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

## 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

- 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Burkhardt, H. & Bell, A. (2007). Problem solving in the United Kingdom.
*ZDM Mathematics Education, 39*(5-6), 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cai, J. (1994). A protocol-analytic study of metacognition in mathematical problem solving.
*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6*(2), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - De Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics.
*Learning Inquiry, 1*(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.
*American Psychologist, 34*(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Garofalo, J. & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16*(3), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Grawe, N. D. (2011). Beyond math skills: Measuring quantitative reasoning in context.
*New Directions for Institutional Research, 149*, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Grouws, D. A. & Cebulla, K. J. (2000).
*Improving student achievement in mathematics*. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
*Qualitative Health Research, 15*(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2014).
*Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches*(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development.
*Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9*(5), 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - National Research Council (2000).
*How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school*(Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar - 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 - Polya, G. (1954).
*How to solve it*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - 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 - Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I. & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing.
*Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3*(3), 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Robson, C. (1993).
*Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner- researchers*. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar - 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 - Schneider, W. & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education.
*ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42*(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Reflections on problem solving theory and practice.
*The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10*(1–2), 9–34.Google Scholar - Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories.
*Educational Psychology Review, 7*(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Sierpinska, A. (2004).
*Understanding in mathematics*. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge on aptitude on problem solving.
*Journal of Educational Psychology, 82*(2), 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Van Velzen, J. H. (2012). Teaching metacognitive knowledge and developing expertise.
*Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18*(3), 365–380.Google Scholar - Van Velzen, J. H. (2013). Educational researchers and practicality.
*American Educational Research Journal, 50*(4), 789–811.Google Scholar - White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development.
*Educational Psychologist, 40*(4), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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