Higher Education

, Volume 57, Issue 5, pp 609–621 | Cite as

Problem-based learning and the development of metacognition

  • Kevin Downing
  • Theresa Kwong
  • Sui-Wah Chan
  • Tsz-Fung Lam
  • Woo-Kyung Downing
Article

Abstract

This study samples first year undergraduates from two programmes at a Hong Kong University (N = 66). One programme uses an entirely problem-based approach to learning and teaching, whilst the other uses more traditional methods. Using the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) as a measure of student perceptions of their thinking, or metacognition it explores differences in metacognitive development between each group of students between the beginning and end of their first year in each programme. The paper argues that, in addition to the formal learning context, everyday challenges emerging from the additional new social contexts provided by problem-based curricula provide fertile environments for the development of metacognition because whilst the highest ‘meta-level’ of cognition is usually not implicated when we receive an outside task and when the task solution is known, the meta-level does tend to be consulted when things go wrong or when the situation is new. In other words, when we are faced with finding solutions to a problem whether posed by the teacher as part of a problem-based curriculum or a new social environment, we are more likely to develop generic, as well as subject specific skills.

Keywords

A-level results Comparison of PBL and non-PBL LASSI Metacognition Problem-based learning 

References

  1. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, B. A., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1993). Construct validation of metacognition. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 127(2), 203–211.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning in university. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bogdan, R. J. (2000). Minding minds: Evolving a reflexive mind by interpreting others. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cornoldi, C. (1998). The impact of metacognitive reflection on cognitive control. In G. Mazzoni & T. Nelson (Eds.), Metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology (pp. 139–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dean, C. D. (1999). Problem-based learning in teacher education. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19–23.Google Scholar
  9. Downing, K. (2001). Information technology, education and health care: Constructivism in the 21st century. Educational Studies, 27(3), 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downing, K., Ho, R., Shin, K., Vrijmoed, L., & Wong, E. (2007). Metacognitive development and moving away. Educational Studies, 33(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Assumptions on the concept metacognition and on the development of metacognitions. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 1–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Flavell, J. H. (1999). Cognitive development: Children’s knowledge about the mind. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frese, M., Stewart, J., & Hanover, B. (1987). Goal-orientation and planfulness: Action styles as personality concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1182–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleitman, H. (1985). Some trends in the study of cognition. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science: Retrospections and assessments (pp. 420–436). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Hanley, G. L. (1995). Teaching critical thinking: Focusing on metacognitive skills and problem solving. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hmelo, C. E., Gotterer, G. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1997). A theory driven approach to assessing the cognitive effects of PBL. Instructional Science, 25, 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoban, G., Seraland, C., & Raine, B. (2001). Can adult learners raise their self-efficacy for self-directed learning? A reflective challenge to some of our assumptions. In H. B. Long (Ed.), Self-directed learning and the information age. Schaumburg, IL: Motorola University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Holzer, M. (2002). The relationships among students’ self-directed learning readiness, perceived self-efficacy, and self-assessment of task performance in a community college public speaking course. Retrieved August 27, 2002, from UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations.Google Scholar
  21. Hung, D. (2002). Situated cognition and problem-based learning: Implications for learning and instruction with technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 393–414.Google Scholar
  22. King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behaviour. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 1–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Kwan, A. (1999). Using PBL to develop students as lifelong learners. Access, 7–8.Google Scholar
  25. Kwan, A. S. F., & Ko, E. I. (1999). Using PBL to develop university students as lifelong learners. Paper presented at the 1st Asia-Pacific Conference on PBL, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  26. Leinhardt, G., McCarthy Young, K., & Merriman, J. (1995). Integrating professional knowledge: The theory of practice and the practice of theory. Learning and Instruction, 5, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Letteri, C. A. (1992). Diagnosing and augmenting basic cognitive skills. In J. W. Keefe & H. J. Walbert (Eds.), Teaching for thinking (pp. 59–71). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Principals.Google Scholar
  28. Marchant, G. J. (1989). Meta-teaching: A metaphor for reflective teaching. Education, 109(4), 487–489.Google Scholar
  29. McCall, D. L. (2002). Motivational components of self-directed learning among undergraduate students. Retrieved August 27, 2002 from UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations.Google Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metamemory: Theory and data. In E. Tulving & F. I. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 197–211). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  32. Plutchik, R. (1974). Foundations of experimental research (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  33. Vadhan, V., & Stander, P. (1994). Metacognitive ability and test performance among college students. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 128(3), 307–309.Google Scholar
  34. Vermunt, J. D. (2007). The power of teaching-learning environments to influence student learning. Student Learning and University Teaching, Monograph Series, II(4), 73–90. British Psychological Society. Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Webster, A. A., & Riggs, R. M. (2006). A quantitative assessment of a medicinal chemistry problem-based learning sequence. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(4), Article 89.Google Scholar
  37. Weinert, F. E. (1987). Introduction and overview: Metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 1–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Weinert, F. E., & Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Metacognition, motivation and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI user’s manual. Clearwater, Florida: H & H Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Weinstein, C. E. (1994a). Strategic learning/strategic teaching: Flip sides of a coin. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition and learning (pp. 257–273). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Weinstein, C. E. (1994b). Students at risk for academic failure: Learning to Learn classes. In K. W. Pritchard & R. M. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching (pp. 375–385). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  42. Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. (1988). Learning and studies skills inventory. NCS Trans-Optic EP, 30-27841, 321.Google Scholar
  43. Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. (2002). LASSI user’s manual (2nd ed.). Clearwater, Florida: H & H Publishing Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Downing
    • 1
  • Theresa Kwong
    • 1
  • Sui-Wah Chan
    • 1
  • Tsz-Fung Lam
    • 1
  • Woo-Kyung Downing
    • 2
  1. 1.Education Development OfficeCity University of Hong KongKowloonHong Kong SAR
  2. 2.Institute of Textiles and ClothingHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong SAR

Personalised recommendations