personal agency in that learning. We have applied these basic ideas in various contexts of scientific communication, specifically in the context of chemistry education.

1.2 The need for metacognitive approaches to scientific communication

The ability to effectively communicate scientific information, whether in writing or speaking, requires metacognitive skills in different areas. These areas include knowledge of the scientific subject matter to be communicated and an understanding of the conventions of spoken and written forms used in the sciences as well as facility with the uses of language more generally. The need for this type of multilayered metacognitive knowledge may explain some of the inherent difficulties in the teaching of scientific communication to students who are still in the process of learning basic scientific information and skills, as opposed to practicing scientists, the target audience for many guides to scientific writing. Most guides merely lay out the main requirements for specific genres, attending to the various elements Robinson and colleagues specify. Robinson and coauthors took on a different approach when they explicitly encourage the idea of genre analysis as a means of learning how to follow such guidelines [3]. While specialized help in writing itself may also provide additional benefits, Zerbe, for example, points out a fundamental disjunction between the usual modes of teaching writing to college students and the nature of scientific thought [6]. The first relies on an ability to self-reflect and the role of revision in improving communication while the latter is more concerned with hypothesis generation, accuracy, quantitative reasoning, and data management.

Another point to consider when working with college students is that these students may or may not be successful in acquiring the knowledge and skills they will need to pursue further education or careers in the sciences. The coursework itself is a barrier to scientific communication insofar as it is necessary to understand scientific content in order to communicate it. Students who are unwilling or unable to master the many skills and knowledge types needed to understand and engage in scientific inquiry will, of necessity, be ineffective communicators of this content. Thus, science educators may attempt to leverage metacognition in science classrooms in an effort to improve outcomes for mid- and low-performing students and better enable high performing students to progress in acquiring knowledge and skills preferentially to (or instead of) writing about them [7]. In other words, many metacognitive approaches to science education focus on the content and the acquisition of specific analytical and quantitative skills, instead of explicit discussion of how to communicate well.

In this chapter, we discuss metacognition in relation to scientific information, writing and oral communication, and then outline some course design elements we have developed in the context of undergraduate chemistry education to promote metacognition, specifically in and through student ownership of their learning. Further, we detail some steps we have taken to raise our own awareness not only of student learning but about how our specific teaching strategies promote metacognition for our students and ourselves. It is appropriate to note in this context that studies centered on imparting writing skills and knowledge to students are often viewed as inherently metacognitive [8] and hence may provide a generalized series of approaches of use to science educators.

Written and oral communication in chemistry courses arise in several different contexts including written projects such as laboratory reports or review papers, oral presentations or seminars, and oral exams. The last of these is a novel approach to chemistry education and therefore deserving of more extensive comment outside of this chapter. We have commented on seminar presentations and literature reviews in a prior publication [9].

2. Metacognition in chemistry education and writing instruction

2.1 Defining metacognition

Metacognition, or the act of applying cognitive activities to themselves, became a burgeoning area of study during the 1990s. Yzerbyt and coeditors collected a series of contributions that examined this phenomenon in various contexts, and provided insights into modes of interpreting differences among socially prescribed behaviors, feelings, and cognitive understanding [10]. These coauthors define metacognition in contrast to social cognition, linking the former to the role of language in human understanding, social cohesion, and problem-solving. In effect, these authors viewed metacognitive functions as self-correction and a way of managing information in contrast to feelings, and therefore as a potential protection against bias. While these distinctions have become increasingly important for all students in the light of recent political polarization, science students must learn to put aside feelings-based reasoning as part of entering the discipline.

The need for metacognitive skills and knowledge extends beyond educational contexts and into all areas of lived experience. Metcalf and Shimamura [11] collected a series of essays that consider metacognition as related to an understanding of memory (or metamemory), and as essential to problem solving in both educational contexts and day-to-day existence. Metacognition, in other words, is necessary for people to navigate the world in which they live and to solve various sorts of real-world problems. Three main components of problems in this context are defined as: the goal to be solved; the facts, assumptions, or resources available for solving this problem, or givens; and the barriers or obstacles that exist to reaching the goal within the set of givens [11]. This basic format may be seen in academic problem solving and also in the problems that arise in everyday situations, as well as in experimental scientific inquiry. Chemistry education requires attention to each of these domains, with a focus on encouraging students to differentiate between feelings-based and cognitively based problem solving.

In this chapter, we consider the role of metacognition in teaching communication skills to chemistry students. As such, we recognize the necessity for understanding the connections among metacognition, scientific content, and language use. However, the uses of language are not a primary focus in undergraduate scientific education, even though students must learn to communicate like scientists. Learning to communicate in any scientific discipline or subfield requires the acquisition of language, such as specialized vocabulary, as well as an understanding of the way that language is generally used by professional researchers. Such considerations are commonly considered in language-based disciplines, and not an explicit focus in chemistry education.

In a recent volume on metacognition and language acquisition [12], for instance, the preface notes several important concepts:

“It is quite indisputable, for instance, that good language learners should possess a high level of awareness of the intricacies of the target language they are trying to master, how it compares to their mother tongue and other known languages, the challenges involved in the process, their own deep-seated beliefs about learning and teaching of additional languages, and the strategies that can be employed for this purpose. The same holds true for language teachers who, in order to teach more effectively, should clearly be not only aware of their instructional practices and their beliefs about those practices but also cognizant of the extent to which different instructional options fit in with learners’ individual profiles or contextual considerations. It should also be kept in mind that teachers never cease to be learners themselves, either in regard to the language they teach, the additional languages they themselves might be learning or the various techniques and procedures that they can fall back on to make their lessons more engaging and beneficial to their student.”

We agree with these propositions and view the ability to communicate scientific information effectively as multifaceted—involving elements of language, science, and other types of cognition. In fact, learning to communicate science requires specialized language acquisition, or knowledge of the vocabulary of the field, as well as other types of learning, such as quantitative reasoning. Further, we believe that science educators are themselves lifelong learners, not merely of scientific content, but also of the evolving nature of communication in science.

2.2 Metacognition in chemistry education

We commented earlier, following Chick [4] that metacognition involves planning, monitoring, and assessing personal performance as well as encouraging personal agency. However, many different methods and modalities may be used to encourage or assess metacognition in the chemistry—or any STEM—classroom, and these approaches may be applied to content as opposed to communication. Given the looseness of definitions of metacognition in many working and educational settings, it is worth reviewing a few recent studies of metacognitive approaches to pedagogy in the chemistry classroom. This short review is not comprehensive, nor is it intended to be, but it does provide an overview of some important concepts.

The recent literature in chemistry education outlines certain benefits of metacognitive approaches in various populations. For instance, metacognitive approaches were effective in augmenting active learning in a General Chemistry I class, thereby enhancing the acquisition of chemistry concepts [13]. Mutambuki and colleagues sought to investigate the potential additive benefits of active learning and metacognition, each of which had been shown independently to improve student outcomes in the chemistry classroom [7]. However, Mutambuki and colleagues also observed that prior studies tended to employ metacognitive strategies implicitly, that is, without directly explaining the aims of metacognition or asking students to perform a specific evaluation. In contrast to these earlier studies, Mutambuki et al. used a more explicit mode of such learning, explaining their aims more directly to students. They found that their metacognitive interventions led to increases on test scores that were significant, both statistically and in terms of boosting students’ overall course grades. Furthermore, this explicit instruction in metacognition was beneficial for students seeking to learn more challenging chemistry concepts.

A more implicit, therefore a more typical, method of assessing metacognition was used by Bunce et al. across multiple sections of a general chemistry course at the United States Naval Academy [14]. These instructors encouraged reflection on learning through the use of clickers in classroom situations to help students understand when their answers to problems were correct or incorrect, thus providing an opportunity for thought in a lower stakes setting than during the examination itself. Bunce and coauthors found a correlation between student confidence in their answers and correctness—in other words, students with correct answers were more likely to feel confident in their answers. Unlike Mutambuki and colleagues, Bunce et al. found only nascent and partial evidence of metacognition in their students, however.

