Classrooms are complex systems, with dynamic interactions of different kinds among their composing varied elements. Such complex interactions lead to the system's unpredictable emergent learning behaviors. To support teachers’ lesson planning and monitoring in the complex environment of classrooms, the present article examines the core metacognitive skills of goal-directed lesson planning and monitoring and presents a novel tool for scaffolding teachers’ self-regulated instruction by increasing their awareness of goals, activities, discrepancy cues, and instructional time management. The chapter describes a qualitative pilot study with two experienced teachers working in a secondary school and a particular teachers’ professional development program. It investigates their utilization of this metacognitive scaffolding tool that has been previously validated as promoting ninth graders’ metacognitive awareness and adapted for teachers’ use. This Lesson Planning-Monitoring Scaffold (LPMS) supported teachers’ lesson planning (including activities sequences, learning settings, and time management), monitoring of plans’ enactment, and postlesson as well as yearly reflections on lessons’ goal achievement and tool's support. The rationale and structure of this metacognitive tool are described, and teachers’ use of the tool is analyzed. Finally, implications for future research on the LPMS and its uses are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsI., & ReissM. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055.
2.
AllenJ. F., HendlerJ., & TateA. (1990). Readings in planning. San Francisco, CA: Kaufman.
3.
AzevedoR. (2007). Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition Learning, 2, 57–65.
4.
AzevedoR., GuthrieJ. T., & SeibertD. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1/2), 87–111.
5.
BannertM., & MengelkampfC. (2007). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does verbalization method affect learning?Metacognition Learning, 3, 39–58.
6.
BellP., DavisE. A., & LinnM. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL ‘95: Bloomington, IN) (pp. 14–21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BellandB. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In SpectorJ.M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505–518). New York, NY: Springer.
8.
BertholdK., NucklesM., & RenklA. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.
9.
BråtenI., & SamuelstuenM. S. (2007). Measuring strategic processing: Comparing task-specific self-reports to traces. Metacognition Learning, 2(1), 1–20.
10.
ButlerD. L., & WinneP. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
11.
CarverC. S., & ScheierM. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.
12.
ChandlerP., & SwellerJ. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.
13.
ChiuM. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 415–463.
14.
DavisE. A., & LinnM. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
15.
DuncheonJ. C., & TierneyW. G. (2013). Changing conceptions of time: Implications for educational research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 236–272.
16.
EilamB. (2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model. Instructional Science, 40(2), 213–239.
17.
EilamB., & AharonI. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 304–334.
18.
EilamB., & PoyasY. (2006). Promoting awareness of the characteristics of classrooms’ complexity: A course curriculum in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 337–351.
19.
EilamB., & ReiterS. (2014). Long-term independent self-regulation of biology learning using the standard junior high school science curriculum. Science Education, 98(4), 705–737.
20.
FeldonD. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123–137.
21.
GauvainM., & RogoffB. (1989). Collaborative problem solving and children's planning skills. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 139–151.
22.
GeX., ChenC. H., & DavisK. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248.
23.
GollwitzerP. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In GollwitzerP.M., & BarghJ. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287–312). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
HackerD. J. (1998). Metacognition: Definitions and empirical foundations. In HackerD.J., DunloskyJ., & GraesserA.C. (Eds.). Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
JacobsonM. J., KapurM., & ReimannP. (2014). Toward a complex systems meta-theory of learning as an emergent phenomenon: Beyond the cognitive versus situative debate. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, … L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 1, pp. 362–369). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
26.
JordanR. C., Ruibal-VillasenorM., Hmelo-SilverC. E., & EtkinaE. (2011). Laboratory materials: Affordances or constraints?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1010–1025.
27.
KapaE. (2007). Transfer from structured to open-ended problem solving in a computerized metacognitive environment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 688–707.
28.
ManloveS., & LazonderA. (2004, July). Self-regulation and collaboration in a discovery learning environment. Paper presented at the first meeting of the EARLI-SIG on Metacognition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
29.
ManloveS., LazonderA., & de JongT. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141–155.
30.
MolenaarI., van BoxtelC. A. M., & SleegersP. J. C. (2011). Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science, 39, 785–803.
31.
SchrawG. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
32.
SchrawG., CrippenK. J., & HartleyK. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
33.
VeenmanM. V. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition. In ZoharA., & DoriY.J. (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 21–36). New York, NY: Springer.
34.
VeenmanM. V. J., PrinsF. J., & ElshoutJ. J. (2002). Initial indicative learning in complex computer simulated environment: The role of metacognitive skills and intellectual ability. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 327–341.
35.
WhiteB., & FrederiksenJ. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
36.
WinneP. H. (1995). Self-regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 223–228.
37.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In BoekaertsM., PintrichP.R., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–35). San Diego, CA: Academic.
38.
ZimmermanB. J., GreenbergD., & WeinsteinC. E. (1994). Self-regulating academic study time: A strategic approach. In SchunkD.H., & ZimmermanB.J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 181–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
