|
| No. | Article | School level | Participants | ICT-based environment | Math subdomain | Research method and conditions | Metacognitive training/guidance/support | Targeted learning outcomes | Main findings |
|
| 1 | Baeten et al. [12] | K | 167 last-year kindergarten children | Computer-supported practice | Early number sense | Intervention study with 5 computer-based practice conditions: (1) counting; (2) comparison; (3) counting + comparison; (4) counting + comparison with MC support; (5) gaming (control condition) | Training in monitoring and self-regulation of simple memorization skills (computer-based) | Cognitive: early math skills | Metacognitive condition was most effective, even after controlling for intelligence. In all computer-based conditions, lower performing children made higher learning gains, possibly because of ceiling effects. |
| 2 | Elliott and Hall [38] | K | 54 at-risk children | Computer-supported practice (number farm) | Early number sense | Intervention study with 3 conditions: (1) computer-based practice + MC support; (2) computer-based practice; (3) no computer-based practice (control condition) | Various instructional strategies (i.e., goal identification, active monitoring, modeling, scaffolding, questioning, reflecting, etc.) for the MC skills to be learned (teacher-based) | Cognitive: math achievement | Computer-based practice + MC support group outperformed other groups on math achievement. |
| 3 | Shamir and Lifshitz [39] | K | 77 at-risk children | Educational e-book | Early number sense | Intervention study with 2 conditions: (1) e-book with MC guidance; (2) e-book without MC guidance | Presentation of MC questions on each screen page, before (questions with respect to planning) and after (questions with respect to monitoring understanding) each activity (computer-based) | Cognitive: emergent literacy (rhyming) and emergent mathematics skills (addition and ordinal numbers) | Both conditions improved on emergent literacy and math skills.
MC condition made a larger improvement for literacy, but not for math (probably because of cognitive overload). |
| 4 | Chen and Chiu [40] | E | 80 fifth graders (from 4 classes) | Computer-supported collaborative learning | Geometry | Intervention study with 2 conditions:
(1) CSCL environment with MC scripts; (2) CSCL environment without MC scripts | Provision of a fixed sequence of prompts for individual MC processes and for structuring pupils’ interactions about MC (based on the “think-pair-share method”) (computer-based) | Cognitive: lower levels of math literacy (cognitive level of understanding and applying) and higher levels of math literacy (cognitive level of analyzing and evaluation)
Metacognitive: MSLQ questionnaire: scales of controlling and planning | MC scripted group outperformed MC nonscripted group on high-level math literacy, but no difference on low-level math literacy.
MC scripted group outperformed MC nonscripted group on reported controlling skills, but no difference on reported planning skills. |
| 5 | de Kock and Harskamp [41] | E | 390 fifth graders (from 18 classes) | Computer-supported practice | Word problem-solving | Intervention study, in the real-school setting, with 2 conditions: (1) computer-based practice with MC support (experimental); (2) practice without computer and without MC support (control) | Provision of a sequence of general MC prompts/questions (i.e., read and analyze, explore, plan, verify, and reflect) and content-specific MC prompts that pupils are free to consult (computer-based) | Cognitive: word problem-solving
Metacognitive: self-monitoring behavior | Experimental group outperformed control group on solving word problems and on self-monitoring behavior. |
| 6 | Dresel and Haugwitz [42] | E | 151 sixth graders | Computer-supported practice (MatheWarp) | Unspecified | Intervention study with 3 conditions: (1) MatheWarp with attributional feedback;
(2) MatheWarp with attributional feedback + MC training; (3) MatheWarp without attributional feedback and without MC training | Provision of worksheets made up of questions addressing MC processes (e.g., planning and self-evaluation) (teacher-based) | Cognitive: achieved math knowledge
Metacognitive: questionnaire on goal setting and planning before learning activities and on monitoring processes during learning activities
Motivation: questionnaire on attribution (internal success + variable failure, self-concept, and experienced helplessness) | Conditions 1 and 2 outperformed condition 3 on motivation questionnaire.
Condition 2 outperformed conditions 1 and 3 on math achievement and on reported MC strategies.