Heidbrink and Weinrich [15] observed that more implicit modes of metacognitive instruction in the chemistry classroom might be necessary, given the lack of instruction most professors receive in such practices. In other words, and in contrast to the work quoted earlier in language instruction, instructional staff in the sciences tend to receive more focused education centering on content mastery and knowledge rather than pedagogy. In their study, Heidbrink and Weinrich found that a majority of students (20 of 25) in an upper-level biochemistry course were able to use a specific, indirect metacognitive prompt to improve their problem solving within a particular context. Heidbrink and Weinrich used a think-aloud protocol to assess how students would tease out the answers to buffer problems with and without the benefit of answering questions designed to encourage reflection. These researchers found that asking advanced students to reflect on what might not work well for another student, following research by Talanquer [16], enhanced metacognition. They found changes in metacognitive activities for high- mid- and low-performing students, which they described as transferable but not generalizable due to sample size concerns.

A few major concepts are important when considering this prior work. First, a general pattern of imparting metacognitive skills indirectly or implicitly encouraging metacognition through reflective prompts can have positive benefits for students at all skill levels. It is worthy of note that each of these studies was conducted under very different classroom conditions and at institutions with varying acceptance criteria. Second, the nature of education and opportunities for professional development among faculty in chemistry curricula should be considered when suggesting modes of encouraging metacognition. Unlike the general culture in language studies, where pedagogy, practice and an atmosphere of continual self-reflection are essential elements of all research, scientific fields tend to demand more specific focus on experimentation and skills acquisition independent of the more nuanced aspects of communication. In fact, as Heidbrink and Weinrich [15] observe, the lack of opportunity for formal education in metacognitive content and approaches is a potential obstacle to this kind of teaching for many chemistry instructors, who must focus on subject matter expertise and keep abreast of developments in the field. In contrast, the ACS-CPT Guidelines now explicitly state, “Additionally, a program should provide opportunities for faculty to maintain their knowledge of effective practices in chemistry education and modern theories of learning and cognition in science” [2]. However, and thirdly, more explicit approaches to metacognition in the chemistry classroom are also possible, and beneficial, for those who have the appropriate time, inclination, and resources, as Mutambuki and colleagues demonstrate [7]. Finally, the preceding work tends to focus on the role of metacognitive processes and pedagogy in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and concepts. This is not surprising, given that imparting scientific knowledge is the core aim of most chemistry courses.

2.3 Metacognition in writing and communication studies

Writing studies developed as a subfield of English, and therefore strongly related to language study. Bazerman [17] described the need for a consolidated study of writing, given the fundamental importance of literacy in modern society as well as the often piecemeal attention to various aspects of literacy, such as language acquisition, linguistics, or writing instruction in the academy. Bazerman also argued that writing studies was uniquely situated to build a consolidated picture of writing given the tendency in the professional field of writing studies to focus on pedagogy and practice as well as assessing the means of evaluating the effects of such pedagogy and practice. As a major discipline and field of academic endeavor, writing studies has tended to pursue its work metadiscursively and metacognitively, seeing the various functions of writing, student writing, pedagogy, anecdote, and professional development as intrinsically and inextricably linked. In other words, the aims and approaches of writing studies are essentially metacognitive.

Subsequent work in writing studies comments on various “threshold concepts” [8] with the intention of encouraging faculty members and students to reflect on their own belief systems in the context of writing and thinking about writing. Adler-Kassner and Wardle identify several threshold concepts about writing, each of which is metacognitive. Individual chapters, for instance, explain the social and rhetorical character of writing, how words get meaning, the ethics of writing, and the forms and genres used in writing. These specific concepts might be seen to exist in conversation with the work collected by Yzerbyt and coeditors [10], who emphasized the social and language-based elements of metacognition as well as the necessity for metacognitive activity to reduce or eliminate bias.

Writing studies scholarship also seeks to address multiple audiences simultaneously. The authors who contributed to Adler-Kassner and Wardle’s book about threshold concepts in writing studies, for instance, explain these concepts for the benefit of students, faculty members, and writing program administrators. Each essay is intended to make explicit the often implicit knowledge and understanding that traditionally informed writing studies, but more importantly is intended to lay out a belief the reader shares but has not yet articulated. In effect, Adler-Kassner and Wardle collected a series of essays that illuminate the kinds of knowledge that Bazerman described as common in writing studies, yet in need of consolidation [8].

Open access sources such as Bad Ideas About Writing, (available at: https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf) (see also [18]), similarly, take on a metacognitive approach that encourages readers to reflect on various aspects of writing, writing instruction, and the assessment of such instruction. Ball and Loewe curated a collection of essays that describe bad ideas about topics such as good writing, good writers, grammar, how to write, writing instruction, and the assessment of such instruction. Each of the individual concepts collected is intended to encourage readers to think about why the base idea is bad. Such work parallels the kind of approach Heidbrink and Weinrich took when working with advanced biochemistry students; however, the inherent reflexivity and metacognitive approach of writing studies enables these authors and editors to automatically expand the spheres of influence of these works. Writing studies colleagues understand the basic wisdom of considering metacognitive questions and omit reflections on whether any precise concept is generalizable, opting instead to offer many perspectives to foster greater critical engagement and to offer readers choices for their own work.

Although it may seem from these specific observations that writing studies is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question about metacognition in teaching scientific writing and communication to science students, this is not entirely the case. For one thing, Harris [19] suggests that writing studies is not ideally situated to address all concerns about writing in all disciplines. Importantly, Hesse [20] distinguished scientific writing from the subset of writing modalities that fall naturally within the remit Bazerman describes. In fact, the ACS-CPT 2015 guidelines Section 7.4 stated, “Effective communication is vital to all professional chemists. Speech and English composition courses alone rarely give students sufficient experience in oral and written communication of technical information. The chemistry curriculum should include critically evaluated writing and speaking” [21]. As mentioned before, this emphasis continues, and is expanded, in the 2023 ACS-CPT Guidelines [2]. This call for specific attention to chemistry communication beyond the composition classroom is important for the work we describe.

As a last comment on writing studies approaches, we consider a model of teaching commonly used in technical communication. Cargile Cook’s well-accepted model of layered literacies in technical communication [22], as critiqued by Lawrence and Hutter [23] provides a metacognitive approach to complex information by asking teachers and students to account for different types, or layers, of literacy. However, as Lawrence and Hutter note, these layers are not sufficient to account for all the modalities and literacies valued within the technical communication literature. The endeavor to add more layers into Cargile-Cook’s framework can ironically create further barriers to success for students and faculty. Thus, although scholars and teachers, like Zerbe [6] and Hanganu-Bresch and colleagues [24] have pursued work on scientific writing, certain barriers continue to exist, specifically what DeTora has termed ‘competing mentalities’ between scientific and more rhetorically based disciplines [25]. A key omission in most of these studies is scientific content itself, which is a primary aim of chemistry education and communication. Next, we discuss how we have managed to negotiate between the competing mentalities.

3. Using metacognitive methods in teaching chemistry communication

3.1 Disciplinary approaches

The authors of this book chapter have come together to teach communication to chemistry students from very different vantage points. SS, a PhD in chemistry who has taught undergraduates and supervised undergraduate research for some decades, has approached the teaching of chemistry communication from a disciplinary perspective, consistent with the accreditation requirements specified by the American Chemical Society [2]. This approach is similar to that recommended by Robinson and colleagues in Write Like a Chemist [3] insofar as the intention of such teaching is twofold:

1. To ensure that students are able to communicate effectively as chemists within the community of practicing and teaching chemists.

