## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

STUDENTS IN JORDAN

by Ibrahim Mohammad Ali Jbeili

September 2003

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

1

Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures List of Appendices Acknowledgements Abstrak Abstract

vii ix

i

x xi xiii xvi

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Statement of the Problem 1.2 Statement of the Problem 1.3 Research Questions 1.4 Hypotheses 1.5 The Theoretical Framework 1.6 Significance of the Study 1.7 Operational Definitions LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Objectivist Views Regarding the Learning/Teaching of Mathematics 2.2.1 Behaviorism and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics 2.2.2 Gagne and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics 2.2.3 Landa and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics 2.2.4 Scandura and the Learning/Teaching of 2.3 Mathematics Constructivist Views Regarding the Learning/Teaching of Mathematics 2.3.1 Nature of the Learning Process and Construction of Knowledge 2.3.2 Piaget and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics 2.3.3 Vygotsky and the Learning / Teaching of

Mathematics

1 1 9 15 16 17 19 21 24 24 25 25 27 29

Chapter Two

30 34 34 38 40 41

**2.3.4 Bruner and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics
**

2

2.4

Metacognitive Strategies and the Construction of Knowledge 2.4.1 Regulation of Cognition 2.4.2 Metacognitive Strategies and Age 2.4.3 Metacognitive Scaffolding Cooperative Learning and Learning Mathematics with Understanding 2.5.1 Theoretical Perspective on Cooperative Learning 2.5.2 Elements of Cooperative Learning 2.5.3 Teacher’s Role in Cooperative Learning Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Learning Mathematics with Understanding 2.6.1 Conceptual Understanding 2.6.2 Procedural Fluency 2.6.3 Strategic Competence 2.6.4 Adaptive Reasoning 2.6.5 Productive Disposition Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Mathematical Reasoning Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Real-Life Problem Solving Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Motivation

43 45 47 48 52 53 56 57 60

2.5

2.6

2.7 2.8 2.9

63 65 67 70 72 74 77 80

Chapter Three

METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Introduction Population and Sample Experimental Conditions Research Design Instructional Materials and Instruments 3.5.1 Instructional materials 3.5.1.1 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 3.5.1.2 Unit The Metacognitive Questions

83 83 83 84 86 88 88 88 89 90 90 92 96

**Cards 3.5.2 Instruments 3.5.2.1 The Mathematics Achievement 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.3
**

3

Test The Scoring of Mathematics Achievement Test The Metacognitive Knowledge

3.6

Questionnaire 3.5.3 Materials and Instruments Validity 3.5.4 Instruments Reliability Procedures 3.6.1 The Pilot Study 3.6.2 The Formal Study 3.6.3 Groups’ Equivalence 3.6.4 Teachers’ Training 3.6.5 Implementation of the Study

96 98 98 99 99 100 100 102

3.6.5.1

The Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding (CLMS) Method

102

3.6.5.2

The Cooperative Learning (CL)

106 107 108 110 110 110 111 112 113 116 116 117 117 121 121 126 127 133 133 139 139

3.7

Method 3.6.5.3 The Traditional (T) Method 3.6.5.4 Implementation Fidelity Data Analysis Procedure and Method 3.7.1 The pre-Experimental Study Findings 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 Analysis The Experimental Study Findings Analysis Justifications for using two-way MANCOVA / MANOVA Pearson’s Correlation Assumptions for MANOVA / MANCOVA

Chapter Four

RESULTS 4.1 4.2 4.3 Introduction The pre-Experimental Study Results 4.2.1 Statistical Data Analysis The Experimental Study Results 4.31 Testing of Hypothesis 1 4.3.2 Summary of Testing Hypothesis 1 (CLMS > CL

> T)

**4.3.3 Testing of Hypotheses 2 4.3.4 Summary of Testing Hypothesis 2 (CLMSH
**

>CLH >TH)

**4.3.5 Testing of Hypotheses 3 4.3.6 Summary of Testing Hypothesis 3 (CLMSL >
**

CLL> TL)

4.3.7 Testing of Hypotheses 4

4

3.3.3 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Metacognitive Knowledge 5.4.3.2.4 5.9 Summary of Findings to Research Questions 146 1–4 Chapter Five DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.3.3 5.4 5.2 Performance of High-Ability Students Taught Via CLMS 150 150 152 152 155 160 163 164 167 168 170 171 173 176 178 180 182 Performance of High-Ability Students Taught Via CL Performance of Low-Ability Students Taught Via CLMS Performance of Low-Ability Students Taught Via CL Performance of Low-Ability Students Taught Via T 5.6 5.3 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance.5 5. and Metacognitive Knowledge Based on Ability Levels 5.8 Summary of Testing Hypotheses 4 (There are interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels) 145 4.2.5 5.2 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance.3.1 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance 5.2.8 Interaction Effects Summary and Conclusions Implications for Educators Implications for Future Research Limitations of the Study 5 .1 5. and Metacognitive Knowledge 5.7 5. Mathematical Reasoning.2 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematical Reasoning 5.1 Introduction 5.3.3. Mathematical Reasoning.

References 183 Appendices 199 6 .

standard deviations.4 122 124 4.1 4.10 Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) 7 136 .4 4. by the groups Summary of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) pre-MP and pre-MR results and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results. adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable for low-ability students by the instructional method Page 85 86 113 115 118 120 4.3 3. adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable by the instructional method Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons Means. and MK) Means and standard deviations on each dependent variable (pre-MP and pre-MR). Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between high-ability students across the three groups Means.9 131 134 4. Means.List of Tables Table 3.2 3.6 125 128 4. standard deviations. standard deviations.7 130 4. MR. adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable for high-ability students by the instructional method Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results of comparing high-ability students across the three groups.5 4.1 3.3 4. and MK) Pearson’s correlation among the covariates (pre-MP and pre-MR) and the dependent variables (MP.8 4. MR.2 Mechanisms for the Three Groups Research Design Pearson’s correlation among the three dependent variables (MP.

11 4.results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results of comparing low-ability students across the three groups. standard deviations.12 Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between low-ability students across the three groups Means. 4. adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable by the interaction between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability) Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the interaction effect and follow-up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results across the three groups. 137 140 4.13 142 8 .

List of Figures Figure 4.1 4.2 4.3 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability levels on MP Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability levels on MR Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability levels on MK Page 143 144 145 9 .

List of Appendices Appendix Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Metacognitive Questions Cards Mathematics Achievement Test Distribution of Scores across the Test Items Scoring Rubric Page 200 206 212 213 214 218 Metacognitive Knowledge Questionnaire and Scoring Key Permission of Conducting Research in the First Public Educational Directorate Schools under the Jordan Ministry of Education Permission of Conducting Research in Irbid Governorate Schools under the First Public Educational Directorate Appendix G 220 10 .

teachers. My deepest thanks also go to my co-supervisor Associate Professor Dr. support. I would also like to express my particular thanks to the faculty and administrative staff of the Center for Instructional Technology and Multimedia. my heartfelt thanks go to my thesis major supervisor. Wan Mohd Fauzy for his invaluable assistance. My profound gratitude goes to the Director of the Educational Development and Research Department. My thanks also go to the administrative staff of the Institute of Post-graduate Studies. and students of the primary schools which served as research sites: AlMuthana bin Harethah School. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the principals. Huthaifa bin Alyaman School. Most Gracious. Associate Professor Dr. tutelage. University of Science Malaysia. continual and unwavering encouragements. for their assistance and support. and advice and support. Jordan Ministry of Education and the Director of First Public Educational Directorate in Irbid Governorate for their assistance. I also thank Allah for providing me with a supportive family and supportive colleagues and friends during my graduate studies. patience. 11 . First of all. and Abd Arrahman Alhalholi School. for his warm personality. I would like to express my appreciation to all the individuals without whom the completion of this thesis would not be possible. who provided facilities. Most Merciful I am grateful for all the bounties that Allah has showered on me which enabled me complete this doctoral thesis.Acknowledgements In the name of Allah. USM. Merza bin Abbas. and perseverance in guiding me through the entire research and thesis-writing process. IPS.

I thank Allah for having a very understanding and loving wife. prayers and confidence. my affectionate thanks go to my family for their unfailing love. my brothers and sisters. Jordan National Center for Educational Research and Development who provided valuable documents.I am grateful to my colleagues. I would like to express my gratitude to my father and my brothers who financially supported me during my graduate studies and patiently waited for me to finish my study. may Allah reward you for your patience and prayers before and during my graduate studies. My gratitude also goes to the administrative staff of the University of Science Malaysia’s Library for their patience and assistance. University of Georgia. “May Allah reward and bless all of my family members”. support. Roger Johnson. Marjorie Montague. University of Miami. Words are inadequate to express my gratitude for their sacrifice. and Aree in Center for Instructional Technology and Multimedia for their friendship over the past few years and the immense help during my research process. University of Minnesota. Sharifa. Khattab Abu Libdeh. Ibrahim Mohammad Ali Jbeili 12 . Oi. and patience and I love them with all my heart. My acknowledgement is also extended to Dr. Sayed Anwar. Jeremy Kilpatrick. and Dr. continual understanding. sacrifice. and suggestions throughout my thesis-writing. David Johnson and Dr. and selfless support: My parents. Dr. Dr. and my wife and my mother in-law. Last but not least. Husaini. articles. Dr. My mother. Dr. She has given me tremendous support and continuous encouragement during my thesis-writing. Zainal.

(b) pembelajaran kooperatif tanpa perancahan metakognisi (CL). Pembolehubah bersandar ialah skor-skor di dalam MP. Skor-skor MP. 240 pelajar lelaki di dalam kelas tahun lima dari tiga buah sekolah rendah telah dipilih secara rawak. menyelidiki Penyelidikan ini turut mengkaji kesan pembelajaran kooperatif berserta perancahan metakognisi terhadap skor-skor MP. dan (c) pengetahuan metakognisi (MK) di kalangan pelajar tahun lima di Jordan. dan MK di kalangan pelajar berpencapaian tinggi dan rendah. dan (c) pengajaran tradisional (T). 13 . iaitu dua kelas dari setiap sekolah. iaitu Pencapaian Tinggi dan Pencapaian Rendah. Reka bentuk eksperimen kuasi yang menggunakan reka bentuk factorial 3 x 2 telah digunakan dalam kajian ini. (b) taakulan matematik (MR). iaitu (a) pembelajaran kooperatif berserta perancahan metakognisi (CLMS).ABSTRAK Kesan Perancahan Metakognisi dan Pembelajaran Kooperatif Terhadap Prestasi Matematik dan Taakulan Matematik Di Kalangan Pelajar Tahun Lima di Jordan Tujuan penyelidikan ini ialah mengkaji kesan pembelajaran kooperatif berserta perancahan metakognisi terhadap (a) prestasi matematik (MP). iaitu kaedah pengajaran tanpa pembelajaran kooperatif atau perancahan metakognisi. Faktor pertama ialah tiga paras kaedah pengajaran. Faktor kedua ialah pencapaian pelajar. MR. MR. dan MK. Tiga sekolah rendah lelaki telah dipilih secara rawak dari sekumpulan empat puluh empat sekolah rendah yang mengajar matematik di dalam kelas-kelas heterogenus di mana pelajar tidak dikumpulkan atau ditindik mengikut keupayaan. and MK diukur melalui ujian pencapaian matematik dan soalselidik pengetahuan metakognisi. MR.

MR dan MK. Pelajar pencapaian tinggi di dalam kumpulan CL pula menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan berbanding pelajar pencapaian tinggi kumpulan T dalam skor-skor MP. serta prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan dari kumpulan CL dalam skor-skor MR dan MK. Tumpuan kajian ini ialah pada unit “Penambahan dan Penolakan Pecahan” yang diajar di semua kelas selama 14 sesi pada penghujung semester pertama pada tahun akademik 2002 / 2003. iaitu MP. Dapatan kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa pelajar kumpulan CLMS menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan dari kumpulan CL yang seterusnya menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan dari kumpulan T di dalam semua skor. MR dan MK. Ahli-ahli kumpulan CL juga terdiri dari dua pelajar pencapaian tinggi dan dua pencapaian rendah dan belajar secara kooperatif setelah mendengar pengenalan dari guru. pembelajaran pelajar dibantu oleh perancahan oleh guru. MR dan MK . Dalam kaedah kooperatif ini. Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa pelajar pencapaian rendah di dalam kumpulan CLMS menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang 14 .Satu ujian pra matematik telah ditadbirkan dan dua bulan sebelum kajian dimulakan kelas-kelas yang terlibat telah diperkenalkan dengan kaedah-kaedah CLMS and CL dan melaksanakan unit-unit latihan yang disediakan. Pelajar di dalam kumpulan kaedah T diajar secara lazimnya dan menyelesaikan masalah secara individu. Juga pelajar pencapaian tinggi di dalam kumpulan CLMS menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan dari kumpulan T dalam skor-skor MP. oleh kad-kad soalan metakognisi dan oleh interaksi sesama pelajar. Setiap kumpulan kooperatif CLMS terdiri dari dua pelajar pencapaian tinggi dan dua pelajar pencapaian rendah dan setelah mendengar pengenalan dari guru belajar secara kooperatif dan menggunakan kad-kad soalan metakognisi untuk memandu kerja-kerja serta latihan-latihan menyelesaikan masalah matematik yang disediakan.

dan MK.berbeza secara signifikan berbanding pelajar pencapaian rendah di dalam kumpulan CL dan kumpulan T dalam skor-skor MP. Pelajar pencapaian rendah di dalam kumpulan CL juga menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan berbanding pelajar pencapaian rendah kumpulan T dalam skor-skor MR dan MK. Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan kesan-kesan interaksi yang signifikan dalam kumpulan CLMS di antara pencapaian pelajar dan skor-skor dalam MR dan MK dengan pelajar pencapaian rendah mendapatkan manfaat yang lebih dari kaedah yang digunakan. ABSTRACT 15 . MR.

240 male students who studied in six fifth-grade classrooms were randomly selected from the three primary schools i. The study further investigated the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning on high-ability and low-ability students’ achievement in MP.The Effects of Metacognitive Scaffolding and Cooperative Learning on Mathematics Performance and Mathematical Reasoning among Fifth-Grade Students in Jordan The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding on (a) mathematics performance (MP). and (c) traditional instruction (T) with neither cooperative learning nor metacognitive scaffolding. and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK) among fifth-grade students in Jordan. and MK. For the study. namely. The first factor was three levels of instructional method. Three male primary schools were randomly selected from forty four primary schools where mathematics was taught in heterogeneous classrooms with no grouping or ability tracking.e. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR). A pre-mathematics achievement test was administered first. (b) cooperative learning without any metacognitive scaffolding (CL). the focus was on the “Adding and Subtracting 16 . A quasi-experimental study design that employed a 3 x 2 Factorial Design was applied in the study. (a) cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS). MR. high-ability and low-ability. and then the CLMS and CL methods were introduced to the students with practice units two months before conducting the study. MR. The MP. and MK scores were measured through a mathematics achievement test and a metacognitive knowledge questionnaire. The second factor student ability levels.. MR. The dependent variables were student achievement in MP. and MK. two classes from each school. namely.

In the CL method. The high-ability students in the CL group in turn significantly outperformed their counterparts in the T group in MP. and the students’ cooperation. and significantly outperformed their counterparts in the CL group in MR and MK but not in MP. In this method. and MK. MR and MK. after listening to their teacher’s introduction. 17 .Fractions” unit that was taught in all classrooms for 14 sessions at the end of the first semester for the academic year 2002 / 2003. the metacognitive questions. students worked cooperatively in small groups of two high-ability and two low-ability students. Also. the results showed significant interaction effects between student ability and the instructional method for the MR and MK scores with the low-ability students in group CLMS benefiting more than the high-ability students. MR and MK. significantly outperformed the students in the T group in all measures. The results showed that overall the students in the CLMS group significantly outperformed the students in the CL group who. The lowability students in the CL group in turn significantly outperformed their counterparts in the T group in MR and MK but not in MP. Finally. students’ learning was scaffolded by the teacher. students were taught in the usual manner and solved the mathematics problems individually. students in small groups of two high-ability and two-lowability students worked cooperatively and used metacognitive questions cards to execute their mathematics exercises and solve mathematics problems. the high-ability students in the CLMS group significantly outperformed their counterparts in the T group in MP. the results showed that the low-ability students in the CLMS group significantly outperformed their counterparts in the CL group and in the T group in MP. Additionally. MR. after listening to their teacher’s explanation. in turn. In the CLMS method. In the T method.

schools. The technologies used in homes. Many educational opportunities and good jobs require high levels of mathematical expertise. and the workplaces are all built on mathematical knowledge. and describes its questions and hypotheses. 1. Mathematics embodies the efforts accumulated over thousands of years by every civilization to comprehend nature and 18 . and esthetic side. so much a part of modern life that anyone who wishes to be a fully participating member of society must know basic mathematics. mathematical reasoning. Mathematics is a universal. specifies the statement of the problem and the purpose of the study. It epitomizes the beauty and power of deductive reasoning. and everyday conversation.CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This study investigated the teaching of mathematics based on constructivist principles. Mathematics also has a more specialized. that is. popular entertainment.1 Background to the Statement of the Problem Children today are growing up in a world permeated by mathematics. Finally. esoteric. and metacognitive knowledge in learning and solving problems involving the addition and subtraction of fractions. the chapter presents the operational definitions. utilitarian subject. and presents the study theoretical framework and the significance of the study. This first chapter of the study presents the background to the statement of the problem. The study focused primarily upon the investigation of the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning on Jordan fifthgrade students’ mathematics performance. Mathematical topics arise in newspaper and magazine articles.

