Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 147–157 | Cite as

Immediate and delayed effects of meta-cognitive instruction on regulation of cognition and mathematics achievement

Article

Abstract

The present study addressed two research questions: (a) the extent to which students who were exposed to meta-cognitive instruction are able to implement meta-cognitive processes in a delayed, stressful situation, in our case—being examined on the matriculation exam; and (b) whether students preparing themselves for the matriculation exam in mathematics, attain a higher level of mathematics achievement and meta-cognitive awareness (knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition) as a result of being exposed to meta-cognitive instruction. Participants were 61 Israeli high school students who studied mathematics for four-point credit on the matriculation exam (middle level). About half of the students (N = 31) were assigned to meta-cognitive instruction, called IMPROVE, and the others (N = 30) studied with no explicit meta-cognitive guidance (control group). Analyses included both quantitative and qualitative methods. The later was based on students’ interviews, conducted about a couple of months after the end of the intervention, immediately after students completed the matriculation exam in mathematics. Results indicated that IMPROVE students outperformed their counterparts on mathematics achievement and regulation of cognition, but not on knowledge about cognition. Furthermore, during the matriculation exam, IMPROVE students executed different kinds of cognitive regulation processes than the control students. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

Keywords

Meta-cognitive instruction IMPROVE meta-cognitive awareness Knowledge about cognition Regulation of cognition Mathematics achievement 

References

  1. Artz, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive–metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dignath, C., Buttner, G., & Langfeldt, H-P. (2007). The efficacy of self-regulated learning interventions at primary and secondary school level—a meta-analysis. Paper presented at the EARLI biennial conference in Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  3. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver III, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory and Cognition, 28, 92–107.Google Scholar
  5. Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of meta-cognitive training on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: a multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–394.Google Scholar
  9. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of worked-out examples vs. meta-cognitive training on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mevarech, Z. R., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition Learning, 1, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Michalski, T., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2007). Developing students’ metacognitive awareness in asynchronous learning networks in comparison to face-to-face discussion groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 421–450.Google Scholar
  12. Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pintrich, P. R., & Shunck, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Matheamtical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143–154.Google Scholar
  17. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing meta-cognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.Google Scholar
  18. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shamir, A., Gida, C., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2008). The assessment of meta-cognition in different contexts: individualized and peer assisted learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, NY.Google Scholar
  20. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Busato, V. V. (1994). Meta-cognition mediation in learning with computer-based simulation. Computers in Human Behaviour, 10, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs. domain-specificity of metacognition skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afferbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Volet, S. E. (1991). Modelling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university students’ learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations