Abstract
Meta-strategic Knowledge (MSK) is a sub-component of metacognition that is defined in the present study as general, explicit knowledge about thinking strategies. In the present study we shall focus on the control of variables thinking strategy. Following an earlier study (Zohar & Peled 2007) that showed considerable effects of explicit instruction of MSK in laboratory setting, this study explores whether these effects are preserved in authentic classroom situations. Participants were 119 8th grade students from 6 classes of a heterogeneous school. Equal numbers of low-achieving and high-achieving students were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The findings showed dramatic developments in students’ strategic and meta-strategic thinking following instruction. The effect of the treatment was preserved in delayed transfer tests. Our findings show that explicit teaching of MSK had a strong effect on low achieving students. The implications of the findings for learning and instruction are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of teaching metacognitive skills to students with low mathematics ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 109–121.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other thing being equal: Children’s acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.
Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384–397.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon Schuster Macmillan.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th Edn.th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational studies in mathematics, 49, 225–250.
Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter, & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.) Child psychology, a handbook of contemporary issues. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor and Francis.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Why development does (and doesn’t) occur: Evidence from the domain of inductive reasoning. In R. Siegler, & J. McClelland (Eds.) Mecahnisms of cognitive development: Neural and behavioral perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D. (2001a). How do people know? Psychological Science, 2001, 1–8.
Kuhn, D. (2001b). Theory of mind, metacognition and reasoning: A life-span perspective. In H. Hartman (Ed.) Metacognition in Learning and Instruction (pp. 301–326). Netherlans: Kluwer.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Anderson, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge Acquisition. To be printed in: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (MSRCD).
Kuhn, D., Katz, J., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing Reason. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 197–219.
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 13, 227–247.
Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross- domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285–327.
Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195–205.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Fridkin, S. (2006). Who benefits from IMPROVE? The differential effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge and reasoning. School of Education, Bar- Ilan University, Israel. Paper presented at SIG16 Metacognition Conference, Cambridge, UK. July 2006.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for reaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–394.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000; Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Miller, F. G., & Brody, H. (2002). What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical? American Journal of Bioethics, 2(2), 3–9.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe, & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.) Metacognition: knowing about knowing, chapter 1 (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
Pearsall, S. (1999). Effects of metacognitive exercise on the development of scientific reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Piaget, J. (1948/1974). To understand is to Invent: The future of education. New York: Viking.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (retrieved July 2005). Science for public understanding. http://www.qca.org.uk/index.html.
Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington D.C.: Natioanl Academy Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(No. 4), Fall 1994.
Ross, J. A. (1988). Controlling variables: a meta-analysis of studies. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 405–437.
Rothman, K. J., & Michels, K. B. (1994). The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. New England Journal of Medicine, 331, 394–398.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructinal Science, 26, 113–125.
Schuable, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31–57.
Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46–55.
Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and instruction, 18(4), 423–459.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warburton, E., & Torff, B. (2005). The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 24–33.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. L. Minstrell, & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.) Inquiry into Inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington D.C: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teacher’ professional development. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 829–855.
Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2007). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and instruction, in press (September 19).
Zohar, A., Vaaknin, E., & Degani, A. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teachers’ Education, 17, 469–485.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zohar, A., David, A.B. Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition Learning 3, 59–82 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4