Figure 1: Support features for metacognitive training in metAHEAD
| Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2001, 17(1), 50-63. |
AJET 17 |
Technology is increasingly being harnessed to improve the quality of learning in science subjects at university level. This article sets out, by incorporating notions drawn from constructivist and adult learning theory, a foundation for the design of an online environment for the acquisition of metacognitive problem solving skills. The capacity to solve problems is one of the generic skills now being promoted at tertiary level, yet for many learners problem-solving remains a difficulty. In addition, there are few instances of instructional design guidelines for developing learning environments to support the metacognitive skills for effective problem solving. In order to foster the processes of metacognitive skills explicitly in first year science students, we investigated areas where cognitive support was needed. The aim was to strengthen the metacognitive and reflective skills of students to assist them in adopting strategies and reflective processes that enabled them to define, plan and self monitor their thinking during problem solving. In tertiary science, both well-structured and ill-structured problems are encountered by students, thus a repertoire of skills must be fostered. A model for supporting metacognitive skills for problem solving is presented in the context of an online environment being developed at the University of New England.
Networked learning environments enabling student-student and student-lecturer communications are now open, flexible and more democratic through the use of email, bulletin boards and chat rooms, while students enjoy the autonomy of gaining access to expertise worldwide through Internet resources. However, structured learning environments that support specific skills relevant to problem solving in science are much needed. In response to this, there is also a growing emphasis on developing higher order cognitive skills of university science students (Barouch, 1997; Sleet et al, 1996; Bucat & Shand, 1996). Essentially what matters most in learning in the sciences is the capacity to analyse and classify data, to gather evidence about solutions, to solve problems and to apply and test theories. Clearly, the knowledge base in science is expanding too fast to ensure that students cover all aspects of scientific knowledge within the duration of a university course. The alternative is to offer students learning experiences that allow for conceptual exploration and acquisition of thinking skills needed for their future learning (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000; McLoughlin & Oliver, 1998). It is on this assumption that we seek to develop an online environment for development of metacognitive skills.
With regard to metacognitive control, attention resources, existing cognitive strategies, and awareness of breakdowns in comprehension are all enhanced by metacognitive knowledge and skills (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Learners who use both improve their academic performance. Thus, metacognition is important to an understanding of learning in the sciences because learners must regulate their cognitive tactics and strategies in order to construct meaning from their reading, lectures, and laboratory experiences. Moreover, as science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are new and relatively unfamiliar informational fields, learners have to be more active, exploratory and self-regulated during the comprehension-building process (Tergan, 1997). These skills need to be taught and monitored as part of the instructional process.
Much of the research literature on training of metacognition concentrates on primary and secondary school students, there being much less related to university students. Examples of studies at the university level include, in the science area (Volet, 1991) a study of first year computer science students incorporating students' development a of a metacognitive strategy relevant to computer programming together with modelling and coaching its use in a socially supportive environment. Zeegers et al (1998) provide a self-directed learning program to develop transferable learning and metacognitive skills for first year chemistry students. Outside the science area, Masui & De Corte (1999) examined the trainability and effect on academic performance of enhancing learning and problem solving skills of business economics students. Each of these studies were long term interventions over a period of at least one semester using lecturers and tutors in face to face situations. The findings of these studies have been used to inform the development of an online supportive environment for metacognitive skill development at the University of New England.
The literature attests to the fact that even at tertiary level, few students appear to have developed expert problem solving skills that enable them to cope effectively with learning independently and effectively in the sciences (Volet et al, 1995), (Everson & Tobias, 1998), (Gourgey, 1998). There is little planning, checking of answers or understanding of the meaning of the answers obtained. Often, when problem-solving processes are emphasised, students express a desire just to be shown the right way to solve the problem.
Many students have rather primitive theories of learning and they demonstrate an epistemological perspective at a stage called basic dualism by (Perry, 1970). This stage is characterised by passivity and dependence on authority to hand down the truth and dictate what is right or wrong. In contrast, expert problem solvers demonstrate advanced skills and are able to operate independently to plan, monitor and control their learning. Educational research affirms pedagogies and instructional approaches that emphasise the interaction of cognitive, metacognitive and affective components of learning. If tertiary educators only emphasise content and discrete skills, students may not develop the deep learning approaches that enable transfer of skills and knowledge to real world contexts (Mayer, 1998).
In designing the tutorial, metAHEAD, our objectives were as follows:
A preliminary analysis of Chemistry students at UNE in their first year of study showed that while students displayed many problem solving skills, they lacked some such as checking, planning and revising solutions (Table 1). Teaching students isolated skills is therefore of limited value unless they know what and why they are learning these and how they will benefit. Students must learn to choose appropriate strategies, and must learn how to direct and control their own learning. Much recent work links the research on problem solving to self-regulation and self-directed learning (Boekaerts et al, 2000).
| Strategies reported | Strategies not reported |
| Applying knowledge | * Checking meanings of terms |
| Analysing Think about what question is actually asking Identify what you have and what you want Identify important/not important info |
|
| Relating, reorganising | |
| Applying knowledge or information Trying to remember and apply previous examples and knowledge that seem related Identify equation to use Know how to manipulate equations to get answer |
* Planning steps of a solution |
| Analysing whether answer is reasonable Checking units with those of answer |
* Connecting to prior knowledge |
| Lateral thinking | |
| Visualising the problem | * Drawing diagrams, representations of problem |
| Work backwards | |
| Understand the meaning of formulas Understand worked examples. Do a similar problem |
* Checking by applying to a new problem |
Schoenfeld (1992; 1985) suggests that process-based approaches to developing problem solving can trigger students' awareness of their own thinking processes. Prompting students with procedural questions may help foster greater self-awareness and metacognition. Questions include: What exactly are you doing? Why are you doing it? How does it help you? Technological environments can support both aspects of metacognition by offering scaffolds in the form of:
Mayer (1998) suggests that successful problem solving depends on three components - skill, metaskill and will - and that each of these components can be influenced by instruction. This accords with the belief that effective support of metacognitive skills need to recognise the interaction of cognitive, metacognitive and affective components of learning (Gourgey, 1998).
In Figure 1, a schematic overview of the pedagogical support needed for metacognitive development is depicted. In order to equip students with the skills required for problem solving, the environment needs to offer an orientation to problem solving, support for planning the task, selecting and applying strategies and supporting reflection. Each of these elements is supported by the research literature and incorporated in the metAHEAD online program developed at UNE.
Figure 1: Support features for metacognitive training in metAHEAD
In Phase 1 the concept of metacognition is operationalised. For the problem in question, students need to become aware of the problem solving processes involved. For example this requires analysis of the question, planning a solution, selection of strategies and self-monitoring skills that can be applied.
Phase 2 involves the design of the problem environment. For particular problems in a topic in Physics, for example, examine the different ways in which an expert and a novice student might answer the problem.
In Phase 3 the problem is then presented to the student to work on. Student responses are monitored in Phase 4 to decide if any intervention (Phase 5) is required.
Phase 5 presents students with a scenario or problem where they are assisted in the processes and procedures of problem solving, and made aware of their own problem solving strategies.
In Phase 6, successful students are presented with further problems in the topic area to check whether they have transferred the strategies learnt during Phases 3 and 4. If they have not, training continues.
In Phase 7 students are given the opportunity to reflect on their problem solving.
The final Phase 8 involves a refinement of the training to create design guidelines for a problem-solving environment in different subject areas (Biology, Physics or Chemistry) in order to foster metacognition.
The design of the technology-based environment builds in three important implications of social constructivist theory concerning reflective thinking. First, in order to foster reflective thinking students need multiple sources of feedback on their understanding gained through social interactions. Second, reflective thinking will most likely occur in situations where problems are complex and meaningful to the student. Third, reflective thinking requires the student to organise, monitor and evaluate their thinking and learning to come to a deeper understanding of their own processes of learning. Bearing these aspects of reflection in mind, the technology-based environment can provide scaffolds to enhance reflection through four types of feature (Lin et al, 1999; Elen & Lowyck, 1999). metAHEAD offers support in the following processes:
Process displays: Students are explicitly shown what they are doing in performing a task. Both the processes used by the student and the responses created by the student will be made visible, thus enhancing self-awareness.
Process prompting: Students explain what they are doing at different stages throughout their problem solving procedure.
Process modelling: Students have access to text, audio and video displays explaining what, how and why other students and experts do what they do in solving a specific problem.
Reflective social discourse: This is an online discussion space where students share their learning experiences and gain feedback from a community of learners.
Figure 2: Flow chart diagram for metAHEAD tutorial
An introductory module introduces students to some basic ideas about learning and thinking, cognition and metacognition. At this stage students also do a metacognitive awareness inventory quiz. This preliminary module helps orient students and bring to their awareness their present level of metacognitive skills. We then use the typical assignment exercises and exam questions students come across in the study of their subjects to lead into metacognitive skills development. Our experience suggests that students are not likely to be interested in skills development programs unless they can see direct application to the work they are doing in their subjects at the time they are doing the program. Some students find it difficult to take a longer term approach to their general skills development.
In the tutorial the students may choose the subject and topic to work on. They are first given a quick multiple choice test on this topic to ensure they have a reasonable level of background knowledge to proceed any further. The point is that the tutorial is not aimed at developing subject knowledge and that students need a knowledge base to be able to tackle the problems being presented. The student is then asked to solve the problem, being presented with a variety of prompts and questions about the processes they engage in during their solution process. For different problems various supports such as heuristics are available to students and their use is encouraged. In this way we can expose students to a number of process displays and prompts. They then have a chance to view answers given by other students, ranging through poor to very good answers. A model answer from the lecturer is also available. All these answers are commented upon and students may also listen to audio clips or video clips of the other students and lecturers as they worked on the problems, giving insight into the skills they applied in their solutions. In this way metAHEAD offers process modelling to learners. By exposing students to the answers of other students to typical problems, we encourage them to reflect on their own level of use of metacognitive skills.
