This exploratory study investigated 100 Israeli 9th graders who used two different group-metacognitive support methods in online mathematical inquiry—group feedback guidance (GFG) and self-explanation guidance (SEG)—compared to a control group (CONT). The study evaluated each method's effects on students': (a) mathematical inquiry ability: problem solving, explanations, mathematical feedback in online forum discussions, and transfer ability; and (b) self-regulated learning (SRL) measures (self-report questionnaires and metacognitive feedback in online forum discussions). Metacognitive support methods, based on IMPROVE self-questioning strategies, appeared in pop-up screens and provided the two experimental groups with differential cues for problem-solving processes. Mixed quantitative and qualitative analyses showed that GFG students outperformed SEG students in most mathematical and SRL measures and the CONT students in all measures. In addition, SEG students outperformed the CONT students in mathematical problem-solving but not on mathematical transfer ability or SRL.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlevenV., & KoedingerK. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.
2.
ArtzA., & Yaloz-FemiaS. (1999). Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem solving. In StiffL. & CurioF. (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12: 1999 yearbook of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 115–126). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
3.
AzevedoR. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.
4.
AzevedoR., & BernardR. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2) 111–127.
5.
AzevedoR., & CromleyJ. G. (2004). Does training of self-regulated learning facilitate student's learning with hypermedia?Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.
6.
BiswasG.SchwartzD.LeelawongK., & VyeN. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3), 363–392.
7.
BrownA. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other mysterious mechanisms. In WeinertF. & KluweR. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
BrownA. L., & CampioneJ. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory with classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
ButlerD. L., & WinneP. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
10.
ChiM. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
CooperG., & SwellerT. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.
12.
DavisE. A., & LinnM. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompt for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
13.
FlavellJ. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
14.
GeX.ChenC-H., & DavisK. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers' problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Research, 33(2), 219–248.
15.
GeX., & LandS. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.
16.
GoosM.GalbraithP., & RenshawP. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.
17.
KauffmanD. F.GeX.XieK., & ChenC. H. (2008). Prompting in web-based environments: Supporting self-monitoring and problem solving in college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 115–137.
18.
KingA. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.
KramarskiB., & GutmanM. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical e-learning environments?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33.
21.
KramarskiB., & MevarechZ. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310.
22.
KramarskiB., & MizrachiN. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218–230.
23.
KramarskiB., & ZeichnerO. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 77–82.
24.
KramarskiB., & ZoltanS. (2008). Using errors as springboards for enhancing mathematical reasoning with three metacognitive approaches. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(2), 137–151.
25.
LampertL. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.
26.
LinX. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 23–40.
27.
McClainK., & CobbP. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 236–266.
28.
MevarechZ. R., & KramarskiB. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–394.
29.
MontagueM., & BosC. S. (1990). Cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of eighth-grade students' mathematical problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 371–388.
30.
MorenoR. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.
31.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
32.
NussbaumE. M., & SinatraG. M. (2002). On the opposite side: Argument and conceptual engagement in physics. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
33.
OhS., & JonassenD. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2, 95–110.
34.
PalincsarA., & BrownA. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
35.
PintrichP. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
36.
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.
37.
RenklA. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.
38.
SalonenP.VaurasM., & EfklidesA. (2005). Social interaction: What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation of learning?European Psychologist, 10, 199–208.
39.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–197). New York: Macmillan.
40.
SchrawG.CrippenK. J., & HartleyK. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
VeenmanM. V. J.ElshoutJ. J., & Meijer (1997). The generality vs domain-specificity of metacognition skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 187–209
43.
VeenmanM. V. J.Van Hout-WoltersB., & AfflerbachP. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.
44.
WebbN. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21–39.
45.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
