Eleventh-Grade High School Students’ Accounts of Mathematical Metacognitive Knowledge: Explicitness and Systematicity

Article

Abstract

Theoretically, it has been argued that a conscious understanding of metacognitive knowledge requires that this knowledge is explicit and systematic. The purpose of this descriptive study was to obtain a better understanding of explicitness and systematicity in knowledge of the mathematical problem-solving process. Eighteen 11th-grade pre-university students solved two kinds of complex mathematical thinking problems that included the finding of a solution and the writing of mathematical texts and arguments. They also answered open-ended questions to obtain reasoned and reflective accounts regarding their metacognitive knowledge. Content analysis indicated 4 levels of explicitness and 5 levels of systematicity. Quantitizing of the accounts provided for a strong positive correlation with mathematical performance. It is concluded that explicitness and systematicity appeared to be potential indicators of the participants’ understanding of effective problem-solving strategies.

Keywords

Mathematical writing Metacognition Planning Problem solving Secondary education 

References

  1. Akkus, R. & Hand, B. (2011). Examining teachers’ struggles as they attempt to implement dialogical interaction as part of promoting mathematical reasoning within their classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 975–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L. & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annevirta, T. & Vauras, M. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in primary grades: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artzt, 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(2), 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M. K. & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of math performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  7. Burkhardt, H. & Bell, A. (2007). Problem solving in the United Kingdom. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39(5-6), 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai, J. (1994). A protocol-analytic study of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6(2), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, M. & Biddlecomb, B. (1998). Metacognition in mathematics from a constructivist perspective. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 69–91). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, J. E. & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 47–68). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  11. De Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Corte, E. & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Mathematical thinking and learning. In K. A. Renninger, I. E. Sigel (Series Eds.), W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds-in-Chief.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in practice (Vol. 4, pp. 103–152). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  13. Desoete, A. & Veenman, M. (2006). Metacognition in mathematics: Critical issues on nature, theory, assessment and treatment. In A. Desoete & M. Veenman (Eds.), Metacognition in mathematics education (pp. 1–10). Haupauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  14. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A. & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychological Review, 20(4), 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., Van Heuvel-Panhuizen, T., De Lange, J. & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in The Netherlands. ZDM Mathematics Learning, 39(5-6), 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets of mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 253–284). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  17. English, L. D. (2008). Setting an agenda for international research in mathematics education. In L. D. English, M. B. Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. A. Lesh & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  18. English, L. D. & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for the 21st century. In L. D. English & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Advances in mathematics education (pp. 263–290). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francisco, J. M. (2013). Learning in collaborative settings: Students building on each other’s ideas to promote their mathematical understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal, 82(3), 417–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garofalo, J. & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gleitman, L. & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633–662). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Grawe, N. D. (2011). Beyond math skills: Measuring quantitative reasoning in context. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grouws, D. A. & Cebulla, K. J. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  25. Hamilton, E. (2007). What changes are needed in the kind of problem-solving situations where mathematical thinking is needed beyond school? In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 1–6). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F. & Yoon, C. (2006). The use of reflection tools to build personal models of problem solving. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for future in mathematics education (pp. 349–366). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  27. Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (2005). Advanced mathematical-thinking at any age: Its nature and its development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses for expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 263–272). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, H. C. & Ball, D. L. (2009). The curious—and crucial—case of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L. & Schilling, G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  31. Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hurme, T. T. & Järvelä, S. (2005). Students’ activity in computer-supporter collaborative problem solving in mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(1), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Kapa, E. (1999). The effects of metacognitive feedback on solving mathematical word problems with the computer (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.Google Scholar
  35. Kuehner, J. P. & Mauch, E. K. (2006). Engineering applications for demonstrating mathematical problem-solving methods at the secondary education level. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 25(4), 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lesh, R. & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  38. Lester, F. K. & Kehle, P. E. (2003). From problem solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity. In R. A. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 501–518). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  39. Litman, L. & Reber, A. S. (2005). Implicit cognition and thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 431–453). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E. & Hegarty, M. (1996). The process of understanding mathematical problems. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 29–53). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2009). Guiding principles for mathematics curriculum and assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.nctm.org/standard/content.aspx?id=23273
  42. National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K. & Schneider, W. (2011). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: General or domain-specific? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polya, G. (1954). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I. & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner- researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2(3), 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, W. & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (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: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Reflections on problem solving theory and practice. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1–2), 9–34.Google Scholar
  52. Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siegler, R. S. & Shipley, C. (1995). Variations, selection, and cognitive change. In T. Simon & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31–76). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  54. Sierpinska, A. (2004). Understanding in mathematics. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S. & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers to move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stillman, G. A. & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections: Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal, 36(2), 157–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge on aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas, G. P. (2012). The metacognitive science teacher: A statement for enhanced teacher cognition and pedagogy. In F. Ornek & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Contemporary science teaching approaches: Promoting conceptual understanding in science (pp. 29–53). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Van Velzen, J. H. (2012). Teaching metacognitive knowledge and developing expertise. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(3), 365–380.Google Scholar
  60. Van Velzen, J. H. (2013). Educational researchers and practicality. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 789–811.Google Scholar
  61. White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitebread, D., Almeqdad, Q., Bryce, D., Demetriou, D., Grau, V. & Sangster, C. (2010). Metacognition in young children: Current methodological and theoretical developments. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 233–258). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Child Development and EducationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations