Advertisement

Chapter 3: Principles for Designing Research Settings to Study Spontaneous Metacognitive Activity

  • Marta T. MagieraEmail author
  • Judith S. Zawojewski
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

Drawing on current theories about the development of individuals’ metacognitive ability, a framework is proposed for designing fruitful environments for research on spontaneous metacognitive activity. Using modeling problems as examples, we argue that research settings that facilitate the study of spontaneous metacognitive activity of problem solvers need to be designed with attention to problem complexity, small group diversity, and the authentic documentation of problem-solvers’ spontaneous metacognitive activity.

Keywords

Spontaneous metacognitive activity Complex problem solving Small group interactions Research settings design Modeling 

References

  1. An, Y., & Cao, L. (2014). Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design problems solving and metacognitive skills in online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 552–568.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, L., & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar
  3. Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2009). Social metacognition in groups: Benefits, difficulties, learning, and teaching. In C. L. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition. New research perspectives (pp. 117–136). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Chiu, M. M., & Kuo, S. W. (2010). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities, differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 321–338.Google Scholar
  5. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (2010). The Jasper Series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Efklides, A. (2009). The new look in metacognition. In C. L. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition. New research perspectives (pp. 137–151). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition. Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way. Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 229–260Google Scholar
  10. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gravemeijer, K., & Stephan, M. (2002). Emergent models as an instructional design heuristic. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 145–169). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadwin, A. F., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation and socially-shared regulation: Exploring perspective of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Records, 113(2), 240–264.Google Scholar
  13. Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hogan, K. (2001). Collective metacognition: the interplay of individual, social, and cultural meanings in small groups’ reflective thinking. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 7, pp. 199–239). Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.Google Scholar
  16. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition within primary school pupil dyads’ collaborative processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kartal, O., Dunya, B. A., Diefex-Dux, H., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2016). The relationship between students’ performance on conventional standardized mathematics assessments and complex mathematical modeling problems. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, Y. R., Park, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Varma, S. (2013). Multiple levels of metacognition and their elicitation through complex problem-solving tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the early years. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (1992). Problem solving. In T. R. Post (Ed.), Teaching mathematics in grades K–8: Research-based methods (pp. 49–88). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  23. Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical problem-solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 263–343). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, E., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Lesh, R. A., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003a). Model development sequences. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on problem solving, learning and instruction in mathematics and science education (pp. 35–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Hjalmarson, M. (2003b). A models and modeling perspective on metacognitive functioning in everyday situations where problem solvers develop mathematical constructs. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 383–403). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin, X., Schwartz, D., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2011). The social- and self-based contexts associated with students’ awareness, evaluation and regulation of their thinking during small-group mathematical modeling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 486–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Mokos, E., & Kafoussi, S. (2013). Elementary students’ spontaneous metacognitive functions in different types of mathematical problems. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(2), 242–267.  https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.201.3.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stacey, K. (1992). Mathematical problem solving in groups. Are two heads better than one. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 261–275.Google Scholar
  36. van der Stel, M., Veenman, M., Deelen, K., & Haenen, J. (2010). The increasing role of metacognitive skills in math: A cross-sectional study from developmental perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared- regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 46(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Volet, S., Vauras, M., Khosa, D., & Iisjala, T. (2013). Metacognitive regulation in collaborative learning: Conceptual developments and methodological contextualization’s. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (New perspectives on learning and instruction) (pp. 67–101). New York: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3), 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 273–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Illinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations