The main goal of the present study is to investigate empirically the effects of Asynchronic Learning Network (ALN) embedded within metacognitive instruction (META) on two components of metacognitive awareness: Knowledge about Cognition (KC) and Regulation of Cognition (RC). Participants were 202 tenth grade students: 102 students who studied under the ALN+META instructional method, and 100 students who studied under Face-to-Face interaction (F2F) embedded within META. Results indicated that ALN+META students significantly outperformed their F2F+META counterparts on both KC and RC. These results were strengthened by a qualitative analysis of RC under the different instructional methods. The improvement of RC behavior in the ALN+META written discourse clearly indicates the crucial effects of RC on the progress and success of the inquiry processes. ALN+META is a promising learning environment, carrying a great potential for enhancing metacognitive awareness among students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy.New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AnfaraV. A.BrownK. M., & ManginoT. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28–38.
3.
AzevedoR. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.
4.
BatesA. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education.London: Routledge.
5.
BellR. L.BlairL. M.CrawfordB. A., & LedermanN. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of science apprenticeship programme on high school students' understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.
6.
BirenbaumM., & AmdurL. (1999). Reflective active learning in a graduate course on assessment. Higher Education Research and Development, 18, 201–218.
7.
BrownA. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In WeinertF. E. & KluweR. H. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
CheungW. S., & HewK. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving process among pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion and reflection log learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197–227.
9.
CollinsK. M.PalincsarA. S., & MagnussonS. J. (2005). Science for all: A discursive analysis examining teacher support of student thinking in inclusive classrooms. In YerrickR. K. & RothW. M. (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 199–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
10.
CrawfordB. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.
11.
DeCorteE. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practise: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249–266.
12.
FlavellJ. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In ResnickL. (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
GarnerR., & AlexanderP. A. (1989). Metacogniton: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–148.
14.
GarrisonD. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In BourneJ. & MooreJ. C. (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (Part Four, pp. 47–58). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
15.
GarrisonD. R., & AndersonT. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.London: Routledge/Falmer.
16.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT., & ArcherW. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
17.
GeorgiadesP. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365–383.
18.
GoldmanS., & WileyJ. (2002, September). Science literacy: The centrality of critical reading. Paper presented at the international conference on ontological, epistemo-logical, linguistic, and pedagogical considerations of language and science literacy: Empowering research and informing instruction, Victoria, BC, Canada.
19.
GravillJ. I.CompeauD. R., & MarcolinB. L. (2002). Metacognition and IT: The influence of self-efficacy and self-awareness. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems Proceedings (pp. 1055–1064). Retrieved March 30 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://melody.syr.edu/hci/amcis02_minitrack/CR/Gravill.pdf.
20.
HandB., & PrainV. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86, 737–755.
21.
Israel Ministry of Education. (1991). Syllabus of biological studies (7th-12th grade) (3rd ed.). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education Curriculum Center (in Hebrew).
22.
JacobsJ. E., & ParisS. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.
23.
JoyE. H., & GarciaF. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1). Retrieved March 14, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue1/joygarcia.htm.
24.
KahleJ. B., & MeeceJ. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In GabelD. L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning.New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
25.
KenwayJ., & GoughA. (1998). Gender and science education in schools: A review “With attitude.”Studies in Science Education, 31, 1–30.
26.
KeselmanA. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921.
27.
KeysC., & BryanL. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.
28.
KramarskiB., & MevarechZ. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.
29.
KramarskiB.MevarechZ. R., & AramiM. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
30.
LohB.ReiserB. J.RadinskyJ.EdelsonD. C.GomezL. M., & MarshallS. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practises: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In CrowleyK.SchunnC. & OkadaT. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 279–323). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
LunettaV. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In FraserJ. B. & TobinK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Part One, pp. 249–262). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32.
MasonR. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning.London: Kogan Page.
33.
MetcalfeJ., & ShimamuraA. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
MevarechZ. R., & KramarskiB. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.
35.
MeyerK. (2003). Face-to-Face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
36.
MinstrellJ., & Van ZeeE. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science.Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
37.
MittlefehldtS., & GrotzerT. A. (2003, March). Using metacognition to facilitate the transfer of causal models in learning density and pressure. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
38.
MuirheadB. (2004). Contemporary online education challenges. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(10), 65–69.
39.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41.
NonneckeB., & PreeceJ. (2001, August). Why lurkers lurk? Paper presented at the AMCIS conference, Boston, MA.
42.
PidgeonN. (1996). Grounded theory: Theoretical background. In RichardsonJ. T. R. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods (pp. 75–85). Leicester: The British Psychological Society Books.
43.
QuintanaC.ZhangX., & KrajcikJ. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of on-line inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.
44.
RothW. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories.Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45.
SalmonG. (2002). Mirror, mirror, on my screen … Exploring online reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 379–391.
46.
SchneiderR. M.KrajcikJ., & BlumenfeldP. (2005). Enacting reform-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.
SchwabJ. J. (1963). Biology teachers' handbook.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
49.
ShuteV. J.GlaserR., & RaghavanK. (1989). Inference and discovery in an exploratory laboratory. In AckermanP. L.SternbergR. J., & GlaserR. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 279–326). New York: W. H. Freeman.
50.
SlavinR. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
51.
TsaiC-C. (2005). Preferences toward Internet-based learning environments: High school students' perspectives for science learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 203–213.
52.
WenL. M. C.TsaiC-C.LinH-M., & ChuangS-C. (2004). Cognitive-metacognitive and content-technical aspects of constructivist Internet-based learning environments: A LISREL analysis. Computers and Education, 43, 237–248.
53.
WittrockM. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
54.
WhiteB.Y., & FrederiksenJ. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and meta-cognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
55.
YoreL. D., & TreagustD. F. (2005). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—Empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.
56.
ZionM.MichalskyT., & MevarechZ. R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 959–983.
