An Experimental Study of the Effect of Computer Assisted Learning on Metacognitive Performance Development in Psychology Teaching

Year 2019, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 94 - 105, 15.01.2019

Ahmet Coymak

https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512539

Abstract

There is a growing interest in the use of computer-based learning environments to enhance learning in higher education, but the implications of this on the improvement of metacognition in higher education have yet to be adequately explored. In the current study, 175 students who enrolled in an introductory psychology course were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups (computer-assisted vs. self-managed). In the computer-assisted condition, besides the lecture delivered four hours per week and for three months in total, students took a set of assignments based on evidence-based teaching in a computer-based environment. The control group, however, took these assignments as in-and-out class activities without using a computer environment. An assessment based on Bloom’s taxonomy was utilized to obtain metacognitive and competency scores for both groups. The results of the study showed that the students who completed the structured learning assignments as computer-based, self-learning environment showed better metacognition performance than those in the self-managed group, who did not engage with the online platform, even though there was no significant difference between the groups regarding competence on the course’s learning objectives. The current experiment offers an empirical validation for why instructors should use technology as a self-regulatory tool that enhances students’ metacognitive performance and competence of learning outcomes.

Keywords

Metacognition, University teaching, Self-regulation in learning, Computer-based learning

References

• Azevedo, R. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Computers as metacognitive tools to enhance learning? Instructional Science, 30, 31-45.
• Azevedo, R. (2005a). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193-197. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004
• Azevedo, R. (2005b). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199-209.
• Azevedo, R. & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367-379.
• Ball, L. & Stacey, K. (2005). Teaching strategies for developing judicious technology use. Technology-Supported Mathematics Learning Environments (2005 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Yearbook, pp. 3-15). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57, 1-22.
• Brinol, P. & DeMarree, K. G. (2012). Social metacognition. New York: Psychology Press.
• Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: Implementing Bloom's taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 368-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
• Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence‐based education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108-121.
• Dunn, D. S., Saville, B. K., Baker, S. C., & Marek, P. (2013). Evidence-based teaching: Tools and techniques that promote learning in the psychology classroom. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 5-13. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12004
• Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
• Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: A knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(4), 255-268.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.
• Groccia, J. E. & Buskist, W. (2011). Need for evidence‐based teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 5-11.
• Haladyna, T. M. (1999). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., Shadiev, R., & Li, J. S. (2011). Effects of reviewing annotations and homework solutions on math learning achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1016–1028. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01126.x
• McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. (2007, December). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore 2007 (pp. 664-675).
• Meyer, E., Abrami, P. C., Wade, C. A., Aslan, O., & Deault, L. (2010). Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL. Computers & Education, 55(1), 84-91.
• Mitchell, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies? London: Routledge.
• Nevid, J. S. & McClelland, N. (2013). Using action verbs as learning outcomes: applying Bloom’s taxonomy in measuring instructional objectives in introductory psychology. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 19-24.
• Ozcelik, E. & Acarturk, C. (2011). Reducing the spatial distance between printed and online information sources by means of mobile technology enhances learning: Using 2D barcodes. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2077-2085.
• Poirier, C. R. & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 194-196.
• Psycharis, S., Botsari, E., Mantas, P., & Loukeris, D. (2014). The impact of the computational inquiry based experiment on metacognitive experiences, modelling indicators and learning performance. Computers and Education, 72, 90-99. http://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2013.10.001
• Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244.
• Robinson, K. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. New York: The Penguin Group.
• Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it time to dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 2-5.
• Stuart, G. W., Tondora, J., & Hoge, M. A. (2004). Evidence-based teaching practice: Implications for behavioral health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 32(2), 107-130.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
• Tatar, N., Akpinar, E., & Feyzioglu, E. Y. (2013). The effect of computer-assisted learning integrated with metacognitive prompts on students’ affective skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 764-779. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9429-1
• Ustunluoglu, E. & Gungor-Culha, D. (2012). Investigating Student Evaluation of Teachers by Using Latent Class Analysis: A Case Study at a Tertiary Level. International Journal of Education, 4(3), 147-159.