Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion. References. Appendices. "Action Research in Mathematics: Providing Metacognitive Support (As a Heutagogical Technique) to Grade 3 Students"
Author: Zoriana Myburgh
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Overview of key findings
The research question of this study: How can students’ needs be met using the heutagogical framework while teaching maths in an elementary school in Cambodia? By students’ needs we mean self-determined learning needs. Following the Self-determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and the findings from the current research, it is possible that students’ basic needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – can be met using the heutagogical framework while teaching maths in an elementary school. Having a choice in choosing their goals, self-monitoring, taking notes and connecting metacognition to maths, eight students were able to control their learning process. Competence was practised by applying different strategies when solving problems and reflecting on improvement strategies. Relatedness was achieved by responding to feedback, self-questioning and asking for help when needed. The data were obtained from 45 interviews (3 phases – 15 interviews each) with students and constant researcher’s observations during online classes for 9 weeks. The data presented in this action research have shown that some metacognitive strategies are necessary at elementary school from students’ perspectives.
Students’ answers were grouped into three categories: Commitment, Capacity and Value – three dimensions of Habits of Mind developed by Costa and Kallick (2008). The majority of students showed improvement in the Commitment category: they often set goals for improvement, questioned themselves and monitored their learning. The results showed that most of the students found them useful, especially when studying at home. Less than half of the students showed the development of metacognitive skills in the Capacity category. Most of them already had some skills before the experiment started (e.g., some strategies for solving problems, improvement strategies, and asking for help when needed). The Value category represented how students developed their metacognitive experience and supported the finding of the previous categories.
5.2 Research outcomes in the framework of existing literature
The findings of this research have several themes that have been discussed previously in the literature review.
Research subquestion 1: What tools and strategies should teachers use to implement the heutagogical framework?
It was found that the following tools and strategies were used to implement the heutagogical framework:
- goal-setting in Google Classroom (at least once a week),
- using checklists, rubrics and self-assessments to self-monitor,
- note-taking,
- discussions at the end of the class,
- recording video diaries on Flipgrid to share strategies implemented during the day and/or completing Metacognition Diaries.
Goal-setting
According to the findings, most students started setting goals regularly during the unit and found them helpful in mathematics. The data reported in this study support the results of Erwin et al. (2016) who claimed that self-determination in adults and children is different, but that some elements can be practised in elementary schools, namely goal-setting. They developed a model with four steps: assess, select, try it, and reflect. The focus was on goals and reflection strategies which promoted good results and consistent communication between parents and teachers. Goal-setting can eventually help students become independent. The learning goal orientation might be a starting point in training self-determination (Compagnoni, Sieber and Job, 2020).
Rubrics
Students who showed high metacognitive knowledge and skills since the first interview noticed that rubrics were not as useful for them as they used to score high and did not feel any improvement. Other students also highlighted that some students might not be honest when they self-assessed and in that case, it was not beneficial. These disadvantages were previously discussed by Jamrus and Razali (2019) who believed that these constraints could be overcome if proper instructions and observations were conducted by a teacher. Moreover, rubrics should challenge students’ abilities, but rubrics’ language should be age-appropriate (Costa and Kallick, 2000).
Checklists
Another self-monitoring tool that the students used was the checklist. Organising the thought processes and refining the thinking skills is essential for lifelong learners (Knox, 2017). Students found the checklist convenient while studying at home because they could quickly find the tasks and self-monitor. Nidus and Sadder (2016) emphasise the importance of teaching this art of noticing at school. They believe that when students learn how to use the checklist, they can focus on specific tasks, set goals for improvement, thus ask for more detailed feedback and evaluate their progress. The findings of this study about feedback support the results of a quantitative study of Molin et al. (2020) who found that there are positive effects of feedback from teachers or peers on both students’ metacognitive skills and motivation. According to them, responding to feedback is a key element of self-determination. Even though the findings for this specific abstract concept are not complete as the students were not asked about feedback during all three phases, it is still important to take their responses into account, specifically the ones connected to the lockdown.
Metacognitive Diaries (MD)
MD – reflective journals – as a tool of students’ self-assessment positively influenced students’ metacognitive experiences. Knox (2017) recommends journal writing and writing through the problem-solving process during math classes to define students’ mental processes while gaining knowledge. Following the action research framework in this study, students’ reflections were reviewed, and notes were made about their progress. It was also interesting to observe how some reflections reported in the Findings chapter moved from superficial to in-depth in Phase 3. By in-depth reflections, Costa and Kallick (2008, p. 235) mean “making specific reference to the learning event, providing examples and elaboration, making connections to other learning, and discussing modifications based on insights from this experience”. While most of the students from our study reported that they would like to have MD in further grades because “we can tell about the goals that we want to achieve and we can tell how we feel to the teacher and the score that we give to ourself if we give ourself a low score, the teacher will know that we don’t really understand it” (S16-P3), three students did not want to have MDs when they move to grade 4 stating that – “I can think of by my own and then study” (S2-P3). Recent research with elementary students supports the previous findings with university students (O’Loughlin and Griffith, 2020) and illustrate that not only students’ metacognitive skills were affected but also teachers had evidence of how students progressed during the unit. A similar experiment with reflective journals was recently designed in Indonesia (Ramadhanti et al., 2020). However, the questions in that study were grouped around such aspects of metacognition as awareness, evaluation, and regulation. Fifty students who were involved in Ramadhanti et al. (2020) study went through these processes and were able to become independent learners.
Video Diaries (Flipgrid)
Flipgrid (Flipgrid, Inc., 2021) was used as an alternative online video-response tool to self-reflect and facilitate discussions. Students were already familiar with the concept of journaling. This app was used as an alternative to MDs to increase students’ engagement. Students had a choice of how to answer metacognition questions: writing MD, recording a video on Flipgrid or both. Most of the students reported that they enjoyed using the app because it was something new and they could show their feelings, but student engagement has not dramatically increased. The findings of this study differ from those reported by Stoszkowski, Hodgkinson and Collins (2021) which indicate that participants provided more frequent and more critical answers when using Flipgrid. Although, it might happen because older students took part in that experiment, or the differing amount of scaffolding provided by teachers in various studies. Educators should understand that this platform is not a “magic bullet” to increase participation (Kiles, Vishenchuk and Hohmeier, 2020, p.1).
Research subquestion 2: How can metacognition as a heutagogical technique be used to improve students’ self-determination?
It was found that metacognition as a heutagogical technique might be used to improve students’ self-determination.
The findings of this study are in line with previous literature (Gourgey, 1998; Costa and Kallick, 2008). It proved that students who did not have a habit of thinking metacognitively might not show a lot of enthusiasm in the beginning, especially if they had been passive learners for some time. Panadero (2017) believes that interventions have different effects on students because of their educational level. Moreover, the learning environment played a significant role in developing metacognitive capabilities in mathematics, especially in the current lockdown situation. On the other hand, some students were able to recognise other HoMs during the interviews or even spontaneously during classes, according to the observation notes. The creators of HoMs believe that it is one of the strategies that students can use to build deep reflections in order to become lifelong learners (Costa and Kallick, 2008).
During our maths lessons, some students were able to choose what strategies worked well in achieving their goals or they could change their learning approach if needed. This ability to monitor and regulate is the nature of metacognition (Wagaba, Treagust and Chandrasegaran, 2016). Students reported such strategies as applying other HoMs, finding clues and drawing a model, completing the shortest tasks first, using a calculator, asking the teacher or family members. Nevertheless, when looking at the strategies reported by the students during the interviews, five students stayed in the same yellow or green indicator during three phases and same number of students showed major or minor improvements. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether they were the results of applying past knowledge or strategies offered by previous teachers, peers, family members or they were the strategies taught in this unit. Corresponding findings have also been reported by the studies of Davey (2016). Investigating metacognitive development in early years children, she underlined that even younger students can talk about strategies they implemented when facing a problem to solve. The only thing that is clear is that three students still stayed in a red indicator by the end of Phase 3. Perhaps, more focus should be provided on this area when creating lesson plans.
Different studies argue that if students are taught metacognitive strategies at school, they will perform better and even their general wellbeing will improve (Perry, Lundie and Golder, 2019). This study was not focused on students’ performance, but their emotions were taken into account in the Value Category. The findings support the studies of Gabriel, Buckley and Barthakur (2020) who concluded that motivational and emotional factors affect students’ abilities to self-regulate their learning.
Mathematics anxiety is an obstacle to learn maths and might impede students’ engagement and the metacognitive processes in general. It was particularly observed during online classes when students could simply leave the meeting when they wanted or do not join at all. The reports in the findings chapter prove that the students who did that felt worried or stressed by the end of the unit because they did not know how to solve the tasks and since they did not have developed metacognitive skills, they could not self-regulate their learning.
5.3 Limitations of research
The researcher acknowledges several constraints of the study. First, it was difficult to set the tone of reflection while teaching online. Most of the metacognitive tasks were done at the end of the lesson and by that time half of the students left the meeting (bad Internet connection, family circumstances, distractions etc.) . The results could have been different if teaching on campus. On the other hand, online settings can test self-directedness even better (Cano-Hila and Argemí-Baldich, 2021) so it probably shows that some students were not ready yet to monitor their learning.
Secondly, it would have been better to have this pilot in the middle of the year. At the end of the year, a lot of graded tasks had to be done and there was not enough time to do as many reflections as was planned. Costa and Kallick (2000) recommend that students should reread their journals from time to time to compare their thoughts and make an action plan. During this study, the students were asked to review their Metacognition Diaries but a lot of them did not do it because of the time limits. Adding to this, the scope of this research project was too broad for the timeframe in which it was conducted.
Finally, the concept of semi-structured interviews was partly misunderstood by the researcher. Some of the questions differed during the three phases, thus the progression might not be completely visible. Moreover, some of the questions could have been reworded to avoid different biases.
Overall, while the results of this study appear promising, they should be treated with caution due to the above limitations.
5.4 Implications for further research
The recommendations for other researchers have been made to provide an impetus to continue research on metacognition from students’ perspectives. The data collected could greatly support teachers and curriculum coordinators in finding solutions to overcome the issue of low self-determination in elementary schools.
Stringer recommends being careful while creating the questions so that the interviewers do not integrate their ideas into the interviewees’ answers (Stringer, 2007, p. 65). Having analysed the data, it was noticed that some students’ responses contradicted what was observed in the class.
Meanwhile, when they were asked indirectly (e.g., “What advice would you give to students who are moving to grade 3?”) they could make connections to themselves and their learning styles. Kaminska and Foulsham (2013) believe that this social desirability bias is caused because of students’ embarrassment and uneasiness if their answers do not match with teachers’ expectations. It is recommended to reword some questions if this research is about to be repeated. For example, instead of asking “Do you think the rubric that we used in class was helpful or just a waste of time?” it is better to ask “Would you recommend having rubrics like this in grade 3? Why or why not?” .
For teachers, it is crucial to inspire students, at every age, to find how they learn and what benefits them individually (Pritchard, 2013). That is why it is important to have professional development in teaching metacognition at this early age. Plus, further research can be carried out to demonstrate whether different teaching styles have an effect on how students develop metacognitive knowledge and skills.
Regarding future research, there is one more perspective worth investigating, that of the parents.
First, parents have a big influence on their children’s achievements (Jezierski and Wall, 2019). Secondly, it is paramount to know whether the students apply these metacognitive strategies or other heutagogical techniques at home and whether their behaviour has changed because of it, especially during the lockdown.
5.5 Practical recommendations
Even though some educators believe that developing metacognitive skills is often difficult and time-consuming (Thomas, 2003), it is an important goal of education. There are a lot of techniques and strategies that teachers might implement to train students’ metacognitive abilities. Students should be given opportunities to learn how to set goals, assess their progress and take ownership of their learning.
However, teachers should not expect that students already know how to monitor their progress, plan and self-evaluate as all these skills should be explicitly taught and modelled (Perry, Lundie and Golder, 2019). We cannot expect elementary students to already have metacognitive knowledge and skills (Wagaba, Treagust and Chandrasegaran, 2016). One of the goal-setting strategies that worked during this study was to have students self-assess first and based on their results ask them to write what they can improve and how. It was important to model that our goals should be specific, achievable, and timely. Furthermore, it was repeated every time before the activity started that these goals are for them and not for the teacher so that students synthesize the importance of goal-setting.
Conducting discussions turned out to be one of the tools that promoted metacognition in the classroom. Following Costa and Kallick’s (2008) advice, some thought-provoking questions were designed for the MDs (Appendices VI-VIII). During these moments, students learned how their peers applied some strategies and grew in this Habit of Mind. If the students are studying onsite, it might be better to conduct discussions at the end of mathematics classes but if lessons are online, it is recommended to either ask the students to complete the journal in their free time or choose a moment when most of the students are present.
It is crucial to demonstrate that solving problems is not only about finding the correct answer but about the process. Moreover, reflective writing might support students in determining their strengths and weaknesses in the topic. Costa and Kallick (2008) also suggest students should reread these journals from time to time, comparing what they have learned in the past and now. Based on the observation notes, teachers should encourage students to complete the diaries regularly to habitualize them. Perhaps teachers may complete the diaries as well as an example.
It is also important not to expect immediate results. Even though this study lasted 9 weeks, it was not enough to coach on metacognition. Students should have enough time to understand their learning processes and to develop a habit of reflecting on their learning and experiences.
5.6 Conclusion
This section is an overall conclusion of the current research. Previous studies from teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives summarised that implementing metacognitive techniques will positively influence students’ performance (Stein, 2018). Nevertheless, the lack of empirical studies from students’ points of view is still a concern in education.
The purpose of this study was to enable grade 3 students to reflect on their learning practices and habits by using metacognitive methods and to see whether it can help them become self-determined learners. Self-determined learners are students who can self-assess, self-direct and self-monitor their learning (Commitment Category), can recognise the benefits and advantages of engaging in metacognitive processes (Value Category) and develop skills, strategies, and techniques through which they engage with their peers (Capacity Category).
Metacognition is the foundation of lifelong learning. Action research cycles with constant reflections helped the researcher as an educator to learn what is best for her students and how to adapt to meet 40
the 21-st century requirements. Based on the observation notes and interview data, most grade 3 students were able to find more motivation for learning mathematics, therefore became more engaged in the learning process. Hence, it might be useful to stimulate deep reflections at an early age. By increasing metacognition, students could find different strategies, apply them, and choose the most effective ones based on the situation. That’s why it is a heutagogical technique. However, some students still could not regulate their learning even after the metacognitive interventions were implemented.
Less than half of the students could connect metacognition to mathematics by the end of phase 3 and three students were able to do it before the experiment started. Four students either stayed in the red indicator or dropped from yellow or green. However, it is important to note that these students missed more than a third of online mathematics classes or did not do most of the metacognitive activities assigned during the unit.
The pandemic lockdown affected children’s learning. Even though there are a lot of physical and emotional limitations connected to the pandemic (Cano-Hila and Argemí-Baldich, 2021), it might be considered a perfect setting to practice metacognitive skills when students can set goals, monitor their learning using different checklists and rubrics, reflect on the feedback provided in Google Classroom and think about improving strategies while writing diaries. Hopefully, these positive aspects of online learning concerning metacognition should remain even after lockdown.
However, recent research in education showed that in fact, the lockdown increased the gap between high and low achievers: stronger students had more ability to concentrate on the tasks while weaker students were less able to focus (Spitzer, 2021). This study supports this statement because when we look at the findings, it is noticeable that the students with yellow or green specific indicators in Phase 1, continued to show progress in other Phases. But if they started in a red indicator and did not join classes or did not do the metacognitive tasks, they stayed in the same colour code. If students are studying at school, they are approximately equal in terms of metacognitive support provided by a teacher. Meanwhile, when studying at home, there are different family circumstances that can increase or decrease their metacognitive skills (e.g., eliminating distractions, helping with monitoring their progress, doing work with parents, etc.) (Cano-Hila and Argemí-Baldich, 2021). Another term used recently in research is “Zoom fatigue” when students are getting tired from overusing virtual platforms (Wiederhold, 2020). A few children reported during the interviews that they were overwhelmed with the number of emails and feedback on different platforms that sometimes they missed and did not reply to the teacher.
The study has revealed that such tools as Metacognition Diaries and video diaries on Flipgrid were effective from students’ perspectives to regulate their learning. This indicates that these tools might be useful in implementing the heutagogical framework. Based on students’ responses, rubrics were useful during mathematics classes by helping students improve their work or informing the teacher about their progress. However, such issues as dishonesty, overconfidence, and the inability to use the rubric without knowing the correct answer were also highlighted and should be taken into account by educators. Checklists, on the other hand, turned out to be very helpful self-monitoring tools during online classes.
Another summary related to the results of the study shows that although some students stated that they wrote goals, responded to the teacher’s feedback, took notes, it disagreed with the researcher’s observation notes. Even though MDs were not graded, the final assessment about HoM 5
Metacognition was included in students’ grade books. It could have influenced some students’ answers. Some students could have hidden what they did not know, and it is not the purpose of reflections (Ramadhanti et al., 2020). That is why it is better to have it not graded in further studies.
