Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Feb 18:1–11. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s11422-023-10150-x

A framework for meta-learning in science education for a time of crisis and beyond

Lucía B Chacón-Díaz 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9938730  PMID: 36845563

Abstract

Science education has an important role in educating the public on learning strategies that will generate a scientific literate population. The challenges encountered in this time of crisis calls for individuals to make well-informed decisions, based on reliable information. Understanding scientific basic concepts can inform the population on making informed decisions that will protect and prosper their communities. This study applied a grounded theory approach to propose a framework for meta-learning as a strategy that enhances science understanding and cultivates trust toward science. Meta-learning in science education is contextualized during a time of crisis and four stages are suggested for the meta-learning process. In the first stage, the learner becomes aware of a situation and activates prior knowledge. In the second stage, the learner searches and evaluates reliable information. In the third stage, the learner adjusts their behavior based on the new knowledge. Finally, in the fourth stage, the learner embraces learning as an everlasting process and re-adjusts behavior accordingly. Through meta-learning practices in science education, learners can claim agency of their learning processes and embrace a lifelong learning endeavor that will benefit themselves and those around them.

Keywords: Metacognition, Meta-learning, Science learning

A framework for meta-learning in science education for a time of crisis and beyond

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” Tolkien (1966)

The challenges presented in 2020 have exposed both virtues and flaws within our human nature. During a global pandemic, the decision-making process that we each undertake will have repercussions in our and others’ health and safety. The framing of decision-making processes such as the one described by Raia, Legados, Silacheva, Plotkin, Krishnan, and Deng (2021) involved medical practice that seek the good of the other for the purpose of care and well-being. This piece centers on the decision-making process through a life-long learning mindset in the context of science education. Since our decision-making process greatly depends on what and who we trust, an understanding of science and its basic principles are more crucial than ever.

Resistance toward health recommendations during the pandemic were partly due to the discourse that underlined a mistrust toward science (Nasr 2021). We simply cannot trust what we do not understand. Therefore, the understanding of science through learning is paramount to have trust in science. Fensham (2014) recommended increasing trust in science by centering the development of science-informed citizens as an outcome of science education. Similarly, Leung and Cheng (2021) described an epistemic process for students to trust science through the thorough assessment of information presented. This current piece expands on the work by Leung and Cheng (2021) by emphasizing on the autonomy of the learner within their learning process. In addition, this piece further supports the work of Fensham (2014) by proposing a science learning framework that will foster the development of science-informed global citizens.

The trials encountered in 2020, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to an online teaching and learning environment, could lead us to humanize the learning of science by embracing the science content knowledge and its relevancy to our current and future challenges. Furthermore, the act of humanizing science includes contextualizing science education to address social justice issues (Elmesky 2021). An understanding and trust in science could have been (and continue to be) the determinant between sickness and health, and even between life and death. Thus, I argue for establishing a culture of learning in the midst of cultural differences and, in some cases, indifferences. In the teaching and learning of science, educators must provide their students with an incentive to seek truthful knowledge in order to make informed decisions for the well-being of the self and others. Metacognition and meta-learning as a means to engage learners with a “learning to learn” process has been more critical now than ever before (Oakley, Sejnowski, and McConville 2018). Metacognition and meta-learning skills are particularly more important in secondary and postsecondary education when students are actively becoming more engaged as citizens in their communities.

As a Latina immigrant scholar in the USA, my positionality allows me to provide a cross-cultural perspective of the global pandemic within the context of science education. The struggle to retain underrepresented minority groups in the STEM fields has been previously documented (Chen 2013). The global pandemic accentuated the current inequalities within our society (Bassett, Chen, and Krieger 2020). Black people, Latinos, and people from low socioeconomic status are significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (Price-Haywood, Burton, Fort, and Seoane 2020). Although this piece is unable to provide a solution to the existing racial/ethnic inequalities, the proposed framework can facilitate current teacher educators and practitioners on teaching their students how to adopt a life-long learner mindset. Developing this learner mindset is crucial especially in a time of crisis because those in position of power will manipulate information for their own personal/political gain. Noticing the political polarization in multiple countries, and the prevalence of digital social spaces, it is important to be able to assess sources of information and evaluate all information in order to make informed decisions. The range of decisions, under this context, can be applied in choices that regard an impact on health and learning outcomes.

The development of metacognitive and meta-learning skills enhances learners’ capabilities to make informed decisions. A previous work by Rolheiser and Stevahn (1998) has centered on teachers making informed decisions related to their instructional practices. In contrast, this piece centers on students, and teachers serve as facilitators for their students’ science learning processes. Trying to address the reflection about what is the role of science education in a global crisis proposed by Siry (2020), from my point of view, it is the key to continue to educate the public on the nature of science, science content knowledge, science practices and processes and help learners to enhance metacognitive and meta-learning skills that will guide them in becoming lifelong learners. Although the scope of this framework is applicable to a wide range of ages, it is particularly relevant to students in secondary and postsecondary education since at this stage of their educational journey they are most likely expected to develop autonomy of their learning process to succeed in their academic endeavors and are also reaching a stage in their lives when they become active members of society.

Learners must learn how to engage in meta-learning practices that will serve them to make well-informed decisions. Science education can be a source for such teaching endeavor since other science-related topics have been the subject of discussion. Before COVID-19, there were already ongoing debates that require scientific knowledge and reasoning, such as vaccines, climate change, pollution, health inequalities, and misinformation. Meta-learning provides learners with the skill to discern true from false information leading them to become independent and informed thinkers. This skill is especially important in an ever-evolving digital world, where information can be easily accessible.

Development of the meta-learning framework

The proposed framework was developed by applying a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967) to review the existing literature for the purpose of examining commonalities and differences in order to develop new insights (Wolfswinkel, Furtmueller, and Wilderom 2011).

The following research questions guided the study:

  1. How do previous educational models and strategies inform the development of a meta-learning framework for science education?

  2. How can a meta-learning framework for science education be contextualized for a time of crisis?

The online literature search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted through ERIC and Academic Search Complete databases. The works from authors who developed the educational model/strategy were extracted from the databases, even if the works were not explicitly related to science education. The search words included the name of the education model/strategy, for example “reflective practice” and “education.” The initial search terms used were self-regulated learning, reflective practice, and metacognition. The search terms were selected based on their influence in teaching and learning and their alignment to the context of the premise of this study. Theoretical sampling was done for the purpose of developing categories (Bryant 2017). The articles underwent theoretical sorting until commonalities were being detected across the literature search that aligned with the categories that were emerging.

A literature trace was also conducted to identify the common researchers to which a specific theory was attributed until reaching theoretical saturation. For example, in the case of both Schraw, Crippen, and Hartley (2006) and Abrami and Aslan (2007), both referenced the work of Zimmerman (1998) on self-regulated learning, to whom this theory is well known to be attributed (Please see Table 1). For the case of metacognition, two categories emerged based on the foci of this theme: one viewed metacognition as an approach to learning and instruction, and the other as study habits for science learning. Making informed decisions on instructional practices and science as argument were categories that emerged to further ground the meta-learning framework under the current socio-political-historical context.

Table 1.

Models of teaching and learning for the construction of the Meta-Learning Framework

Education model/strategy Author/Researcher Influenced the work/model Meta-learning framework for science education
Self-regulated learning Zimmerman (1998) Schraw, Crippen, and Hartley (2006), Abrami and Aslan (2007) The meta-learning model contextualizes science learning and emphasizes motivation by addressing the importance of knowing science topics
Reflective practice Dewey (1933) Kolb (1984), Gibbs (1988), Schön (1988), Larrivee (2000), Zwozdiak-Myers (2010) The previous models are mostly practitioner-centered. The meta-learning framework is learner-centered and the practitioner serves as a facilitator
Metacognition approach to learning and instruction Burton, Kimball, and Wing, 1960), Piaget (1971), Flavell (1979) Hartman (1980, 1998) The meta-learning framework centers on learning science content knowledge in the context of the digital age
Metacognition study habits for science learning Dewey (1933), Flavell (1979) Tanner (2012), McGuire and McGuire (2015), Oakley, Sejnowski, and McConville (2018) The meta-learning framework expands the learning process beyond the classroom setting. The science knowledge learned is used to make informed decisions that impact other aspects of the learner’s life, such as his/her health
Making informed decisions on instructional practices Rolheiser and Stevahn (1998) N/A The meta-learning framework is student-centered, instead of practitioner-centered. The learner makes informed decisions based on his/her learning process
Science as argument Kuhn (2010) N/A The meta-learning framework engages the learner with an interaction between him/herself and the information being obtained. An argumentative discourse is optional if the learner decides to present his/her ideas to others
Open in a new tab

