Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of metacognition in the first-year design lab

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metacognition, or the ability to think about thinking, plays a significant role in the performance of first-year design students. Although the number of studies that focus on metacognition has increased in the past decade, additional studies are needed to more fully investigate metacognition and the use of metacognitive strategies in design education. Thus, this study focused on the influence of metacognitive knowledge, monitoring, and control on first-year design students’ performance. The conditions leading to changes in first-year design students’ metacognitive thinking and behaviors were also investigated. The processes of gathering data through concurrent verbalization and retrospective verbalization methods and a questionnaire are described. Thematic data analysis was used to extract the emerging themes from these data sources. Results indicated that metacognitive thinking was present in the generation and development of design ideas. Comparisons of higher- and lower-performing students demonstrated the importance of metacognitive thinking during design learning tasks; higher-performing (HP) students tended to focus more on metacognitive thinking, whereas lower-performing (LP) students focused more on cognitive activities. Other comparisons between HP and LP students, along with recommendations for improving students’ problem solving performance in design courses, are shared.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Noah – Daisy (HP-HP), Steve – Pandora (LP-HP), Autumn – Layla (LP-LP), Linda –Taylor (HP-LP), Paul – Edward (LP-LP), Ava – William – Hana (LP-LP-LP), Nicky – Kara (HP-LP), Catherine – Marie (LP-HP), Bill– Max (HP-LP).

  2. An uncoated, machine-finished paperboard used for technical drawing or model making.

References

  • Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2018). Information management versus knowledge building: Implications for learning and assessment in higher education. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, & C. Kuhn (Eds.), Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: Cross national comparisons and perspectives (pp. 43–56). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self regulation, and mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. (pp. 65–117). New Jersey: Erlbaum Hillsdale.

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C. (1988). Metacognition and human performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1, 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C. (2002). Applying cognitive strategies to instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desoete, A., & Ozsoy, G. (2009). Introduction: Metacognition, more than the lognes monster? International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Offline metacognition-a domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A., & Sideridis, G. D. (2009). Assessing cognitive failures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 69–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1981). Monitoring social cognitive enterprises: Something else that may develop in the area of social cognition. In J. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development (pp. 272–287). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, R. (2008). Creating creativity in the design studio: Assessing the impact of metacognitive skill development on creative abilities (Doctoral dissertation), North Carolina State University. Retrieved 15 January 2013 from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/3048. (Accession No. 2010-04-02T18:26:15Z)

  • Hargrove, R. (2013). Assessing the long-term impact of a metacognitive approach to creative skill development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 489–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (2001). An Introduction to Theories of Learning (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved from https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/3048

  • Jausovec, N. (1994). Metacognition in creative problem solving. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving and creativity (pp. 77–95). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavousi, S., & Miller, P. A. (2014). The community of practice: Teaching Pedagogy in the Architecture Foundation Design Lab. In EDULEARN14 Proceedings, IATED: 2548–2557.

  • Kavousi, S. (2017). The Process of Thinking and Making in Beginning Design Students. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA.

  • Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020). Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 709–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaidzir, K. A. M., & Lawson, B. (2013). The cognitive construct of design conversation. Research in Engineering Design, 24, 331–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. R., & Ashman, A. F. (1984). Planning skills and mathematics achievement: Implications regarding learning disability. Journal of Psycho Educational Assessment, 2, 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku, S., & Morgan, M. (2006). Technology from a metacognitive perspective in studio settings in the higher education sector. In S. Housego (Ed.), 7th International conference on information technology based higher education and training (pp. 208–216). Sydney NSW: University of Technology Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawanto, O. (2010). Students’ metacognition during an engineering design project. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawanto, O., Butler, D., Cartier, S., Santoso, H. B., & Goodridge, W. (2013). Task interpretation, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies of higher and lower performers in an engineering design project: An exploratory study of college freshmen. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 459–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The designing process demystified. London: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Shute, V. J. (2010). Personal and social-contextual factors in k-12 academic performance: An integrative perspective on student learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G. J. (1989). Meta-teaching: A metaphor for reflective teaching. Education, 109(4), 487–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matanzo, J. B., & Harris, D. L. (1999). Encouraging metacognitive awareness. In J. R. Dugan et al. (Ed.), Advancing the world of literacy: Moving into the 21st-century (pp. 201–225). Carrollton, GA: College Reading Association.

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormrod, J. E. (2012). Human learning (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozsoy, G. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education, 12, 227–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesut, D. J. (1984). Metacognition: The Self-Regulation of Creative Thought in Nursing. (published doctoral dissertation), The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  • Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, F., & Masrur, R. (2011). Is metacognition a single variable? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reingold, R., Rimor, R., & Kalay, A. (2008). Instructor’s scaffolding in support of student’s metacognition through a teacher education online course: A case study. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple-Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson NJ: Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teong, S. K. (2002). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawik (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal., 16(2), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Tech, 121 Burrus Hall (0190), Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Shabnam Kavousi

  2. Virginia Tech, 120 F Burruss Hall (0190), Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Patrick A. Miller

  3. University of Maryland, 3304F Benjamin Building, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Patricia A. Alexander

Authors
  1. Shabnam Kavousi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick A. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia A. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shabnam Kavousi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: categories and definitions

Appendix A: categories and definitions

Main categories of metacognitive thought processing.

Category

Definition

Reflective process knowledge

Learner’s knowledge regarding how to learn, which could influence the process of learning

Reflective process monitoring

Judgments made by learners regarding the status of learning (how learning is progressing, how learning should progress)

Reflective process control

Decision or actions taken by learners that influence the progress of the learning-task

Reflective process knowledge.

Category

Definition

Reflective process knowledge

Learner’s knowledge regarding how to learn, which could influence the process of learning

Cognitive strategies knowledge

Thinking about cognition and cognitive strategies

Self-awareness

Thinking about how learners as individuals learn

Task-awareness

Thinking about the learning task and how to proceed based on their existing understanding

Reflective process monitoring.

Category

Definition

Reflective process monitoring

Learner’s judgment regarding the status of learning (how learning is progressing, how learning should progress)

Personal feeling monitoring

Learner’s thinking about his/her influential emotional state during the design progress

Situational actions monitoring

Learner’s thinking about decisions-made or actions taken in the progress of design task

Reflective process control.

Category

Definition

Reflective process control

Decisions or actions taken by learners that influence the progress of the design task

Control of environment

Thinking about what actions to take to control (change/maintain) the physical environment before the start of, or during the design process

Control of personal feelings

Thinking about what actions to take to change, or maintain emotional state

Control of situational actions

Thinking about what actions to take to complete/finish the design task

Physical processing.

Category

Definition

Physical processing

Learner’s physical feelings and how the physical environment is impacting the learning process

Affective processing.

Category

Definition

Affective processing

Learner’s moods, emotions, motivations in relation to the learning task, which could be positive, negative, or neutral

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kavousi, S., Miller, P.A. & Alexander, P.A. The role of metacognition in the first-year design lab. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 3471–3494 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09848-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09848-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation