THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COGNITIVE AND METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES USED BY 8TH GRADE STUDENTS TO SOLVE MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS ON “PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND RESPIRATION”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.3058Keywords:
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, multiple-choice questions, photosynthesis and respirationAbstract
The primary aim of this paper is to identify the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by 8th grade students for solving multiple-choice questions on “Photosynthesis and Respiration” which is among the main subjects of Biology and to compare these strategies according to the type of the school (public school- private school), the level overall grade point averages and the status of answering questions correctly or incorrectly. The study was designed as a qualitative case study. The participants of the study included 8 eighth-grade students in total, who were studying in a private, and in a public school located in the province of Kars. The students who participated in the study were asked to answer the multiple-choice questions on “Photosynthesis and Respiration” during thinking-aloud sessions. To identify whether the strategies used by students in the problem-solving process were cognitive or metacognitive, semi-structured interviews focused on students’ purposes to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies were conducted with students directly after they solve each multiple-choice question. The data collected from the observation records of the processes of multiple-choice question solving, and semi-structured interviews were analysed. The studied data were analysed. The results of the study revealed that 8th grade students who were studying in a private school, whose overall grade point averages was at “Very Good” level, and who answered the multiple-choice questions correctly used a number of cognitive and metacognitive strategies while solving these questions. On the other hand, the students who were studying in a public school, whose overall grade point averages was at “Average” and “Poor” levels , and who answered the questions incorrectly, used a limited range of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Article visualizations:
References
Adelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and development of abstract categories in programming languages. Memory and Cognition, 9: 422-433. doi: 10.3758/BF03197568.
Anderson, J., Greeno, J., Kline, P., & Neves, D. (1981). Acquisition of problem solving skill. In J.R. Anderson (Ed.). Cognitive skills and their acquisition, Hillsdale, JH: Erlbaum, pp 313-230.
Baki, A., Karatas, I., & Guven, B. (2002). Assessment of Problem-Solving Skills through Clinical Interview Method. V. (Paper Presented) National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, METU, Ankara.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from text by means of informed, self-control training, Urbana: University of Illinois.
Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., & Connell, M. L. (1988). Metacognition: On the importance of understanding what you are doing. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Edward (Eds.), Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 93-114.
Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Sciences, 5: 121-152. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2.
Clement, J. J. (1991). Constructivism in the classroom: a review of transforming children’s mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5): 422-428. doi: 10.2307/749189.
Çaliskan, S., Selcuk Sezgin, G., & Erol M. (2006). Evaluation of Problem Solving Behaviours of Physics Teacher Candidates. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30: 73-81. doi: 10.3758/BF03197568.
Davidson, J. E., Deuser, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The role of metacognition in problem solving. In J. Metcalf and A.P. Shimamura (Eds.), Boston, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 207-226.
Dhillon, A. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82(3): 379-405. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<379::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-9.
Diken, E. H. (2014). 9. Identification of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by 9th grade high school students while solving multiple choice science questions. PhD Thesis, Gazi University.
Diken, E. H., & Yuruk, N. (2019). Determining Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies used by 9th Grade Students Before, while and After Solving Multiple-Choice Science Questions. Journal of the Human and Social Sciences Researches, 8(2): 1071-1099. doi: 10.15869/itobiad.512341.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.). The nature of intelligence, pp. 231-235, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognitive and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34: 906-911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
Finegold, M., & Mass, R. (1985). Differences in the processes of solving physics problems between good physics problem solvers and poor physics problem solvers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3: 59-67. doi: 10.1080/0263514850030107.
Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K., Jr. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16: 163-176. doi: doi.org/10.2307/748391.
Gick, M. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(2): 99-120. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_6.
Goos, M. (2002). Understanding metacognitive failure. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3): 283-302. doi: 10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00130-X.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2000). A money problem: a source of insight into problem solving action. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 13: 1-21. doi: 10.1016/B978-012498360-1/50006-4.
Gunstone, R. F., & Mitchell, I. J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change, In J.J Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee and J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: a human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 133-163.
Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: a comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87: 18-32. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.18.
Karacam, S. (2009). Identification of students’ conceptual understanding of force and motion concepts and the cognitive and metacognitive strategies they use to answer different types of questions. PhD Thesis, Gazi University.
Karataş, I., & Guven, B. (2003). Methods used in the evaluation of problem-solving behaviors: The potential of clinic review. Ilkögretim-Online, 2(2): 2-9.
Lesh, R., & Akerstrom, M. (1982). Applied problem solving: Priorities for mathematics education research. In F.K. Lester and J. Garofalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute, pp. 117-129
Livingstone, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: an overview. http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/CEP564/Metacog.html. Accessed 16 February, 2018.
Malone, L. K. (2006). A comparative study of the cognitive and metacognitive differences between modeling and non-modeling high school physics students. PhD Thesis, University of Carnegie Mellon.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Mathematical Problem solving. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition. Greenwich, Connecticut: Info Age Publishing, pp. 69-92.
McDermott, J., & Larkin, J. H. (1978). Re-representing textbook physics problems. In Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference, the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
MoNE (2018). Ministry of National Education Science Course Curriculum. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/201812312311937-fen%20programı2018.pdf. Accessed 24 February, 2020.
MoNe (2019). Ministry of National Education Regulation on Secondary Education Institutions. http://mevzuat.gov.tr/Dosyalar/7.5.19912.pdf. Accessed 24 February, 2020.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 234-237.
Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R.O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 83: 389-405. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02449.x
Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: a study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9(1): 1-44. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0901_1.
Savelsbergh, E. R., de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Forms of problem representation in physics. The Netherlands: University of Twente, pp. 108-122.
Simon, D. P., & Simon. H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: what develops? Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 325-348.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In Schoenfeld, A. H. (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 189-215.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: MacMillan, pp. 334-370.
Singh, C. (2002). When physical intuition fails? American Journal of Physics, 70: 1103–1109. doi: 10.1119/1.1512659
Silver, E. A. (1982). Knowledge organization and mathematical problem solving. In F.K. Lester and J. Garofalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: issues in research. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute, pp. 15-25.
Tuminaro J., & Redish E. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2): 101-123. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020101
Tutar, I., Demir, Y., & Diken, E. H. (2020). Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Used by the 12th Grade Students While Solving Biology Questions. Trakya Journal of Education, 10(2): 460-476. doi: 10.24315/tred.613276
Wilson, J., & Clark, D., (2002). Monitoring mathematical metacognition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, pp. 189-197.
Wilson, J. W., Fernandez, M. L., & Hadaway, N. (1993). Mathematical problem solving. In P.S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics New York: Macmillian, pp. 57-78.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. G., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(4): 237-244. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237
Yildirim, A., & Simsek H. (2018). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences. Ankara: Seckin Yayınevi, pp. 278-290.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed,). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 327-330.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