The grounded theory study was conducted using a set of well-established researchers and authors in the field of teaching and learning from the completion of a theoretical sampling and sorting process. Common themes across different proposed models were utilized and adapted for the purpose of this meta-learning framework (Please see Table 1 for connections within the literature). The development of the current framework contextualizes science learning in a time of political polarization, a global pandemic, and the digital age. Nevertheless, this framework can remain applicable beyond the sociopolitical–historical context of the learner because its purpose is to encourage independent learning/thinking. This research undertook a humanizing approach in science education research (Ryu 2020) for the elaboration of the meta-learning framework.

There are three main aspects that differentiate the meta-learning framework from prior models. First, the model centers on finding purpose for engaging in the learning process beyond academic achievement. Second, the model engages the learner to evaluate information within the context of the digital age. Lastly, the model fosters a dynamic interaction between the learner and the science content knowledge. The following section describes the key characteristics of metacognition and meta-learning.

Metacognition and meta-learning

Metacognition, as described by Flavell (1979), involves thinking about one’s thinking process. Consequently, the works of Hartman from 1980 to 1998 contextualized metacognition for learning and instruction. Metacognition is a worthwhile skill to develop for academic achievement (Tanner 2012). Works by Tanner (2012), McGuire and McGuire (2015), and Oakley, Sejnowski, and McConville (2018) have centered on developing metacognitive skills with the purpose of developing studying habits and techniques for student achievement in science. The authors previously mentioned center their work in higher education. In my framework, I will situate metacognition as an approach to engage the learner to become proactive in their science learning process for purposes beyond academic achievement. Applying the knowledge gained through metacognitive practices (Seel 2012) will eventually be useful for different inevitable life situations.

As students see themselves as learners, they can gain and understand new knowledge more effectively, and thus “learn to learn” (Smith 1991). “Learning how to learn” has been addressed in previous works (e.g., Hacker, Dunlosky, and Graesser 1998), and has been used as a synonym for meta-learning. Biggs (1985) defines meta-learning as “…[a] subprocess of metacognition that refers specifically to learning and study processes in institutional settings, and more particularly to students’ awareness of their motives, and control over the strategy selection and deployment” (p. 192). Similar to metacognition, I expand the definition of meta-learning provided by Biggs (1985) by including learning outside of institutional spaces due to the wide access of information through technology. Meta-learning, although arguably useful in academic contexts, can also be applied in out-of-academic environments. Furthermore, meta-learning requires the evaluation of knowledge through reflection, and the capability of resolving (when presented) conflicting ideas (White and Gunstone 1989). Reflective practice in the process of learning aligns with the work of Dewey (1933). Reflection leads to effective learning, problem solving, and behavior change (Gibbs 1988). Meta-learning will be a practice that will transcend the current pandemic, and it will help our current and future generations to engage in learning to make well-informed decisions.

Meta-learning focuses on the learner and requires the learner to self-regulate their learning practices. In self-regulated learning (Zimmerman 1998), the learner is autonomous and free to define their learning practices and align them with learning goals. This autonomy entails the learner to be proactively engaged in their learning; and thus, motivation is the key for meta-learning. The learning process requires the acquisition of information as well as higher levels of cognitive demanding practices to apply and synthesize knowledge (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl 1956). Moreover, learning leads to a change in behavior after new knowledge is attained (Bransford, Brown, Cocking and National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 2000). Since the nature of science claims that science knowledge is ever-evolving (Lederman and Lederman 2014), one must be ready to adjust behavior accordingly. Through the understanding of the described learning practices and characteristics, I contextualize meta-learning in the following section.

Contextualizing meta-learning in science learning for a time of crisis

Meta-learning (Brazdil, Carrier, Soares, and Vilalta 2008), as a lifelong approach, serves to gain new knowledge in a continuous fashion, shape beliefs, and act upon such knowledge as information is evolving. Merging meta-learning with principles of nature of science and scientific reasoning (Kuhn 2010) provides the learner with an understanding of the similarities between engaging in lifelong learning practices and the science process, since science is ever evolving. Lederman and Lederman (2014) established the difference between the scientific knowledge and the process from which the knowledge emerges. These two concepts are applicable and relevant within the metacognitive and meta-learning process. In this framework, meta-learning in science learning requires the learner to become aware and explore both scientific practices/processes and the scientific knowledge itself. The following stages describe a meta-learning process to make informed decisions during a time of crisis and beyond (Please see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Four stages of the meta-learning process to make informed decisions

Assessing the situation and one’s current knowledge

In this first stage, the learner acknowledges the situation at hand. Then, the learner activates current and prior knowledge on the situation. The prior knowledge can be from information obtained in the science classroom, and/or other informal science settings. Lastly, the learner identifies gaps in their knowledge based on the current situation. Example questions for this stage include: What is the current situation? What do I know about this topic/situation? What are my current beliefs on the information presented? What scientific evidence have I been taught in the past related to this situation? What would I like to know more of?

Selecting and evaluating scientific information

In this second stage, the learner establishes a learning purpose in order to have motivation to search and learn new knowledge. The learner must become aware that knowledge can be presented involuntary (for example, information presented in social media platforms) and/or voluntary (for example, information willingly explored through search engines). The learner understands that some information presented might not be scientifically grounded and might have the intent to serve a political purpose. Prior and/or new scientific knowledge is used at this stage to evaluate information and make proper judgments. Example questions for this stage include: What is the information presented to me? Does the information presented to me serve political purposes? What is the science behind the information presented? Why is it important for me to search for science-based information? What reliable resources can I consult? Who are the experts in the field?

Drawing conclusions from scientific evidence

After evaluating the searched scientific knowledge, the learner determines their behavior based on the selected scientific evidence. In this third stage, the learner must be conscious and self-reflective on the why they decided on their chosen beliefs and behaviors. The learner engages continuously in scientific reasoning. Example questions for this stage include: What do I choose to believe and why? What practices will I be engaging in based on my beliefs and the scientific knowledge that I have gathered? Why is it important to me to make scientifically informed decisions? What other scientific information do I need in order to make an informed decision?

Re-examining knowledge and re-adjusting behavior accordingly

As the learner gathers new information, their thinking process and beliefs will shape correspondingly. In this fourth stage, the learner practices a principle of the nature of science and scientific reasoning regarding welcoming new information as the science-based evidence continues to evolve. The motivation to continue in this science learning process is established as a means to benefit oneself and the surrounding community. Example questions for this stage include: Would I be open to change my current beliefs as more information is presented? What strategies can I implement to continue being informed and adjust my behavior accordingly? Are my current resources still reliable? What new knowledge is being presented to me?

Supporting the development of science competencies are crucial for the emergence of informed global citizens (Garner, Gabitova, Gupta, and Wood 2017). As time progresses, our society will rely more on the decision-making of the new generation of learners. As educators, it is our responsibility to assist those learners to become critical, innovative, and independent thinkers. The meta-learning framework for science education can serve as a guiding instrument for the purpose of creating a culture of learning within any population. In the following section, implications of the meta-learning framework for science teaching and learning will be explored.

Implications for science teaching and learning

Evidence continues to emerge on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to the decrease in academic performance and the increase of racial and socioeconomic disparities in society (Department of Education 2021). Adding more strain to teachers and instructors at any level will not suffice. Deciding on what to do with the time given to us requires taking action by accepting responsibility for one’s learning process and practicing compassion toward the self and the other. Collective wellness and sustainability should be addressed in science education through the means of humanizing science, trusting science, and developing decision-making skills (Tobin and Alexakos 2021). The meta-learning framework for science education encompasses the aforementioned practices, all of which seek the good of the self and the other.

During the pandemic, trust in science was fundamental for the decision-making process (Leung and Cheng 2021; Nasr 2021) suggested engaging students in pedagogical practices that focus on communicating scientific information effectively to overcome mistrust in science, especially during our current times in which social media can be easily accessible. Furthermore, Freshman (2014) argued that “…[s]tudents in school science also need teaching that develops in them the knowledge and confidence of when and how to put trust in science” (p. 656). Schools and higher education institutions could serve as spaces for the meta-learning process to foster trust in science.

As addressed at the beginning of this piece, a culture of learning amid cultural differences and/or indifferences must be established in our society to cultivate science citizenry. Science educators and practitioners have a role to play in the humanizing of science for all to promote wellness (Elmesky 2021). Practitioners and scholars involved in science education can answer the call to instill responsibility in their students for their learning process as they value the epistemologies of the learner (Baptiste, Chacón-Díaz, Costa-Guerra, and Costa-Guerra 2016). The proposed meta-learning framework places the learning responsibility on the learner and values the student’s current knowledge and the knowledge to be discovered through their agency.

A male Eurocentric view of science has been presented to all students over the years, including in the manner that the historical science content knowledge has been included within textbooks (Chacón-Díaz 2022) and in the teaching approaches that often seek to control and limit the agency of students of color (Elmesky 2021). The work by Miles and Roby (2022) exemplifies how science education can be utilized to empower students of color through Black liberation practices. Empowering students to engage in their meta-learning processes cultivates in them agency to make informed decisions. In this meta-learning framework, the learner is the protagonist within the narrative of the science learning process. Each learner, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or cultural background should be given the opportunity to embrace their agency for positive change for themselves and their communities.

Conclusion

Teaching and learning science are humanizing practices important for the well-being of every society. If science educators place scientific knowledge as worth pursuing, learners will embark on a meta-learning journey that can last their lifetime. All learners (including educators) must develop a sense of responsibility toward themselves and their communities to embrace learning as a lifelong process. Reflecting on the words of Siry (2020) on the role of science education in this time of crisis, I would endorse the development of metacognitive and meta-learning practices within the context of science learning. By engaging in lifelong learning practices, we can make well-informed science-based decisions and construct a safe and healthy world for ourselves and those to come. I echo the words of Tolkien (1966) on deciding “what to do with the time given to you” as a calling to contextualize science education for meta-learning purposes in order to engage in practices that promote health, peace, and safety during a time of crisis and beyond.

Lucía B. Chacón-Díaz

is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University. She has been a Biology and Chemistry high school teacher in Mexico before earning a doctorate degree at New Mexico State University. Her research focuses on the development of science self-efficacy, higher order thinking, and metacognitive skills in all students.