Students who cannot reason mathematically are cut off from whole realms of human endeavor. which had during its boom given tangible spillover benefits to the country in the form of 19 . the internal processing is only of importance to the extent to which it explains how external reality is understood.bring order to human affairs. In contrast. for Jordan educational system. students who construct knowledge through interaction and connecting their experiences with the current situations. and then construct their own knowledge and understanding. monitor. Mathematics instruction has moved through a series of development phases. they must learn mathematics with understanding. how to connect mathematical ideas. So mathematics instruction should emphasize such variables that result learning with understanding in order to meet the changing demands of the society. 2001). and students who have learning strategies to help in building their knowledge and understanding.. 1991). the internal processing is of no interest. successful and effective mathematics instruction emphasizes the teaching of strategies that enable students to plan. Thus. This turning point of learning processes asks for instruction that deals with students as builders not receivers of knowledge. Jordanian human resource based economy was hard hit in the wake of the 80s’ slump in the regional oil economy. The move from behaviorism through cognitivism to constructivism represents shifts in emphasis away from an external view to an internal view of learning. the constructivist views the student as a builder of his knowledge (Jonassen. evaluate. and how to reason mathematically. To the behaviorist. Students without mathematical understanding are deprived not only from opportunity but also from competence in everyday tasks (Kilpatrick et al. to the cognitivist. Particularly. For students to participate fully in society.

remittances from Jordanian skilled workforce working in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. 1996). 1996). The slump also caused the general education system and particularly mathematics education to gradually lose its utility. Jordan in 1989 launched a comprehensive 10-year-long Education Reform Plan (ERP) to overhaul the general education system. however. in 1995. It became necessary for Jordan to upgrade the quality of school graduates in order to meet the changing demands of the domestic labor market and to maintain its skilled workforce advantage in the region wide labor market. The improvement. The newly designed textbooks and in-service training did not cover 20 . The technological revolution and growing use of modern technologies in the industries as well as in other employment sectors had changed the mathematical knowledge and skills requirements of labor markets (Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh. and problem solving. The findings showed that there was a significant improvement in the whole field of mathematics achievement. The key reform elements were reconstructing the curricula. and conducting in-service teacher training in classroom applications of innovative instructional methods for using new textbooks and materials (Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh. The overarching objective of the reform plan was to enhance student achievement levels. procedures. Mathematics education was one of the core subjects that received a lot of attention. Under these circumstances. 1996). related to the routine mathematics concepts. designing new textbooks and instructional materials. the National Centre of Human Resources Development (NCHRD) conducted a study to investigate the changes in mathematics achievement levels after five years of reform (Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh. To determine if the mathematics education reform has had the desired effects.

TIMSS-R assessed five mathematics content areas: fractions and number sense. and algebra. Singapore was ranked first with an average of 604 points. geometry. analytical thinking. data representation (analysis. and probability).high-level cognitive skills. and Hind. Hanan. while the international average was 487. 46 percent of 21 . The findings showed that the average mathematics achievement across the all five mathematics areas of Jordanian students was 428. This indicates that mathematics teachers and materials developers in Jordan concentrate on learning procedures exclusively and do not pay attention to the teaching of strategies that help students to build and develop conceptual understanding and reasoning. measurement. In the last year of the Jordan Education Reform Plan. Moreover. The lowest average was in fractions and number sense with an average score of 432. and reasoning that help students to build their knowledge and develop understanding (Innabi. the Third International Mathematics and Science Study–Repeat (1999) was conducted to compare mathematics and science eighth-grade students’ achievements among 38 nations. from the analysis of individual items of students’ responses. Jordan was among the 38 nations that participated in the study. and the improvement of conceptual understanding was the weakest according to the post-reform achievement tests. which was lower than the international average which was 487. there was significant deterioration in performance particularly with topics that involve abstract theoretical concepts (Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh. Jordan was placed at number 32 out of 38. Ahlawat and AL-Dajeh (1996) indicate that the mathematics materials after reform covered only three cognitive skills (conceptual knowledge. 1995). In terms of ranking. and problem solving). Kaisee. 1996). In terms of quality of the scores (students scored 616 or higher). procedural knowledge.

So this finding shows that 30. Abu Libdeh (2000) indicates that mastering this item falls in the third-grade with 50% accuracy as criterion and increases to 80% in the fifth-grade.the scores of the Singapore students were in the top ten percent compared to only 3 percent for Jordan. The understanding of mathematics as an academic subject and its perceived importance in school and life plays a very crucial role. rules. on an item testing for concept knowledge of fractions that asked students to shade 3 of 24 cells correctly. or giving unclear responses. Singapore values mathematics very highly and its primary schools systematically teach aspects of mathematics normally reserved for middle schools or junior high schools (Kaur and Pereira. 11 cells. for example. For Jordanian eighth-grade students. while the rest gave different incorrect responses like for example. shading 3. 22 . It is usually classified as one of the usual science subjects together with physics and chemistry but it is not taught as a science subjects. It is conceived as consisting of numbers.9% students responded correctly. 2000). Many factors may affect and contribute to the students’ mathematical understanding and achievement. and the teaching has focused on the acquisition of procedures (Gagne. The nature of mathematics is also called into question. However. For example. and algorithms.9% of eighth-graders accuracy level to this item is below the desired level. formulas. only 8 30. the current practice in most schools in Jordan has been to underestimate students’ real abilities to learn mathematics. Studies by Sternberg and Rifkin (1979) and Thornton and Toohey (1985) have indicated that young children can benefit from using sophisticated strategies in solving mathematics problems. 8.

By scrutinizing Jordanian fifth-grade mathematics textbook and teacher’s guide. Within each subject. each topic into studies. instructions of teaching fractions emphasize the demonstration of mathematical facts. separated. In addition. and 23 . This fragmentation of mathematics has divorced the subject from reality and from learning with understanding. algebra. and procedures used to solve routine problems. inventing. it is clear that the Jordanian mathematics classrooms are dominated by seatwork. trigonometry. computation skills. Knowledge learned in this way is of limited use because it is difficult for it to be applied. geometry. Therefore. 2000). These instructions lead to teaching strategies that require mathematics teachers to concentrate on mastering procedures needed to solve routine tasks and problems. and reformulated into a rational order. This is followed by subdividing each subject into topics. Such essential characteristics of mathematics as abstracting. mathematics instruction in Jordan often concentrates on teaching mathematical facts.1985) and algorithms and heuristics (Landa 1983) in solving routine and novel problems. and each lesson into specific facts and skills. and so on. homework. ideas are selected. with a considerable amount of repetition of content which is divorced from reality. Also Romberg (1988) indicates that mathematics in many cases is divorced from science and other disciplines and then separated into subjects such as arithmetic. the learning of mathematics becomes the learning of isolated facts and skills that according to Gipps and McGilchrist (1999) “quickly disappear from the memory because they have no meaning and do not fit into the student’s conceptual map. generalized or retrieved” (p 47). and applying are also often lost from Jordanian textbooks and teaching methods (Abu Libdeh. and review. skills. these instructions necessitate mathematics teachers to fragment mathematics materials and to include many topics. Thus. each study into lessons. For example. reasoning.

This 24 . and evaluating their learning. students often receive problem-solving procedures from the teacher without actual participation in planning. Also this teaching does not promote values and other knowledge associated with mathematical proficiency as to be discussed in this study. fractions. This kind of teaching promotes a sequential mastery of knowledge. reason. 1999. That is. 2001). with the teacher as a giver and the student as a receiver. but does not promote the view that students have potential abilities to build. and geometry tends to fractionalize mathematical knowledge instead of integrating and connecting it. ratio decimals. and metacognitive strategies in their learning. In this environment there is no opportunity for students to connect mathematical relationships between what they have learned and the current situations in which these connections enable them to recognize the importance of mathematics in all parts of life (Baroody. They select a set of mathematical problems. monitoring.. demonstrate the necessary steps leading to their current solutions and their students then follow the same steps in finding solutions to similar problems. and evaluate their knowledge (Wilkins and Jesse. 2000). This instruction influences students’ views of mathematics and may make them unable to transfer what they have learned to new situations in the real life. connection. monitor. The traditional sequence of teaching placing value. this instruction does not encourage students to invest their reasoning. for instance. Mathematics teachers in Jordan primary schools generally teach their students by means of conventional instructional methods. reasoning and metacognitive strategies. Moreover. Kilpatrick et al. digit numbers.procedures with much less concentration on developing analytical thinking like. and learn mathematics with understanding (Carpenter and Lehere. 1998). percentages. plan.