I would like to conclude this paper with the quote of Mark Van Doren, “The art of teaching is the art of assisting discovery” (BrainyMedia Inc, no date). As researchers and as practitioners this should be our aim and metacognition as a heutagogical technique might assist in it. What if teachers were more concerned about students’ abilities after graduation (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, being a lifelong learner) rather than focusing only on the acquisition and end-of-year exams? Finally, the ultimate goal of education is to develop lifelong learners and, I would add, metacognitive and self-determined lifelong learners.
REFERENCES
Adams, C. M. and Khojasteh, J. (2018) ‘Igniting students’ inner determination: the role of a need-supportive climate.’ , Journal of Educational Administration, 56(4), pp. 382–397. doi: 10.1108/JEA-04-2017-0036.
Akyildiz, S. T. (2019) ‘Do 21st Century Teachers Know about Heutagogy or Do They Still Adhere to Traditional Pedagogy and Andragogy?’ , International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(6), pp. 151–169.
Arnold, V. and Triki, A. (2017) ‘Use of student and online participants in Behavioural Accounting Research’, in The Routledge Companion to Behavioural Accounting Research. Routledge, pp. 287–299. doi: 10.4324/9781315710129-20.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice.
Belenky, D. M. and Nokes, T. J. (2009) ‘Examining the Role of Manipulatives and Metacognition on Engagement, Learning, and Transfer’, The Journal of Problem Solving, 2(2), pp. 102–129. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1061.
Blaschke, L. M. (2012) ‘Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-determined learning’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), pp. 56–71. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076.
Bol, L. et al. (2016) ‘The effects of self-regulated learning training on community college students’ metacognition and achievement in developmental math courses’, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(6), pp. 480–495. doi: 10.1080/10668926.2015.1068718.
Bouldin, A. S. (2017) ‘Reflection Is Not Reflexive.’ , American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(9), pp. 7–9. doi: 10.5688/ajpe6832.
BrainyMedia Inc (no date) Mark Van Doren Quotes, BrainyQuote.com. Available at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_van_doren_108042 (Accessed: 19 August 2021).
Buzza, D. C. and Dol, M. (2015) ‘Goal Setting Support in Alternative Math Classes: Effects on Motivation and Engagement’, Exceptionality Education International, 25(1), pp. 35–66. doi: 10.5206/eei.v25i1.7716.
Cano-Hila, A. B. and Argemí-Baldich, R. (2021) ‘Early Childhood and Lockdown: The Challenge of Building a Virtual Mutual Support Network between Children, Families and School for Sustainable Education and Increasing Their Well-Being’, Sustainability, 13(7), pp. 1–15. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsrep&AN=edsrep.a.gam.jsusta.v13y202 1i7p3654.d524022&site=eds-live
Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Available at: http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2006.pdf.
Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L. L. (2015) ‘Grounded Theory’, in Ritzer, G. (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2.
Compagnoni, M., Sieber, V. and Job, V. (2020) ‘My Brain Needs a Break: Kindergarteners’ Willpower Theories Are Related to Behavioral Self-Regulation’, Frontiers in Psychology, 11, p. 601724. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.601724.
Coolican, H. (2014) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. East Sussex: Psychology Press. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=753537&site=eds-live.
Cornoldi, C. et al. (2015) ‘Improving Problem Solving in Primary School Students: The Effect of a Training Programme Focusing on Metacognition and Working Memory’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), pp. 424–439.
Costa, A. L. and Kallick, B. (2000) Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind. A Developmental Series, Book 1. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED439101&site=eds-live.
Costa, A. L. and Kallick, B. (eds) (2008) Learning and Leading with Habits of Mind: 16 Essential Characteristics for Success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available at: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108008/chapters/Learning-Through-Reflection.aspx.
Creswell, J. W. (2012) Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Danneker, J. E. and Bottge, B. A. (2009) ‘Benefits of and Barriers to Elementary Student-Led Individualized Education Programs’, Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), pp. 225–233.
Davey, H. M. (2016) Investigating factors which promote metacognitive development in early years children. Durham University. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsble&AN=edsble.685687&site=eds-live.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000) ‘The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior.’ , Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), p. 227. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dyke, M. (2009) ‘An enabling framework for reflexive learning: Experiential learning and reflexivity in contemporary modernity’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(3), pp. 289–310. doi: 10.1080/02601370902798913.
Edwards, C. and Willis, J. W. (2014) Action Research : Models, Methods, and Examples. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing (Applied Research in Education and the Social Sciences). Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=753371&site=eds-live.
Edwards, J. and Costa, A. L. (2012) ‘Habits of Success’, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available at: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr12/vol69/num07/Habits-of-Success.aspx.
Efklides, A. (2006) ‘Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?’ , Educational Research Review, 1(1), pp. 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001.
Elden, S. (2013) ‘Inviting the Messy: Drawing Methods and “Children’s Voices”’, Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 20(1), pp. 66–81.
Erwin, E. J. et al. (2016) ‘Fostering the Foundations of Self-Determination in Early Childhood: A Process for Enhancing Child Outcomes across Home and School’, Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(4), pp. 325–333.
Ezell, J. H. (2017) Self-Directed Learning, Technology, and Effective Professional Development for Educators. ProQuest LLC. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED601599&site=eds-live.
Fevre, R., Guimarães, I. and Zhao, W. (2020) ‘Parents, individualism and education: three paradigms and four countries’, Review of Education, 8(3), pp. 693–726. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3204.
Flavell, J. H. (1979) ‘Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry’, American Psychologist, 34(10), pp. 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
Flipgrid Inc. (2021) Flipgrid (Version 9.4.3) [Mobile App]. Available at: https://flipgrid.com/.
Gabriel, F., Buckley, S. and Barthakur, A. (2020) ‘The Impact of Mathematics Anxiety on Self-Regulated Learning and Mathematical Literacy’, Australian Journal of Education, 64(3), pp. 227– 242.
Gallucci, K. (2006) ‘Learning Concepts With Cases’, Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), pp. 16–20.
Gourgey, A. F. (1998) ‘Metacognition in basic skills instruction’, Instructional Science, 26(1/2), pp. 81–96.
Greene, J. A. and Azevedo, R. (2007) ‘A Theoretical Review of Winne and Hadwin’s Model of Self-Regulated Learning: New Perspectives and Directions’, Review of Educational Research, 77(3), pp. 334–372.
Greene, J. A., Costa, L.-J. and Dellinger, K. (2011) ‘Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning Processing Using Statistical Models for Count Data’, Metacognition and Learning, 6(3), pp. 275– 301.
Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2000) ‘From andragogy to heutagogy’, Ulti-BASE. Available at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010220130000/http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/New/newdec00.html (Accessed: 31 May 2021).
Hayward, L. et al. (2018) ‘Student Pedagogical Teams: Students as Course Consultants Engaged in Process of Teaching and Learning’, College Teaching, 66(1), pp. 37–47. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2017.1405904.
Hoover, E. (2018) ‘Fostering the Development of Self-Determination in Early Elementary Students with Diverse Learning Needs through a Choice-Based Art Curriculum’, Online Submission. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED585259&site=eds-live.
Horrigan, K. M. (2018) ‘Implementing Genius Hour to Increase Student Motivation’, California State University San Marcos. Available at: http://dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/202733/HorriganKrista_Spring2018.pdf?sequ ence=3.
Hossieni, A. and Khalili, S. (2011) ‘Explanation of creativity in postmodern educational ideas’, 3rd World Conference on Educational Sciences – 2011, 15, pp. 1307–1313. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.283.
Hubbard, G. T. (2012) ‘Discovering Constructivism: How a Project-Oriented Activity-Based Media Production Course Effectively Employed Constructivist Teaching Principles’, Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(2), pp. 159–166.
Irgatoglu, A. and Pakkan, G. (2020) ‘The Awareness of ELL Students about Their 21st Century Skills’, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(4), pp. 1921–1938.
Jamrus, M. H. M. and Razali, A. B. (2019) ‘Using Self-Assessment as a Tool for English Language Learning’, English Language Teaching, 12(11), pp. 64–73.
Jezierski, S. and Wall, G. (2019) ‘Changing Understandings and Expectations of Parental Involvement in Education’, Gender and Education, 31(7), pp. 811–826. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1332340.
Jones, C., Penaluna, K. and Penaluna, A. (2019) ‘The promise of andragogy, heutagogy and academagogy to enterprise and entrepreneurship education pedagogy’, Education + Training, 61(9), pp. 1170–1186. doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2018-0211.
