Developing prospective primary teachers’ learning-to-learn competence through experimental activities

Cite this article: Morón-Monge, H., & García-Carmona, A. (2022). Developing prospective primary teachers’ learning-to-learn competence through experimental activities. International Journal of Science Education, 44(12), 2015-2034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2108929 Developing prospective primary teachers’ learning-to-learn competence through experimental activities Hortensia Morón-Monge Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales. Universidad de Sevilla. Spain e-mail: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3298-5911 Antonio García-Carmona (Corresponding author) Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales. Universidad de Sevilla. Spain e-mail: garcia-[email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-0340 Abstract A qualitative study was made of how the learning-to-learn competence is favoured in prospective primary education teachers when they participate in an ad hoc designed experimental activity (ExA). The ExA was on the germination of seeds. Its objective was for the prospective teachers to learn how to (i) design and execute a school scientific inquiry, and (ii) reflect metacognitively about their experience with the ExA and what they had learnt. This latter objective is analysed in the present study. To this end, a category-descriptor instrument was designed for the learning-to-learn competence. This allowed the moments and actions to be analysed, as well as the prospective teachers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the ExA. The participants were organized into small work groups, and the information analysed was drawn from the records of the ExA in the notebooks which those groups prepared. In general, the results are indicative of the positive effect of the proposed ExA on the development of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the prospective teachers’ learning processes. Especially important were the moments of idea confrontation, reflection, and whole-class sharing since they let the prospective teachers become aware of and control these strategies. The scope, limitations, and implications of the study are discussed. Keywords: experimental activity; teacher training; learning-to-learn competence; inquiry; metacognition. Learning science as inquiry with experimental activities In science education, there is broad consensus on the advisability of promoting inquiry-based learning strategies to develop scientific competence (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). Experimental activities (ExA’s) play an important role in this framework (García-Carmona et al., 2018). They are conceived of as being classroom activities in which students are challenged with stimulating questions to observe, investigate, and develop an understanding of the physical world through direct experiences with the phenomena, or by manipulating objects and materials (Science Community Representing Education [SCORE], 2013). In Spain’s educational context, the Primary Education science curriculum explicitly suggests the promotion of ExA. In particular, within the block "Initiation into scientific activity" the following learning standard is proposed (Ministry of Education, 2014): "[the students] carry out simple experiments and small research inquiries, setting out problems, 2 stating hypotheses, selecting the necessary material, carrying out the activity, drawing conclusions, and communicating the results" (p.18; brackets added). The development of ExA poses significant didactic challenges for the students, especially when the topics of inquiry are more open in nature. In this regard, education research shows that students often have difficulties in identifying researchable questions (Cruz-Guzmán et al., 2017) and formulating scientific hypotheses (Oh, 2010). They also have difficulties regarding the identification and management of variables (Schwichow et al., 2016), the design of experiments (García-Carmona et al., 2017), as well as drawing conclusions through an argued interpretation of the data (Rönnebeck et al., 2016). Nonetheless, with appropriate instruction, they can improve their ability to perform these scientific practices, for example, when the ExA is implemented as a guided inquiry (García-Carmona, 2020). Despite the didactic potential of ExA, its incidence in Spanish primary education classrooms is still far from desirable (Cañal et al., 2013). In general, little attention is paid to the inquirybased didactic approach in basic science education. When an attempt is made to address it, it is usually in a somewhat distorted manner, i.e., as if it were simply a matter of following a series of ordered steps like following a "cooking recipe" (McLaughlin & MacFadden, 2014), without the students reflecting on what they are to inquire into, why, and how to do so (García- Carmona et al., 2017). For this reason, this approach needs to be dealt with adequately in initial primary science teacher training (Cañal et al., 2016). A good way would be through these students’ own participation in ExA, reflecting on its didactic value (García-Carmona et al., 2018). The prospective teachers would then be able to experience school science inquiries first-hand, which in addition will serve them as referents for their own inquiry-based teaching designs (Cortés & Gandara, 2007; García-Carmona et al., 2017). For years now in Spain, the inquiry-based didactic approach has been used from the initial training of primary education teachers onwards (e.g., Cortés & Gándara 2007; Cañal et al., 2011). Nonetheless, there is still a recognized need for its further development and implementation (Vílchez & Bravo, 2015; García-Carmona et al., 2018). In particular, there have been few studies analysing how prospective teachers go through the different stages of an ExA that is set out as a scientific inquiry (García-Carmona, 2020). The learning-to-learn competence in experimental activities For students to achieve meaningful learning, it is necessary for them to put into practice cognitive and metacognitive strategies that will help them regulate autonomously the construction of such learning (Campanario, 2000; García-Carmona, 2012). Cognitive strategies refer to the skills that students bring into play to encode, memorise, and recall information; while metacognitive strategies comprise skills that allow them to understand and monitor their cognitive processes. (Schraw et al., 2006, p. 112). Both strategies are essential so that students gain awareness of how they learn, the obstacles they face and how these can be overcome to achieve the educational objectives that they have been set. This is known as the "learning-to- learn" competence (Cornford, 2002). Below, it is exposed a brief review of some background information on the development of this competence in the context of inquiry-based science learning. Brief background review of the literature The benefits of engaging in inquiry-based activities to improve students' metacognitive skills have been verified in numerous studies (Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008; Schraw et al., 2006). For example, in a quasiexperimental study with high school students, Huang and Chang (2013) verified that those students who practiced collaborative discussions during the development of an online inquiry improved their metacognition skills with respect to those who performed the 3 same inquiry without such collaborative discussion moments. Chang et al. (2020) found that the school inquiry model based on the metacognitive learning cycle, which provides opportunities for students to reflect on their learning, significantly improved high school students' metacognitive skills while learning abstract biology concepts. A similar conclusion is obtained by other authors, such as Nunaki et al. (2019) when implementing the 4-D (Define, Design, Develop, and Dissemination) inquiry model with high school students; or Divrik et al. (2020) by applying metacognitive strategies with 4th grade students while learning with the inquiry-based learning method. In the training of prospective science teachers, the effectiveness of inquiry-based activities in improving their metacognitive skills has also been verified. For example, Erenler and Cetin (2019) found that argument-driven inquiry-based laboratory activities helped preservice secondary science teachers improve their metacognitive awareness and science writing skills. In a study that analysed the development of science inquiry skills in preservice primary teachers, it was found that the metacognition practiced by participants in teamwork was essential for this purpose (García-Carmona, 2019). Overall, Schraw et al. (2006) comprehensive review of the issue highlights the positive relationship between the performance of metacognitive strategies and the improvement of science teaching/learning using inquiry-based learning contexts and other similar approaches, such as problem-based approaches. However, there are hardly any known studies specifically focused on developing the learning-to-learn competence through participation in ExA in prospective primary school teachers. Hence the relevance of the present study. A model for the development of cognitive and metacognitive skills In the Spanish educational curriculum, one of the key competences is learning-to-learn, defined as the ability to initiate, organize, and persist in learning (Ministry of Education, 2014). It can be subdivided into three types of knowledge: "What I know and what I don’t" (knowing), "The strategies I use to learn" (knowing “how to do”), and "The sensations and emotions associated with the learning process" (knowing “how to be”). In order to evaluate the acquisition of the learning-to-learn competence, these three types of knowledge can be re-interpreted in the form of four progressive phases during the development of this competence (European Commission, 2012): "Why I learn" (motivations and attitudes), "What I learn" (objective and planning), "How I learn" (organization and management), and "I reflect on my progress" (reflection on learning progress). This phase breakdown is interesting because it helps to see to what extent this competence is acquired with some specific activity or learning experience. In accordance with the above, and with a focus on the possible phases in attaining the learning-to-learn competence, Figure 1 summarizes the moments and elements that need to be promoted during educational practice. The first phase involves creating the motivational environment or context, presenting the students a problem to solve that is interesting and close to them. This phase is the one that tries to hook the students onto the problem and generate in them a need to learn. Some elements that should be fostered are curiosity about the problem, the students’ protagonism, and for the activity to be challenging as well as approachable. The second phase invites the students to ask themselves what they do know and what they don’t, as well as what possible strategies and resources they need to solve the problem. Then the planning of the activities to be developed begins, as well as the execution and supervision of the different tasks. Finally, the third phase is aimed at contrasting the achievements made during the educational experience, and transferring this knowledge to other contexts and/or problems. It is worth noting that this model for the promotion of learning-to-learn competence is in line with previous models on the development of metacognitive skills, such as the one proposed 4 by Schraw (1998, cit. in Kipnis & Hofstein, 2007, p. 606). His model establishes two essential components: knowledge of cognition (declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge), and regulation of knowledge (planning, monitoring, and evaluating). It can be said that both components are integrated in phase II of the model shown in Figure 1. In addition, in this framework, motivation is assimilated as the set of beliefs and attitudes that affect the use and development of cognitive and metacognitive skills (Shraw et al., 2006). Figure 1. Phases for the development of cognitive and metacognitive skills (the authors). Likewise, within the ExA framework, this scheme (Figure 1) can also be considered to promote the learning-to-learn competence. On the one hand, for the students to attain this competence it is necessary for them to put into practice other educational capacities. And on the other, learning science through ExA as inquiry requires the ideas, data, and/or results obtained to be permanently (re)evaluated and (re)formulated, as well as confronted, discussed, and reasoned about in group contexts (Angulo, 1998; Cornford, 2002). In this sense, self-regulation and control competences (planning, supervision, and evaluation) are processes that not only have links to cognition and metacognition, but also are involved in the inquiry processes (White et al., 2009). Therefore, ExA’s require constant cognitive and metacognitive exercise. This makes them ideal to promote the learning-to-learn competence. An educational proposal that follows this line is that described by White et al. (2009) with inquiry activities based on role playing. In these activities, the metacognitive strategies that the students use during their learning are analysed. Nonetheless, even now more than a decade after that proposal, there is still little interest in carrying out educational experiences that promote the learning-to-learn competence in science classes. Purpose of the study In view of the above, the objective of this qualitative study was to determine the scope of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in prospective primary teachers, within the framework of an ExA. The general research question guiding the study was: To what extent do ExA’s contribute to the development of learning-to-learn competence in prospective teachers? But, to operationalize this approach, the question was broken down into the following two research questions: 5 1. What moments and tasks of an ExA favour strategies for the development of learning- to-learn competence? 2. What strategies do teacher education students use as part of their learning-to-learn competence during the ExA? The first question refers to the cognitive strategies, actions, and moments during the ExA that prospective teachers use during their learning. The second addresses the metacognitive strategies that they use in the management and conscious control of their learning. Therefore, the two questions are closely linked in the development of the learning-to-learn competence. In addition to exploring these two questions, this study hopes to provide an example of how an ExA can foster these cognitive and metacognitive strategies in initial teacher training. Methods Participants and context The participants in the study were 68 students (31 men and 37 women, age range 19-22 years) who were studying science teaching in the 2nd year of the Primary Education bachelor’s degree at the University of Sevilla. It was an incidental sample since the students selected were those who could be accessed at the time of the study. Furthermore, it should be noted that, prior to this, none of the students had received specific didactic training about either the inquiry-based approach or the metacognitive strategies for the self-regulation of learning. Students who take this degree course tend to have low interest in science and its teaching (García-Carmona & Cruz-Guzmán, 2016). The vast majority come from educational itineraries related to the social sciences and humanities, so they arrive with a low level of scientific competence. They mostly opt for this university qualification to specialize in language teaching (English, French, or German), physical education, music education, or special education. Hence, science teaching is one of the areas of knowledge that arouses the least interest in them. The science teaching course, in which the present study was carried out, is one-year (9 credits). Among its objectives is to introduce the students to the inquiry-based approach to science learning. This is specified in that firstly the students participate in an ExA to experience how to learn by inquiry about the phenomena of nature, and secondly they learn to design their own ExA as future science teachers. The teaching intervention process To develop the educational intervention under analysis, the students were organized into small work groups (11 groups in total). They had to carry out an ExA about the germination of seeds and the conditions that