Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2019, Article ID 3402035, 19 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3402035
Review Article

Learning Mathematics in Metacognitively Oriented ICT-Based Learning Environments: A Systematic Review of the Literature

1Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2David Yellin Academic College of Education, Jerusalem, Israel

Correspondence should be addressed to Lieven Verschaffel; eb.nevueluk@leffahcsrev.neveil

Received 4 March 2019; Revised 30 June 2019; Accepted 21 July 2019; Published 16 September 2019

Academic Editor: Christos Troussas

Copyright © 2019 Lieven Verschaffel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Academia Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. C. Dignath and G. Büttner, “Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level,” Metacognition and Learning, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 231–264, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. A. C. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
  4. O. López-Vargas, J. Ibáñez-Ibáñez, and O. Racines-Prada, “Students’ metacognition and cognitive style and their effect on cognitive load and learning achievement,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 145–157, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  5. A. H. Schoenfeld, “Learning to think mathematically. Problem solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics,” in Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), D. A. Grouws, Ed., pp. 334–370, MacMillan, New York, NY, USA, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  6. D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene, Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  7. Y.-h. Tsai, C.-h. Lin, J.-c. Hong, and K.-h. Tai, “The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs,” Computers & Education, vol. 121, pp. 18–29, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. H. Flavell, P. H. Miller, and S. A. Miller, Cognitive Development, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 4th edition, 2002.
  9. A. Brown, “Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms,” in Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding, F. Weinert and R. Kluwe, Eds., pp. 65–116, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  10. G. Schraw and R. S. Dennison, “Assessing metacognitive awareness,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 460–475, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. E. De Corte, B. Greer, and L. Verschaffel, “Learning and teaching mathematics,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology, D. Berliner and R. Calfee, Eds., pp. 491–549, Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  12. E. Baeten, A. Desoete, and M. Praet, “The relevance and efficacy of metacognition for instructional design in the domain of mathematics,” ZDM International Journal on Mathematics Education, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 613–623, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. Z. Mevarech, L. Verschaffel, and E. De Corte, “Metacognitive pedagogies in mathematics classrooms: from kindergarten to college and beyond,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene, Eds., pp. 109–123, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  14. M. V. J. Veenman, B. H. A. M. Van Hout-Wolters, and P. Afflerbach, “Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations,” Metacognition and Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. D. Whitebread and P. Coltman, “Aspects of pedagogy supporting metacognition and self-regulation in mathematical learning of young children: evidence from an observational study,” Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 163–178, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. Z. R. Mevarech and B. Kramarski, Critical Maths in Innovative Societies: The Effects of Metacognitive Pedagogies on Mathematical Reasoning, OECD, Paris, France, 2014.
  17. W. Schneider and C. Artelt, “Metacognition and mathematics education,” Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 149–161, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. G. Stillman and Z. Mevarech, “Metacognition research in mathematics education: from hot topic to mature field,” Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 145–148, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. V. J. Veenman and M. A. Spaans, “Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task differences,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 159–176, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematics Problem Solving, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1985.
  21. M. Cardelle-Elawar, “Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 81–95, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. Desoete, H. Roeyers, and A. De Clercq, “Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving?” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 188–200, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. D. Lucangeli, C. Cornoldi, and M. Tellarinin, “Metacognition and learning disabilities in mathematics,” in Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri, Eds., pp. 219–285, JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, UK, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  24. L. Mason and L. Scrivani, “Enhancing students’ mathematical beliefs: an intervention study,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 153–176, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. Z. Mevarech and S. Fridkin, “The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition,” Metacognition and Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 85–97, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. Z. R. Mevarech and B. Kramarski, “Improve: a multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 365–394, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. A. Panouara, A. Demetriou, and A. Gagatsis, “Mathematical modeling, self-representations and self-regulation,” in Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 6), V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, and F. Arzarello, Eds., pp. 94–103, Institute National de Recherche Pédagogique, Lyon, France, January 2010.
  28. L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, S. Lasure, G. Van Vaerenbergh, H. Bogaerts, and E. Ratinckx, “Learning to solve mathematical application problems: a design experiment with fifth graders,” Mathematical Thinking and Learning, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 195–229, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. S. Abramovich and M. L. Connell, “Using technology in elementary mathematics teacher education: a sociocultural perspective,” ISRN Education, vol. 2014, Article ID 345146, 9 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. R. Azevedo, M. Taub, and N. V. Mudrick, “Understanding and reasoning about real-time cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with advanced learning technologies,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene, Eds., pp. 254–270, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  31. R. M. Zbiek, M. K. Heid, G. Blume, and T. P. Dick, “Research on technology in mathematics education: the perspective of constructs,” in Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, F. K. Lester, Ed., pp. 1159–1207, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, USA, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  32. R. E. Mayer, “Learning with technology,” in The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, H. Dumont, D. Istance, and F. Benavides, Eds., pp. 179–195, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  33. D. Moos, “Emerging classroom technology: using self-regulation principles as a guide for effective implementation,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene, Eds., pp. 243–253, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  34. J. L. Nietfeld, “The role of self-regulated learning in digital games,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene, Eds., pp. 271–284, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  35. P. Reimann and M. Bannert, “Self-regulation of learning and performance in computer-supported collaborative learning environments,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene, Eds., pp. 285–303, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  36. A. Krouska, C. Troussas, and M. Virvou, “Computerized adaptive assessment using accumulative learning activities based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy,” in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering, pp. 252–258, Springer Nature, Corfu, Greece, August 2018.