Kiles, T. M., Vishenchuk, J. and Hohmeier, K. (2020) ‘Implementation of Flipgrid as a Self-Reflection Tool for Student Engagement– A Pilot Study’, INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy, 11(4). doi: 10.24926/iip.v11i4.3340.
Knox, H. (2017) ‘Using Writing Strategies in Math to Increase Metacognitive Skills for the Gifted Learner’, Gifted Child Today, 40(1), pp. 43–47. doi: 10.1177/1076217516675904.
Marshik, T., Ashton, P. T. and Algina, J. (2017) ‘Teachers’ and students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as predictors of students’ achievement’, Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), pp. 39–67. doi: 10.1007/s11218-016-9360-z.
Martinek, D. and Kipman, U. (2016) ‘Self-determination, Self-efficacy and Self-regulation in School: A Longitudinal Intervention Study With Primary School Pupils’, Sociology Study, 6(2), pp. 124–133. doi: 10.17265/2159-5526/2016.02.005.
McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2008) ‘Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software’, Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5), p. 11.
Mohammad, S. et al. (2019) ‘A Proposed Heutagogy Framework for Structural Steel Design in Civil
Engineering Curriculum.’ , International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(24), p. 96.
Molin, F. et al. (2020) ‘The effect of feedback on metacognition – A randomized experiment using polling technology’, Computers & Education, p. 152. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103885.
Morison, M., Moir, J. and Kwansa, T. (2000) ‘Interviewing children for the purposes of research in primary care’, Primary Health Care Research and Development, 1(2), pp. 113–130. doi: 10.1191/146342300675316801.
Muscott, P. (2018) A study of the relationship between ‘Habits of Mind’ and ‘Performance Task’ achievement in an International School in South-east Asia. The University of Roehampton. Available at: https://www.habitsofmindinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Study-of-the-Relationship-between-Habits-of-Mind-and-Performance-Task-Achievement-in-an-International-School-in-South-East-Asia-Philip-Gregory-Muscott-1.pdf.
Mutambuki, J. M. et al. (2020) ‘Metacognition and Active Learning Combination Reveals Better Performance on Cognitively Demanding General Chemistry Concepts than Active Learning Alone’, Journal of Chemical Education, 97(7), pp. 1832–1840. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00254.
Nasrollahi, M. A. (2015) ‘A Closer Look at Using Stringer’s Action Research Model in Improving Students’ Learning’, International Journal of Current Research, 7(7), pp. 18663–18668.
Newman, E. and Farren, M. (2018) ‘Transforming self-driven learning using action research’, Journal of Work-Applied Management, 10(1), pp. 4–18. doi: 10.1108/JWAM-10-2017-0029.
Nidus, G. and Sadder, M. (2016) ‘More than a Checklist’, Educational Leadership, 73(7), pp. 62– 66.
Nur, F. et al. (2019) ‘Double Loop Poblem Solving Learning Models on The Students’ Mathematical Literacy Skills’, Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 8(1), pp. 47–57. doi: 10.25273/jipm.v8i1.3815.
Ogurlu, Ü. and Saricam, H. (2016) ‘Metacognitive awareness and math anxiety in gifted students’, Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(4), p. 338. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v10i4.228.
Oliver-Hoyo, M. and Allen, D. (2006) ‘The Use of Triangulation Methods in Qualitative Educational Research’, Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), p. 42.
O’Loughlin, V. D. and Griffith, L. M. (2020) ‘Developing Student Metacognition through Reflective Writing in an Upper Level Undergraduate Anatomy Course’, Anatomical Sciences Education, 13(6), pp. 680–693. doi: 10.1002/ase.1945.
Palmer, S. B. and Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003) ‘Promoting Self-Determination in Early Elementary School: Teaching Self-Regulated Problem-Solving and Goal-Setting Skills’, Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), pp. 115-126. doi: 10.1177/07419325030240020601.
Panadero, E. (2017) ‘A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research’, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, p. 422. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.
Peeters, A. and Robinson, V. (2015) ‘A Teacher Educator Learns How to Learn from Mistakes: Single and Double-loop Learning for Facilitators of In-service Teacher Education’, Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), pp. 213–227. doi: 10.1080/17425964.2015.1070728.
Perry, J., Lundie, D. and Golder, G. (2019) ‘Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools?’ , Educational Review, 71(4), pp. 483–500. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127.
Ponizovsky-Bergelson, Y. et al. (2019) ‘A Qualitative Interview With Young Children: What Encourages or Inhibits Young Children’s Participation?’ , International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. doi: 10.1177/1609406919840516.
Pritchard, A. (2013) Ways of Learning : Learning Theories and Learning Styles in the Classroom. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=671955&site=eds-live.
Punch, K. F. and Oancea, A. (2014) Introduction to research methods in education. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ramadhanti, D. et al. (2020) ‘The Use of Reflective Journal as a Tool for Monitoring of Metacognition Growth in Writing.’ , International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(11), pp. 162–187.
Reuer, M. D. (2017) Cultivating genius: an exploratory case study of the genius hour instructional technique and its effect on the identity and self-efficacy of high school science students. Montana State University – Bozeman, College of Education, Health & Human Development. Available at: https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/14914 (Accessed: 25 October 2020).
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.’ , American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Sart, G. (2014) ‘The Effects of the Development of Metacognition on Project-based Learning’, ERPA International Congress on Education, ERPA Congress 2014, 6-8 June 2014, Istanbul, Turkey, 152, pp. 131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.169.
Schraw, G. and Dennison, R. S. (1994) ‘Assessing metacognitive awareness’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), p. 460.
Siegle, D. and McCoach, D. B. (2007) ‘Increasing Student Mathematics Self-Efficacy through Teacher Training’, Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(2), pp. 278–312.
Simon, A. F. and Wilder, D. (2018) ‘Action research in social psychology’, Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), pp. 169–177. doi: 10.1037/arc0000054.
Sperling, R. A. et al. (2002) ‘Measures of Children’s Knowledge and Regulation of Cognition’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), pp. 51–79.
Spitzer, M. (2021) ‘Open schools! Weighing the effects of viruses and lockdowns on children’,Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 22(100151), pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2021.100151.
Stanton, J. D. et al. (2015) ‘Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough’, CBE – Life Sciences Education. Edited by D. Tomanek, 14(2), p. 12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135.
Stein, Y. R. (2018) Elementary Education Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of Infusing
Self-Determination Case Study. ProQuest LLC. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED595982&site=eds-live.
Stoszkowski, J., Hodgkinson, A. and Collins, D. (2021) ‘Using Flipgrid to improve reflection: a collaborative online approach to coach development’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(2), pp. 167–178. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1789575.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Stringer, E. T. (2007) Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stringer, E. T., Christensen, L. M. and Baldwin, S. C. (2010) Integrating Teaching, Learning, and Action Research: Enhancing Instruction in the K–12 Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452274775.
Thomas, G. P. (2003) ‘Conceptualisation, Development and Validation of an Instrument for Investigating the Metacognitive Orientation of Science Classroom Learning Environments: The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale – Science (MOLES-S)’, Learning Environments Research, 6(2), pp. 175–197. doi: 10.1023/A:1024943103341.
Tok, Ş. (2013) ‘Effects of the know-want-learn strategy on students’ mathematics achievement, anxiety and metacognitive skills’, Metacognition and Learning, 8(2), pp. 193–212. doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9101-z.
Valencia-Vallejo, N., López-Vargas, O. and Sanabria-Rodríguez, L. (2019) ‘Effect of a metacognitive scaffolding on self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement in e-learning environments’, Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 11(1), pp. 1–19. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2019.11.001.
Wagaba, F., Treagust, D. F. and Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2016) ‘An Action Research in Science: Providing Metacognitive Support to Year 9 Students’, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION, 11(12), p. 23.
Wiederhold, B. K. (2020) ‘Connecting Through Technology During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom Fatigue”’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(7), pp. 437–438. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw.
Winne, P. H. and Hadwin, A. F. (2008) ‘The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning’, in
Schunk, D. H. and Zimmerman, B. J. (eds) Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 297–314. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2008-03967-012&site=eds-live (Accessed: 19 August 2021).
Wray, D. and Lewis, M. (1997) Extending Literacy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Young, D. and Ley, K. (2005) ‘Developmental College Student Self-Regulation: Results from Two Measures’, Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36(1), pp. 60–80. doi: 10.1080/10790195.2005.10850180.
Zakaria, E., Yazid, Z. and Ahmad, S. (2009) ‘Exploring matriculation students’ metacognitive awareness and achievement in a mathematics course’, International Journal of Learning, 16(2), pp. 333–348. doi: 10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i02/46119.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002) ‘Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview’, Theory Into Practice, 41(2), pp. 64–70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments