The Chinese proverb “heal a headache by curing the head and heal foot pain by curing the feet” alludes to ineffective work resulting from a lack of covariation in reasoning. Actually, much problem solving relies on the analysis of how two or more factors vary in correlation with another related variant (i.e., covariation reasoning). To further investigate covariation reasoning and its related affective factors, we designed a website called “No Good (NG) Bread” for senior vocational high school students in Taipei who had taken baking courses for 1 year to apply their knowledge in solving baking-related problems. Data collected from 113 participants aged 16 to 17 were validated by confirmatory factor analysis using Visual PLS 1.04 to examine the interrelatedness among metacognition, experiential values, and performance achievement. The examination revealed that metacognition was positively related to hedonic and utilitarian experiential values, which were subsequently positively related to the students’ learning achievements. The results imply that websites can be developed for specialized courses, such as nursing or automobile repair, to develop students’ covariation reasoning for more effective problem solving.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Abernethy, B., Thomas, K. T., & Thomas, J. T. (1993). Strategies for improving understanding of motor expertise [or mistakes we have made and things we have learned]. In J. L. Starkes & F. Allard (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise (pp. 317–356). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist,48, 35–44.
Ayars, A. (2016). Can model-free reinforcement learning explain deontological moral judgments? Cognition,150, 232–242.
Baek, Y., & Touati, A. (2017). Exploring how individual traits influence enjoyment in a mobile learning game. Computers in Human Behavior,69, 347–357.
Blanton, M., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A. M., Sawrey, K., & Newman-Owens, A. (2015). A learning trajectory in 6-year-olds’ thinking about generalizing functional relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,46(5), 511–558.
Cárdenas-Robledo, L. A., & Peña-Ayala, A. (2018). Ubiquitous learning: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics,35, 1097–1132.
Carlson, M. P., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,33(5), 352–378.
Catena, A., Maldonado, A., Perales, J. C., & Cándido, A. (2008). Interaction between previous beliefs and cue predictive value in covariation-based causal induction. Acta Psychologica,128(2), 339–349.
Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,13(4), 9–38.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,22(1), 7–16.
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,26(1), 66–86.
Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Newall, N. E. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: From affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 948–963.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1997). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist,46, 6–25.
Etemad-Sajadi, R., & Ghachem, L. (2015). The impact of hedonic and utilitarian value of online avatars on e-service quality. Computers in Human Behavior,52, 81–86.
Fang, Y. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice. Computers in Human Behavior,26, 235–246.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist,34(10), 906–911.
Gardner, A. K., Jabbour, I. J., Williams, B. H., & Huerta, S. (2016). Different goals, different pathways: The role of metacognition and task engagement in surgical skill acquisition. Journal of Surgical Education,73(1), 61–65.
Garrett, J. J. (2010). The elements of user experience: User-centered design for the Web and beyond (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education,17, 84–89.
Gauthier, A., & Jenkinson, J. (2018). Designing productively negative experiences with serious game mechanics: Qualitative analysis of game-play and game design in a randomized trial. Computers & Education,127, 66–89.
Geurten, M., Meulemans, T., & Lemaire, P. (2018). From domain-specific to domain-general? The developmental path of metacognition for strategy selection. Cognitive Development,48, 62–81.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. (2004). Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,40, 414–433.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Hertzog, C., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1987). Beyond autoregressive models: Some implications of the trait-state distinction for the structural modeling of developmental change. Child Development,58, 93–109.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing,46, 92–101.
Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: An illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business Research,59, 714–725.
Hou, L., Chi, H. L., Tarng, W., Chai, J., Panuwatwanich, K., & Wang, X. (2017). A framework of innovative learning for skill development in complex operational tasks. Automation in Construction,83, 29–40.
Hung, S. W., & Cheng, M. J. (2013). Are you ready for knowledge sharing? An empirical study of virtual communities. Computers & Education,62, 8–17.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist,38, 23–31.
Karle, J. W., Watter, S., & Shedden, J. M. (2010). Task switching in video game players: Benefits of selective attention but not resistance to proactive interference. Acta Psychologica,134, 70–78.
Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). An activity-theoretical approach to investigate learners’ factors toward e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior,23(4), 1906–1920.
Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wibli, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & Education,54, 600–610.
López, I., & Ruiz, S. (2011). Explaining website effectiveness: The hedonic-utilitarian dual mediation hypothesis. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,10(1), 49–58.
Lu, Y., & Yang, D. (2011). Information exchange in virtual communities under extreme disaster conditions. Decision Support System,50, 529–538.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, K. C., Paoletti, T., & Musgrave, S. (2013). Covariational reasoning and invariance among coordinate systems. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,32(3), 461–473.
Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,22(3), 149–158.
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cognitive Psychology,7, 44–64.
Norman, E., & Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media? Computers in Human Behavior,54, 301–309.
Paoletti, T., & Moore, K. C. (2017). The parametric nature of two students’ covariational reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,48, 137–151.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 115–135.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning and Instruction,16(4), 374–387.
Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2006). Why science matters: Understanding the methods of psychological research. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Pu, Y. H., Wu, T. T., Chiu, P. S., & Huang, Y. M. (2016). The design and implementation of authentic learning with mobile technology in vocational nursing practice course. British Journal of Educational Technology,47(3), 494–509.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education,59(1), 82–94.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Psychoticism and attitude toward authority among pre-adolescent boys. Personality and Individual Differences,14(6), 845–847.
Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review,45, 31–51.
Schaie, K. W., Dutta, R., & Willis, S. L. (1991). Relationship between rigidity-flexibility and cognitive abilities in adulthood. Psychology and Aging,6, 371–383.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research,22, 159–170.
Spence, I., & Feng, J. (2010). Video games and spatial cognition. Review of General Psychology,14, 92–104.
Suh, T., Bae, M., Zhao, H., Kim, S. H., & Arnold, M. J. (2010). A multi-level investigation of international marketing projects: The roles of experiential knowledge and creativity on performance. Industrial Marketing Management,39(2), 211–220.
Szeto, E. (2015). Community of inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers & Education,81, 191–201.
Thompson, P. W., & Carlson, M. P. (2017). Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Tsai, Y. S., Lin, C. H., Hong, J. C., & Tai, K. H. (2018). The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs. Computers & Education,121, 18–29.
VanDeventer, S. S., & White, J. A. (2002). Expert behavior in children’s video game play. Simulation and Gaming,33, 28–48.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly,25(1), 71–102.
Videras, J., Owen, A. L., Conover, E., & Wu, S. (2012). The influence of social relationships on pro-environment behaviors. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,63(1), 35–50.
Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2016). Towards a differentiated and domain-specific view of educational technology: An exploratory study of history teachers’ technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology,48(6), 1402–1413.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohman, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research,40, 310–320.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wells, A. (2000). Emotional disorders and metacognition: Innovative cognitive therapy. Chichester: Wiley.
Welsh, M. B., Delfabbro, P. H., Burns, N. R., & Begg, S. H. (2014). Individual differences in anchoring: Traits and experience. Learning and Individual Differences,29, 131–140.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 68–81.
Xu, D., Huang, W. W., Wang, H., & Heales, J. (2014). Enhancing e-learning effectiveness using an intelligent agent-supported personalized virtual learning environment: An empirical investigation. Information & Management,51(4), 430–440.
Zhang, Y., & Er, M. J. (2016). Sequential active learning using meta-cognitive extreme learning machine. Neurocomputing,173(3), 835–844.
This work was financially supported by the “Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences” of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.
Conflict of interest
There are no conflict of interest involving either of the authors of this paper.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Hong, J., Hwang, M., Liu, M. et al. Metacognition in covariation reasoning relevant to performance achievement mediated by experiential values in a simulation game. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 929–948 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09711-1
- Experiential value
- Human–computer interface
- Improving classroom teaching
- Interactive learning environments