Table 1: Overview of the retrieved articles on a metacognitively oriented ICT-based learning environment for K-12 mathematics.

No.ArticleSchool levelParticipantsICT-based environmentMath subdomainResearch method and conditionsMetacognitive training/guidance/supportTargeted learning outcomesMain findings

1Baeten et al. [12]K167 last-year kindergarten childrenComputer-supported practiceEarly number senseIntervention 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 skillsMetacognitive 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.
2Elliott and Hall [38]K54 at-risk childrenComputer-supported practice (number farm)Early number senseIntervention 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 achievementComputer-based practice + MC support group outperformed other groups on math achievement.
3Shamir and Lifshitz [39]K77 at-risk childrenEducational e-bookEarly number senseIntervention study with 2 conditions: (1) e-book with MC guidance; (2) e-book without MC guidancePresentation 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).
4Chen and Chiu [40]E80 fifth graders (from 4 classes)Computer-supported collaborative learningGeometryIntervention 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.
5de Kock and Harskamp [41]E390 fifth graders (from 18 classes)Computer-supported practiceWord problem-solvingIntervention 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.
6Dresel and Haugwitz [42]E151 sixth gradersComputer-supported practice (MatheWarp)UnspecifiedIntervention 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.
7Jacobse and Harskamp [43]E49 fifth graders (from 2 classes)Computer-supported practiceWord problem-solvingIntervention 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.
8Lazakidou and Retalis [44]E24 fourth gradersComputer-supported collaborative learningWord problem-solvingCase studySequence 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.
9Okita [45]EStudy 1: 62 children (9–11 yrs) to 40 children
Study 2: 22 children
Computer-supported practiceArithmetic2 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 characterIn 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.
10Teong [46]E40 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 studyProvision 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.
11Kapa [47]S441 eighth graders (high and low achievers)Computer-supported practiceWord problem-solvingIntervention 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 supportProvision 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 problemsThe 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.
12Kapa [48]S231 eighth graders (from 14 classes)Computer-supported practiceWord problem-solvingSee 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.
13Kramarski and Dudai [49]S100 ninth graders (from 3 classes)Computer-supported collaborative learning environmentWord problem-solving and math inquiryIntervention 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.
14Kramarski and Friedman [50]S90 eighth gradersMultimedia environmentGraphingIntervention 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 promptsUnsolicited 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.
15Kramarski and Gutman [51]S65 ninth graders (from 2 classes)Computer-supported practiceAlgebraIntervention study with 2 computer-based practice conditions: (1) practice without MC support; (2) practice with MC supportInstruction 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.
16Kramarski and Hirsch [52]S43 students (13 yrs; from 2 classes)Computer-supported practiceAlgebraIntervention study with 2 computer-based practice conditions: (1) with MC support; (2) without MC supportInstruction 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.
17Kramarski and Mizrachi [53]S43 seventh graders (from 2 classes)Computer-supported collaborative learning environmentWord problem-solvingIntervention study with 2 CSCL conditions: (1) with MC guidance; (2) without MC guidanceInstruction 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.
18Kramarski and Mizrachi [54]S87 seventh graders (from 4 classes)Computer-supported collaborative learning environmentWord problem-solvingIntervention 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 guidanceSee 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.
19Maras et al. [55]S40 students with autism (13 yrs); 95 typically developing students (13 yrs)Computer-supported practice (Math Challenge)UnspecifiedIntervention study with 2 computer-based practice conditions: (1) with MC feedback; (2) without MC feedbackEngage 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.
20Roll et al. [56]SStudy 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 systemAlgebra and geometryIntervention study with 2 ITS-based conditions: (1) ITS with MC help tutor; (2) conventional ITS without MC help tutorProvision 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.
21Roll et al. [60]SStudy 1: 58 tenth/eleventh graders
Study 2: 67 tenth and eleventh graders
Intelligent tutoring system (Geometry Cognitive Tutor)GeometryIntervention study with 2 ITS-based conditions: (1) Geometry Tutor with MC help tutor; (2) Geometry Tutor without MC help tutorStudy 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.
22Schwonke et al. [61]S60 eighth graders (high and low achievers)Intelligent tutoring system (Geometry Cognitive Tutor)GeometryIntervention study with 2 ITS-based conditions: (1) with MC support; (2) without MC supportProvision 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.

Note. In the column “School level,” the abbreviations K, E, and S, respectively, mean kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school levels. In the column “Metacognitive training/guidance/support,” we specify, between brackets, whether the MC training/guidance/support was embedded in the ICT environment itself (computer-based) or not (teacher-based) or divided between both (computer- and teacher-based). Other abbreviations: MC = metacognition/metacognitive; SRL = self-regulation/self-regulatory.