The Extent to Which the Characteristics of a Metacognitive Oriented Learning Environment Predict the Characteristics of

Yıl 2015, , 241 - 260, 30.10.2015

Senar Alkin Şahin

https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.60.13

Öz

Problem Statement:Based on information presented in previous literature, that the characteristics of learning environments foster metacognition and thinking, it is believed that metacognitiveoriented classrooms can contribute to the formation of environments needed to teach thinking, and when metacognitiveoriented learning environment characteristics of classrooms are developed, their suitability for thinking education will be enhanced. However, in literature, there is no research looking at the predictive relationship between the characteristics of a metacognitiveoriented learning environment and the characteristics of a thinking-friendly classroom.

Purpose of the Study:The purpose of the current study is to investigate the predictive relationships between the characteristics of a metacognitiveoriented learning environment in science classes and the characteristics of a thinking-friendly classroom based on the opinions of secondary school students. 

Method: The study is a predictive study designed in the relational survey model. The sampling of the study consists of 378 students attending secondary schools in the city of Kutahya. In the study, The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale–Science (MOLES-S) and Thinking-Friendly Classroom Scale (TFCS) were employed as data collection instruments. In the analysis of the data, Pearson correlation analysis and multi-linear regression were used. 

FindingsandResults:The results of the regression analysis revealed that all the predictive variables together can meaningfully explain 53% of the total variance in TFCS total score: 57% of the variance in teacher behaviors promote thinking; 39% of the variance in student behaviors promote thinking; and 6% of the variance in behaviors prevent thinking.

Conclusion and Recommendations: In light of the findings of the study, it can be argued that the characteristics of a metacognitiveoriented learning environment can account for nearly half of the characteristics of thinking-friendly classrooms (in total score) and for the student and teacher behaviors that are part of these characteristics. Thus, theoretical explanations of metacognitiveoriented learning environments and thinking-friendly classrooms have been confirmed to a great extent in actual classroom environments. Strong predictive relationships found in the study indicate a need to establish metacognitiveoriented learning environments to inculcate students’ thinking skills. 

Keywords: Metacognition, thinking, metacognitiveoriented learning environment, thinking-friendly classroom environment, secondary school students

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognition, thinking, metacognitive oriented learning environment, thinking-friendly classroom environment, secondary school students

Kaynakça

• Alkin, S. (2012). Evaluation of elementary school teachers’ “behaviors of supporting critical thinking”. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Ankara University Institute of Education Sciences. Ankara.
• Alkin-Sahin, S., Tunca, N., & Oguz, A. (2015). Classroom teachers’ supportive behaviors for learner autonomy and critical thinking. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 2(1), 161-178.
• Berman, S. (2001). Thinking in context: Teaching for open-mindedness and critical understanding. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 417-424). Alexandria,VI: ASCD.
• Beyer, B. (2001). Putting it all together to improve student thinking. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1999). Thinking for the future. Emergency Librarian, 17, 11-13.
• Butler, D. L. (1998). The Strategic content learning approach to promoting selfregulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682-697.
• Buyukozturk, S. (2005). Sosyal bilimler icin very analizi el kitabi [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Costa, A. L. (1991). Teacher behaviors that enable student thinking. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 194-206). Alexandria,VI: ASCD.
• Crick, F. (2000). Şaşırtan varsayım [The astonishing hypothesis the scientific search for the soul]. (Cev. Sabit Say). Ankara: TÜBİTAK.
• Cuceloglu, D. (1994). İyi düşün dogru karar ver [Think good and decide truth]. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
• Doganay, A., & Sari, M. (2012a). A study of developing the thinking-friendly classroom scale (TFCS). Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 214-229.
• Doganay, A., & Sari, M. (2012b). Prediction level of the constructivist learning environment on the characteristics of thinking-friendly classroom. Journal of Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 21(1), 21-36.
• Duffy, G. G., Miller, S., Parsons, S., & Meloth, M. (2009). Teachers as metacognitive professionals. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 240-256). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
• unlop, J. C., & Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environment for the active learning in the higher education. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructing learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 65-82). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
• El-Hindi, A. E. (1996). Enhancing metacognitive awareness of college learners. Reading Horizons, 37, 214-230.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
• Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• French N. J., & Rhoder, C. (2011). Teaching thinking skills theory and practice. Newyork: Routledge Publication.
• Hacker, D. J. (1998). Metacognition: Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Hilssdale.
• Huitt, W. (1997). Metacognition. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
• Innabi, H. (2003). Aspects of critical thinking in classroom instruction of secondary school mathematics teachers in Jordan. Paper presented at The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project Proceedings of the International Conference, Czech Republic.
• Jager, B., Jansen, M., & Reezigt, G. (2005). The development of metacognition in primary school learning environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 179-196.
• Karakelle, S. (2012). Interrelations between metacognitive awareness, perceived problem solving, intelligence and need for cognition. Education and Science, 37(164), 237-250.
• Kirbulut, Z. D., & Gokalp, M. S. (2014). The relationship between pre-service elementary school teachers’ metacognitive science learning orientations and their use of constructivist learning environment. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(6), 1-10.
• Kiremitci, O. (2011). Examination of the relationship between metacognitive awareness and problem solving skills of physical education teacher candidates. Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 13(1), 92–99.
• Klausmeier, H. J. (1985). Educational psychology. New York: Harper and Row. Kline, N. (2002). Time to think: Listening to ignite the human mind. Kwinana, WA: Gracwood Business.
• Kuiper, R. (2002). Enhancing metacognition through the reflective use of selfregulated learning strategies. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 33(2), 78-87.
• Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 23-40.
• Lin, X. D., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Towards teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.
• Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved 01.01.2015, from http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm. Mclneryney, D. M., & Mclnerney, V. (2002). Educational psychology-constructing learning. Prentice Hall: Pearson Education Australia.
• Newmann, F. M. (1991). Classroom thoughtfulness and students' higher order thinking: Common indicators and diverse social studies courses. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19(4), 409-431.
• Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 66-75.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice 41(4), 219-225.
• Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance. Cambridge MA: Brookline.
• Reeve, R. A., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 343-356.
• Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57-61
• Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Roberts, M. J., & Erdos, G. (1993). Strategy selection and metacognition. Educational Psychology, 13, 259-266.
• Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Santrock, J. W. (2004). Educational psychology. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Higher Education.
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic pres.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-470.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
• Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-371.
• Thomas, G. P. (2003). Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The metacognitive orientation learning environment scale-Science (MOLES - S). Learning Environments Research, 6, 175-197.
• Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183-1207.
• Yildiz, E., & Ergin, O. (2007). The adaptation of metacognitive orientation of learning environment scale-Science (MOLES-S) into Turkish: The study of validity and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 123-133.
• Yildirim, S., & Ersozlu, Z. N. (2013).The relationship between students’ metacognitive awareness and their solutions to similar types of mathematical problems. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(4), 411-415.
• Yurdakul, B., & Demirel, O. (2011). Contributions of constructivist learning approach to learners’ metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 1, 71-85.