An Exploration Of Metacognition With Respect To Teaching, Learning And Assessment

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 187 - 202, 02.06.2014

Pınar Karaman Çavuş Şahin Haydar Durukan

Öz

This study investigated the importance of metacognition that helps students’ self-directed and self-reflective learning. With that purpose, document analysis method as one of the qualitative research methods was used in the study. In the document analysis, metacognition was researched in terms of learning, teaching and assessment. The literature review showed that metacognition can lead to promoting students’ academic achivement. A myriad of studies indicated that metacognitive teaching plays an important role in students’ metacognitive skills and learning. Besides, using learning-oriented assessment methods during metacognitive teaching can enhance students’ metagontion level (Jones, 2007). Therefore, in the course of teaching, using or expanding learning-oriented assessment methods is important for students’ metacognitive development. Many reserchers agree that measuring metacognition is so difficult due to its complex nature. Therefore, in order to collect more valid and reliable evidence about students’ metacognitive domain, the students should interact with metacognitive activities having adequate level of difficulty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognitive learning, metacognitive teaching, metacognition and assessment

Üstbilişin Öğrenme, Öğretme ve Ölçme-Değerlendirme Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, öğrencilerin öğrenmelerini destekleyen ve öz-yansıtmalı öğrenmlerine yardımcı olan üstbilişin önemi incelenmiştir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan doküman analizi kullanılmıştır. Doküman analizi yöntemi ile üstbiliş üzerine yapılan genel taramada, üstbiliş öğrenme, öğretme ve ölçme-değerlendirme açısından incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, üstbilişin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını arttırdığını göstermektedir. Üstbilişsel öğretim aracılığı ile öğrencilerin üstbiliş becerilerinin ve öğrenmelerinde gelişme sağlanabileceği görülmektedir. Ayrıca, üstbilişsel öğretim sırasında öğrenme odaklı ölçme-değerlendirmeyi kullanmak öğrencilerin üstbiliş seviyelerini geliştirebilmektedir (Jones, 2007). Dolayısıyla, öğrencilerin üstbiliş düzeylerini geliştirebilmek için öğrenme-odaklı ölçme-değerlendirme yaklaşımını kullanmak ve bunu yaygınlaştırmak çok önemlidir. Birçok araştırmacı, karmaşık yapıya sahip olan üstbiliş alanını ölçmenin oldukça zor olduğunu savunmaktadır. Bu nedenle, öğrencilerin üstbiliş alanları ile ilgili daha geçerli ve güvenilir bilgi toplayabilmek için onların yeterli zorlukta üstbilişsel aktiviteler ile etkileşim göstermeleri önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üstbilişsel öğrenme, üstbilişsel öğretim, üstbiliş ve ölçme-değerlendirme

Kaynakça

• Aktürk, A.O. ve Şahin, İ. (2011). Üstbiliş ve bilgisayar öğretimi, Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (31), 383-407.
• Alexander, J. M., Carr, M. and Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research, Developmental Review, 15, 1–37.
• Bakırcı, H. ve Çepni, S. ( 2012) Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi için yeni bir model: Ortak bilgi yapılandırma modeli X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, TR, Haziran.
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
• Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
• Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today.International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.
• Case, L. P., Harris, K. R. and Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem solving of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26,1–19.
• Cromley, J. and Azevedo, R. (2011). Measuring strategy use in context with multiple-choice items.Metacog-nition and Learning, 6, 155–177.
• Desoete, A. and Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line Metacognition – A Domainspecific Retardation in Young Children with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 25, 123–139.
• Desoete, A., and Veenman, M. V. J. (2006). Metacognition in mathematics: Critical issues on nature, theory, assessment and treatment., In A. Desoete and M. V. J. Veenman (Eds.), Metacognition in mathematics education, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc,1-10.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-9
• Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 21 – 29.
• Flavell, J., Green, F., and Flavell, E.(1995). Young children’s knowledge about thinking (Monographs for the Society for Researching Child Development No. 60.1), Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
• Fuchs, L. S., Zumeta, R. O., Schumacher, R. F., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Hamlett, C. L., and Fuchs, D. (2010). The effects of schemabroadening instruction on second graders' word-problem performance and their ability to represent word problems with algebraic equations: a randomized control study, The Elementary School Journal, 110 440–463.
• Gage, N. L. and Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational Psychology, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Given, L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, ISBN 978-1-4129-4163-1,Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, California.
• Greene, J. A., and Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners' selfregulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments.Educational Psychologist, 45, 203–209.
• Hoyt, J. E. and Sorensen, C. T. (2001). High school preparation, placement testing, and college remediation. Journal of Developmental Education, 25,26–33.
• Jacobs, L. (2003). Stacking the deck for literacy learning. Princi-pal Leadership, 4(3), 57–60.
• Jacobs, J. and Paris, S. (1987). Children’s Metacognition about Reading: Issues in Definition, Measurement, and Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255-278.
• Jacobse, A. E. and Harskamp, E.G. (2012). Towards efficient measurement of metacognition in mathematical problem solving, Metacognition Learning, 7:133–149.
• Jones, D. (2007). Speaking, listening, planning and assessing: the teacher’s role in developing metacognitive awareness, Early Child Development and Care, 177:6-7,569-579.
• Jones, M. G., Farquhar, J. D. and Surry, D. W. (1995). Using Metacognitive Theories to Design User Interfacesfor Computer-Based Learning. Educational Technology, 35, 12-22.
• Joseph, N. (2010). Metacognition Needed: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Develop Strategic Learning Skills. Preventing School Failure, Vol. 54, No. 2.
• Karasar, N. ( 1995). Araştırmalarda Rapor Hazırlama, 10. baskı, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti., Ankara.
• Kramarski, B., Mavarech, Z. R., and Arami, M. (2002) The Effects of Metacognitive Instruction on Solving Mathematical Authentic Tasks, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
• Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature Review, Research Report, Pearson, Always learning.
• Lucangeli, D. and Cornoldi, C. (1997). Mathematics and metacognition: What is the nature of relationship? Mathematical Cognition, 3, 121– 1
• McNamara, D. S. (2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: challenges and successes. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 195–203.
• Mevarech, Z. R. (1999) Effects of Metacognitive Training Embedded in Cooperative Settings on Mathematical Problem Solving, The Journal of Educational Research, 92,195–205.
• Miles, D., Blum, T., Staats, W. and Dean, D. (2003) Experiences with the metacognitive skills inventory, 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. (on line). Available:http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2003/papers/1184.pdf.
• Mok, M. C. C., Lung, C. L., Cheng, D. P. W., Cheung, R. H. P. and Ng, M. L. (2006). Self-assessment in higher education: experience in using a metacognitive approach in five case studies, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), pp. 415–433.
• Özsoy, G. (2010) An investigation of relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review.
• Özsoy, G. ve Günindi, Y. (2011). Okulöncesi öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri, Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 430-440. Panaoura A. and Philippou, G. ( 2005).The measurement of young pupils’metacognitive ability in mathematics: The case of selfrepresentation and self evaluation, CERME 4, Spain, February.
• Peverly, S. T., Brobst, K. and Morris, K. S (2002). The contribution of reading comprehension ability and metacognitive control to the development of studying in adolescence. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 203–216.
• Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing, Theory into Practice, 41(4).
• Pintrich, P.R., Wolters, C. and Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning, In G. Schraw and J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lin-coln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 43-97.
• Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhaustive within and between study analyses of thinking-aloud data. In G. Schraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 262–296). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Schoenfeld, A. H. ( 1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching, New York: McMilan Publishing, 224–270.
• Schraw, G. (2000). Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln NE: Buros Institute of Mental Mesaurements and Erlbaum Associates.
• Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33–45.
• Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
• Schraw, G., and Moshman, D.(1995). Metacognitive theories, Educational Psychology Review, 7(4) 351-371.
• Şahin, Ç. ve Karaman, P. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ölçme ve değerlendirmeye ilişkin inançları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi *Hacettepe University Journal of Education+, 28(2), 394-40
• Teong, S.K. (2002). The Effect of Metacognitive Training on Mathematical Word-Problem Solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 46–
• Van Essen, G. and Hamaker, C. (1990). Using self-generated drawings to solve arithmetic word problems.The Journal of Educational Research, 83, 301–312.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., and Busato, V. V. (1994) Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based simulations.Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93–106.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., and Kuilenburg, J. ( 2001). Intelligence and metacognitive skillfulness in secondary education. In F. Oser & U. Baets (Eds.), 9th European Conference on Learning and Instruction, Abstract Volume (pp. 166), Aachen: Mainz.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J. and Verheij, J.(2003). Learning styles: Selfreports versus thinking-aloud measures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 357–372.
• Veenman, M. V. J., and Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task differences, Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.
• Veenman, M. V. J. and Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2002). Het meten van metacognitieve vaardigheden [Measuring metacognitive skills]. In F. Daems, R. Rymenans, & G. Rogiest (Eds.),Onderwijsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Proceedings 29e ORD 2002(pp. 102–103). Wilrijk: Universiteit van Antwerpen.
• Veenman, M.V.C., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., and Afflerbach, P. (2006), Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations, Metacognition Learning, (1): 3–14.
• Vygotsky (1962)., L. S., Thought and language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Weinstein, C. E., Zimmermann, S. A. and Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing learning strategies: The design and development of the LASSI. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, P. A. Alexander, C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, and P. A. Alexander (Eds.),Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evalu-ation(pp. 25–40). San Diego: Academic.
• Williams, M. (2006). Letting talents shine: developing oracy with gifted and talented pupils, in: D. Jones & P. Hodson (Eds) Unlocking speaking and listening, London, David Fulton.
• Winne, P. H., and Perry, N. E. 2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner, M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) ,Handbook of self-regulation(pp. 531–566). San Diego: Academic.
• Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking, Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429.