2. To ensure that students meet the minimum competency requirements for chemistry communication in writing and speaking, including learning the general accepted formats for such communication.

Such skills are necessary in order to enculturate students to chemistry as a discipline, certainly, but more importantly, effective communication helps transform students into members of a professional scientific community.

In contrast, LDT, a PhD in English with an MS in bioethics and decades of experience in biomedical writing practice, came to the teaching of communication in chemistry from a much less focused perspective. LDT’s background included exposure to writing studies education as well as training in professional aspects of biomedical writing for expert audiences [26]. Unlike the type of training suggested in work like the ACS Style Guide [27] or Write Like a Chemist [3], this perspective is multidisciplinary and therefore necessarily more flexible because chemistry is only one of the sciences represented. Furthermore, biomedical writing is also intended to reach various audiences outside the sciences, such as patients and caregivers. Thus, LDT viewed the aims of teaching writing in chemistry as layered:

1. To fulfill the expectations and accreditation requirements needed to allow students to become practicing chemists.

2. To understand how these set of skills and knowledge can also enable effective chemistry communicators to interact with broader groups in the culture of science and beyond.

In laying out these disciplinary perspectives, it becomes obvious how and why metacognitive approaches might be necessary to help students. First, the project of becoming a chemist requires specific reflection on and assessment of success in acclimating to the professional culture of chemistry. The authors consider three different settings for teaching written and oral chemistry communication to undergraduate students: laboratory reports, literature reviews, and oral exams. In each of these situations, metacognitive approaches that bridged prior knowledge from both chemistry and writing studies were used.

3.2 Laboratory reports

A simple expedient that can help students to improve their performance both generally and in writing is to provide an opportunity for reflection and revision on the various parts of a laboratory report based on specific comments. Such an approach is metacognitive in that it requires that students respond to feedback and reflect on what they could have done better. It is consistent with wisdom in writing studies, which emphasizes that opportunities for revision generally help students improve not only a specific product but also future writing [24]. However, there are drawbacks to this approach in day-to-day teaching.

First, many courses require multiple laboratory reports, which could create logistical issues for students and faculty. The project of responding to faculty comments means that students must wait for feedback before finishing a laboratory report. Even if faculty are able to respond to writing within the space of a given week, students may be tasked with writing up a draft of a second experiment at the same time as a revision for the first experiment. This overlapping of assignments within a single laboratory course might also interfere with students’ ability to handle their work in additional courses.

Second, providing specific written comments on individual laboratory reports can be burdensome for faculty members. As Heidbrink and Weinrich [15] have observed, faculty members in the sciences often lack specific training in pedagogy, which tends to extend to specific training in writing instruction. Furthermore, the increasing reliance of institutions of higher learning on part time faculty members and graduate students also raises questions about fair labor practices. Hence, although we do recommend specific written feedback for individual students and opportunities for revision, we question the logistical feasibility of this idea for very large classes, course designs that require many laboratory reports, and teaching situations in which faculty members carry a heavy burden of coursework. Certainly, advanced majors in upper-level courses should receive this type of feedback.

In larger classes, particularly lower-level classes heavily populated by non-majors, providing scaffolded frameworks for lab reports where students only have to fill in certain details, explanations, and calculations may refocus student attention on chemistry content and vocabulary. Such an approach may also reduce grading burdens by limiting the volume of text students produce. Faculty may then organize these scaffolded forms around specific metacognitive questions designed to help students master difficult content.

For example, in the General Chemistry 1 lab class taught by SS, only one formal lab report is required [28]. All other reports are pre-formatted data pages and thought questions. All faculty who teach this course share a general format for the lab report specifying organization of sections, data and calculations. This ensures uniformity in presentation of information in the lab report, freeing up the student to concentrate on analysis and interpretation. Students are prompted to follow the four C’s, a concept developed by a scientist in consultation with writing studies colleagues: every Concluding sentence should refer to an observation, data, or calculation (relational phrase that discusses values/numerical results), Context, Comparison, and Clarity [29]. Students are also prompted to construct Claim, Evidence and Reasoning statements, which is a solidly scientific perspective [30]. ​Through these well-accepted constructs, students can implicitly apply metacognition. A suitable grading rubric was developed that emphasizes understanding along with accuracy of results, again asking students to reflect upon their experience and data. These measures assure a balance between writing concerns and scientific knowledge and thinking.