  37. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 264–269, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. A. Elliott and N. Hall, “The impact of self-regulatory teaching strategies on “at-risk” preschoolers’ mathematical learning in a computer-mediated environment,” Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, vol. 8, no. 2-3, pp. 187–198, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  39. A. Shamir and I. Lifshitz, “E-Books for supporting the emergent literacy and emergent math of children at risk for learning disabilities: can metacognitive guidance make a difference?” European Journal of Special Needs Education, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 33–48, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. C.-H. Chen and C.-H. Chiu, “Collaboration scripts for enhancing metacognitive self-regulation and mathematics literacy,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 263–280, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. W. D. de Kock and E. G. Harskamp, “Can teachers in primary education implement a metacognitive computer programme for word problem solving in their mathematics classes?” Educational Research and Evaluation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 231–250, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. M. Dresel and M. Haugwitz, “A computer-based approach to fostering motivation and self-regulated learning,” The Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. E. Jacobse and E. G. Harskamp, “Student-controlled metacognitive training for solving word problems in primary school mathematics,” Educational Research and Evaluation, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 447–463, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. G. Lazakidou and S. Retalis, “Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics,” Computers & Education, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 3–13, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. S. Y. Okita, “Learning from the folly of others: learning to self-correct by monitoring the reasoning of virtual characters in a computer-supported mathematics learning environment,” Computers & Education, vol. 71, pp. 257–278, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. S. K. Teong, “The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 46–55, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. E. Kapa, “A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized environment,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 317–336, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. E. Kapa, “Transfer from structured to open-ended problem solving in a computerized metacognitive environment,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 688–707, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. B. Kramarski and V. Dudai, “Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 377–404, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. B. Kramarski and S. Friedman, “Solicited versus unsolicited metacognitive prompts for fostering mathematical problem solving using multimedia,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 285–314, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. B. Kramarski and M. Gutman, “How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical E-learning environments?” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 24–33, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. B. Kramarski and C. Hirsch, “Using computer algebra systems in mathematical classrooms,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. B. Kramarski and N. Mizrachi, “Online interactions in a mathematical classroom,” Educational Media International, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. B. Kramarski and N. Mizrachi, “Online discussion and self-regulated learning: effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy,” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 218–231, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. K. Maras, T. Gamble, and M. Brosnan, “Supporting metacognitive monitoring in mathematics learning for young people with autism spectrum disorder: a classroom-based study,” Autism, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 60–70, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. I. Roll, V. Aleven, B. M. McLaren, and K. R. Koedinger, “Designing for metacognition—applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking,” Metacognition and Learning, vol. 2, no. 2-3, pp. 125–140, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. V. Aleven, I. Roll, E. J. Ryu, and K. R. Koedinger, “An architecture to combine metacognitive and cognitive tutoring: pilot testing the Help Tutor,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp. 17–24, IOS, Amsterdam, Netherlands, July 2005.
  58. I. Roll, V. Aleven, B. M. McLaren, E. Ryu, R. S. Baker, and K. R. Koedinger, “The Help Tutor: does metacognitive feedback improve students’ help-seeking actions, skills, and learning?” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 360–369, Springer, Berlin, Germany, June 2006.
  59. I. Roll, V. Aleven, B. M. McLaren, and K. R. Koedinger, “Can help seeking be tutored? Searching for the secret sauce of metacognitive tutoring,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp. 203–210, IOS, Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 2007.
  60. I. Roll, V. Aleven, B. M. McLaren, and K. R. Koedinger, “Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 267–280, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. R. Schwonke, A. Ertelt, C. Otieno, A. Renkl, V. Aleven, and R. J. C. M. Salden, “Metacognitive support promotes an effective use of instructional resources in intelligent tutoring,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 23, pp. 136–150, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. P. R. Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. García, and W. J. McKeachie, A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ), University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1991.
  63. B. Kramarski and T. Michalsky, “Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 434–447, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. H. Kaufmann and D. Schmalstieg, “Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2002, Conference Abstracts and Applications, pp. 37–41, ACM, New York, NY, USA, July 2002.
  65. J. Martín-Gutiérrez, C. E. Mora, B. Añorbe-Díaz, and A. González-Marrero, “Virtual technologies trends in education,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 469–486, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. L. Verschaffel, F. Depaepe, and W. Van Dooren, “Word problems in mathematics education,” in Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, S. Lerman, Ed., pp. 641–645, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  67. N. Sonwalkar, “Adaptive individualization: the next generation of online education,” in Proceedings of the EdMedia + Innovate Learning, pp. 3056–3063, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Vancouver, Canada, June 2007.
  68. M.-Z. Poh, N. C. Swenson, and R. W. Picard, “A wearable sensor for unobtrusive, long-term assessment of electrodermal activity,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1243–1252, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. S. Batchelor, J. Torbeyns, and L. Verschaffel, “Affect and mathematics in young children: an introduction,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 201–209, 2019. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus