Designing for Adult Learners’ Metacognitive Development and Narrative Identity

Chapter

Abstract

Adult learners are often aware of their thinking and learning strategies but tend to need more support in self-regulation, especially when challenged with self-paced learning situations and online learning environments. This research shows how social and persuasive design elements in learning environments can support learners’ metacognitive development, in which narrative identities are a key factor.

Keywords

Metacognition Adults Narrative identity Self-regulation Social learning Persuasive design E-learning Online 

References

  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. In New science of learning (pp. 225–247). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bers, M. (2001). Identity construction environments: Developing personal and moral values through the design of a virtual city. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 365–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brookfield, S. D. (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking?. The Internet and Higher Education 5(2), 147–155.Google Scholar
  8. Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers & Education, 58(3), 874–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cambridge, D. (2008). Audience, integrity, and the living document: eFolio Minnesota and lifelong and lifewide learning with ePortfolios. Computers and Education, 51, 1227–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, M. C., & Rossiter, M. (2008). Narrative learning in adulthood. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2006(2). http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm
  12. Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Fogg, B. J., & Eckles, D. (2007). Mobile persuasion: 20 perspectives on the future of behavior change. Stanford, CA: Stanford Captology Media.Google Scholar
  15. Fancsali, S. E. (2013, December). Data-driven causal modeling of “gaming the system” and off-task behavior in Cognitive Tutor Algebra. In NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education.Google Scholar
  16. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
  17. Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3), 236–249.Google Scholar
  18. Knowles, M. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A. (2012). The adult learner. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education 28(2):121–133.Google Scholar
  22. Rau, M., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Rohrbach, S. (2013). Why interactive environments can have it all: Resolving design conflicts between competing goals. In Proceedings of the conference on computer-human interaction CHI 2013. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  23. Roll, I., Baker, R., Aleven, V., McLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. (2005). Modeling students’ metacognitive errors in two intelligent tutoring systems. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siadaty, M., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., Pata, K., Milikić, N., Holocher-Ertl, T., et al. (2012). Self-regulated workplace learning: A pedagogical framework and semantic web-based environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 75–88.Google Scholar
  26. Singer, J. A. (2004). Narrative identity and meaning making across the adult lifespan: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 72(3), 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snyder, M. M. (2009). Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends, 53(1), 48–56.Google Scholar
  28. Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” Authenticity: New Media and Authentic Learning. Journal of interactive learning research, 10(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
  29. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wegener, R., & Leimeister, J. M. (2012). Virtual learning communities: success factors and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 383–397.Google Scholar
  33. Walkington, C. (2013) Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 105(4), 932–945.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia University ChicagoRiver ForestUSA

Personalised recommendations