3.3 Oral exams

Oral exams bear a direct relationship to the rhetorical and linguistic traditions Bazerman associates with writing studies. They are a common feature of graduate qualifiers in chemistry programs, especially in larger programs. According to the American Chemical Society, at least 50% of doctoral programs require an oral preliminary exam and/or a comprehensive oral exam, with larger programs requiring oral exams more often than smaller ones [31]. Oral seminars are also common features of graduate programs and professional meetings; furthermore, the metacognitive skills necessary for success in these practices are also important for any career path or program of study and therefore might be beneficial for undergraduates. Oral exams in undergraduate education gained popularity during the Covid-19 pandemic as instructors sought to assess student learning in environments that made it difficult to detect academic dishonesty or lucky guessing [32].

The published literature shows that oral exams can be successful in many kinds of chemistry courses. Dicks et al. found superior performance on oral exams in a large undergraduate Organic Chemistry course as compared with final course grades based on oral exams plus written exams [33]. Giordano and Christopher used oral final exams in Physical Chemistry and General Chemistry to assess student performance and maintain a personal connection with students learning remotely [34]. Kamber presented implementation of a final oral exam in an undergraduate Biochemistry class while teaching remotely [35]. In these studies, faculty noted that cheating opportunities were reduced. More importantly, oral exams allowed faculty to identify areas of confusion for students and to maintain personal contact during distance learning. Students found the exams themselves to be effective vehicles for learning and felt benefitted by personal contact with the instructors.

SS has used oral exams in various chemistry courses and incorporating different metacognitive elements, providing both scaffolding and feedback to students. By fostering student learning and connection during oral exams, SS observed benefits similar to those described in the studies cited [33, 34, 35]. Some examples of scaffolding might include presenting an example problem in class and explaining the thought process of problem solving, including possible false starts and rethinking. In-class small groups might also work together to solve problems and develop questions for the professor. A Socratic method can be helpful in prompting students to analyze how they thought through the problem solving process. Practice exams are another type of opportunity to practice. By using multiple forms of practice, students can be well-prepared for oral exams.

As with personalized feedback on individual laboratory reports, oral exams present logistical challenges, primarily for faculty members. Rather than preparing an exam and administering it in a 1- to 2-hour block, faculty members must set aside 10–15 minutes per student. So much time investment is impracticable for very large classes, although online meeting platforms such as Zoom make this easier. Further, faculty must consider student performance in different areas such as presentation skills, content mastery, and ability to answer questions about their thinking. The time commitment of oral exams can be more feasible if an automatically graded online exam is used in conjunction with a brief oral exam. Since students may discuss their experiences with each other, it is necessary to randomize questions or calculations to prevent cheating.

Most studies of oral exams solicit student opinions via formats such as a follow-up anonymized survey. As noted by Kamber, [35] many students have not experienced an oral exam before starting college. Placing the only oral exam at the end of a semester may cause greater anxiety than breaking up the oral exam experience into multiple smaller exams throughout the semester.

Additional options for oral input and feedback might include asking students to make short videos explaining a specific problem or concept—this option also could apply to small groups, for instance, which would foster connection not only with faculty but also with other students in distance-learning settings.

3.4 Literature review and seminar

As discussed in a prior publication, [9] the authors coteach a course for advanced chemistry undergraduates in which students must complete a literature review following an American Chemical Society journal format as well as delivering a 10 minute oral presentation on their research. The course was originally designed by SS as a structured experience in which students heard sample seminars and read example papers to reproduce and provided feedback via a written form and were required to ask a set number of questions following a peer’s seminar [36]. The benefits of such a structure were clearly tied to the American Chemical Society accreditation guidelines [21] and were intended to impart specific skills in chemistry communication as well as provide an opportunity to engage in peer review. After LDT joined the course as a co-teacher, the experience evolved to address changing accreditation guidelines, to meet the changing needs of students as the major diversified, and to focus more strongly on metacognitive approaches to the work. This metacognitive focus became more important as the course expanded to serve an increasing number of students interested in forensic science and STEM education. It is worthy of note that forensic science, as an applied discipline, requires metacognitive approaches to problem-solving, while STEM education requires students to consider communication as an essential part of their work as opposed to an activity that takes place after the real work is done.

The current configuration of this course is inherently metacognitive in that it requires students to collaborate with peers and faculty to choose an overarching theme, such as climate change or food science. Students then each develop a literature review and seminar presentation within the overarching theme, which is shared incrementally as a work in progress with the group for informal discussion. The students also complete a common project centered around the overarching theme. Readings draw from work about writing by and for scientists as well as texts from writing studies are brought in as preparatory work. Students discuss these texts with each other and with faculty in connection with the course theme and their own projects. During each class meeting and each assignment, faculty and students work together to identify their goals, assess their own progress, and evaluate the relative success of various works. They also share experiences to help foster a sense of community collaboration which is unique in the students’ experiences because collaboration is usually limited in STEM lecture classes.

Since this is a specialized course open only to certain students, it is easy to foster a sense of shared community and purpose. The inherently metacognitive nature of this work is made possible by the prior preparation of students—who are generally advanced in their course of study—as well as the ongoing engagement between the two faculty members. It is worthy of note that this kind of open-ended discussion-based workshop is fairly common as an approach in writing studies, but not in undergraduate STEM education, so faculty focused on scientific study and teaching may not be comfortable with what might appear to be a lack of structure.

4. Discussion, conclusion, and recommendations

Above, we described some course design elements that employ metacognitive approaches that can be used in various settings in STEM education such as examinations, writing laboratory reports or literature reviews, and oral communication. We conclude that although the shared experiences that led us to create these design elements overlap in the teaching of chemistry, similar approaches may be used in various settings in STEM education, the social sciences, and writing studies.

A consciously metacognitive approach in teaching oral and written communication can improve student learning, retention, and performance in scientific communication. However, the role and application of metacognitive approaches may differ in the sciences and writing studies. We discussed different communication settings in which metacognitive approaches drawn from chemistry education and from writing studies may both be applied: the laboratory report, the seminar presentation, literature reviews, and oral examinations. In each of these settings, students may benefit from metacognitive activities, such as reflections, co-creating the curricular environment, oral exams, and course discussion. Our observations in the context of undergraduate chemistry courses are broadly applicable to all STEM education.

In each of the settings just described, metacognitive approaches can incorporate similar elements for students. First, students should be asked to reflect generally on their ability to understand and convey concepts and calculations in a specific course setting. Second, students should be asked to explain specific concepts and calculations and why their approach is appropriate. Finally, students should be asked to explain how and why their answers apply to the specific tasks at hand. These elements correspond to the ideas of planning, monitoring, and assessment that Chick [4] mentions.

In each of the settings described above, one or more faculty members considered the possible connections between metacognitive approaches to scientific content—in this case, chemistry—as well as writing and then planned, monitored, and continually assessed their own work, making adjustments to meet student needs. A side benefit of this ongoing engagement has been publication of information about the seminar course. More significantly, SS has published more papers with student researchers. This was unanticipated, but it has also benefitted students enrolled in these various classes because such engagement necessarily enriches subsequent teaching. We recommend considering metacognitive elements when teaching any type of scientific communication.

Acknowledgments

No funding was received to support the current work.

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Vandana Bindra for helpful conversations regarding each of the courses described above.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes/thanks/other declarations

We thank all the students of CHEM 80 past and present.