are necessary for their growth. This topic was selected because it is a common experiment in primary schools, usually carried out with bean seeds, cotton wool, and a yoghurt pot (Márquez & Pedreira, 2005). Nonetheless, the experiment is usually implemented for the students to acquire knowledge of the discipline (i.e., description and observation of the parts of the plant) through a process that is guided by the teacher (Márquez & Pedreria, 2005). It is therefore far removed from any inquiry approach, and any opportunity for the students to learn science by doing science in doing this experiment is lost. This is so much so that, when these students reach higher education levels, they have limited or inadequate knowledge about plant growth (Charrier et al., 2006). An ExA can have different levels of openness (Martin-Hansen, 2002), ranging from an open inquiry in which the students propose, plan, and implement the entire process, to a closed inquiry in which the teacher sets out and plans the entire process (selection of the research 6 questions, the data acquisition and analysis instruments, etc.). There are also intermediate approaches that can be denoted semi-open or guided inquiries. The present study proposes another option, which is termed here as flexible ExA. It is characterized by having a level of openness that is determined in accordance with the needs and demands of the students as the development of the ExA advances. In this way, the students progress through the different actions that need to be developed in each stage of the ExA, with the aid given to them by the teacher being adjusted to their pace and learning needs. Thus, the implementation of a flexible ExA means that the teacher has to be constantly observing and supervising the students’ evolution so as to detect any difficulties or obstacles they encounter in order to provide the appropriate pedagogical support. The prospective teachers were asked to carry out a flexible ExA framed around the main theme of germination. Each group had to define their own inquiry questions depending on what they wanted to analyse (whether the seeds germinate the same with distilled water as when the water is from the tap, whether the number of seeds influences the speed of germination, whether the seeds can germinate only with water or also with other liquids such as coca cola, etc.). Table 1 summarizes the tasks, actions, and resources used in the ExA. The design is configured in different phases and actions based on the promotion of the learning-to-learn competence (Figure 1) or of metacognitive training as proposed by Osses and Jaramillo (2008). Each phase comprises a series of tasks in which the students worked in groups, while the instructor (first author) guided and supervised the degree of achievement of each task. Table 1. Development phases of the flexible ExA Phases Purposes and moments Description: Tasks and Resources PHASE I: Motivating context Creation of a situation that provokes interest in the subject. And exploration of prior ideas (plants: development and growth) • Initial question posed by the instructor at the beginning of the session: What did you all eat today? • The instructor responds to the question: Today I have eaten a plate of embryos with broth. • Next question posed by the instructor: Do you like embryos? I have a few uncooked ones in my pocket. • Some legume seeds are shown, and the ExA to be carried out is presented under the general problem: What does a seed need to germinate? PHASE II: Development of the ExA and learning processes Sub-phase II.1: Introduction and prior preparation for the ExA • Presentation of the activity: objectives, tasks, resources, and work method. • Providing basic information about seeds and their germination process. Sub-phase II.2 (pre-ExA): Reflection prior to the development of the ExA, and planning the phases of the ExA by the groups • Presentation of the script of questions for reflection on the ExA before starting and planning it. • Each group defines the different stages that make up the ExA, and the instructor checks them over to look for potential difficulties and provide guidance on how to overcome them. • Whole class sharing session: Each group presents their selected problem for investigation and the specific design of the inquiry to resolve it. • Review of the initial designs: After the sharing session, the groups revise their initial designs to improve them. 7 Sub-phase II.3 (during- ExA): Implementation of the designs, observation of the phenomenon, data acquisition, and whole class sharing of the first results • Experimentation: The groups carry out their experiment autonomously, while the instructor keeps a check on how they do so (whether or not they write down the steps they follow, whether they use measuring instruments, whether the decisions they make are arbitrary, spontaneous, or the result of consensus). • Presentation of an example of a data acquisition and observation instrument based on the demands and/or difficulties manifested by the groups. This instrument helps to systematize the observation process, and to better control the variables studied. • Making weekly observations of the evolution of the seeds and their germination: The instructor checks on each group as to what they observe, how they do so, and what type of annotations or data they record in their notebook. • After three observations (three weeks of growth), the first results are discussed and shared in a whole-class session. PHASE III: Learning and possible transfer Post-ExA: Reflection on the learning derived from the ExA • Each group records their reflections about the ExA in their notebook: (i) the ExA process (phases I and II), (ii) what they have learnt about the phenomenon studied (awareness and evolution of their prior ideas), (iii) what doubts or new questions the experience has raised (what they do not understand well, what they would like to know, etc.), and (iv) what they have learnt regarding their performance as future science teachers. It should be noted that, in phase III, the prospective teachers were explicitly requested to give their reflections on questions (i)-(iii) in their notebooks. They were not, however, given any direct instruction about how to reflect upon the possible transfer of their learning (question iv). Also, phase III is of especial relevance in this study since, as will be detailed in the following section, it corresponds to the moment in which the prospective teachers record the ExA in their notebooks, which will serve as a source of information to analyse the grade of development of their learning-to-learn competence. Instruments and analysis procedure As noted above, each group recorded the development of the ExA in their notebook (Ruiz- Primo et al., 2004). The notebook is an instrument that invites students to naturally record their learning experiences. In it, they can describe the problems they are trying to solve, the procedure to use, the observations they make, as well as their more intimate reflections (Angulo, 1998; Campanario, 2000; Ruiz-Primo et al., 2004). Its use is therefore ideal in inquiry-type learning processes, with attention centred on the development of metacognitive strategies (White et al., 2009) in which the students are explicitly invited to become aware of those strategies’ effectiveness (Osses & Jaramillo, 2008). Thus, the group notebook was the data source, and its content was analysed from a descriptive-interpretative perspective. In the notebooks, the groups recorded their reflections about the ExA in seven sections: (a) research problem, (b) hypothesis formulation, (c) variables to study, (d) design of the experiment, (e) data acquisition (the regular monitoring observations), (f) interpretation and conclusions of the results, and (g) overall final reflection. In line with what is described in Table 1, in these sections the groups were required to try to reflect in as much detail as possible on everything they did and learnt about the phenomenon of germination (basic scientific knowledge and skills) corresponding to phases I and II, and on the progress of their learning with the ExA, corresponding to phase III. For the analysis of all this information, a categories-descriptors 8 relationship was established that allowed the degree of development of the learning-to-learn competence to be assessed. Categories-descriptors of the learning-to-learn competence In accordance with the described theoretical framework, the Categories-Descriptors derived from the groups’ science notebooks as listed in Table 2 were used for the analysis of the learning-to-learn competence. It should be clarified that, although the European Commission uses four dimensions to evaluate this competence (1. Why I learn, 2. What I learn, 3. How I learn, and 4. I reflect on my progress), in this case only the second (what I have learnt) and fourth (reflection on my learning progress) dimensions were used, since these were the ones that were mainly reflected in the groups’ science notebooks. Likewise, both of these dimensions had been specified in a series of categories referring to the desirable teaching competences for science teaching (Guerra & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2011). Thus, the dimension "What have I learnt (and not)?" corresponds to the Scientific Knowledge (SK) that was being dealt with and the Scientific Skills (SS) that had been developed (observation, formulation of hypotheses, interpretation, etc.). It also accommodates knowledge that still needs to be learnt or that arouses interest. The dimension "Reflect on my learning progress" is related to two categories: the metacognitive knowledge (MK) that the students put into play during the ExA, and the didactic knowledge and the transfer of learning to other areas, disciplines, or problems (DK). Table 2. Table of Categories-Descriptors by dimension. Dimensions Categories Descriptors Dimension 1. What have I learnt (and not)? Scientific Knowledge (SK) Knowledge related to the content being studied gained (or not) by the students after the practical experiment, in this case, knowledge about seed germination and plant growth. Scientific Skills (SS) Scientific skills (observation, setting out hypotheses, data interpretation, etc.) that students explicitly state they have developed (or not) during the experiment. Dimension 4. Reflection on my learning progress Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) The students’ awareness of what and how they have learnt, in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and proposals for improvement. Didactic Knowledge (DK) Didactic Knowledge that the students have achieved as a result of reflecting on the ExA, and which will help them in their future teaching practice (didactic transfer of learning). Since the groups’ notebooks offered wide-ranging and varied information about the prospective teachers’ opinions, evaluations, and reflections, their content was analysed and categorized in a progressive way through a process of inter-observer analysis (Padilla, 2002), following the usual standards in qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2000). To this end, the first author extracted the data from the notebooks for its organization and systematic analysis. Once this information had been compiled, this same author subjected it to a preliminary analysis in accordance with the categories and descriptors of Table 2. This first categorization was reviewed by the second author, finding a high degree of agreement in about 90% of the information units analysed. The cases of discrepancy were reviewed again and discussed by the two authors until a consensus was reached on their definitive categorization. 9 Following Shenton (2004), in order to meet the confirmability criterion in this qualitative study, the data were analysed according to a clearly established categorisation system (Table 2) based on the theoretical framework described. In this way, possible biases of the researchers in classifying and interpreting the data are minimised. In addition, to reinforce the credibility of the analysis, the use of low inference descriptors is used in the presentation of the results (Latorre, 2003). In particular, as will be seen below, included together with the categories of analysis are textual fragments of the information recorded by the groups in their notebooks. This is done in order to provide evidence in support of the decisions the authors made regarding the categorization of the information. Regarding the transferability of the study, it can only be partially contributed because, certainly, the results and conclusions cannot be generalised to the entire population of future primary school teachers, not even in the Spanish context. However, they can be considered as a source of reflection and reference for other research carried out in similar educational contexts (Elliot, 2000). Results Before going on to analyse in detail each of the dimensions and categories of the learning to learn competence, table 3 shows an overall synthesis of the attention they received by the groups during the ExA. As can be seen, the two categories of dimension 1 (What have I learnt (and not)?) were the most attended to by the groups; in particular, the category 'Scientific Knowledge (SK)' was addressed by all groups in their notebook, and 'Scientific Skill (SS)' by almost all. In contrast, reflection on their own learning (dimension 4) seemed to be less interesting or easy to address during the ExA. Both 'Metacognitive Knowledge (MK)' and 'Didactic Knowledge (DK)' categories were only addressed by about a third of the groups (4/11). However, given the exploratory-descriptive nature of this study, no information was obtained on the reasons why these were not addressed by the remaining groups in their notebooks. Below, it is delved into how the different categories were addressed by the groups that addressed them. Table 3. Number of groups that explicitly referred to the different categories of learning-to- learn competence analysed in their notebooks during the ExA Dimensions Categories No. of groups Dimension 1. What have I learnt (and not)? Scientific Knowledge (SK) 11/11 Scientific Skills (SS) 9/11 Dimension 4. Reflection on my learning progress Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) 4/11 Didactic Knowledge (DK) 4/11 Dimension 1: What have I learnt (and not)? Category – Scientific Knowledge (SK) In their notebooks, the 11 groups indicated something relating to their SK learning after the ExA. Tables 4-6 present extracts from the notebooks in which the evolution can be observed of their prior ideas that conformed their initial hypotheses. Also indicated is the section of the notebook from which the fragments were taken and/or the moment of the ExA being referred to (inquiry problem, formulation of hypotheses, variables to study, experiment design, data acquisition, the monitoring observations, or the interpretation and conclusions of the results). Table 4 gives examples of what the groups learnt (what they know). These reflections appear mainly in the ExA while observing the seeds and in the last phase of interpretation of 16 Limitations and perspectives Determining from the reflections in their notebooks the level of acquisition of the learning-to- learn competence, or the cognitive and metacognitive strategies that the prospective teachers develop about an ExA was a task of great complexity. Fundamentally, this was due to the variety of forms of recording information and to the prospective teachers’ own capacity for expression. Added to this was the difficulty that, unlike other better studied educational competences, this competence entails given its psychological and didactic conceptualization (White et al., 2009). Likewise, it must be said that the results presented are limited in that they emanate from the particular circumstances and context in which the study was carried out, with a small sample chosen for convenience. However, the profuse description of the context, the activity, and the profile of the participants may favour some type of transferability to other similar teacher training contexts, always with the precaution needed concerning qualitative studies such as the present. This suggests the need to undertake new inquiries in both the same context in order to deepen the findings presented here, and other contexts to make comparative analyses. In this regard, it would be especially interesting to explore the other two remaining dimensions – why I learn (dimension 1) and how I learn (dimension 3) – which also conform the learning-to-learn competence (European Commission, 2012). With regard to the research instruments used, it would be desirable to combine the notebook with other data acquisition instruments such as video recordings, which would help to obtain a greater quantity and diversity of information or even do a pre-interview to explore participants views on learning motivation and metacognition. Additionally, a mixed-method approach might have been appropriate to address the research questions of the study and use a control group and data at the individual level. This was not done in the present case because, being a preliminary study about such a complex issue, it was not even known how the notebook was going to work. But it has proven without a doubt to be an immensely rich source of information to record, and therefore analyse, metacognitive and self-regulatory learning processes. Finally, and in view of all the above, it can be said that this study has made an interesting and suggestive contribution to a subject that is rarely dealt with in science teaching in general, and particularly in initial primary teacher training – in this case, the development of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to learn how to learn science, as an essential step in learning to teach science. It was also done by taking advantage of an activity – the germination of seeds – which is classic but, in the form in which it was implemented, i.e., with an inquiry-based focus within a flexible ExA, has been profiled as ideal for the development of competences as complex as that of learning-to-learn in the initial training of prospective teachers. Funding This study was funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (Government of Spain) under Grant EDU2017-82505-P. Ethical Statement This study met the ethics requirements for research that involves human subjects at the time the data was collected. References Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. 17 Angulo, F. (1998). La formación del profesor de ciencias: fundamentos teóricos en una perspectiva de autorregulación metacognitiva [Science teacher education: theoretical bases from a metacognitive self-regulation perspective]. Educación y Pedagogía, 21, 69- 96. Campanario, J. M. (2000). El desarrollo de la metacognición en el aprendizaje de las ciencias: estrategias para el profesor y actividades orientadas al alumno [Development of metacognition in science learning: teacher strategies and activities aimed at student]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 18(3), 369-80. Cañal, P., Criado, A. M., García-Carmona, A., & Muñoz, G. (2013). La enseñanza relativa al medio en las aulas españolas de Educación Infantil y Primaria: Concepciones didácticas y práctica docente [Science teaching in Spanish elementary education classrooms: Didactic conceptions and teaching practice]. Investigación en la Escuela, 81, 21–42. Cañal, P., García-Carmona, A., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2016). Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales en Educación Primaria [Didactics of Experimental Science in Primary Education]. Paraninfo. Cañal, P., Travé, G., & Pozuelos, F. J. (2011). Análisis de obstáculos y dificultades de profesores y estudiantes en la utilización de enfoques de investigación escolar [An analysis of teachers' and students' obstacles and difficulties in using inquiry-based educational approaches]. Investigación en la Escuela, 73, 5-26. Chang, P. S., Lee, S. H., & Wen, M. L. (2020). Metacognitive inquiry activities for instructing the central dogma concept: ‘button code’ and ‘beaded bracelet making’. Journal of Biological Education, 54(1), 47-62. Charrier, M., Cañal, P., & Rodrigo, M. (2006). Las concepciones de los estudiantes sobre la fotosíntesis y la respiración: una revisión sobre la investigación didáctica en el campo de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la nutrición de las plantas [Students' conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration: a review of didactic research on teaching and learning of plant nutrition]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 24(3), 401-410. Cornford, I. R. (2002). Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(4), 357-368. Cortés, A. L. & Gándara, M. (2006). La construcción de problemas en el laboratorio durante la formación del profesorado: Una experiencia didáctica [Construction of problems in the laboratory during teacher training: A didactic experience.]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 25(3), 435–450. Cruz-Guzmán, M., García-Carmona, A., & Criado, A. M. (2017). An analysis of the questions proposed by elementary pre-service teachers when designing experimental activities as inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 39(13), 1755-1774. Divrik, R., Pilten, P., & Tas, A. M. (2020). Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Method Supported by Metacognitive Strategies on Fourth-Grade Students' Problem-Solving and Problem-Posing Skills: A Mixed Methods Research. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(2), 287-308. Elliot, J. (2000). La investigación-acción en educación [Action research in education] (4th ed.). Morata. Erenler, S. & Cetin, P.S. (2019). Utilizing argument-driven-inquiry to develop pre-service teachers’ metacognitive awareness and writing skills. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(2), 628-638. 