The Effect of Metacognitive Strategies Instructed Through Cognitive Coaching on The Metacognitive Skills and Retention in 6TH Grade Social Studies Lesson

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of metacognitive strategies instructed through cognitive coaching on the metacognitive skills and retention. The study was conducted in the second semester of 2007-2008 education year with 6th grade students of three schools chosen randomly and located in Seyhan, Adana. The data obtained from the metacognition scale and from the interview forms were analyzed using content analysis methods while the quantitative data were analyzed using One-way analysis of variance and covariance analysis. At the end of the study a significant difference was detected in experimental group’s favour regarding self monitoring, evaluation, awareness, and cognitive strategies aspects in metacognition scale post test. As to the retention marks, although a significant difference was detected in experimental group’s favor regarding awareness, no significant difference was found in experimental group’s favor regarding cognitive strategies and evaluation aspects. However, the second control group displayed a significant difference in retention test in self monitoring aspect. Besides, students in the experimental group stated that the instruction improved their self evaluation, planning and organization skills.

Keywords

• Cognitive Coaching,Metacognition,Metacognitive Strategies,Social studies

Bilişsel Koçluk Yöntemiyle Öğretilen Bilişsel Farkındalık Stratejilerinin Altıncı Sınıf Sosyal Bilgiler Dersinde Bilişsel Farkındalık Becerilerine ve Kalıcılığa Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, bilişsel koçluğa bilişsel farkındalık stratejileri temelli öğretimin, bilişsel farkındalık becerilerine ve kalıcılığa etk etme. Araştırma 2007-2008 öğretim yılı bahar Adana li Seyhan lçelerinin yer alanizisi 3 ilköğretim okulunun altıncı sınıf internetten içeri alınmıştır. Bilişsel faydalılık ölçeği ve görüşme formundan elde edilen; nicel boyutta tek tek varyans analizi kovaryans analizine göre çözümlenip yorumlanmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, bilişsel son testinde kendini denetleme, değerlendirme, farkında olma ve bilişsel stratejiler boyutlarında deney grubu lehine anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Kalıcılık puanları indirin olma boyutuunda deney grubu lehine anlamlı olduğu düşünülen, bilişsel stratejiler ve değerlendirmesi boyutlarında deney grubu lehine anlamlı bir farlılık bulunamamıştır. Buna ulaşmak ikinci kontrol grubu kendini denetleme boyutunda kalıcılık testinde anlamlı farklılaşma göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilişsel koçluk, Bilişsel farkındalık, Bilişsel farkındalık stratejileri, Sosyal Bilgiler

Kaynakça

1. Aviram M., Ophir R., Raviv D. ve Shiloah M. (1998). Experiential learning of clinical skills by beginning nursing students: ‘‘coaching’’ project by fourth-year student interns. Journal of Nursing Education, 37(5), 228- 231.
2. BalcF, G. (2007). lkö retim be inci s n f ö rencilerinin sözel matematik problemlerini çözme düzeylerine göre bili sel fark ndal k becerilerinin incelenmesi, yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
3. Bannert M. ve Mengelkamp C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning?. Metacognition Learning, 3(1), 39–58.
4. Blakey, E. ve Spence S. (1990). Developing metacognition. Clearinghouse on Information Resources, 32(7), 218.
5. Bloom, G., Castagna C. ve Warren B. (2003). More than mentors: principal coaching. Leadership, 32 (5), 20–23.
6. Butler, D.L ve Winne P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rewiew of Educational Research, 65 (3), 245–281.
7. Boyce, N.L., Van Tassel-Baska, Burruss J. D., Sher B.T. ve Johnson D.T. (1997). A problem based curriculum: parellel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20 (4), 363–379.
8. Cochran, B. ve DeChesere J. (February/March,1995). Teacher empowerment through cognitive coaching. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 24(5), 24–28.

9. Cooper, F. (2008). An examination of the impact of multiple intelligences and metacognition on the achievement of mathematics students, unpublished Phd dissertation, Capella University.
10. Costa, L.A. (1981). Teaching for intelligent behavior. Educational Leadersh p, 39 (1), 29-32.
11. Costa, L.A. (1984). Mediating the metacognitive. Educational Leadersh p, 42(3), 57-62.
12. Costa, L.A ve Kallick B.(2000). Getting into the habit of reflection. Educational Leadersh p, 57(7), 60–62.
13. Çetinkaya, P. (2000). Metacognition: its assessment and relationship with reading comprehension, achievement, and aptitude for sixth grade student, m.a. thesis, Bogaziçi University. The Institute of Social Sciences, stanbul.
14. Davis, J. R. ve Davis A. B. (2001), Kendi Kendine Ö renmek (A.Baykara,Çev.), Ankara: Kapital Medya Hizmetleri A.].
15. Desoete A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: how you test is what you get. Metacognition Learning, (3) 3, 189–206.
16. Do anay, A. (Mart 1997). Ders dinleme sFrasFnda biliEsel farkFndalFkla ilgili stratejilerin kullanFmF. Çukurova Üniversitesi E itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 (15), 34–42.
17. Edwards, J. L., Jennifer L., Green K. E., Lyons C. A., Rogers M.S. ve Swords E. M. (April 13- 17, 1998), ‘‘The effects of cognitive coaching and noverbal classroom management on teacher efficacy and perceptions of school culture’’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, s. 53, San Diego.
18. Flavell, J.H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 15–23.
19. Gallagher, S.A. (1997). Problem based learning: Where did it come from, what does Ft do, and where is it going. Journal of the Educaion of the Gifted, 20(4), 332–362.
20. Garmston, R., C. Linder and J. Whitaker (1993). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educat onal Leadersh p, 51(2), 57-60.
21. Georghiades, P. (2004). Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (1), 85–99.
22. Grealish, L. (2000). The skills of coach are an essential element in clinical learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(5), 231–233.
23. Grene, B. T. (2004), ‘‘LFterature revFew for school-based staff developers and coaches’’, http://www.nsdc.org/library/schoolbasedlitreview.pdf. adresinden 14 KasFm 2006 tarihinde alFnmFEtFr.
24. Kramarski B. (2008). Promoting teachers’ algebraic reasoning and self-regulation with metacognitive guidance. Metacognition Learning 3(2), 83–99.
25. Ladyshewsky R. ve Ryan J. (2002), ‘‘Reciprocal peer coaching as a strategy for the development of leadership and management competency’’, In Focusing on the Student Proceedings of the 11 th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth: Edith Cowan University. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf 2002. adresinden 10 Ekim 2005 tarihinde alFnmFEtFr.
26. Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2006). Peer coaching: A constructivist methodology for enhancing critical thinking in postgraduate business education. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(1), 67-84.
27. Lovely, S. (2004). Scaffolding for new leaders: coaching and mentoring helps rookie principals grow on the jop and gain confidence. School Administrator, 61(6), 10–13.
28. Mevarech Z. R. ve Amrany C. (2008). Immediate and delayed effects of meta-cognitive instruction on regulation of cognition and mathematics achievement. Metacognition Learning 3(2), 147–157.
29. Muchlinski, T. E (1995). Using cognitive coaching to model metacognition during instruction, unpublished ph. dissertation, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
30. O’Neil, H. F. ve Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive Fnventory: potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89, 234–245.
31. Paris, S. G. ve Winograd P. (1990), How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. B. F. Jones ve L. Idol (Edt), Dimension of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, New Jersey: NCREL-Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
32. Pillay, H. (1998). An investigation of the effect of individual cognitive preferences on learning through computer-based. Instruction Educational Psychology, 18(2), 171–183.
33. Rosetta Zan (2000). A metacognitive intervention in mathematics at university level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 143– 150.
34. Shamir, A., Gida, C., ve Mevarech, Z. R. (2008). The assessment of meta-cognition in different contexts: individualized and peer assisted learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, NY.
35. Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 43–48.
36. Ushijima, T. M. (1996). Five states of m nd scale for cognitive coaching: a measurement study, unpublished ph.d., Universty of Southern CalFfornia. Faculty of School of Education, Usa.
37. Vrugt A. ve Oort F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: pathways to achievement. Metacognition Learning 3(2), 123–146.
38. Waddell, D. L. ve Dunn N. (2005). Peer coaching: the next step in staff development. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36(2), 84-89.
39. Zohar, A. ve Ben David A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition Learning 3(1), 59–82.