Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 613–623 | Cite as

The relevance and efficacy of metacognition for instructional design in the domain of mathematics

  • Elke Baten
  • Magda Praet
  • Annemie Desoete
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The efficacy of metacognition as theory-based instructional principle or technique in general, and particularly in mathematics, is explored. Starting with an overview of different definitions, conceptualizations, assessment and training models originating from cognitive information processing theory, the role of metacognition in teaching and learning is critically discussed. An illustrative training program in kindergarten demonstrates that explicit and embedded metacognitive training can have an effect on mathematics learning even in very young children. Theoretical and methodological issues for future research, and recommendations for mathematics educators, are analyzed within the framework of the Opportunity-Propensity and Universal instructional design framework, demonstrating the relevance of metacognition in the domain of mathematics teaching, impacting children’s learning of mathematics and their active involvement in their learning process.

Keywords

Metacognition Mathematics achievement Instructional design Opportunity propensity model 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ardila, A. (2013). Development of metacognitive and emotional executive functions in children. Applied Neuropsychology Child, 2, 82–87. doi: 10.1080/21622965.2013.748388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 87–95. doi: 10.1007/s11409-009-9035-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Johnson, A.M., & Chauncey, A.D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2010.515934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markham (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bryce, D., & Whitebread, D. (2012). The development of metacognitive skills: evidence from observational analysis of young children’s behaviour during problem-solving. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 197–217. doi: 10.1007/s11409-012-9091-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budd, C. J. (2015). Promoting mathematics to the general public. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 3–16). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, M., Alexander, J., & Folds-Bennett, T. (1994). Metacognition and mathematics strategy use. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 583–595. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350080605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, M., & Jessup, D. L. (1995). Cognitive and metacognitive predictors of mathematics strategy use. Learning and Instruction, 7, 235–247. doi: 10.1016/1041-6080(95)90012-.Google Scholar
  10. Cavanaugh, J.C., & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: a critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11–28. doi: 10.2307/1129635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, D.J., Waywood, A., & Stephens, M. (1993). Probing the structure of mathematical writing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 235–250. doi: 10.1007/BF01273863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornoldi, C., Carretti, B., Drusi, S., & Tencati, C. (2015). Improving problem solving in primary school students: the effect of a training programme focusing on metacognition and working memory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424–439. doi: 10.1111/bjep.I2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Backer, L. (2015). Fostering university students’ individual and socially shared metacognitive regulation through reciprocal same-age peer tutoring: a study into the impact and interaction processes. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Ghent University.Google Scholar
  14. De Jager, B., Jansen, M., & Reezigt, G. (2005). The development of metacognition in primary school learning environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 179–196. doi: 10.1080/09243450500114181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desender, K., Van Opstal, F., Hughes, G., & Van den Bussche, E. (2016). The temporal dynamics of metacognition: dissociating task-related activity from later metacognitive processes. Neuropsychologia, 82, 54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desoete, A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: How you test is what you get. Metacognition Learning, 3, 189–206. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9026-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desoete, A., Praet, M., Van de Velde, C., De Craene, B., & Hantson, E. (2016). Enhancing mathematical skills through interventions with virtual manipulatives. In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 171–187). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition. A domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 123–139. doi: 10.2307/1511279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2006). Metacognitive macroevaluations in mathematical problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 16, 12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can off-line metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 188–200. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: an analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41, 25–47. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donker, A.S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk, C.C., & van der Werf, M.P.C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: a metaanalysis. Educational Research review, 11, 1–26. doi: 10.1016/j.educrev.2013.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dragan, M., & Dragan, W. (2014). Temperament and anxiety: The mediating role of metacognition. Journal of Psychopathology Behaviour Assessment, 36, 246–254. doi: 10.1007/s10862-013-9392-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Erickson, S., & Heit, E. (2015). Metacognition and confidence: Comparing mathematics to other academic subjects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 742. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00742. (Article 742)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th edn.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Fleming, S. M., Donlan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2012). Metacognition: computation, biology and function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 367, 1280–1286. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Focant, J., Grégoire, J., & Desoete, A. (2006). Goal-setting, planning and control strategies and arithmetical problem solving at grade 5. In A. Desoete & M. Veenman (Eds.), Metacognition in mathematics education (pp. 51–72). New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  32. Furnes, B., & Norman, E. (2015). Metacognition and reading: comparing three forms of metacognition in normally developing readers and readers with dyslexia. Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 21, 273–284. doi: 10.1002/dys.1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Georghiades, P. (2007). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: focusing on transfer, durability, and metacognition. Educational Research, 42, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ginsburg, H. P., Labrecque, R., Carpenter, K., & Pagar, D. (2015). New possibilities for early mathematics education: cognitive guidelines for designing high-quality software to promote young children’s meaningful mathematics learning. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1055–1098). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Grégoire, J., Noël, M., & Van Nieuwenhoven (2004). TEDI-MATH. Antwerpen: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  36. Hanna, E. I. (2005). Inclusive design for maximum accessibility: a practical approach to universal design (PEM Research Report No. 05–04). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Educational Measurement.Google Scholar
  37. Hartman, H., & Sternberg, J. (1993). A broad BACIES for improving thinking. Instructional Science, 21, 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hitchcock, C.G., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurme, T.L., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: an analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P.K. (2011). Socially shared metacognition in dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Järvelä, S., Järvenojä, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. (2013). Exploring socially shared regulation in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 267–286. doi: 10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kramarski, B. (2009). Metacognitive feedback in online mathematical discussion. In R. Subramaniam &, T. W. Leo (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 794–805). Hershey:Information science referenceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kramarski, B., & Hirsch, C. (2003). Effects of computer algebra system (CAS) with metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Educational Media International, 40, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Lucangeli, D., Cornoldi, C., & Tellarinin, M. (1998). Metacognition and learning disabilities in mathematics. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 219–285). Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
  47. Marulis, L. M., Sullivan Palinscar, A., Berhenke, A. L., & Whitebread, D. (2016). Assessing metacognitive knowledge in 3–5 year olds, the development of a metacognitive interview (McKI). Metacognition Learning, 11, 339–368. doi: 10.1107/s11409-016-9157-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mevarech, Z. R., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 85–97. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6584-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395. doi: 10.3102/00028312034002365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students' mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 449–471. doi: 10.1348/000709903322591181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moore, K. D. (2005). Effective instructional strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Morosanova, V.I., Gomina, T.G., Kovas, Y., & Bogdanova, O.Y. (2016). Cognitive and regulatory characteristics and mathematical performances in high school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 177–186. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Olsen, J. R., & Singer, M. (1993). Teacher reflection: researching our own practice. In B. L. Hayes & K. Camperell (Eds.), Reading: strategies, practices, and research for the 21st century, American Reading Forum, 13. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 364 855).Google Scholar
  56. Osman, M., & Hannafin, M. (1992). Metacognition research and theory: analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 83–99. doi: 10.1007/BF02297053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Özsoy, G. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 12, 227–235. doi: 10.1007/s12564-010-9129-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., Nanty, I., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Metacognition and low achievement in mathematics: the effect of training in the use of metacognitive skills. Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 198–220. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2010.509052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perfect, T., & Schwartz, B. (2002). Applied Metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pintrich, P.R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pleschovà, G., & McAlpine, L. (2016). Helping teachers to focus on learning and reflect on their teaching. What role does teaching context play? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 48, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robson, S. (2016). Self-regulation and metacognition in young children: does it matter if adults are present? British Educational Research Journal, 42, 185–206. doi: 10.1002/berj.3205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roebers, C.M., & Feurer, E. (2016). Linking executive functions and procedural metacognition. Child Developmental Perspectives, 10, 39–44. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rogat, T.K., & Adams-Wiggins, K.R. (2014). Other-regulation in collaborative groups: implications for regulation quality. Instructional Science, 42, 879–904. doi: 10.1007/s11251-014-9322-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM, 42, 149–161. doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-0240-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In T. Perfect & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 224–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–197). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  68. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139. doi: 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning Theories–an educational perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson-Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  72. Siegler, R. S., & Ramani, G. B. (2008). Playing linear numerical board games promotes low income children’s numerical development. Developmental Science, 11, 655–661. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00714.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spiess, M.A., Meier, B., & Roebers, C.M. (2016). Development and longitudinal relationships between children’s executive functions, prospective memory, and metacognition. Cognitive Development, 38, 99–113. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tanner, H.F.R., & Jones, S. A. (1995). Using peer and self assessment to develop modelling skills with students aged 11 to 16: a socio-constructive view. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 413–431. doi: 10.1007/BF01273381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  76. Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychological Studies, 29, 117–137. doi: 10.1007/s10212-013-0190-5.Google Scholar
  77. van Gog, T., & Jarodzka, H. (2013). Eye-tracking as a tool to study and enhance cognitive and metacognitive processes in computer-based learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 143–156). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Van Luit, J.E.H., & Schopman, A.M. (2000). Improving early numeracy of young children with special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 27–40. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 205–211. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Veenman, M.V.J. (2013). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations revisited. What have we learned during the last decade? Keynote lecture EARLI. 27.08.2013 München.Google Scholar
  81. Veenman, M. V. J. (2006). The role of intellectual and metacognitive skills in mathematics problem solving. In A. Desoete & M. Veenman (Eds.), Metacogniton in mathematics education. (pp. 35–50). Haupauge: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  82. Vermeer, H.J., Boekaerts, M., & Seegers, G. (2000). Motivational and gender differences: sixth-grade students’ mathematical problem-solving behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 308–315. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Verschaffel, L. (1999). Realistic mathematical modelling and problem solving in the upper elementary school: analysis and improvement. In J. H. M. Hamers, J. E. H. Van Luit & B. Csapo (Eds.), Teaching and learning thinking skills. Contexts of learning (pp. 215–240). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  84. Vo, B.A., Li, R., Kornell, N., Pouget, A., & Cantlon, J.F. (2014). Young children bet on their numerical skills: Metacognition in the numerical domain. Psychological Science, 25, 1712–1721. doi: 10.1177/0956797614538458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Volet, S., Vauras, M., Khosa, D., & Iiskala, T. (2013). Metacognitive regulation in collaborative learning: conceptual developments and methodological contextualizations. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: methodological advances (pp. 67–101). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Wall, J.L., Thompson, C.A., Dunlosky, J., & Merriman, W.E. (2016). Children can accurately monitor and control their number-line estimation performance. Developmental Psychology, 2(1493–1502), 1493. doi: 10.1037/dev0000180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wang, A. H., Shen, F., & Byrnes, J. P. (2013). Does the opportunity-propensity framework predict the early mathematics skills of low-income pre-kindergarten children? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 259–270. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wechsler, D., Kort, W., Schittekatte, M., Bosmans, M., Compaan, E. L., Dekker, P. H., & Verhaeghe, P. (2002). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-III-Nl. Amsterdam: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  89. Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007) Development of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: role of collaborative and peerassisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6, 433–455. https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/cindle/Whitebreadetal.pdf (retrieved on 18th march 2017)
  90. Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(4), 397–417. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: an introduction and an overview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Artevelde University CollegeGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options