Both were immediate and delayed effects. |
| 7 | Jacobse and Harskamp [43] | E | 49 fifth graders (from 2 classes) | Computer-supported practice | Word problem-solving | Intervention study with 2 conditions: (1) computer-supported practice with MC support (experimental); (2) traditional classroom teaching (control) | Provision of a sequence of general MC prompts/questions (i.e., read and analyze, explore, plan, verify, and reflect) and content-specific MC prompts that pupils are free to consult (computer-based) | Cognitive: word problem-solving
Metacognitive: use of metacognitive skills while solving word problems (think-aloud protocols of some experimental pupils + qualitative analysis while using the program) | Condition 1 outperformed condition 2 on word problem-solving and on MC measures.
Pupils who asked more for MC prompts benefitted more from the intervention.
Condition 1 improved in metacognitive skillfulness from pre- to posttest.
Using the MC hints during the intervention resulted in better word problem-solving behavior. |
| 8 | Lazakidou and Retalis [44] | E | 24 fourth graders | Computer-supported collaborative learning | Word problem-solving | Case study | Sequence of learning activities for augmenting MC skills: (1) observing an expert; (2) collaboration in small groups; (3) individually solving problems with coaching; (4) individually solving problems without coaching (computer- and teacher-based) | Cognitive: problem-solving performance
Metacognitive: use of metacognitive strategies | There were a significant increase from pre- to posttest in problem-solving performance, a
decrease in duration of solving a problem over time, and a significant increase in metacognitive strategies as a result of the intervention. |
| 9 | Okita [45] | E | Study 1: 62 children (9–11 yrs) to 40 children
Study 2: 22 children | Computer-supported practice | Arithmetic | 2 intervention studies with 2 computer-supported practice conditions each: (1) self-training: pupils solved all problems on their own; (2) self-other training: pupils worked with computer character | In the self-other condition, pupils had to monitor a computer character displaying correct or erroneous reasoning processes (computer-based) | Cognitive: calculation time and accuracy
Metacognitive: through log files of intervention, looking at self-monitoring behavior and correcting own mistakes | There were longer calculation times but higher accuracies in the self-other group.
The self-other group also outperformed the self-training group on monitoring and self-correcting their own behavior.
Extended training (in study 2) provided a longer-lasting effect. |
| 10 | Teong [46] | E | 40 low achievers (11-12 yrs) | Computer-supported practice (WordMath) | Word problem-solving | (a) Intervention study with 2 computer-supported practice conditions: (1) practice without MC guidance; (2) practice with MC guidance (b) Case study | Provision of a card with MC cues and questions related to different phases of the word problem-solving process (i.e., careful reading, recalling possible strategies, implementing possible strategies, monitoring, and evaluation) (teacher-based) | Cognitive: word problem-solving (experimental study)
Metacognitive: knowing when and how to use MC strategies (case study: qualitative problem-solving behavior of some students of the two conditions) | Practice with MC guidance condition outperformed condition without MC guidance on cognitive and metacognitive outcomes. |
| 11 | Kapa [47] | S | 441 eighth graders (high and low achievers) | Computer-supported practice | Word problem-solving | Intervention study with 4 computer-supported practice conditions: MC support (1) during and after problem-solving process, (2) only during problem-solving process, and (3) only after problem-solving process; (4) no MC support | Provision of MC questions during different phases of the word problem-solving process (e.g., What are you asked to find?) and/or MC questions after problem-solving (e.g., Is there any other way to solve the problem you have already solved?) (computer-based) | Cognitive: performance on word problems | The two conditions providing MC support during the solution process were more effective than the learning environments providing MC support after the solution process or no MC support. Low-achieving students were more influenced by MC support than the high-achieving ones. |
| 12 | Kapa [48] | S | 231 eighth graders (from 14 classes) | Computer-supported practice | Word problem-solving | See Kapa [47] | See Kapa [47] | Cognitive: performance on near-transfer tasks (problems similar to the intervention) and far-transfer tasks (unfamiliar open-ended problems)
Metacognitive: qualitative analyses of the protocols to look for MC functions | MC support was effective in realizing near and far transfer.
Intervention was effective for both high- and low-achieving students.
There was almost no improvement of metacognitive functions throughout different conditions of the intervention. |
| 13 | Kramarski and Dudai [49] | S | 100 ninth graders (from 3 classes) | Computer-supported collaborative learning environment | Word problem-solving and math inquiry | Intervention study with 3 conditions: (1) online learning + group feedback guidance (GFG); (2) online learning + self-explanation guidance (SEG); (3) control group (same learning tasks, but not online and no MC guidance) | GFG and SEG: instruction and practice in 4 self-addressed MC questions (related to comprehension, connections, strategies, and reflection) based on the IMPROVE instructional approach
GFG: students providing elaborated feedback to each during online forum discussions
SEG: students providing an explanation for their own thinking when working online in forum discussions (computer- and teacher-based) | Cognitive: students’ mathematical inquiry ability (problem-solving, explanations, mathematical feedback in online forum discussions, and transfer ability)
Metacognitive: SRL questionnaire and metacognitive feedback in online forum discussions | GFG students outperformed SEG students in most cognitive and metacognitive measures and control students in all measures.
SEG students outperformed control students in mathematical problem-solving but not on mathematical transfer ability or SRL. |
| 14 | Kramarski and Friedman [50] | S | 90 eighth graders | Multimedia environment | Graphing | Intervention study with 3 multimedia conditions: (1) unsolicited, i.e., with automatic MC prompts (system control); (2) solicited, i.e., free access to MC prompts (learner control); (3) control condition: multimedia environment without any MC prompts | Unsolicited or solicited: instruction and practice in 4 self-addressed MC questions (related to comprehension, connections, strategies, and reflection) based on the IMPROVE instructional approach (computer-based) | Cognitive: immediate problem-solving comprehension (think-aloud protocol); delayed transfer problem-solving test
Metacognitive: SRL questionnaire: student cognition, metacognition, and problem-solving motivation; peer discourse analysis and help-seeking behavior (metacognitive behavior) | Unsolicited condition was better than solicited condition and solicited condition was better than control condition on immediate comprehension tasks, delayed transfer, and level of metacognitive discourse, particularly in the planning phase. Unsolicited condition was worse than solicited condition and solicited condition was worse than control condition on perceived mental effort. Unsolicited group consulted more aids. |
| 15 | Kramarski and Gutman [51] | S | 65 ninth graders (from 2 classes) | Computer-supported practice | Algebra | Intervention study with 2 computer-based practice conditions: (1) practice without MC support; (2) practice with MC support | Instruction and practice in 4 self-addressed MC questions (related to comprehension, connections, strategies, and reflection) based on the IMPROVE instructional approach (teacher-based)
Reflection on “What is a good math explanation?”) (teacher-based)
MC feedback (through questions during and after the solution process) (computer-based) | Cognitive: math test on linear functions: (1) standard, procedural tasks; (2) more complex transfer tasks; (3) providing math explanations
Metacognitive: SRL questionnaire: (1) use of problem-solving strategies; (2) use of self-monitoring strategies | Both conditions improved in cognitive measures after the intervention. MC condition outperformed non-MC condition on standard procedural tasks, transfer tasks, and providing math explanations.
Both conditions improved on reported SRL strategies after the intervention. MC condition outperformed non-MC condition on use of self-monitoring strategies, but no difference on problem-solving strategies. |
| 16 | Kramarski and Hirsch [52] | S | 43 students (13 yrs; from 2 classes) | Computer-supported practice | Algebra | Intervention study with 2 computer-based practice conditions: (1) with MC support; (2) without MC support | Instruction and practice in 4 self-addressed MC questions (related to comprehension, connections, strategies, and reflection) based on the IMPROVE instructional approach (computer- and teacher-based) | Cognitive: algebraic thinking
Metacognitive: qualitative analyses of self-regulation behavior during the paired problem-solving sessions | Condition with MC students outperformed condition without MC on algebraic thinking and effective regulation of their learning. |
| 17 | Kramarski and Mizrachi [53] | S | 43 seventh graders (from 2 classes) | Computer-supported collaborative learning environment | Word problem-solving | Intervention study with 2 CSCL conditions: (1) with MC guidance; (2) without MC guidance | Instruction and practice in 4 self-addressed MC questions (related to comprehension, connections, strategies, and reflection) based on the IMPROVE instructional approach (computer- and teacher-based) | Cognitive + metacognitive: students’ problem-solving of real-life tasks: understanding the task; using math strategies; processing information; math reasoning
Metacognitive: SRL questionnaire about learning online | Task performance in the online environment was significantly higher in MC guidance condition than in condition without MC guidance on understanding the task, using math strategies, processing information, and math reasoning.
Both conditions improved on the SRL questionnaire.
MC guidance condition showed more reported SRL after intervention than non-MC guidance condition. |
| 18 | Kramarski and Mizrachi [54] | S | 87 seventh graders (from 4 classes) | Computer-supported collaborative learning environment | Word problem-solving | Intervention study with 4 conditions: (1) computer-based environment with MC guidance; (2) computer-based environment without MC guidance; (3) face-to-face environment with MC guidance; (4) face-to-face environment without MC guidance | See Kramarski and Mizrachi [53] | Cognitive: standard test on algebraic knowledge
Cognitive + metacognitive: see Kramarski and Mizrachi [53]
Metacognitive: SRL questionnaire: (1) general part to all conditions: use of problem-solving strategies; (2) specific part only to online conditions: questionnaire about online learning | Online + MC > F2F + MC > online = F2F for all outcome measures (cognitive and metacognitive). Online > F2F for part of the algebraic knowledge test and solving real-life problems, but no difference for SRL. |
| 19 | Maras et al. [55] | S | 40 students with autism (13 yrs); 95 typically developing students (13 yrs) | Computer-supported practice (Math Challenge) | Unspecified | Intervention study with 2 computer-based practice conditions: (1) with MC feedback; (2) without MC feedback | Engage in MC monitoring activities before and after solving each mathematical task (e.g., intentions and judgements of accuracy) and negotiate with the system on the level of difficulty (computer-based)
Feedback condition with MC monitoring support regarding accuracy of answers, goal reminders, and strategy support (computer-based) | Cognitive: performance on math test
Metacognitive: questionnaires on judgement of confidence, intention monitoring, and metacognition | No infect of additional feedback on judgement of confidence and intention monitoring. Feedback condition outperformed nonfeedback condition on math test performance for both types of students. |
| 20 | Roll et al. [56] | S | Study 1: Aleven et al. [57]: pilot study
Study 2: Roll et al. [58]: 60 students
Study 3: Roll et al. [59]: 80 students | Intelligent tutoring system | Algebra and geometry | Intervention study with 2 ITS-based conditions: (1) ITS with MC help tutor; (2) conventional ITS without MC help tutor | Provision of intelligent and adaptive help with respect to students’ MC behavior while working through the math problems. The nature of the MC help is adapted to the level of MC development (computer-based) | Cognitive: math performance
Metacognitive: help-seeking behavior in the learning environment and help-seeking skills in the posttest | Help tutor improved students’ help-seeking behavior when working with the cognitive tutor.
Improved help-seeking behavior did not transfer to a paper-and-pencil evaluation of students’ help-seeking strategies.
There is no improved math learning due to the help tutor. |
| 21 | Roll et al. [60] | S | Study 1: 58 tenth/eleventh graders
Study 2: 67 tenth and eleventh graders | Intelligent tutoring system (Geometry Cognitive Tutor) | Geometry | Intervention study with 2 ITS-based conditions: (1) Geometry Tutor with MC help tutor; (2) Geometry Tutor without MC help tutor | Study 1: see Roll et al. [56]
Study 2: idem as study 1 + additional MC help-seeking instruction and support for self-assessment (computer-based) | See Roll et al. [56] | Study 1 and study 2: help tutor improved students’ help-seeking behavior while learning with the tutor.
Study 2: improved help-seeking skills also transferred to delayed learning of new domain-level content while the help-seeking support was no longer in effect. |
| 22 | Schwonke et al. [61] | S | 60 eighth graders (high and low achievers) | Intelligent tutoring system (Geometry Cognitive Tutor) | Geometry | Intervention study with 2 ITS-based conditions: (1) with MC support; (2) without MC support | Provision of MC cue cards encouraging and helping students to use instructional resources in the learning environment (i.e., 3 hints on “How do I solve the problem?” and 3 hints on “What do I do when I get stuck?”) (teacher-based) | Cognitive: effects on procedural and conceptual knowledge; time needed for learning in the environment (learning efficiency)
Metacognitive: learners’ interactions with the learning environment, i.e., use of the hints (based on log files and gaze data) | Metacognitive condition outperformed only the control condition for low achievers in view of conceptual knowledge. No differences for high achievers or for procedural knowledge. Metacognitive condition improved learning efficiency by reducing the total learning time.
Metacognitive condition outperformed control condition in view of MC skills. |
|
