The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhancement of Metacognition Use and Awareness by Means of a Collaborative Intervention
Abstract
Current views on metacognition consider it a fundamental factor in learning and problem‐solving which in turn has led to interest in creating learning experiences conducive to developing its use. This paper reports on the effectiveness of a collaborative intervention in promoting college general chemistry students’ awareness and use of metacognition. The intervention starts with a cognitive imbalance experience as a trigger for metacognitive reflection, which is then followed by reflective prompting and peer interaction. A quasi‐experimental control and treatment design with 537 and 464 participants, respectively, was implemented. Assessment of metacognition was accomplished by using a multi‐method instrument that consists of a self‐report (Metacognitive Activities Inventory, MCAI) and a concurrent, web‐based tool (Interactive Multimedia Exercises, IMMEX). IMMEX has been shown to allow rapid classification of problem solvers according to their regulatory metacognitive skills. Compared to the control group, the treatment group showed a significant increase in metacognition awareness, as evidenced by the MCAI, increased ability in solving non‐algorithmic chemistry problems of higher difficulty, and with a higher per cent correctness (IMMEX). These findings are consistent with an overall increase in the use of regulatory metacognitive skills by the treatment group. We propose that the meaningful, purposeful social interaction and the reflective prompting instantiated by the intervention act as promoters of metacognition development. It is of particular relevance that these factors are not exclusive to the intervention employed here and can be embedded by practitioners in their instruction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282 · cited 1×
“The term metacognition was originally coined by Flavell (Yore & Treagust, 2006) in the 1970s who described it as “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena” (Flavell, 1979).”
BackgroundReliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024 · Cited by 3,646
Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 · Cited by 1,714
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 · Cited by 1,529
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf02212307 · Cited by 1,443
From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition
Georghiades, P. (2004) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069032000119401 · Cited by 303 · cited 2×
“It is not surprising then that over the past decades, interest in instructional enhancement of metacognition use has surged (Blank & Hewson, 2000; Davidowitz & Rollnick, 2003; Desoete, Roeyers, & De Clercq, 2003; Georghiades, 2004), including the use of specific strategies in chemistry (Francisco & Nicoll, 1998; Ricke…”
Background
Cited by
A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.847261 · Cited by 436
Stanton, J. D., Neider, X. N., Gallegos, I. J., & Clark, N. C. (2015) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135 · Cited by 144
Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., & Forbes, C. T. (2017) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 · Cited by 48
“…learning gains, and greater problem-solving abilities (Baird, 1986; Tobias and Everson, 1996; Rickey and Stacy, 2000; Anderson and Nashon, 2006; Schraw et al., 2006; Young and Fry, 2008; Vukman and Licardo, 2009; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011; Sinatra and Taasoobshirazi, 2011; Stanton et al., 2015).”
InfluentialKazemian, M., Irawan, L. A., & Haerazi, H. (2021) · Journal of Language and Literature Studies · doi:10.36312/jolls.v1i1.499 · Cited by 31
Wang, M., Zhang, L. J., & Hamilton, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1141214 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandi‐Urena, S., Cooper, M. M., & Stevens, R. H.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-02-02
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 323-340
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W1988298076
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.