The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition
- First Online:
The purpose of the present study is to examine the effects of IMPROVE, a meta-cognitive instructional method, on students' mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Participants were 81 students who studied a pre-college course in mathematical. Students were randomly assigned into one of two groups and groups were randomly assigned into one of two conditions: IMPROVE vs. traditional instruction (the control group). Both groups were exposed to the same learning materials, solved exactly the same mathematical problems, and were taught by the same experienced teacher. The IMPROVE students were explicitly trained to activate meta-cognitive processes during the solution of mathematical problems. The control group was exposed to traditional instruction with no explicit exposure to meta-cognitive training. Results indicate that the IMPROVE students significantly outperformed their counterparts on both mathematical knowledge and mathematical reasoning. In addition, the IMPORVE students attained significantly higher scores then the control group on the three measures of meta-cognition: (a) general knowledge of cognition; (b) regulation of general cognition; and (c) domain-specific meta-cognitive knowledge. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
KeywordsMetacognitive instruction Mathematical achievement Mathematical reasoning Knowledge of cognition Regulation of cognition
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Flavell, J. H. (1979). Meta-cognitive and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 31, 906–911.Google Scholar
- Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and meta-cognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.Google Scholar
- Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of meta-cognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 195–205.Google Scholar
- Mevarech, Z. R. & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimentional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–394.Google Scholar
- Mevarech, Z.R., Tabuk, A., & Sinai, O. (accepted for publication). Metacognitive instruction in mathematics classrooms: Effects on the solution of different kinds of problems.Google Scholar
- Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gozalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Gaden, R. A., O'Conner, K. M. , Chrostowski, S. J., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS: International Mathematics Report. Findings form IEA's repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at Eighth Grade. Boston College.Google Scholar
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
- PISA (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. OECD. Paris.Google Scholar
- Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it? 2nd ed. NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Schoenfefld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing meta-cognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.Google Scholar