For some questions, students are asked to collaborate with each other to build a collaborative solution on the bulletin board. One of a range of reflective activities is presented to students at the completion of each problem. Here there is also the opportunity for further reflective social discourse through discussion of more general issues in bulletin board topics. Since there are a number of problems over the different subjects and topics, we have aimed to present a variety of displays, prompts and modelling, as well as associated learning and reflective activities with different problems.
On the other hand many of the same ideas are being applied, discussed and reflected upon in different questions in different topics and subjects, which we believe will assist in transfer of the skills developed to broader areas of application. Evaluation of the program will lead to further refinements.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. K. Weinert, R. (Ed), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in community of learners. In J. McGilly (Ed), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bucat, B., & Shand, T. (1996). Thinking Tasks in Chemistry, Teaching for Understanding. Perth: University of Western Australia.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed), Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dart, B. (1997). Adult learners' metacognitive behaviour in higher education. In P. Sutherland (Ed), Adult Learning: A Reader (pp. 30-43). London: Kogan Page.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Op'Teynde, P. (2000)). Self-regulation: A characteristic goal of mathematics education. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of Self- Regulation (pp. 687-722). San Diego: Academic Press.
Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1999). Metacognitive instructional knowledge: Cognitive mediation and instructional design. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 13(3), 145-169.
Everson, H. T., & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 65-79.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving,. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231-235). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on Problem Solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 301-326). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 81-96.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and Instruction, Theory into Practice. New Jersey: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Hanson, D., & Wolfskill, T. (2000). Process workshops - a new model for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 120-130.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson, & Hakuta, K. (Ed.), Child Development and Education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.
Hedberg, J., Harper, B., Lockyer, L., Ferry, B., Brown, C., & Wright, R. (1988). Supporting learners to solve ill-structured problems. In R. M. Corderoy (Ed), Flexibility-the next wave? Proceedings of ASCILITE 98 (pp. 317-327). Wollongong: University of Wollongong. [verified 16 Mar 2001, partial copy only] http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wollongong98/asc98-pdf/hedbery.pdf
Hobden, P. (1998). The role of routine problem tasks in science teaching. In B. J. T. Fraser, K. G. (Ed.), International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. Part 1, pp. 219-231). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in chemistry and their implications for chemistry teaching. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing Technology to Support Refelection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43-62.
Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (1999). Enhancing learning and problems solving skills: Orienting and self-judging, two powerful and trainable learning tools. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 517-542.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 49-63.
McAllister, H. C. (1998). 21st Century problem solving, [viewed 26 May 2000, verified 16 Mar 2001] http://www.suremath.com/suremath/suremath/home1.html
McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1998). Planning a telelearning environment to foster higher order thinking. Distance Education, 242-264.
McLoughlin, C., Baird, J., & Pigdon, K., Woolley, M. (2000). Fostering teacher inquiry and reflective learning processes through technology enhanced scaffolding in a multimedia environment. In J. Bourdeau & R. Heller (Eds.), Ed Media-Ed Telecom World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (pp. 149-155). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann & T. Kulski (Eds), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Learning (pp. 219-234). Perth: Curtin University of Technology. [online version is similar, verified 16 Mar 2001] http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html
Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in College Years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. New York,: Academic Press.
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: Macmillan.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Sleet, R., Hager, P., Logan, P., & Hooper, M. (1996). Broader Skill Requirements of Science Graduates. Sydney: University of Technology.
Tergan, S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 209-237.
Volet, S., McGill, T., & Pears, H. (1995). Implementing process-based instruction in regular university teaching: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 385-400.
Volet, S. E. (1991). Modelling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university students' learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319-336.
Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., & Zech, L. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection and revision. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 305-346). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Woodcock, D. (1995). Problem Solving in Chemistry , The A thru E Approach. [unknown 16 Mar 2001] http://oksw01.okanagan.bc.ca/chem/probsol/ps_A-E.html
Zeegers, P., Martin, L., & Martin, C. (1998). Using learning to learn strategies to enhance student self-regulated learning in first-year chemistry. Paper presented at the Third Pacific Rim Conference, Auckland.
| Authors: Rowan W. Hollingworth Chemistry, School of Physical Sciences and Engineering The University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia rholling@metz.une.edu.au
Catherine McLoughlin Please cite as: Hollingworth, R. W. and McLoughlin, C. (2001). Developing science students' metacognitive problem solving skills online. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 50-63. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet17/hollingworth.html |