The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact explicit teaching of metacognition had on preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness and accuracy of whole group discussions using virtual simulations. One class of preservice teachers was randomly assigned to the explicit metacognitive teaching group, while the other class was assigned to the information-only group. A total of 40 nontraditional preservice teachers participated in the research study. A pre-, mid-, and post-assessment quasi-experimental design was employed. The independent variables were the two training groups (explicit metacognitive teaching group and information-only group). The dependent variables were preservice teachers’ self-reported metacognitive awareness, the researchers’ metacognitive awareness rubric scores, and metacognitive accuracy. The results revealed that engaging in the virtual simulation experiences improved preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of leading a whole group discussion and that preservice teachers were overconfident in assessing their metacognitive awareness.
Abd-El-KhalickF.AkersonV. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education,31(16), 2161–2184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802563324
2.
AdadanE. (2020). Analyzing the role of metacognitive awareness in preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding of gas behavior in a multirepresentational instruction setting. Journal of Research Science Teaching,57(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1002tea.21589
3.
AsikcanM.SabanA. (2018). Prospective teachers’ metacognitive awareness levels of Reading strategies. Journal of Educational Sciences,13(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v13i1.3310
4.
BalcikanliC. (2011). Metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,9(3), 1309–1332.
5.
Batdal KaradumanG.ErbasA. A. (2017). Investigation of primary school teacher candidates’ metacognitive awareness level. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists,5(4), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2017.68
6.
CicchettiD. V (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment,6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
CraigK.HaleD.GraingerC.StewardM. E. (2020). Evaluating metacognitive self-reports: Systematic review of the value of self-report in metacognitive research. Metacognition and Learning,15(2), 155–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09222-y
9.
DalingerT.ThomasK. B.StansberryS.XiuY. (2020). A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Computers & Education,144, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103696
10.
DawsonM. R.LignugarisK. B. (2017). Meaningful practice: Generalizing foundation teaching skills from TLE TeachLivETM to the classroom. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,40(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416664184
DiekerL. A.RodriguezJ. A.Lignugaris/KraftB.HynesM. C.HughesC. E. (2014). The potential of simulated environments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities. Teacher Education Special Education,37(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413512683
DiekerL. A.HynesM. C.HughesC. E.HardinS.BechtK. (2015). TLE TeachLivETM: Using technology to provide quality professional development in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly,34(3), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400303
15.
DriverM. K.ZimmerK. E.MurphyK. M. (2018). Using mixed reality simulations to prepare preservice special educators for collaboration in inclusive settings. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(1), 57–77. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181153/
16.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist,34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
17.
GencelI. E. (2017) The effect of portfolio assessments on metacognitive skill and on attitudes toward a course. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,17(1), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.1.0378
18.
GrossmanP.ComptonC.IgraD.FonfeldtM.ShahanE.WilliamsonP. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record,111(9), 2055–2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
19.
GundelE.PiroJ. S.StraubC.SmithK. (2019). Self-efficacy in mixed reality simulations: Implications for preservice teacher education. The Teacher Educator,54(3), 244–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1591560
20.
HughesA. J. (2017). Educational complexity and professional development: Teachers’ need for metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology Education,29(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v29i1.a.2
21.
HughesA. J.PartidaE. (2020). Promoting preservice STEM education teachers’ metacognitive awareness: Professional development designed to improve teacher metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology Education, 32(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v32i1.a.1
22.
JangY.LeeH.KimY.MinK. (2020). The relationship between metacognitive ability and metacognitive accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09232-w
23.
KallioH.VirtaK.KallioM.VirtaA.HjardemaalF. R.SandvenJ. (2017). The utility of the metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers among in-service teachers. Journal of Education and Learning,6(4), 1927–5269. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p78
24.
KistnerS.RakoczyK.OttoB.EwijkC.ButtnerG.KliemeE. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3
25.
KozikogluI. (2019). Investigating critical thinking in prospective teachers: Metacognitive skills, problem solving skills and academic self-efficacy. Journal of Social Studies Education Research,10(2), 111–130.
26.
KramarskiB.KohenZ. (2017). Promoting preservice teachers’ dual self-regulation roles as learners and as teachers: Effects of generic vs. specific prompts. Metacognition and Learning,12(2), 157–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9164-8
27.
KramarskiB.MichalskyT. (2009a). Three metacognitive approaches to training preservice teachers in different learning phases of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Research and Evaluation,15(5), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610903444550
28.
KramarskiB.MichalskyT. (2009b). Investigating preservice teachers’ professional growth in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology,101(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013101
LubinI. A.GeX. (2012). Investigating the influences of a LEAPS model on preservice teachers’ problem solving, metacognition, and motivation in an educational technology course. Education Technology Research Development,60(2), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9224-3
31.
LukeS. E.FordD. J.VaughnS. M.Fulchini-ScruggsA. (2021a). An online field experience using mixed reality virtual simulation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1962452
32.
LukeS. E.FordD. J.VaughnS. M.Fulchini-ScruggsA. (2021b). Using mixed reality simulation and roleplay to develop preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,29(3), 389–413. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/219543
33.
MokM. M. C.LungC. L.ChengD. P. W.CheungR. H. P.NgM. L. (2006). Self-assessment in higher education: Experience in using a metacognitive approach in five case studies. Assessment & Evaluation in High Education,31(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679100
34.
NegrettiR.KuteevaM. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2 academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing,20(2), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.002
35.
OzturkM. (2021). An embedded mixed method study on teaching algebraic expressions using metacognition-based training. Thinking Skills and Creativity,39, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100787
36.
PankowskiJ.WalkerJ. T. (2016). Using simulation to support novice teachers’ classroom management skills: Comparing traditional and alternative certification groups. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 11(1), 3–20. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1100871
37.
PasE. T.JohnsonS. R.LarsonK. E.BrandenburgL.ChurchR.BradshawC. P. (2016). Reducing behavior problems among students with autism spectrum disorder: Coaching teachers in a mixed-reality setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,46(12), 3640–3652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2898-y
38.
PajoB. (2018). Introduction to research methods: A hands-on approach. Sage.
39.
RaffaeleC. (2019, October). Teacher as learner: The missing ingredient for integrating self-regulated learning in the classroom?AERA SSRL SIG Times Magazine,2(8), 2. https://ssrlsig.org/
SiegelM. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between US: Group metacognition during problem solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology,21(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9326-z
Vince GarlandK. M.HoldenK.GarlandD. P. (2016). Individualized clinical coaching in the TLE TeachLivE lab: Enhancing fidelity of implementation of system of least prompts among novice teachers of students with autism. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,39(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415600769
