This proposal presents an in-progress-study with a mixed methods-design about self-regulated learning during experimentation in physics classes in an out-of-school-lab in Germany. Besides pre- and posttests and questionnaires about their knowledge about geometrical optics and about their experimental competencies, there will also be videography of the participants. Due to the current circumstances, no data collection has been possible so far. Therefore, the planned design and methodology will be in the focus of this proposal, and we will discuss expected results and their relevance.

Being able to learn self-regulated is an important competence in a world, in which learning never stops (Brunstein & Spörer, 2018). Focused on the metacognitive component of self-regulated learning, the ability of planning, monitoring, regulating, and evaluating one’s own learning process and one’s own comprehension of the contents to be learned plays a crucial role for successful learning and comprehension (e.g., Thillmann, 2008). Therefore, it should be supported and practiced in school (Wirth & Leutner, 2008). In physics, for example, experimenting can support such competencies: When conducting experiments, learners are required to plan the experimentation process and also adjust it, if observed (e.g., unexpected) interims results call for it. However, learning through experimentation includes some challenges for learners: First, they need to generate experimental results before they can use them (e.g., White et al., 2009). Therefore, support by teachers might be necessary (e.g., Girwidz, 2015), and the amount of support could be investigated by varying the instructional level (guided vs. self-determined experimentation). In our study, this means that students - working in small groups - either receive detailed instructions for their experimentation process or need to plan the experiments by themselves. Both intervention groups receive the same templates for writing down their predictions, observations, and explanations for their experiments. Because the experiments take place in an out-of-school-lab, and therefore, in an authentic learning environment, the learners can feel and act like real researchers (Sommer et al., 2018). Furthermore, because of the non-formal learning environment, they are not being graded (Stecher et al., 2018), which takes off pressure during experimenting.

Whereas self-regulation is divided in three components, namely cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational (Brunstein & Spörer, 2018), metacognition itself has also several sub-dimensions, for instance metacomprehension. Metacomprehension, which means the knowledge about and the ability to estimate one’s own comprehension (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007), has been investigated mostly through reading tasks (e.g., Prinz et al., 2020). Thus, something similar for learning through and during experimentation is yet missing. Therefore, in our study we will investigate the impact of the instructional level (guided vs. self-determined experimentation) on the judgment of one’s own comprehension, the so called judgments of performance (JoP) respectively learning (JoL). A focus in this regard will be whether the metacognitive judgments are more accurate during guided than during self-determined experimentation (RQ1). The accuracy of the judgments is important because accurate judgments help the learners see what they should restudy (e.g., Dunlosky & Rawson, 2012). Furthermore, we will analyze whether these effects interact with prior knowledge and experience of the learners.

Shortly said, there is evidence that learning gains in science classes might be predicted through metacognitive judgments (Mathabathe & Potgieter, 2014). In our study, this can be applied in that learning gains are performance increases and the metacognitive judgments are explicit judgments of learning and judgments of performance. Therefore, we would like to transfer the results to our research topic: Is a performance increase, assessed by the results in pre- and posttest, predictable through judgments of performance and judgments of learning and if so, to which extent; and which impact does the instructional level show (RQ2)?

The investigation of the research questions will be realized through a mixed method design. N = 128 eighth-grade students will experiment in an out-of-school-lab at the university. They will experiment on the phenomenon of the so called “Sonnentaler” (sun coins), which shows as circular spots on forest floors when the sun shines through the canopy of leafs. Because the experiments take place in an out-of-school-lab, which is considered as an authentic learning environment (Sommer et al., 2018), the students can act like researchers without the pressure of being graded. The experimentation process will be done in small groups of up to three students working together and there will be two different ways of experimentation, to which they are randomly assigned. One half of the class will receive detailed instructions (guided experimentation) with an exact and complete guideline through the experimentation process. The other half will need to plan the experimentation process on their own and therefore, be able to spontaneously react to interim results (self-determined experimentation). However, all small groups of the class will receive the same materials and templates for writing down their expectations, observations, and explanations for their experiments and for judging their confidence with the expectations and explanations. Before the experimentation process begins, the students will answer two knowledge tests: One about their prior knowledge and their experiences with experimenting and a two-tier knowledge test about geometrical optics: First, they need to tick what is the correct answer to the presented situation and afterwards, they need to tick the explanation for their answer. Also, ease of learning judgments will be assessed. Then the experimentation process will begin and after three experiments, students will indicate their invested mental effort and perceived difficulty. After completing the full experimentation process, students will judge their own performance regarding the four selected themes of geometrical optics and the two tiers of the knowledge test and again answer the two-tier knowledge test for measuring performance increases. During the experimentation process, some selected groups will be videographed. This allows to investigate the (group) learning process during experimentation. Additionally, statements, which might give hints about self-regulated learning, will be recorded. This data material might help to promote the research at which point during the experimentation process the students need support by the teacher and which student groups need support the most.

Due to the current circumstances (Covid-19), the project is still in progress and at this point there are no collected data yet. Therefore, just expected results will be discussed. Regarding RQ1, we expect that self-determined learners judge their own performance less accurate because, at least in German schools, experimentation processes are mainly guided and therefore, eighth-grade students are not used to this way of experimentation (Hopf & Berger, 2011). But considering the aim of schools and science classes to help students learn in a self-regulated way (Ministry of School and Further Education of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, 2008), both ways of experimentation - guided and self-determined - should be part of physics classes. The performance increase depends on several factors: the prior knowledge regarding experimentation and geometrical optics, the treatment, the judgment of one’s own performance and learning, and the cognitive load experienced. We expect the performance increase of guided learners to be higher because they have less opportunities for mistakes and do not need to use their cognitive capacities for planning and executing inquiries. Regarding RQ2, we anticipate that it is possible to predict the performance increases through the given judgments of performance and judgments of learning. Furthermore, the prior knowledge about the topic and about (self-determined) experimentation processes, and the students’ beliefs about their own competence, are expected to have an impact on the accuracy of the predictability.

Brunstein, J. C. & Spörer, N. (2018). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen. In D. H. Rost, J. R. Sparfeldt & S. R. Buch (Eds.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (5th ed., pp. 742-749). Beltz Verlag. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension. A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228-232. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280. Girwidz, R. (2015). Medien im Physikunterricht. In E. Kircher, R. Girwidz, & P. Häußler (Eds.), Physikdidaktik: Theorie und Praxis (3rd ed., pp. 193–245). Springer Spektrum. Hopf, M. & Berger, R. (2011). Experimentieren. In H. Wiesner, H. Schecker, & M. Hopf (Eds.), Physikdidaktik kompakt (pp. 106–114). Aulis Verlag. Mathabathe, K. C. & Potgieter, M. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and learning gain in foundation chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 96–104. Ministry of School and Further Education of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany (2008). Kernlehrplan für das Gymnasium - Sekundarstufe I (G8) in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Physik. Ritterbach Verlag. Prinz, A., Golke, S. & Wittwer, J. (2020). To What Extent Do Situation-Model-Approach Interventions Improve Relative Metacomprehension Accuracy? Meta-Analytic Insights. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 917–949. Sommer, K., Wirth, J., & Rummel, N. (2018). Authentizität der Wissenschaftsvermittlung im Schülerlabor – Einführung in den Thementeil. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46, 253–260. Stecher, L., Maschke, S. & Preis, N. (2018). Extended Education in a Learning Society. Educational and Social Perspectives. In N. Kahnwald & V. Täubig (Eds.), Informelles Lernen. Standortbestimmungen (pp. 73-90). Springer VS. Thillmann, H. (2008). Selbstreguliertes Lernen durch Experimentieren: Von der Erfassung zur Förderung (Doctoral dissertation, University of Duisburg-Essen). DuEPublico 2. https://duepublico2.uni-due.de/receive/duepublico_mods_00017311 White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009). The Interplay of Scientific Inquiry and Metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 175–205). Routledge. Wirth, J. & Leutner, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning as a competence. Implications of theoretical models for assessment methods. Journal of Psychology, 216, 102–110.