learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Serdar Çiftci and Mehmet Akif Ocak
The results showed that the use of MMT resulted in supporting student awareness and monitoring of
thinking during complex tasks. Martinez (2010) found that similar metacognitive tools provided
common vocabulary to make students’ thinking explicit to teachers and other students and providing a
generic but powerful process that could be used by students for other learning tasks. Hartman (2001)
noted that metacognition is especially important because it affects comprehension and retention of
what is learned, in addition to affecting learning efficiency, critical thinking and problem solving.
In web based learning environments, computers and the Internet might lead to distraction of attention.
In this regard, the MMT was observed to make a positive impact on students. In addition, to make the
metacognitive activities in the students’ mind concrete was one of the best advantages provided by
MMT. The visual development of the tool and some of the sample plans for students as a
presentation were seen as limitation. Further research might concentrate on the improvement of the
tool. To present a sample plan to students is a condition to be investigated in terms of limiting the
students’ own plan activities. As limitations of the study, there was a limitation on generalizing the
study result because of the number of participants. Also, the MMT was limited to principles of
metacognition: planning, monitoring, self-evaluation and revision. Other principles about
metacognition might be included for further research.
References
American Psychological Association (1997). Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School
Reform & Redesign. Retrieved on 15/08/2011, from http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learnercentered.pdf
Anderson, N.J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, April
2002, 3-4.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I. and Cromley, J. C. (2008). Why is externally regulated
learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?, Educational Technology Research
and Development, 56, 45–72.
Carrier, C., Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Adapting courseware to accommodate individual differences. In D. Jonassen
(Ed.), Instructional desings for microcomputer courseware. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collis, B. and Meeuwsen, E. (1999) Learning to learn in a WWW-based environment, In D. French, C. Hale, C.
Johnson and G. Farr, (Eds.), Internet based learning: Higher education and industry, Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing, pp. 25-46.
Flavell, J. H. (1976), Metacognitive aspects of problem solving, In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 231-235.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Henning, E. (2003). ‘I click, therefore I am (not)’: Is cognition ‘distributed’ or is it ‘contained’ in borderless
eLearning programmes? International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 303-317.
Jones, M. G., Farquhar, J. D. and Surry, D. W. (1995). Using metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for
Computer-based learning, Educational Technology & Society, 35(4). 12-22.
Pifarre, M. and Cobos, R. (2009), “Evaluation of the development of metacognitive knowledge supported by the
knowcat system”, Education Tech Research Dev, 57, 787-799.
Scraw, G. and Brooks, D. W. (1998), Helping Students Self-Regulate in Math and Sciences Courses:Improving
the Will and the Skill, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, Retrieved on 08/06/2011, from
http://dwb.unl.edu/Chau/SR/Self_Reg.html.
Simons, P. R. J. (1996). Metacognition. In: E. DeCorte and F. E. Weinert, Editors, International encyclopedia of
developmental and instructional psychology, Pergamon Press, Kidlington, pp. 436–441.
Subaşı, G. (2000), “Etkili Öğrenme: Öğrenme Stratejileri”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 146, Retrieved on 02/06/2011, from
http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/146/subasi.htm.
Thomas, G. P. and McRobbie, C.J., 2001, Using a metaphor for learning to improve students metacognition in
the chemistry classroom, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222-259.
Tobias, S., Everson, H. and Laitusis, V. (1999). Towards a performance based measure of metacognitive
knowledge monitoring: Relationships with self-reports and behavior ratings. Proceedings from the American
Educational Research Association proceedings on Metacognitive Monitoring in Montreal, Canada.
Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://www.fordham.edu/gse/faculty/tobias/aera99.html
Tsai, M. J. (2009). The Model of Strategic eLearning: Understanding and Evaluating Student eLearning from
Metacognitive Perspectives, Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 34-48.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
133