18 European Commission. (2012). Assessment of Key Competences in Initial Education and Training: Policy Guidance. Available at https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2012:0371:FIN:EN:PDF García-Carmona, A. (2012). “¿Qué he comprendido? ¿Qué sigo sin entender?”: promoviendo la autorreflexión en clase de ciencias [«What have I understood? what do not I still understand?»: promoting self-reflection in science classroom]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 9(2), 231-240. García-Carmona, A. (2019). Pre-service primary science teachers’ abilities for solving a measurement problem through inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 1-21. García-Carmona, A. (2020). Prospective elementary teachers' abilities in tackling a contextualized physics problem as guided inquiry. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 42, e20190280. García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2017). Primary pre-service teachers’ skills in planning a guided scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 989- 1010. García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2018). Prospective primary teachers’ prior experiences, conceptions, and pedagogical valuations of experimental activities in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 237-253. García-Carmona, A. & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2016). ¿Con qué vivencias, potencialidades y predisposiciones inician los futuros docentes de Educación Primaria su formación en la enseñanza de la ciencia? [What personal experiences, potentialities and predispositions do prospective primary teachers manifest when they start their training in science teaching?] Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 13(2), 440– 458. García-Carmona, A., Cruz-Guzmán, M. & Criado, A. M. (2014). ‘¿Qué hacías para aprobar los exámenes de ciencias, qué aprendiste y qué cambiarías?’ Preguntamos a futuros docentes de educación primaria [“What did you do to pass the science exams, what did you learn and nowadays what would you change?’ We ask preservice primary teachers” We ask future teachers of Primary Education]. Investigación en la Escuela, 84, 31–46. Guerra, M. T., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). ¿Qué se necesita para enseñar ciencias? [What is necessary to teach science?] In Las ciencias naturales en educación básica: formación de ciudadanía para el siglo XXI (pp. 129-157). Secretaría de Educación Pública. Huang and Chang (2013). A Study of the Metacognition Performance in Online Inquiry Learning. IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2013. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562285.pdf Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601-627. Latorre, A. (2003). La investigación-acción. Conocer y cambiar la práctica educativa [Action research. Know and change educational practice]. Graó. 19 Márquez, C., & Pedreira, M. (2005). Dialogar sobre lo esencial: una propuesta de trabajo en la clase de ciencias [Dialogue on the essentials: a proposal for work in the science classroom]. Alambique, 44, 105-112. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1– 10. McLaughlin, C. A., & MacFadden, B. J. (2014). At the elbows of scientists: Shaping science teachers’ conceptions and enactment of inquiry-based instruction. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 927-947. Ministerio de Educación. (2014). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria [Royal Decree 126/2014, February 28, establishing the basic curriculum of primary education]. https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2014/BOE-A-2014-2222-consolidado.pdf Nunaki, J. H., Damopolii, I., Kandowangko, N. Y., & Nusantari, E. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry-based Learning to Train the Students' Metacognitive Skills Based on Gender Differences. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 505-516. Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541–560. Osses, S., & Jaramillo, S. (2008). Metacognición: un camino para aprender a aprender [Metacognition: a way towards learning how to learn]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 34(1), 187-197. Padilla, M. T. (2002) Técnicas e instrumentos para el diagnóstico y la evaluación educativa [Techniques and tools for educational diagnosis and assessment]. CCS. Publications Office of the European Union. (2006). Recommendation 2006/962/EC, of 18 December 2006, of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences, for lifelone learning. Office Journal of European Union, L394, 10–18. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground –A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 161–197. Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Evaluating students' science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477-1506. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1), 111-139. Schwichow, M., Christoph, S., Boone, W. J., & Härtig, H. (2016). The impact of sub-skills and item content on students’ skills with regard to the control-of-variables strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 216-237. Science Community Representing Education [SCORE]. (2013). Resourcing practical science in primary schools. SCORE. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. 20 Vílchez, J. M., & Bravo, B. (2015). Percepción del profesorado de ciencias de educación primaria en formación acerca de las etapas y acciones necesarias para realizar una indagación escolar [Perceptions of pre-service science teachers in primary education about the steps and actions needed to carry out a school inquiry]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 33(1), 185-202. White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 175–205). Routledge.