Footnotes

Lead Editors: C. Milne and C. Siry

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Abrami, P. C., & Aslan, O. (2007). The student learning strategies questionnaire. Centre for the Study of Learning & Performance, Concordia University.
  2. Baptiste HP, Chacón-Díaz LB, Costa-Guerra B, Costa-Guerra L. The epistemology of the school learner. In: Solomon A, editor. Diversity in education 2nd Edition: An integrated framework beyond chalk and talk. Linus Learning; 2016. pp. 2–25. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bassett MT, Chen JT, Krieger N. Variation in racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age in the United States: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Medicine. 2020 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Biggs JB. The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1985;55(3):185–212. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1985.tb02625.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives. David McKay Company Inc; 1956. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, W. E . How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and School. Department of Education; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brazdil P, Carrier CG, Soares C, Vilalta R. Metalearning: Applications to data mining. Berlin: Springer; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bryant A. Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. Oxford University Press; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Burton W, Kimball R, Wing R. Education for effective thinking. Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1960. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chacón-Díaz LB. A textbook analysis to uncover the hidden contributors of science and mathematics. Science and Education. 2022;31:193–21. doi: 10.1007/s11191-021-00246-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
  12. Department of Education (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s studentshttps://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington:Heath.
  14. Elmesky R. Humanizing science education, wellness and a more just world. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2021;16:857–866. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10077-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fensham PJ. Scepticism and trust: Two counterpoint essentials in science education for complex socio-scientific issues. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2014;9(3):649–661. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9560-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psychological inquiry. The American Psychology. 1979;34:906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Garner PW, Gabitova N, Gupta A, Wood T. Innovations in science education: Infusing social emotional principles into early STEM learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2017;13:889–903. doi: 10.1007/s11422-017-9826-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit.
  19. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company; 1967. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Erlbaum.
  21. Hartman, H. J. (1980). Improving cognitive skills: Procedures, problems and prospects. Improving Cognitive Skills: Procedures, Problems and Prospects. Annual Symposium on Developmental/ Remedial Education.
  22. Hartman, H. J. (1998). Metacognition in teaching and learning: An introduction. Instructional Science,26, 1–3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23371261
  23. Kuhn D. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education. 2010;94(5):810–824. doi: 10.1002/sce.20395. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  25. Larrivee B. Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice. 2000;1(3):293–307. doi: 10.1080/713693162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lederman NG, Lederman JS. Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In: Lederman NG, Abell SK, editors. Handbook of research on science education. Routledge; 2014. pp. 600–620. [Google Scholar]
  27. Leung JSC, Cheng MMW. Trust in the time of corona: Epistemic practice beyond hard evidence. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2021;16(2):327–336. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10045-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. McGuire S, McGuire S. Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Stylus Publishing; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  29. Miles ML, Roby RS. Black liberatory science education: Positioning black youth as science learners through recognizing brilliance. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2022;17(1):177–198. doi: 10.1007/s11422-022-10109-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nasr N. Overcoming the discourse of science mistrust: How science education can be used to develop competent consumers and communicators of science information. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2021;16(2):345–356. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10064-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Oakley, B., Sejnowski, T., & McConville (2018). Learning how to learn: How to succeed in school without spending all your time studying. Penguin Random House.
  32. Piaget J. Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development. 1971;15:1–15. doi: 10.1159/000271225. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Price-Haywood EG, Burton J, Fort D, Seoane L. Hospitalization and mortality among black patients and White patients with COVID-19. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382:2534–2543. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa2011686. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Raia F, Legados L, Silacheva I, Plotkin JB, Krishnan S, Deng MC. What is that’s going on here? A multidimensional time concept is foundational to framing for decision making in situations of uncertainty. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2021;16:881–913. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10063-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rolheiser C, Stevahn L. The role of staff developers in promoting effective teacher decision making. In: Brody CM, Davidson N, editors. Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches. State University of New York Press; 1998. pp. 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ryu M. Ethical considerations in ethnographies of science education: Toward humanizing science education research. In: Otrel-Cass K, Andrée M, Ryu M, editors. Examining Ethics in Contemporary Science Education Research. Springer; 2020. pp. 71–89. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schön DA. From technical rationality to reflection-in-action. In: Dowie J, Elstein AS, editors. Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge University Press; 1988. pp. 60–77. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schraw G, Crippen KJ, Hartley K. Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education. 2006;36(1–2):111–139. doi: 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Seel NM. Metacognition and learning. In: Seel NM, editor. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Siry C. Science education during times of crisis: Calling for reflections, responses, and forward thinking from the CSSE community. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2020;15:317–322. doi: 10.1007/s11422-020-09985-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith RM. How people become effective learners. Adult Learning. 1991;2(6):11–13. doi: 10.1177/104515959100200605. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tanner KD. Promoting student metacognition. CBE - Life Sciences Education. 2012;11(2):113–120. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tobin K, Alexakos K. Global challenges need attention now: Educating humanity for wellness and sustainability. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2021;16(3):651–673. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10080-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1966). The fellowship of the ring (2nd ed.). George Allen & Unwin.
  45. White RT, Gunstone RF. Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education. 1989;11(5):577–586. doi: 10.1080/0950069890110509. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems. 2013;22(1):45–55. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2011.51. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zimmerman BJ. Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self- regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist. 1998;33(2/3):73–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwozdiak-Myers P. Reflective practice for professional development. In: Green A, editor. Becoming a reflective English teacher. Open University Press; 2010. pp. 26–42. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cultural Studies of Science Education are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES