Introduction

According to the NRC (1996), scientific inquiry “refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world” (NRC, 1996, p. 23). Engaging in inquiry provides students with an opportunity to acquire an authentic understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, develop thinking strategies as well as a deep understanding of science content, and appreciation for the work of scientists (Bell et al., 2003; Crawford, 2007, 2014). Inquiry can also support in developing their scientific practices, such as constructing scientific explanations, practice argumentation from evidence (Berland & Reiser, 2009; Reiser et al., 2012), and their reasoning skills that will support them in future encounters with science (Stender et al., 2018). Research indicates that inquiry has positive effects on students’ interest, motivation, and attitudes towards science (Potvin & Hasni, 2014).

For students to be successfully engaged in the learning process, both their competence and autonomy should be promoted (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008; Stefanou et al., 2013). This goal is especially appropriate for inquiry-based learning, which requires students to be engaged in problem solving, decision making, addressing challenges, and failures, while maintaining flexibility (Dorfman, 2020; Sadeh & Zion, 2012; Shedletzky & Zion, 2005). However, the complexity of the inquiry process poses great challenges for students, as it is both cognitively and mentally challenging for students (Blumenfeld et al., 2006; Belland et al., 2013; Kirschner et al., 2006). Students face challenges in many aspects of the inquiry process, including sense making, process management, and articulation and reflection (Quintana et al., 2004). The frustrating effect of these challenges is a major concern in open inquiry processes, in which students take responsibility for their own learning (Herron, 1971). These challenges may result in a counterproductive process (Kuhn et al., 2000), and hamper students’ perceptions of their competence and autonomy (Adler et. al., 2018). Students need to be adequately supported for inquiry-based instruction to be effective and for students to be successful (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016).

One way to support students’ engagement in inquiry is by providing scaffolds to the learning process (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016). Scaffolding implies that given appropriate assistance by supporting various aspects of learning, a learner can attain a goal or engage in a practice otherwise unattainable (Davis & Miyake, 2004; Reiser & Tabak, 2014). Scaffolds help learners bridge the gap between what they could do by themselves and what they are able to do with the assistance of a more capable other, a developmental area that was referred to as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky (1978).

Metacognitive scaffolds have been suggested in the literature for effective engagement of students in the inquiry process (Keselman, 2003; Minner et al., 2010). This is because metacognitive processes support students’ effective engagement with the inquiry process and improve their ability to address its challenges. However, to the best of our knowledge, no research has examined the effect of metacognitive scaffolds on students’ competence or autonomy throughout an open inquiry process. Furthermore, although recent research emphasizes the social aspects of metacognition, and the reciprocity of individual and social metacognitive processes (Iiskala et al., 2004; Iiskala et al., 2015), we are unaware of research that investigated the effect of combined individual and social metacognitive scaffolds to students’ autonomy and competence within the context of inquiry-based learning. Therefore, the goal of this study is to examine the contribution of individual and social metacognitive scaffolds to students’ expressions of competence and autonomy throughout an open inquiry process.

Theoretical Background

Inquiry-Based Learning

For several decades, inquiry has been at the heart of worldwide science education reforms. In spite of this wide acceptance of the importance of students’ engagement in inquiry, there is much disagreement about what inquiry teaching actually entails (Crawford, 2014). Recently, the Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) identified eight scientific practices that help students understand how scientific knowledge develops and gain an appreciation of the wide range of approaches that are used to investigate, model, and explain the world (NRC, 2012). According to the Framework, these scientific practices must be integrated with disciplinary core ideas and cross-cutting concepts, an approach termed three-dimensional learning (3D learning) (Krajcik, 2015; Duncan & Cavera, 2015). In this study, we adopted Crawford’s (2014) definition of inquiry which combines historical views by Dewey and Schwab with modern views as expressed in the Framework (NRC, 2012): “Teaching science as inquiry involves engaging students in using critical thinking skills, which includes asking questions, designing and carrying out investigations, interpreting data as evidence, creating arguments, building models, and communicating findings in pursuit of deepening their understanding by using logic and evidence about the natural world” (p. 515).

Inquiry-based teaching encompasses a broad spectrum of approaches, ranging from teacher-directed structured and guided inquiry to student-directed open inquiry (Bell et al., 2005; Buck et al., 2008; NRC, 2000). Open inquiry is the most complex level of inquiry-based learning. It is a journey of discovery, in which participants grapple with complex phenomena to develop a greater understanding of the world. In this type of inquiry, the teacher defines the knowledge framework in which the inquiry will be conducted, but enables the students to select a wide variety of inquiry questions and approaches (Herron, 1971). Students take responsibility for their learning and engage in a continuous decision-making process throughout every stage of the inquiry process (NRC, 2000). They function autonomously throughout the entire inquiry, as they define their own inquiry questions, processes, and deliverables (Sadeh & Zion, 2012; MacKenzie, 2016). Adler et. al., (2018) demonstrated that contextual factors affect students’ expressions of autonomy and competence throughout the inquiry process. Therefore, it is crucial to promote and sustain student autonomy and competence throughout the inquiry process (Adler et. al., 2018).

Competence and Autonomy

Students’ autonomy and competence have a critical role from both a motivational and a cognitive perspective. From a motivational perspective, the self-determination theory (SDT) assumes that people are active and self-motivated, curious and interested, vital, and eager to succeed (Deci & Ryan, 2008). However, people can also be alienated and mechanized or passive and disaffected. People’s behavior results from the interaction between their inherent active nature and the social environments that either support or thwart that nature (Deci & Ryan, 2008). According to SDT, the fulfillment of three innate psychological needs affect the promotion of motivation: (1) Autonomy refers to being the perceived origin or source of one’s own behavior, with a sense of choice and endorsement of an activity; (2) competence, refers to feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities; and (3) relatedness, refers to feeling connected to others, to caring for and being cared for by others, and to having a sense of belongingness with other individuals and with one’s community (Ryan & Deci, 2002). In line with SDT, it is important for students to feel competent and autonomous in order to foster their motivation and to promote productive engagement in learning (Hofferber et al., 2014; Reeve, 2012; Reeve et al., 1999).

Moreover, competence and autonomy are key factors in the development of self-regulated learning (SRL), which refers to student control of the learning process (Zimmerman, 2000). SRL is a crucial factor for both academic achievements and success at school (Zimmerman & Pons, 1986). According to Pintrich (2004), most models of SRL share four general assumptions regarding the learners: they are active participants in the learning process; they can potentially monitor, control, and regulate aspects of their own cognition, motivation, behavior, and some features of their environment; they can compare and assess their learning against some goal or standard; and their self-regulatory activities act as mediators between personal and contextual characteristics and actual achievement or performance (Pintrich, 2004). Enabling students to be autonomous and play an active role in the decision-making process supporting their self-regulation and self-monitoring skills, also promote their engagement in learning (Stefanou et al., 2013).

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is necessary to support students in performing tasks that are outside their independent reach and to develop the necessary skills to complete the tasks independently (Tabak, 2004). Central to successful scaffolding are several key elements: developing a shared understanding of the goal of the task, appropriate support is based on an ongoing diagnosis of the student’s level of understanding, ongoing assessment and adaptation of support is attained through the dialogic and interactive nature of scaffolded instruction, and scaffolding fades over time as the student becomes more experienced with the task at hand. Successful implementation of these elements enables the student to take control and responsibility for learning (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005). Scaffolds must be designed to address the need of both accomplishing the current task and learning from one’s efforts to improve performance on future similar tasks. Scaffolds should therefore provide support for students while continuing to actively engage them in the process (Reiser, 2002).

According to Reiser (2004), scaffolding involves two mechanisms: Structuring, adding structure to the task and problematizing, which draws the students’ attention to issues or problems within the task they might otherwise choose to ignore, in part because of their natural tendency toward the path of least cognitive resistance. The core of problematizing is to guide the student in facing complexity in the domain that will be productive for learning (Reiser, 2004). Therefore, scaffolds with a problematizing mechanism are characterized by reflection-provoking prompts, marking critical task features and highlighting essential problem-solving steps (De Backer et al., 2016). Although the problematizing mechanism makes learning tasks more difficult in the short-term, they provide robust opportunities for long-term learning by encouraging students to notice, identify, articulate, and cope with task complexities (Molenaar et al., 2014; Phillips et al., 2017; Reiser, 2002, 2004).

Various forms of scaffolds have been identified and described in the literature: context-specific and generic (e.g., McNeill & Krajcik, 2009), cognitive, and metacognitive (e.g., Zion et al., 2004). In a complex learning environment, Tabak (2004) argued that different types of scaffolding can work in synergy. In this context, synergy refers to the characteristic that different components of distributed scaffolding address the same learning need and interact with each other. The result of this synergy produces a robust form of support (Tabak, 2004). Scaffolds which work in synergy strengthen each one’s effects on students’ learning. Though designing effective theory-based scaffolding is a challenging task (Pea, 2004), research indicates that carefully designed scaffolds improve learning and achievements (Reiser & Tabak, 2014).

Metacognitive Scaffolds

Coined by Flavell (1976), metacognition is the “thinking about thinking,” which refers to the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s cognitive processes (Schraw et al., 2006). Accounts of metacognition distinguish between two major components: knowledge about cognition, which includes three sub-processes which facilitate the reflective aspect of metacognition, and regulation of cognition, which also includes several sub-processes that facilitate the control aspect of learning (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Metacognitive skills are considered a prerequisite for the successful engagement in inquiry processes (e.g., Anderson & Nashon, 2007). Therefore, students’ metacognitive processes should be actively supported during their engagement in inquiry (White et al., 2009). According to Schraw (1998) there are several ways to support students’ metacognition in classroom settings: promoting general awareness of the importance of metacognition, improving students’ knowledge about cognition (e.g., Ben-David & Zohar, 2009), improving students’ regulation of cognition (e.g., Tanner, 2012; Zion et al., 2005), and fostering environments that engage students in metacognitive processes (e.g., King, 2002; White & Frederiksen, 2005).

Accounts of metacognition traditionally examined individual processes, in which individuals monitor and control their own knowledge, emotions, and actions. Recent research has identified a growing interest in social aspects of metacognition (Panadero & Jarvela, 2015). Constructs such as socially shared metacognition (Hadwin et al., 2011) or socially shared metacognitive regulation (Iiskala et al., 2011) have emerged as extensions of metacognition into group interactions. These interactions involve group members’ monitoring and controlling each other’s cognitive processes and actions to advance the group’s problem solving and learning tasks (Chiu & Kuo, 2009; Panadero & Jarvela, 2015). The social interactions enable participants to make their metacognitive processes visible, supporting their development (Hurme et al, 2006), and affecting perceptions of tasks (e.g., Hurme et al., 2009). Thus, metacognition appears to be a key part of an effective collaborative learning situation (Goos et al, 2002; Iiskala et al., 2004; Larkin, 2009; Siegel, 2012).

Metacognitive scaffolds trigger students to engage in a variety of regulatory processes: planning and identifying goals, selecting appropriate monitoring strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes (De Backer et al., 2016; Schraw, 1998; Zhou & Lam, 2019). Research has underscored the fundamental role of metacognitive scaffolds for effective student engagement in inquiry-based learning, as they promote goal identification, selection of appropriate coping strategies, monitoring of the inquiry process, and evaluation of learning outcomes, all of which are core characteristics of inquiry processes (Minner et al., 2010; White et al., 2009). However, there is a lack of research which examines the implementation of interventions aimed at enhancing social metacognitive processes (Panadero & Jarvela, 2015). There is also a gap in research which examines the interplay of individual and social metacognitive scaffolds on students’ learning. This research attempts to fill this gap, by looking at the interactions of individual and social metacognitive scaffolds within inquiry-based learning.

Research Question and Hypotheses

This research explored the following research question: How do individual, social, and a combination of individual and social metacognitive scaffolds affect students’ expressions of competence and autonomy throughout an open inquiry process? We hypothesized that providing metacognitive scaffolds, either individual or social, will enhance students’ engagement in metacognitive processes, whether through self-reflection or through discussions that make reveal students’ thinking processes (De Backer et al., 2016; Hurme et al., 2006; Iiskala et al., 2011; Minner et al., 2010). Engagement in these metacognitive processes will support students in developing the strategies and competencies required to effectively overcome the challenges of the complex open inquiry process. Furthermore, we hypothesized that engagement in these processes will result in students achieving higher levels of competence, heightened feelings of control and of developing mastery, and autonomy, and more confidence in their ability to navigate the inquiry process. We also anticipated that a combination of individual and social metacognitive scaffolding will yield a synergistic effect, as students engage in both in self- as well as socially shared metacognitive processes. This engagement is designed to provide students with more opportunities to engage in metacognitive processes, and therefore results in higher levels of competence and autonomy in comparison to groups with one type of metacognitive scaffolds or no metacognitive scaffolding.

However, we also realized that the problematizing mechanism of metacognitive scaffolds, by which they draw students’ attention to the critical properties of the inquiry process, would add more complexity to the process (Reiser, 2004). Thus, we hypothesized that noticing the complexity of the inquiry process as well as experiencing uncertainty and confusion would impede students’ autonomy and competence and would be most noticeable in their initial encounter with the inquiry process, because of lack of effective coping strategies. We expected students in all metacognitive prompted conditions to experience this impediment, especially in the combined individual and social scaffolding conditions, because of their projected higher levels of engagement in metacognitive processes. We further expected that over time, the opportunities for meaningful learning provided by the problematizing mechanism will improve students’ skills and abilities. This improvement will result in an increase in their perceived competence and autonomy as they progress through the process; the highest increase will occur in the condition which combines social and individual metacognitive scaffolding.

In summary, we expected that the effect of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ autonomy and competence would be an ongoing and dynamic process, beginning with some impediment of students’ autonomy and competence in the beginning of the process, and resulting in increased expressions of these variables as students advance in the process. In addition, we expected the combined individual and social metacognitive scaffolding to yield the highest expressions of students’ autonomy and competence over time.

Methods

To examine our research question, we analyzed students’ expressions of competence and autonomy in an online asynchronous forum that accompanied a year-long socio-scientific inquiry process, under four research conditions that differed by the metacognitive scaffolding provided to the students. Students’ online messages were analyzed for their expressions of autonomy and competence, and compared between the four research groups.

Participants

The participants were 137 high-achieving seventh and eighth grade students (who were 13–14 years old) from four different classes in two Israeli junior-high schools. The students represented similar characteristics of age, gender, religion, and average socioeconomic status (as defined by the Israel Ministry of Education).

Students’ Socio-scientific Inquiry Projects

All participating students engaged in a challenging year-long socio-scientific inquiry-based environmental program which was part of their mandatory science education curriculum. As such, their projects embraced a wide range of environmental topics, for example, recycling, consumption, environmental education, environmental hazards, and factories and environmental pollution (for examples see Zion, 2015). Student teams conducted their projects (mostly pairs but several triplets) under their teachers’ supervision. In the beginning, the teams identified and examined real-life environmental issues related to their nearby surroundings. Following the identification of a topic, the students engaged in the following scientific practices (NRC, 2012): The students generated inquiry questions and hypotheses regarding their environment; they planned an investigation which included the development of their research tools such as questionnaires; they conducted interviews and observations; they performed their investigation and collected data; they analyzed the data and drew conclusions. Finally, they wrote a scientific report in which they summarized their inquiry and communicated their results and conclusions. By the end of the inquiry process, all students submitted a research paper on their inquiry project that resembled an academic scientific paper. The students’ research papers also included their personal reflections on their inquiry experiences, as well as their perspectives on the conflicts and difficulties they encountered, and the strategies they implemented to overcome their challenges.

The research team members worked closely with the teachers to facilitate the inquiry process, both during and after school hours. Students engaged in the process in both class-wide discussions and weekly face-to-face meetings guided by both teachers and research team members. These face-to-face meetings focused on theoretical and practical explanations, examples, and feedback concerning the inquiry process. After school hours, the teachers and research team members provided additional assistance and feedback to the students through an online asynchronous forum. This forum, which served as a means of communication between the students and their teacher and peers, accompanied each of the research groups throughout the inquiry process. In the forum, the students posed questions, requested guidance, shared ideas, monitored and compared their progress with other students, and uploaded all their project components for the teacher’s evaluation. Teachers posted individual feedback to the students, as well as provided whole-group guidance. Students’ online messages were recorded for each research group and served as the database for examining the students’ expressions of autonomy and competence.

Metacognitive Scaffolding

The metacognitive scaffolds in this research were based on the Meta-CIC model (Adler et. al., 2016) which combines scaffolds for both individual and social metacognitive processes, termed here respectively, as Meta (individual metacognitive) and CIC (Collaborative Inquiry Community).

Meta Component: Individual Metacognitive Scaffolds

The individual metacognitive scaffolding addressed two components of metacognition: knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. To scaffold students’ knowledge about cognition, we used a strategy evaluation matrix (SEM) designed to promote explicit declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge about various learning strategies (Schraw, 1998). The SEM was introduced and modeled by the teacher during the class meetings and through the online forum. The students were required to implement the strategies described in the SEM in order to complete the tasks throughout the inquiry process. The teacher examined the students’ use of the strategies and provided feedback on their use. Students’ regulation of cognition was supported by using a combination of the regulatory checklist (RC) developed by Schraw (1998), and the reflective metacognitive questions (RMQ) developed by Mevarech and Kramarski (1997) and Zion et. al., (2005). The RC included a set of explicit prompts that act as a regulatory sequence that assist the students in controlling regulatory processes (Schraw, 1998). The teacher introduced and discussed the RC with the students in both class and individual meetings throughout the inquiry process. The RMQ contained metacognitive questions that required students to reflect upon their learning process (Shedletzky & Zion, 2005). During all phases of the inquiry process, the teacher demonstrated how to complete the RMQ by verbalizing her own thoughts and reflections on the process, thereafter requiring the students to complete and submit the RMQ individually. For examples of the SEM, RC, and RMQ, see Adler et al., (2016), Zion et al., (2015).

Collaborative Inquiry Community (CIC) Component: Social Metacognitive Scaffolds

The collaborative inquiry community (CIC) was designed to scaffold and engage students’ in social metacognitive processes. To achieve this goal, instruction was set up to provide opportunities for two levels of student collaboration: within group collaboration, which refers to the interactions between a pair of students who worked together on the same inquiry project and provided feedback to each other on their project; and, between group collaboration, which refers to the interactions among several pairs of students, with each pair working on different inquiry projects, and providing feedback to each other on different projects. Students met in their CIC communities throughout the inquiry process, and followed a macro script (Dillenbourg & Hong, 2008) that was designed to promote lively discussions, verbalize their thoughts (e.g., Iiskala et al., 2011), and provide opportunities for students to develop their critical thinking, and engage in metacognitive processes. For a detailed description of the CIC component, see Adler et al., (2016).

Research Groups

The four classes of students and their teacher were randomly assigned to one of four research groups, depending on the metacognitive scaffolds they receive: (1) The Meta-CIC research group: students in this group received both individual and social metacognitive scaffolding (n = 37). (2) The Meta research group: students in this group received only individual scaffolding (n = 25). (3) The CIC research group: students in this group received only social scaffolding (n = 39). (4) The Control research group: students in this group received no scaffolding (n = 36). Students in all of the research groups engaged in the year-long socio-scientific inquiry-based environmental program, with similar tasks, processes, and outcome expectations. Throughout the entire inquiry process, students in all conditions (except for the control group) received similar amounts of metacognitive scaffolds, which supported their effective engagement in the various scientific practices. The scaffolds merely differed in the metacognitive processes they were designed to trigger: individual, social, or a combination of both.

Data and Data Analysis

The methodology developed by Scogin and Stuessy (2015) were further applied to students’ online messages by Adler et. al., (2018). The students’ expressions of competence and autonomy were operationally defined as the words, phrases, or textual expressions of emotions that appeared in the online dialogues in the online forum that accompanied the inquiry process. Thus, students’ online messages in the forum were examined for expressions of competence and autonomy using the corresponding scales from Students Expression of Motivation Indicators (SEMI).

The SEMI differentiates between: positive competence, in which the students expressed that they were challenged by the teacher, and indicated their will to move onwards in spite of the challenges to experience mastery; and negative competence, in which the students expressed feelings of incompetence in overcoming difficulties or being overwhelmed by challenges. We analyzed students’ indicators of positive competence which include (1) asking the teacher for explanations and elaboration, (2) asking for feedback regarding actions or statements, and (3) expressing the students’ capability to overcome challenges. Similarly, the SEMI differentiates between two types of autonomy expressions: positive, in which the students expressed their intentions to solve problems as well as make choices throughout the inquiry process; and negative, in which the students did not express such intentions. For this research, we analyzed students’ positive autonomy, which include (1) demonstrating an awareness of or expressing choice, (2) demonstrating an awareness of or expressing ownership/control of the inquiry project, (3) expressing the volition to work diligently, and (4) expressing optimism. For a detailed description of the SEMI, see Adler et. al, (2018).

The analysis of students’ online messages for expressions of competence and autonomy occurred in several steps. Through the process of content analysis and using the qualitative program MAXQDA (VERBI Software 2014), in step one, we identified and classified the expressions of autonomy and competence of all student groups in their online messages throughout the entire inquiry process. We classified the expressions according to the autonomy and competence of SEMI. Each single message was regarded as the unit of analysis and was examined for expressions of autonomy and competence. For autonomy, messages were scored as either 0 or 1 depending on their content: 0 indicates no autonomy expressions were found and 1 when at least one of autonomy indicator was found. Messages were coded for competence in a similar manner. In addition to expressions of autonomy and competence, each message was coded for background data, which included the identification of the students’ pairs. The messages were also affiliated with one of the following seven segments. These segments comprise the entire inquiry process, based on scientific practice addressed in the NRC (2012): (1) choosing an inquiry topic and formulating the inquiry question; (2) generating hypotheses; (3) planning the investigation and developing the research tools; (4) conducting the literature review, the theoretical framework of the study, and the experiment; (5) analyzing and interpreting the data; (6) constructing explanations and organizing a discussion; and (7) assembling all of the investigation data into a written report which reflects upon the entire inquiry process. The division of the inquiry process into segments does not imply that the inquiry was a linear process; rather the segments primarily served for data analysis purposes.

For inter-rater reliability, the first and second authors both read 100 of students' online messages, while coding according to the SEMI. Discussions on the initial coding process led the researchers to refine their examples for all indicators, and re-code students’ messages until they achieved an agreement of 100% on the coding. Step two of the analysis involved the clustering of messages by the inquiry segments, according to one of the seven scientific practices they addressed, into two overarching phases: (1) Planning: messages that address the scientific practices that involve the planning of the research (coded as segments 1–3), (2) Conducting: messages that address the scientific practices that involve the carrying out of the research (coded as segments 4–7). Step three involved the calculation of the percentages of messages that included indicators of autonomy and competence of the total number of messages that were calculated for each research group in both the planning and conducting phases. Chi square tests were calculated for differences between the four research groups, in the planning and the conducting phases, comparing the actual frequencies with the expected ones. The significance of the change in each group was calculated with a Z test for the difference between two proportions. Likewise, group differences for changes across time were calculated with a series of Z tests for the difference between proportions.

Results

Table 1 presents the distribution of students’ online messages containing expressions of competence and autonomy in each of the research groups according to the phase of the inquiry—planning of the research and conducting the research.

Table 1 Distribution of students’ messages that included expressions of autonomy and competence, by research group and inquiry phase
Full size table

Students’ Expressions of Competence

A chi square test for group difference in the planning phase was found insignificant (χ2(3) = 2.50 p = 0.474), revealing that the percent of messages regarding competence did not differ significantly by group (27.6 to 32.6%). However, a chi square test for group difference in competence in the conducting phase was found significant (χ2(3) = 17.60 p < 0.001), revealing that the percent of messages regarding competence in the Meta (44.8%) and CIC (38.8%) groups was higher than in the Meta-CIC (30.4%) and Control (26.1%) groups (Meta vs. Meta-CIC Z = 3.89, p < 0.001; Meta vs. Control Z = 4.53, p < 0.001; CIC vs. Meta-CIC Z = 2.43, p = 0.015; CIC vs. Control Z = 3.27, p = 0.001). Other group differences in the conducting phase were not significant.

Change in the Meta-CIC group was not significant (Z = 1.08, p = 0.281), but a significant increase was noted in the Meta and CIC groups (Z = 3.02, p = 0.002 and Z = 2.68, p = 0.007, respectively), and a significant decrease in the Control group (Z = 1.98, p = 0.048). Thus, stability was noted in the Meta-CIC group vs. a decrease in the Control group (Z = 5.44, p < 0.001), and an increase in both the Meta and CIC groups (Z = 2.45, p = 0.014). The increase in the Meta group was greater than the increase in the CIC group (Z = 10.11, p < 0.001). In other words, the greatest increase was noted in the Meta group, followed by the increase in the CIC group. We observed no change in the Meta-CIC group, and we found a decrease in the Control group (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Students’ expressions of competence throughout the planning and conducting phases

Full size image

Students’ Expressions of Autonomy

A chi square test for group differences in the planning phase was found significant (χ2(3) = 13.03 p = 0.005), revealing that the percent of messages regarding autonomy in the CIC (26.6%) and Control (28.5%) groups was higher than in the Meta-CIC group (18.9%) (Z = 3.18, p = 0.002 and Z = 3.88, p < 0.001, respectively). Other group differences in the planning phase were not significant. In addition, a chi square test for group differences in autonomy in the conducting phase was found significant (χ2(3) = 11.61 p = 0.009), revealing that the percent of messages regarding autonomy in the CIC (28.2%) group was higher than in the Meta-CIC (17.7%) and Control (17.5%) groups (Z = 3.50, p < 0.001 and Z = 3.07, p = 0.002, respectively). Other group differences in the conducting phase were insignificant.

Change in the Meta-CIC, Meta, and CIC groups was insignificant (Z = 0.58, p = 0.564; Z = 0.27, p = 0.786; Z = 0.27, p = 0.786; respectively), and a significant decrease was found in the CI group (Z = 3.57, p < 0.001). Thus, stability was noted in the total of the Meta-CIC, Meta, and CIC groups vs. a decrease in the Control group (Z = 3.79, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Students’ expressions of autonomy throughout the planning and conducting phases

Full size image

Discussion

Our results indicate that students’ expressions of competence and autonomy varied throughout the inquiry process following metacognitive scaffolding and demonstrated a dynamic pattern based on the type of scaffolds provided. In this section, we discuss students’ expressions of competence and autonomy in the two phases of the inquiry process: planning and conducting.

Students’ Competence and Autonomy in the Planning Phase

Different patterns of expressions were observed for students’ competence and autonomy in the planning phase of the inquiry process. Regarding students’ competence, students from all of the research groups expressed words or phrases associated with competence in almost a third of their online messages in the planning phase, with no significant differences among the groups. This finding is in contrast to our hypothesis in which we projected lower levels of feelings of competence in the planning phase among groups receiving metacognitive scaffolds, due to the problematizing mechanism by which they operate (Reiser, 2004). We suggest that these results may be attributed to the characteristics of this phase as well as to the teachers’ support. The planning phase of the inquiry process, and specifically of open inquiry, is the beginning of a journey of discovery, in which students generate their own ideas and hypotheses based on issues that they select and that align with their personal interests (Herron, 1971). Although this phase includes challenging tasks and practices, it is also characterized by creativity, high motivation, and excitement as students feel they are engaged in authentic science begin investigating a phenomenon which is meaningful to them (Blumenfeld et al., 2006, 1991). In addition, students in each one of the four research groups were supported by experienced teachers, who provided close guidance in this first part of the inquiry process, regardless of the type of metacognitive scaffolding provided (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Shedletzky & Zion, 2005). We suggest that the motivating aspects in the initial phase of the inquiry process coupled with teachers’ guidance overshadowed the expected differences, due to the differences in the metacognitive scaffoldings provided. Therefore, students in each research group expressed feelings of being effective and ability to express capabilities, regardless of the scaffolding conditions, resulting in similar expressions of competence in their online messages.

As for students’ expressions of autonomy, our results indicate significant differences among the research groups: Students who received both the individual and social metacognitive scaffolds (i.e., Meta-CIC group) expressed significantly fewer words or phrases associated with autonomy than their peers who did not receive this type of scaffolding (i.e., CIC and Control groups). These results are in line with our hypothesis in which we projected that higher perceptions of complexities (due to the problematizing mechanism of the metacognitive scaffolds) would result in fewer feelings of competence, more reliance on the teacher, and fewer feelings of autonomy, volition, and choice throughout the process. Students’ high levels of engagement in metacognitive processes due to the combination of both individual and social metacognitive scaffolds, drew their attention to issues and problems within the task of the planning. These issues and problems were ignored by students in the research groups who did not receive these scaffolds. This resulted in significantly fewer expressions of autonomy among students of the Meta-CIC research group.

Students’ Competence and Autonomy in the Conducting Phase

Differences in expressions of competence appeared as students progressed through the process and faced more challenges associated with the inquiry process (Adler et. al., 2018). Our results indicate a significant increase in expressions of competence from students in the two research groups that received the metacognitive scaffolds, whether individual or social (i.e., Meta and CIC groups). In line with our hypothesis, we attribute this increase to the contribution of individual and social metacognitive scaffolding on students’ engagement in metacognitive processes. This engagement improved the students’ inquiry performances, enabled them to develop strategies to cope with the challenges of the process, and eventually promoted their feelings of competence. However, in contrast to our hypothesis, students’ expression of competence in the Meta-CIC research group, who concurrently received both types of metacognitive scaffolding, remained stable and did not demonstrate an increase in expressions of competence as observed in the other scaffolded conditions. One possible explanation is that the combination of both metacognitive scaffolds introduced students to higher levels of complexities than in the other two research groups, as this combination required students to monitor both their own and their peers’ thinking (Hurme et al., 2006). This is an interesting result which merits further research, as it implies that while problematizing scaffolds provide students with opportunities to engage in a variety of learning experiences (Molenaar et al, 2014; Phillips et al., 2017; Reiser, 2002, 2004), these scaffolds concurrently affected students’ perceived competence. These results highlight the need for more studies on intervention that concurrently problematize students’ inquiry experiences and support students’ perceptions of competence.

A significant decrease in students’ expression of competence was observed only in the Control group. We attribute this decrease to lack of metacognitive scaffolds, which are crucial to students’ effective engagement in the inquiry process (White & Frederiksen, 1998, 2005) and to a lack of development of coping strategies. Consequently, students in the Control group did not improve their strategies to effectively address the inherent challenges in the conducting phase of the inquiry process, in which students’ responsibility increases (Zion et. al., 2005). This finding is in contrast to their peers in the other research groups, as the Control group students felt less competent in their ability to effectively engage in the process. These results broaden previous research in demonstrating that metacognitive scaffolding has a crucial role also in supporting students’ engagement in the inquiry process, and specifically supporting their feelings of competence and autonomy.

Regarding autonomy, our results indicate that while students’ expressions of autonomy in the three research groups (i.e., Meta, CIC and Meta-CIC) remained steady, students in the Control group expressed a significant decrease in their expression of autonomy. For the Meta, CIC and Meta-CIC research groups, these results are in contrast to our hypotheses, as we expected students’ autonomy to increase throughout the inquiry process in parallel to students’ increased perception of competence. One possible explanation for these results is that through their self-reflection, triggered by the Meta scaffolds, or the socially shared metacognitive discussions triggered by the CIC scaffolds, students experiences of uncertainties, and confusion increased. On the one hand, these experiences resulted in greater reliance on their teachers’ guidance and experience. On the other hand, these students’ engagement in regulatory processes triggered by the metacognitive scaffolds fostered a sense of choice and endorsement of the task. These two processes resulted in steady expressions of autonomy throughout the conducting phase of the inquiry process. As for the Control group, the significant decrease in students’ expressions of autonomy is possibly due to a decrease in their perceptions of competence and lack of development of coping strategies.

Conclusions, Implications, and Future Research

This study builds upon previous research, which underscored the centrality of metacognitive scaffolding for students’ successful engagement in inquiry (Ben-David & Zohar, 2009; White et al., 1998; 2009; Zion et. al., 2005), and broadens their findings by illuminating the relationship between metacognitive scaffolding and students’ expression of competence and autonomy throughout an open inquiry process. The results demonstrate how metacognitive scaffolding, that operates through a problematizing mechanism, results in dynamic expressions of students’ autonomy and competence throughout the inquiry process.

The main findings of this research are that while providing either individual or social metacognitive scaffolding (Meta or CIC) increased students’ perceptions of their competence throughout the inquiry process, concurrently providing both types of scaffolding did not result in increased perceptions of competence. Moreover, students’ perceptions of autonomy in all scaffolded conditions remained stable: they did not decrease as we found in the Control group, and they did not increase as we expected. These results raise the following critical questions: Do these results imply that social and individual metacognitive scaffoldings should not be concurrently provided to students’ because they add to much complexity to the inquiry process? Over time, would students from the Meta-CIC group, who experienced more opportunities to develop their metacognitive competencies and acquired strategies to cope with a complex inquiry process, outperform their peers? What happens to students’ perceptions of autonomy over time, or through additional inquiry experiences? Should the two types of scaffolds be provided based on their suitability to the process? For example, should we provide social metacognitive scaffolding in the planning phase when the process is focused on creativity, brainstorming, and idea generation? Alternatively, should we provide the individual metacognitive scaffolding in the conducting phase when the process is focused on allocating resources to conduct the research? Future research is needed in order to address these questions, ultimately providing better support to students’ perceptions of autonomy and competence, and improving their engagement throughout the entire inquiry process.