The study examined how student control over metacognitive prompts in a multimedia environment affects students' ability to solve mathematical problems in immediate comprehension tasks using a multimedia program and a delayed-transfer test. It also examined the effect on metacognitive discourse, mental effort, and engagement with multimedia-based tasks. Participants were 90 8th-grade students, randomly assigned to three groups working in pairs: (a) “solicited prompts” group, with free access to multimedia-based metacognitive prompts; (b) “unsolicited prompts” group, consistently and regularly exposed to on-screen metacognitive prompts; and (c) a control group with no multimedia metacognitive prompts. Mixed method analysis showed that of the three groups the unsolicited prompts group had the highest effects in the immediate comprehension tasks (d = 1.23; 1.92 respectively for the solicited prompts group and the control group) and the delayed-transfer problem solving test (d = 0.55; 0.93, respectively). The level of this group's metacognitive discourse was higher, particularly in the planning phase. Group members displayed less cognitive load on the complex tasks and were more engaged in the multimedia activities. In contrast, the solicited prompts group felt they were under a heavier cognitive load than the other two groups. Finding implications and future directions for study are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlevenV.McLarenB.RollI.KoedingerK. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 101–128.
2.
AlevenV. M.KoedingerK. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.
3.
AzevedoR. (2007). Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2/3), 57–65.
4.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia?Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.
5.
BaddeleyA. (1998). Human memory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BannertM.MengelkampC. (2013). Scaffolding hypermedia learning through metacognitive prompts. In AzevedoR.AlevenV. (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 171–186). New York, NY: Springer Science.
7.
BiswasG.LeelawongK.SchwartzD.VyeN.VanderbiltT. T. A. G. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigms for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3), 363–392.
8.
BoekaertsM.CascallarE. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation?Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 199–210.
9.
DavisE. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
10.
DignathC.BüttnerG. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231–264.
11.
EfklidesA. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.
12.
GamaC. A. (2004). Integrating metacognition instruction in interactive learning environments. Doctoral thesis, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK.
13.
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 Computing Research, 3(2), 219–248.
14.
GraesserA.McNamaraD. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 234–244.
15.
GraesserA. C.JeonM.DuftyD. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298–322.
16.
GreeneJ. A.AzevedoR. (2010). The measurement of learners' self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 1–9.
17.
HoffmanB.SpatariuA. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math problem solving efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 875–893.
18.
JacobseA. E.Harskamp. (2009). Student-controlled metacognitive training for solving word problems in primary school mathematics. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 447–463.
19.
KapaE. (2007). Transfer from structured to open ended problem solving in a computerized metacognitive environment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 688–707.
20.
KarabenickS. A. (2011). Methodological an assessment issues in research on help seeking. In ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 267–281). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
KauffmanD. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategies use, metacognitive processing and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139–161.
22.
KingA. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.
23.
KramarskiB. (2011). Developing and assessing self-regulation through sharing feedback in online mathematical problem solving. In DettoriG.PersicoD. (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICTs (pp. 232–247). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
24.
KramarskiB. (2012). Stimulating self-regulated learning in hypermedia to support mathematical literacy of low achieving students. In ShamirA.KoratO. (Eds.), Technology as a support for literacy achievements for children at risk (pp. 157–169). New York, NY: Springer.
25.
KramarskiB.DudaiV. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 365–392.
26.
KramarskiB.MevarechZ. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effect of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.
27.
KramarskiB.MevarechZ. R.AramiM. (2002). The effects of metacognitive training on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
28.
KramarskiB.MichalskyT. (2013). Student and teacher perspectives on IMPROVE self-regulation prompts in web-based learning. In AzevedoR.AlevenV. (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 35–51). New York, NY: Springer.
29.
KramarskiB.MizrachiN. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of four instructional methods on mathematical literacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218–230.
30.
KramarskiB.WeissI.Kololshi-MinskerI. (2010). How can self-regulated learning (SRL) support problem solving of third-grade students with mathematics anxiety?ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(2), 179–193.
31.
KramarskiB.WeissI.SharonS. (2013). Generic versus context-specific prompts for supporting self-regulation in mathematical problem solving among students with low or high prior knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(2), 197–214.
32.
LoganF.MayerR. E. (2012). Paper-based aids for learning with a computer-based game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1074–1082.
33.
MayerR. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. 1, Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
MayerR. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. 2, Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MayerR. E.MorenoO. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
37.
MevarechZ. R.KramarskiB. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.
38.
MorenoR. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program. A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 433–444.
39.
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.
40.
NücklesM.HübnerS.RenklA. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271.
41.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD.PISA). (2003). Learning for tomorrow's world. Paris: Author.
42.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD.PISA). (2006). PISA Released Items—Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/38709418.pdf
43.
PaasF.TuovinenJ. E.TabbersH.Van GervenP. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.
44.
PintrichP. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
45.
PintrichP. R.SmithD. A. F.GarciaT.McKeachieW. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivational Strategies Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
46.
RenklA. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1–30.
47.
RollI.AlevenV.McLarenB.KoedingerK. (2007). Designing for metacognition: Applying cognitive tutor principles to metacognitive tutoring. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 125–140.
48.
RoyM.ChiM. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.
50.
SwellerJ. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
UrdanT.TurnerJ. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the classroom. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 297–317). New York, NY: Guilford.
52.
van MerriënboerJ. J. G.SwellerJ. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Medical Education, 44, 85–93.
53.
VeenmanM. V. J.Van Hout-WoltersB. H. A. M.AfflerbachP. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.
54.
VerschaffelL.GreerB.De CorteE. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
55.
WittrockM. C. (1989). Generative processes of cmprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.
56.
YungH. I. (2009). Effects of an animated pedagogical agent with instructional strategies in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(1), 113–126.
57.
ZellermayerM.SalomonG.GlobersonT.GivonH. (1991). Enhancing writing related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 373–391.
58.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulated learning: A social cognitive perspective. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
59.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York, NY: Routledge.