or other meaningless responses. analyze and identify the mathematical variables. Ryan. Meichenbaum.pedagogical approach may be effective for high-ability students. deleted responses. unreadable. formulate and represent the mathematical problems. While students’ difficulties in doing mathematics are partly attributed to misconceptions or shallow conceptions of domain knowledge (Feltovich et al. The TIMSS-R (1999) findings reveal that Jordanian students’ achievement is still very low even after ten years of educational system reform. and thus learn mathematics with understanding. So Jordanian students need to be taught mathematics through an effective instruction that enables them to acquire and apply metacognitive strategies. 25 . 1976. This means that most Jordanian eighth-grade students are lacking in or do not have mathematical understanding. 1984). As Abu Libdeh (2000) found. reason mathematically. to a greater extent. 1981). students have to be taught and supported to plan. a great deal of errors students gave is related to undetermined errors (unspecific errors that comprise unrelated responses. they are.. Moreover. therefore they responded with unrelated. strategic competence. The explanations for low mathematics achievement of lowability students could be that they are not taught the appropriate strategies. but it may not work with low-ability students. students’ understanding of mathematics has also not improved. 1976. Comparisons of good and poor comprehenders have consistently shown that poor comprehenders are deficient in the use of metacognitive strategies (Golinkoff. and adequate reasoning skills for mathematics. In other words. 1987). 1996). cannot selfregulate the study strategies. or unreadable responses). and do not understand how to apply these strategies (Simpson. due to a lack of metacognitive strategies (Brown.

Simply offering or even requiring all students to take a standard first year course in eighth-grade is no assurance that they will succeed. 1. mathematics instruction should shift from concentrating on the products to the learning processes that comprise 26 . and to work cooperatively to learn with understanding (Palincsar and Brown. 1998) declares that effective mathematics instruction must start from the earliest grades. King. reason mathematically. students need to learn how to learn. Moreover. that is. as Kilpatrick et al. 1992). 1989.2 Statement of the Problem New applications and new theories have given emphasis to instructional methods that play an important role in developing the learning of mathematics. 1991. 2001. Particularly. and 1995) and the National Research Council (NRC. Abu Libdeh (2000) found that a great deal of Jordanian eighth-graders’ mathematical errors and misunderstanding refer to the topics they learned in the fifth-grade. 1989) suggest that traditional mathematics instruction has been challenged by the changing expectations of the skills and knowledge of workers. (2001) suggest that students must begin to acquire the rudiments of learning with understanding in the earliest grades. Documents such as those produced by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM. ask themselves questions regarding mathematical situations.connect the relationships among the mathematical variables. as part of a comprehensive method to developing their mathematical proficiency. Instead. insufficient attention has been given to the important role the metacognitive strategies play in improving mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning. 1984). To date. evaluate their strategies and outcomes (Kilpatrick et al. to be metacognitively trained. and therefore. National Research Council (NRC. This method virtually guarantees failure for a large number of students..

Schoenfeld (1985) argues that effective mathematics instruction must require students to understand mathematical concepts and methods. and reasoning.. Vygotsky. Finally. 1978) concentrate on cooperative learning to learn mathematics with understanding. Others state that learning mathematics with understanding brings together problem solving. procedural. Still others argue that learning mathematics with understanding (Kilpatrick et al.learning strategies. calls for a mathematics method that emphasizes teaching mathematics through its applications with a goal of helping students become critical of the uses of mathematics in society. while others argue for a focus on applications of mathematics and the study of realistic mathematics (Apple. methods. Others (Mugney and Doise. monitoring. reasoning. evaluation. and relations to solve problems. strategic competence. 1990. 1992). planning. and criticalness. recognize relationships and think logically. 27 . Some advocate a focus on conceptual. and productive disposition in an integrated manner. 2001) requires mastering and transferring the mathematical proficiency strands which are: conceptual understanding. Rogoff. procedural fluency. and apply the appropriate mathematical concepts. 1978. Frankenstein (1990). adaptive reasoning. This view has sparked debate in the mathematics education community around the nature of the effective mathematics instruction and the experiences students need to learn mathematics with understanding. In other words effective mathematics instruction gives special attention to teach students how to learn and how to reason and evaluate their learning and solution processes. and reasoning competences (Mathematics framework for California Public Schools. (1970) and Brown (1987) focus on metacognitive strategies to be taught to enable students to learn mathematics with understanding. for example. 1999). Flavell et al.

It helps students to manage their thinking. and metacognitive knowledge is through the provision of metacognitive strategies. recognize when they do not understand something. during. 1998). Young students. mathematical reasoning.. 2001). learning mathematics with understanding deals with conceptual understanding.There is general agreement that learning mathematics with understanding involves more than competency in basic skills. which is an instructional method that concentrates on monitoring one’s current level of understanding and decides when it is not adequate (Bransford et al. Learning mathematics with understanding is more than learning the rules and operations that students learn in school.. It is about connections. mathematical reasoning. for example. 2000). learning mathematics with understanding is about acquiring and improving conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (mathematics performance). and after a problem solution.. and reasoning (Kilpatric et al. metacognitive strategies guide students to think before. 1992). and activation of metacognitive knowledge. It begins by guiding students to plan for selecting the appropriate strategy to accomplish the task. and knowledge reconstruction in everything that students do (Brown et al. In summary. 1994). 11 year 28 . Metacognitive strategies according to Piaget’s cognitive development stages (1970) require abstract thinking that students become proficient in when they reach the formal operation stage (12 years and above). and adjust their thinking accordingly (Schoenfeld. seeing relationships. Much more than mastering arithmetic and geometry. and then continues as they select the most effective strategy and afterward evaluate their learning process and outcomes (Hacker. One way of supporting and improving students’ mathematics performance. procedural fluency. In other words.

1976) have investigated the role of scaffolding to facilitate student comprehension. Scaffolding provides an opportunity for students to develop knowledge and skills beyond their independent current level. students are supported to go beyond their current thinking. 1984. These scaffolding strategies were shown to improve students’ cognition by activating their learning. support. understanding. 1989. and this closes the distance between what is and what is possible. (1987). When students interact with each other. and reflection on complex tasks. and metacognitive knowledge is a recommendation for using cooperative learning (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. That is. enhancing knowledge retrieval. 29 . comprehension. Wood et al. 1992). Scardamalia et al. so that they continually increase their capacities (Schofield. Palincsar and Brown. According to Vygotsky (1978) learning with understanding occurs within a social context. Kramarski. (1984) provided coaching through question prompts. 2001). Among the strategies of improving students’ mathematics performance. guided. they typically will learn. or pushed to be metacognitive thinkers. or in collaboration with more capable peers.g. scaffolding involved modeling and dialogue to enhance comprehension monitoring and strategy use.. and metacognition by making their thinking explicit and guiding them to monitor their understanding. Vygotsky (1978) explains the differences between students’ current abilities and their potential development as the distance between the actual students’ independent level and their potential level under guidance.olds need to be supported. while King (1991a. Researchers (e. with scaffolding.. In the studies of Palincsar and Brown (1984). 1992) modeled and guided students to use self-generate questions. mathematical reasoning. Palincsar (1986). and Palincsar et al.

mixed ability students work together to solve problems and complete tasks. mathematical reasoning. Costa (1985). Paris and Winograd. In the process of explaining the material. However. This conflict often causes students to recognize and reconstruct their existing knowledge (Rogoff. are students able to apply metacognitive strategies on their own. or do they need external scaffolding to do so? Do high-ability students benefit more than low-ability students from metacognitive scaffolding method? Elawar (1992) observed that lowability students are often found to be confused when they confront a mathematical problem and they are unable to explain the strategies they employ to find a correct solution. 30 . 1990.receive feedback. Does cooperative learning alone improve students’ mathematics performance. and be informed of something that contradicts with their beliefs or current understanding. and metacognitive knowledge (Dansereau. 1988. mathematical reasoning. and metacognitive knowledge occurs within various cooperative learning environments. Cooperative learning has been strongly recommended to be used in improving students’ cognitive performance. Weinstein et al. social relationships. low-ability students have the opportunity to model the study skills and work habits of more proficient students. The report of the National Governors’ Association (Brown and Goren. Sternberg (1986 b) and Elawar (1992) indicated that lowability students generally lack well-developed metacognitive skills.. 1990). In this setting. high-ability students often develop greater mastery themselves by developing a deeper understanding of the task. 1993) indicated that within cooperative learning setting. there still exists uncertainty as to the mechanism by which improving students’ mathematics performance. 1994). and metacognitive knowledge? Or their cooperation needs to be structured and guided? If metacognitive strategies are provided to guide students’ cooperation.

and metacognitive knowledge levels between students taught via the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding instructional method (CLMS). and students taught via the traditional instructional method (T). mathematical reasoning. the study was focused on the following questions: 31 . the purpose of this study was to find out the extent to which the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and the cooperative learning methods could play an important role in improving Jordanian fifth-grade students’ mathematics performance. and metacognitive knowledge. mathematical reasoning. The study also examined the effects of the instructional methods on highability and low-ability students’ mathematics performance. the study was conducted to investigate if there were any significant differences in mathematics performance. mathematical reasoning. no study was found that addresses the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning on highability and low-ability students’ mathematics performance. Particularly. and metacognitive knowledge. students taught via the cooperative learning alone instructional method (CL). As such. and self-efficacy. attitudes. mathematical reasoning. Thus.Although numerous research studies have been conducted on the separate effects of metacognitive strategies or cooperative learning on mathematics achievement. and metacognitive knowledge.

in turn. in turn. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK)? 2. Would students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than students taught via CL instructional method who.3 Research Questions 1. Are there interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability) in mathematics performance. would perform higher than high-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). and metacognitive knowledge? 32 . Would high-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than high-ability students taught via CL instructional method who.1. mathematical reasoning. Would low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than low-ability students taught via CL instructional method who. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK)? 3. would perform higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). in turn. would perform higher than students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK)? 4.

4 Hypotheses Based on the research questions the following hypotheses were formulated: 1.1. in turn. 33 . There are interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability) on mathematics performance. 4. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK). 3. Students taught via CLMS instructional method will perform higher than students taught via CL instructional method who. High-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method will perform higher than high-ability students taught via CL instructional method who. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK). will perform higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). in turn. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK). and metacognitive knowledge (MK). 2. mathematical reasoning. Low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method will perform higher than Low-ability students taught via CL instructional method who. will perform higher than students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). in turn. will perform higher than high-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP).

When students employ their metacognitive strategies. 1978). A schema consists of the pieces of knowledge already present in the person. According to the constructivist paradigm. Working cooperatively and activating metacognitive strategies such as planning. so when the student is opposed new knowledge and interacts with others he or she encounters something that contradicts his or her believes or current understanding. monitoring. 1996). evaluate. in Piagetian terms. Piaget (1970) believes that individuals work with independence and equality on each other’s ideas. 34 . This conflict results a case of disequilibrium. and evaluation are likely to enhance students to assimilate or accommodate their knowledge and therefore reequilibrate their thinking.1. or schema (DeLay. Accommodation occurs when the new knowledge alters the knowledge. When a new experience is incorporated into prior knowledge it is assimilated.5 The Theoretical Framework The theoretical base for this study comes from Piaget (1970) and Vygotsky (1978). The processes. and guide their ways of thinking to provide a better fit with reality. that rework new information and incorporate it to prior knowledge are called assimilation and accommodation. students learn because they have taken prior knowledge and have reworked the new information into their current schema. they are more than likely enhanced to revise. This is what Piaget calls “cognitive conflicts” (Mugny and Doise.

With cooperation. A greater level of support is offered if the task is new. the developing mind does not develop in isolation. direction.While there is a general consensus that metacognitive strategies are developed with age. The student actively explores and tries alternatives with the assistance of a more skilled partner. versus what can be accomplished with the help of an adult or a more capable member of a group. 1987). He identifies this region as the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky (1978) suggests that an active student and an active social environment cooperate to produce developmental change. developing metacognitive strategies (Pellegrini et al. The need to explain and justify to others.. where a more skilled partner (adult or peer) adjusts the level of assistance given based on the level of performance indicated by the student. 35 . scaffolding their efforts to increase current skills and knowledge to a higher competency level. The student is able to move forward and continues to develop new capabilities. makes reflection on ones own thought thus. This is often a higherability individual. 1996). cultural and linguistic environment such as in the case of the interaction with peers and adults. Vygotsky (1978) believes that there is a hypothetical region where learning and development best take place. but within a social. This zone is defined as the distance between what an individual can accomplish during independent problem solving. Becoming more reflective and metacognitive enables students to provide for themselves the supportive and scaffolding role originally assigned to the adult or peer (Brown. Furthermore. the individual is better able to solve more difficult tasks than he or she could independently. as in an instructor. Scaffolding is the support during a teaching session. and less is provided as competency grows (Berk and Winsler 1995). or a more capable peer. The teacher and the partner guide and structure the students’ activity. or help.

e. monitoring. reasoning. and evaluation. 1989). That is. 1998).. Since learning mathematics with understanding requires skills more than 36 . The information age has challenged educators to reexamine the role of the student and of instruction from the constructivist perspective. The two constructs are interrelated.6 Significance of the Study The research on metacognition. mathematical reasoning. such as planning.. should be provided to support both cognition and metacognition. this study investigated the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning methods on mathematics performance. guidance i. scaffolding. planning. cooperatively and metacognitively. 1989 and Schraw. 1987). on learning with understanding where students assimilate or accommodate their mathematical knowledge.Therefore. and evaluation have a significant value in instruction and play a significant role in understanding particularly in subjects based on proof like mathematics. Although metacognitive knowledge may be able to compensate for absence of relevant domain knowledge. and metacognitive knowledge. 1. As the student’s role changes from a passive knowledge recipient to an active meaning constructor. and cooperative learning strategies to enhance mathematical reasoning and understanding is based on meaningful learning. its development may also depend on having some relevant knowledge of the domain (Garner and Alexander. Thus. Cognition refers to domain-specific knowledge and strategies for information and problem manipulation (Salomon et al. and metacognition includes knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Jacobs and Paris. monitoring.

37 . In other words cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding focuses on helping students to be metacognitively prepared to solve mathematical problems with understanding and to plan. Moreover. 2001). If the use of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning methods proves its effectiveness in improving mathematics performance. cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding focuses on helping students to ask metacognitive questions that guide them to plan. not just guides them to master mathematical procedures. It is hoped that the findings of this study will contribute to further understanding of the role of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning strategies in improving mathematics performance. monitor. this will help educators in Jordan in their search for an effective and efficient pedagogical strategy or model for improving learning with understanding.conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (Kilpatrick et al. understand. mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. and reason their solutions. monitor. mathematical reasoning. teachers in Jordan will have additional instructional methods that can be used to support students’ learning with understanding.. and metacognitive knowledge. evaluate. and evaluate and reason their learning.

In this method. the high-ability and low-ability students work together in groups of four members (two high-ability and two low-ability students) to solve a problem or complete an assignment.1. include planning. the teacher.7 Operational Definitions Metacognition: The processes of considering and regulating student’s own learning that. and after the problem solution. end evaluation in performing a given task. and then gradually shifts responsibility to the students. These processes are activated before. monitoring. monitoring. and evaluation of the student’s current and previous knowledge. The teacher’s metacognitive scaffolding is gradually reduced as the students are able to accomplish the task. Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive scaffolding Method (CLMS): An instructional method in which. 38 . Scaffolding: A technique in which the teacher provides instructional support as students learn to do the task. the teacher enables students to accomplish as much of a task as possible without peer assistance. In this manner. and the students’ interaction provide metacognitive scaffolding to students in the form of planning. during. the metacognitive questions card.

Cooperative learning Method (CL): An instructional method in which. In this method. support the solutions with evidence. and to generalize his solution processes to different situations. the teacher explains and manipulates the mathematics concepts and procedures to the whole class. High-ability students: Students whose average scores on mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning measured by the pre-test are above the median. Traditional Instructional Method (T): An instructional method in which. The teacher’s concentration in this method is on mastering the task and developing specific skills. Conceptual understanding (CU): 39 . Low-ability students: Students whose average scores on mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning measured by the pre-test are below the median. the teacher’s teaching time is about 35 minute out of 45 minute of the session’s time. The teacher is allowed to assist the groups but the groups and the teacher are not provided with any metacognitive questions card. select or generate the appropriate tactic to solve the problem. high-ability and low-ability students work together in groups of four members (two high-ability and two low-ability students) to solve a problem or complete an assignment. Mathematical reasoning (MR): The student’s ability to make a decision about how to approach the mathematics problem.

5 items were designed to assess each skill. and accurately. monitoring. represent the mathematical situation in different ways.The student’s ability to connect new mathematics ideas with ideas he has been known. These schools are not coeducational. and to determine similarities/differences between these representations. and evaluation simultaneously . Mathematics achievement test: A mathematics test which assesses students’ conceptual understanding. Primary government schools: Schools established by the Jordan Ministry of Education where students study from the first to the tenth-grade. 40 . Metacognitive Knowledge Questionnaire: A questionnaire consists of 15 items that assesses students’ planning. and mathematical reasoning simultaneously. procedural fluency. flexibly. Mathematics performance (MP): The students’ score in conceptual understanding and procedural fluency items on the mathematics achievement test. Procedural fluency (PF): The student’s ability to use mathematics procedures appropriately. so there are male schools and female schools.

1 Introduction To understand how someone learns mathematics is an important matter. While understanding how someone learns mathematics is a difficult task. So reviewing the theories according to various psychological perspectives contributes to the understanding of how mathematics learning occurs on one hand.CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2. and serves in the understanding of how the teaching of mathematics should be conducted on the other hand. theories. The study of the teaching of mathematics is always based on the conception of learning held by the researcher as well as the mental tasks believed to be necessary for performing mathematical tasks. the study of psychology offers many contributions and deep understanding of how students learn mathematics. Understanding this serves educators to determine what and how they should teach. and models of learning based on the literature currently available 41 . Mathematics is generally accepted as a very important school subject and thus the teaching and learning of mathematics have been intensively studied and researched over the past six decades. This chapter reviews the paradigms.

Landa.1 Behaviorism and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics The learning paradigm of behaviorism represents the original Stimulus-Response (SR) framework of behavioral psychology: Learning is the result of associations forming between stimuli and responses. and variables most promising for use in improving the teaching of mathematics. and motivation. 1991). 2. The chapter continues with a discussion on mathematical reasoning and describes the role of cooperative learning and metacognitive scaffolding plays in improving students’ mathematics performance. Then the chapter describes the mathematical proficiency model and discusses the role of metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning plays in improving the teaching of mathematics. and cognitivism as represented by the theories of Gagne. with the mind processing symbolic representations of reality (Jonassen. and Scandura. 1994).2 Objectivist Views Regarding the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics The objectivist theories postulate that knowledge exists independently of the student. and then becomes internalized as it is transferred from its external reality to an internal reality of the student that corresponds directly with outside phenomenon with the mind acting as a processor of input from reality (Driscoll. Such associations become strengthened or weakened 42 . real-life problem solving. Meaning is derived from the structure of reality. The chapter also discusses the review of related literature on metacognitive scaffolding as well as cooperative learning.2. model. 2. This belief is very popular among educators and researchers and has produced numerous theories and models as represented by behaviourism.to identify the theory. mathematical reasoning.

43 . tensions. this yields a drill and practice mode of instruction. The paradigm for S-R theory is trial and error learning in which certain responses come to dominate others due to rewards. and values as mentalism. Thorndike explains this in his law of effect: “When a modifiable connection between a situation and a response is made and is accompanied or followed by a satisfying state of affairs. This may seem to be a simple truism except for the fact that Skinner argues that a change in behavior is the only characteristic of learning. and counted. Since these concepts are non-physical and therefore cannot be measured. At elementary school age for Thorndike. he refers to them as pre-scientific and says learning need to move beyond such ideas and develop a true technology of behavior. deliberations. decisions. theories.by the nature and frequency of the S-R pairings. and the action that would be performed depends on the strength of the connection or bond between the situation and the specific action. plans. The bonds that go together should be taught together. In pedagogical terms. In other words. Skinner (1968) further argues that an organism learns mainly by producing changes in response to its environment. the rules of arithmetic are said to have not been known. Thorndike (1932) states that in any given situation an animal has a number of possible responses. weighed. learning is characterized by changes in behavior. The purpose of instruction in mathematics is thus seen to be one of drilling into the student the necessary rules and connections until sufficient responses are obtained. that connection’s strength is increased. 60). He explicitly rejects such concepts as purposes. The behaviorists’ earlier studies concentrated on animals before becoming interested in human thinking. The hallmark of behaviorism is that learning could be adequately explained without referring to any unobservable internal states.” (p.

and build knowledge. The nature of mathematics as represented by behaviorism portrays mathematics not as a product of human creation but. reason. and evaluates the instructional activities. Also the teacher has to create an instructional situation that requires students to practice the appropriate behaviors. motor skills. Different internal conditions such as acquisition and storage of prior capabilities. as existing external to the human mind. and much more.2 Gagne and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics Gagne (1985) indicates that there are several different types of learning. verbal information. in proper sequence and with appropriate reinforcement. These aspects of cognition could not be fully understood just by looking at behavior. Moreover. instead. Students make plans. 2. He classifies human learning into five domains: intellectual skills. explains. intricate tasks such as data classification. the role of the student in this environment is passive.2. understand. and external conditions such as the various ways that instructional events outside the student function to activate and support the internal processes of learning are 44 . This process requires a great deal of time for complex. namely. So the teacher has to understand all of the students’ behaviors and subbehaviors involved in the task. and each type requires different types of instruction. as well as the characteristics of the students. all learning processes are fully controlled by the teacher. demonstrates. gradually building more and more behaviors until the target behavior is achieved. Tiene and Ingram (2001) assert that behaviorism is unable to effectively address the critical issue like how students think. it is teacher-centered where the teacher selects. remember things. hypothesize. and attitudes. forget things.According to behaviorist principles. Students are more than just the sum total of the behaviors that they engage in. cognitive strategies. solve problems.

Gagne outlines nine instructional events that provide the external conditions of learning and corresponding cognitive processes: gaining attention (reception).. 45 . from simple to complex (Gagne. Doing a task analysis of a learning task identifies the prerequisites. rule application. the student must be exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments (Aronson et al. informing students of the objective (expectancy). presenting the stimulus (selective perception). He adds that learning hierarchies provide a basis for the sequencing of instruction (Aronson et al. providing feedback (reinforcement). the sequence in learning is from bottom up. concepts. there must be an opportunity to practice developing new solutions to problems. For example. providing learning guidance (semantic encoding). assessing performance (retrieval). principles. Gagne suggests that learning tasks for intellectual skills can be organized in a hierarchy according to complexity: discriminations. and enhancing retention and transfer (generalization) (Aronson et al. 1983). that is. to learn attitudes. 1983). 1985). 1983). and problem solving) (Aronson et al. eliciting performance (responding).. for cognitive strategies to be learned... and problem solving (facts. and supporting prerequisites which are useful to facilitate learning but are not essential for the learning to occur. In addition. In other words. stimulating recall of prior learning (retrieval). concept formation. Gagne asserts that the significance of the hierarchy is to identify prerequisites that should be completed to facilitate learning at each level.necessary for each type of learning. He determines two types of prerequisites: essential prerequisites which are the subordinate skills that must be previously learned to enable the student to reach the objective. 1983).

For such problem classes. His theory represents a system of techniques for getting inside the mind of expert students and performers that enable one to uncover the processes involved. thinking and performance in any area. 2. there are classes of problems for which it is necessary to execute operations in a well-structured. but it is illustrated primarily in the context of mathematics and foreign language instruction. and mastery of each subordinate element is essential to the attainment of the main task. There are also classes of problems (creative or heuristic problems) for which precise and unambiguous sets of instructions cannot be formulated. predefined sequence (algorithmic problems). The learning task is analyzed to their subordinate elements. It is concerned with identifying mental processes that underlie expert learning. Performing a task or solving a problem always requires a certain system of elementary knowledge units and operations. mathematics is composed of a set of tasks to be learned and occurs hierarchically.For Gagne.3 Landa and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics Landa’s Algo-Heuristic theory (1976) is a general theory of learning. That is. they are broken down into their relative elementary components. According to Landa. Once uncovered. learning of the task cannot occur without mastering their subordinate elements and therefore mathematics instruction must start with the subordinate elements of the task. 46 .2. For such classes of problems. it is possible to formulate a set of precise unambiguous instructions (algorithms) as to what one should do mentally and / or physically in order to successfully solve any problem belonging to that class. it is possible to formulate instructions that contain a certain degree of uncertainty (heuristics).

. Landa maintains that students have to learn not only knowledge but also the algorithms and heuristics of experts as well. Landa concentrates on the learning of cognitive operations. then the third is taught / learnt alone. and procedures or operations (sum of all decisions and actions to produce a specific range element).2. then the second elementary operation is taught / learnt alone. range (expected rule that corresponds to the cognitive structure a student utilize to complete an objective). and so on. Landa proposes the “snowball” method of learning / teaching.e. 1983). 47 . algorithms. 2. This method entails the following sequence: The first elementary operation in the chain is taught / learnt and practiced alone. practiced alone then is practiced together with the first. intelligence). learning occurs through learning rules that consist of domain (internal cognitive structures of relevant environmental elements of a learning situation). In this manner. Landa affirms that learning algo-heuristic processes is more important than learning prescriptions (knowledge of processes). Students also have to learn how to discover algorithms and heuristics on their own.4 Scandura and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics According to Scandura’s Structural theory (1980). For Landa. There may be alternative rule sets for any given class of tasks. Learning starts by using a very simple task as a prototype. and heuristics that make up general methods of thinking (i. until all elementary operations have been taught separately but practiced together (Landa. mathematics is also composed of a set of specific and general problems or tasks that can be identified and taught sequentially. According to this point of view.For the content of learning. practiced alone and then practiced together with the first two. Doing so requires identifying the educational goals first and then identifying prototypic cognitive processes (rules).

Lower order rules are simple rules that the learning task starts with and are later reduced in number to derive higher order rules. (2) identify a solution rule for each problem. The theory proposes that higher-order rules should be taught through elaboration and replacement of lower order rules. and (6) continue the process iteratively with each newly-identified set of solution rules. Higher order rules generate new rules. is a succession of rule sets.Scandura identifies two types of rules: higher order rules and lower order rules. The theory also suggests a strategy 48 . the redundant lower order rules from the rule set will be eliminated by the student after practice and mastery that task. and problem solving may be facilitated when higher order rules are used. The result of repeatedly identifying higher order rules. The major steps in structural analysis are: (1) select a representative sample of problems. each consisting of rules which are simpler individually but collectively more powerful than the ones before. (3) convert each solution rule into a higher order problem whose solutions is that rule. (5) eliminate redundant solution rules from the rule set. and eliminating redundant rules. (4) identify a higher order solution rule for solving the new problems. Higher order rules account for creative behavior (unanticipated outcomes) as well as the ability to solve complex problems by making it possible to generate (learn) new rules. The rules which are to be learned can be derived from educational goals through structural analysis which is a methodology for identifying the rules to be learned for a given topic or class of tasks and breaking them down into their atomic components. Structural theory suggests that instruction has to start with the simplest solution path for a problem and then move to the more complex paths until the student masters the entire rule.

This step can be achieved by determining the minimal capabilities of the students (e. 4. a number of partial rules can be replaced with a single rule for borrowing that covers all cases. The first step involves selecting a representative sample of problems such as 9-5. 49 .. can recognize the digits 0-9. minus sign. one subtraction rule students might learn is the borrowing procedure that specifies if the top number is less than the bottom number in a column. problems with varying combinations of columns may be used. In the case of subtraction. The second step is identifying the rules for solving each of the selected problems. For example. that have not been mastered. Structural theory has been applied extensively to mathematics. the top number in the column to the left must be made smaller by 1. The last step is to testing and refining the resulting rules by applying to new problems and extending the rule set if necessary so that it accounts for all problems in the domain. The next step is identifying any higher order rules and eliminating any lower order rules they subsume. 248-13. In the case of subtraction. Then the detailed operations involved in solving each of the representative problems must be worked out in terms of the minimum capabilities of the students.g. Here is an example in the context of subtraction provided by Scandura (1977): 1.for individualizing instruction by analyzing which rules a student has / has not mastered and teach only the rules. 3. 2. or portions thereof. or 801-302. column and rows).

Therefore. free of context and value. including memorization and practice (Borasi. Also the assessment of performance is end-centered. that is. The students are generally passive or compliant. So rules must be composed of the minimum capabilities possessed by the students. 50 . the appropriate sequence in teaching is from bottom up. These theories and models call for information or knowledge to be taught to be divided into parts that are slowly assembled into whole concepts. and there is little room for student-initiated questions. the concentration is on mastering the task. 1996). Lessons derived from these theories and models are teacher-centered and depend heavily on textbooks for the structure of the course. The role of the students is to regurgitate the accepted explanation or methodology expostulated by the teacher (Hanley. The objectivist theories and models are based on the view that knowledge of the world is fixed and can be quantified. independent thought or interaction between them. The students’ prior capabilities have to be taken into account before teaching rules. that is. these theories and models produce lessons that are presented below the student’s true cognitive ability. Being content-based.Scandura also sees mathematics as a set of existing rules or procedures and the goal of teaching is to develop expertise by deriving general rules from specific rules. teaching process starts with the simplest solution path first and then moves to the more complex paths or rule sets. 1994). Mathematics knowledge is passed along from those who know to those who do not through authoritative means. Mathematics according to these theories and models is seen as a set of preexisting facts and procedures. So teachers serve as pipelines or assemblers of knowledge and seek to transfer their thoughts and meanings to the students.

These objectivist theories and models of teaching do not meet the needs of learning mathematics with understanding where the student is actively doing mathematics through the process of inquiry and investigation (von Glasersfeld. 1995). Gestalt theory is one of the early learning theories which emphasize the role of understanding.e. These factors are called the laws of organization and are explained in the context of perception and problem solving. 2000). characteristics of stimuli cause us to structure or interpret a visual field or problem in a certain way. 51 . and (4) simplicity . It is also one of the first to deal with issues of problem solving and creativity. The focus of Gestalt theory is the idea of grouping. the earliest being Gestaltism (Schoenfeld. The primary factors that determine grouping were: (1) proximity . 1987). 2. (3) closure . adaptive expertise and an ability to deal with change or solve ill-structured problems characteristic of today’s complex society (NCTM.items will be organized into simple figures according to symmetry. Wertheimer (1959) is one of the principal proponents of Gestalt theory that emphasizes higher-order cognitive processes.items are grouped together if they tend to complete some entity.3. and smoothness. i.1 Nature of the Learning Process and Construction of Knowledge The central idea of objectivist is that learning performance could be defined solely in terms of observable behavior. (2) similarity .items similar in some respect tend to be grouped together.3 Constructivist Views Regarding the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics 2. New theories soon emerged to challenge the behaviorists. and the teacher’s job is just to give orders and monitor student responses.elements tend to be grouped together according to their nearness. These theories and models also do not promote mathematical reasoning. regularity.

von Glasersfeld (1995) argues that: “From the constructivist perspective. Mayer (1996) asserts that successful students are active. which like the other parts of the structure. is focused. deeper structural view of the situation develops. Directed by what is required by the structure of a situation for a crucial region. A new. calls for verification. How humans learn has intrigued and troubled educators throughout history. but it does not become isolated.14)." (P 212). and assume personal responsibility for contributing to their own learning. one is led to a reasonable prediction.For learning mathematics. learning in schools has to emphasize the use of intentional processes that students can use to construct meaning from information. and their own thoughts and beliefs.10). etc. He uses the term schemata to describe mental or cognitive structures that allow one to think about. This view of learning sharply contrasts with the one in which learning is the passive transmission of information from one individual to another. Constructivists believe that learning involves the generation of knowledge and learning strategies. The psychological theoretical base for constructivism comes from Piaget. 52 . learning is not a stimulus-response phenomenon. experiences. direct or indirect. and seeing what the structure of the whole requires for the parts. self-regulating. the essence of successful problem-solving behavior according to Wertheimer (1959) is being able to see the overall structure of the problem: "A certain region in the field becomes crucial. So the learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience. concept development and deep understanding are the foci” (p. the grouping. of the items. Fosnot (1996) mentions that “Rather than behaviors or skills as the goal of instruction. goal-directed. It requires self-regulation and the building of conceptual structures through reflection and abstraction” (p. Two directions are involved: getting a whole consistent picture. involving changes in functional meaning. According to this view.

inventing and discussing. Ahmed (1987) asserts that “Mathematics can be effectively learned only by involving students in experimenting. For mathematics.. and b) the individual adapts to new information and experience through assimilating it or accommodating it. Mathematics can be actively learned by involving students in their leaning process. more complex structures. 1978). So students must engage in activities that encourage their mathematical understanding. discovering.24). or learning.organize and make sense of experiences (Borich and Tombari. White (1998) maintains that “Educational research has shown that students tend to comprehend complex concepts much better and to retain them as part of their body of knowledge much longer when they become actively involved in their learning process” (p. Carpenter and Lehrer (1999) indicate that the critical learning of mathematics by students occurs as a consequence of building on prior knowledge via purposeful engagement in activities and by discourse with other students and teachers in classrooms. This view of learning mathematics leads to the characteristics of learning mathematics with understanding. is the lifelong process by which the student constructs and modifies his or hers own personal schemata. reflecting. meaning does not exist independently of the student (Mugny and Doise.1). Mathematics should be a kind of learning which requires a minimum of factual knowledge and a great deal of experience in dealing with situations using particular kinds of thinking skills” (p. questioning. Cognitive development.e. The individual continuously constructs his or her schemata. Consequently. 1997). Hiebert and Carpenter (1992) assert that learning mathematics 53 . This occurs in two ways: a) existing schemata are organized into higher-order. the constructivist point of view defines meaning as an act of interpretation i.

The construction of relationships is one of the important forms of mental activity where mathematical understanding emerges. Over the long run. 1999). but they must learn to use such ideas to solve non-routine problems. new ideas take on meaning by the ways they are related to other ideas. Therefore the concentration should shift from judging student learning in terms of mastery of concepts and procedures to making judgments about students’ deep understanding of the concepts and procedures and their ability to apply them to mathematics problem situations. The teacher’s role should be shifted from being an orator to a learning manager and facilitator who manages. Although learning with understanding entails forging connections between what the students already know and the knowledge they are learning.with understanding implies students not only must learn the concepts and procedures of mathematics (its design features). For students to learn mathematics with understanding. Students construct meaning for a new idea or process by relating it to ideas or processes that they have already understood. developing understanding involves more than simply connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge. Therefore. it also involves the creation of rich. and encourages students’ creation or from sage on the stage to guides on the side where he provides students with opportunities to test the adequacy of their current understandings. the role of the teacher and the role of students should be appropriate to this learning environment. and learn to mathematize in a variety of situations (its social functions). integrated knowledge structure (Carpenter and Lehrer. directs. Doyle (1988) argues that teachers should be especially attentive to the extent to which meaning is 54 . it is not sufficient to think of developing understanding simply as appending new concepts and processes to existing knowledge.

Also. Carpenter and Lehere (1999) assert that connections with what students already know and understand what they are learning play an important role in engaging students in high-level thought processes.emphasized and the extent to which students are explicitly expected to demonstrate understanding of the mathematics underlying the activities in which they are engaged. The students’ role should also be changed from obtaining knowledge from the teacher to assimilating or accommodating their own knowledge by connecting the relationships between what they have known and what they are learning. If what the students encounter is inconsistent with their current understanding. 1995).3.2 Piaget and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics 55 . and that prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge they will construct from the new learning experiences. Bennett and Desforges (1988) affirm that a critical factor underlying unsuccessful task implementation is a lack of alignment between tasks and students' prior knowledge. The mathematical activities should therefore be selected to encourage the students to link between the knowledge what they have already learned and the new knowledge. Such an emphasis can be maintained if explicit connections between the mathematical ideas and the activities in which students engage in are frequently drawn. Such mismatches may cause students to fail to engage with the task in ways that will maintain a high level of cognitive activity. their understanding can change to accommodate new experience. and motivation. 2. interests. The teacher has to keep in mind that students come to the learning situations with knowledge gained from previous experience. The students’ role should also be shifted to confront their understanding in light of what they encounter in the new learning situation (Manion.

Cognitive development consists of a constant effort to adapt to the environment in terms of assimilation and accommodation. For example. and Kamii 2000). While the stages of cognitive development identified by Piaget are associated with characteristic age spans. learning activities should involve 56 . The concrete operational stage (8-11 years) where the cognitive structure is logical but depends upon concrete referents. development stages): sensorimotor (0-2 years) where intelligence takes the form of motor actions...e. Piaget specifies four primary cognitive structures (i. Applying Piaget’s theory. Cognitive structures are patterns of physical or mental action that underlie specific acts of intelligence and correspond to stages of child development. Piaget indicates that cognitive structures are not stable and they change through the processes of adaptation i. preoperations period (3-7 years) where intelligence is intuitive in nature. Many of Piaget’s experiments were focused on the development of mathematical and logical concepts. Assimilation involves the interpretation of events in terms of existing cognitive structure whereas accommodation refers to changing the cognitive structure to make sense of the environment. assimilation and accommodation.Cognitive structure is the central idea of Piaget’s (1970) theory. with students in the concrete operational stage. Inhelder and Piaget 1964. results in specific recommendations for a given stage of cognitive development. and formal operations (12 and above) where thinking involves abstractions. Piaget affirms that all children construct. or create logic and number concepts from within rather than learn them by internalization from the environment (Piaget 1971. Piaget explores the implications of his theory to all aspects of cognition.e. they vary from one individual to another. intelligence and moral development. Piaget and Szeminska 1965.

students have to cooperate in an environment where social interaction is taken into account (Bonk and Reynolds. students are able to extend themselves to higher levels of cognition.problems of classification. and conservation using concrete objects.3. who for Vygotsky are generally adults. and that cultural development has two levels: social and interpersonal. So teachers should also try to provide a rich and stimulating environment with logical matters that depend on concrete objects and try to prepare students to the next stage. Vygotsky suggests that students can be guided by explanation. The ability to attain higher levels of knowing is often facilitated and. depends upon. demonstration. generally higher levels of knowing. This conception is better known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). 1997). Vygotsky (1978) states that cognitive development is dependent on social interaction. Constructivists view sociocultural development as one of the significant factors that contribute to the construction of knowledge. formal operational that involves abstract thinking. the students recognize the new knowledge and then internalize it. The Zone of Proximal Development is the gap between what is known and what is not known.3 Vygotsky and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics A critical factor that relates to the learning process and construction of knowledge is sociocultural development. So for effective learning. in fact. interaction with other more advanced peers. ordering. Vygotsky defines the Zone of Proximal Development as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the 57 . and can attain to higher levels of thinking if they are guided by more capable and competent adults. During social interaction. Through increased interaction and involvement. that is. location. 2. namely.

more competent person. So the teacher should encourage students to discover their knowledge. constructs hypotheses. relying on a cognitive structure to do so.” The ZPD is thus the difference between what students can accomplish independently and what they can achieve in conjunction or in cooperation with another. 2. The teacher and student should engage in an active dialog i. Bruner suggests 58 . Interactions between the student and the content.level of potential development as determined through problem solving under the guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. Bruner believes that students can and have to discover knowledge by themselves.e. The sociocultural development enriches the active learning processes and contributes in encouraging constructing knowledge.3. students construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current or past knowledge. The student selects and transforms information. 1996). and makes decisions. Moore and Kearsley. Cognitive structure i. To reach that learning environment.4 Bruner and the Learning / Teaching of Mathematics A major theme in the theoretical framework of Bruner (1960) is that learning is an active process in which. Socratic learning where the teacher’s task is to translate information to be learned into a format appropriate to the students’ current state of understanding.e. between the student and the instructor. 1995. schema... mental models provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to go beyond the information given. and between the students themselves are necessary for learning and for the shared social construction of knowledge (American Psychological Association [APA]. Moore and Kearsley (1996) have indicated that sociocultural development is an area that is missing in most traditional or objectivist learning environments.

that is.that the curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the students continually build knowledge upon what they have already learned. learning according to Bruner is a process. 1973). Instruction for him is a roller coaster ride of successive disequilibrium and equilibrium until the desired cognitive state is reached or discovered (Shulman. He maintains that learning starts from the top down. The final level is the symbolic level where the student is strictly manipulating symbols and no longer mental images of object. He describes three levels of student’s representation: the enactive level where the student manipulates materials directly. can be transferred both to other subject matters within that discipline and to other disciplines as well. If the teacher teaches the balance of trade in economics in such a way that when ecological balance is considered. if learned well. This sequence is an out growth of the developmental work of Piaget (Shulman. Instruction should be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness). He gives an example of the concept of balance. In summary. and through the processes. Bruner asserts that knowing is a process not a product. it should be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral 59 . 1973). or to balancing equations. students discover and build their knowledge. students will see the parallel and this could be extended to balance of power in political science. fundamentally simple concepts or principles which. Transfer of learning for Bruner (1960) occurs when the student can identifying from the structures of subject matters basic. The second level is the ikonic level where the student deals with mental images of objects but does not manipulate them directly. it begins with problem solving that makes students learn the fundamentals because they need them.

60 . to construct or reconstruct his or her knowledge. Also Paris and Winograd (1990) argue that teachers can promote metacognitive strategies directly by guiding students about effective problem solving strategies and discussing cognitive and motivational characteristics of thinking. In other words for students to reach the equilibrium case (resolving the conflicts). and monitoring one’s own comprehension (Gordon. monitor and control. Perkins and Grotzer (1997). However Jacobson (1998). These strategies are seldom taught directly and tend to develop naturally in only good students (Smith and Ragan. 1976). each student plays an active role in working with and integrating the information according to his or her own background or experience. and Halpern (1996) indicate that metacognitive strategies can be systematically taught to most students. 1993). This integration involves applying personal study and learning skills. planning. 1973). Therefore. and then assimilate or / and accommodate their knowledge. 1996). monitoring.4 Metacognitive Strategies and the Construction of Knowledge The central point of constructivism is that learning involves more than just the transfer of information from the teacher to a student. instead. and evaluate their own cognitive processes (Flavell.organization). they should employ various metacognitive strategies. and instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation (going beyond the information given) (Bruner. Metacognitive strategies are techniques that students use to plan. the student needs to employ certain techniques regarding managing his or her thinking like thinking about thinking. 2. and evaluation.

intelligent search and retrieval..e. 1993). 273). what one is currently doing (i. His description suggests that metacognitive strategies are deliberate. or what one’s current cognitive or affective state is (i. 1990). that is. “monitoring of cognitive processes” (Flavell. Flavell mentions that metacognition is an awareness of oneself as “an actor in his environment. in which whatever “intellectual weaponry the individual has so far developed” is applied to mnemonic problems (p. and evaluating cognitive states such as self-appraisal and selfmanagement” (Brown. 1976).e. 1987). and future-oriented mental behaviors that can be used to accomplish cognitive tasks. What is basic to the concept of metacognition is the notion of thinking about one’s own thoughts. These thoughts can be of what one knows (i. 1995) and “knowledge and regulation of cognition. “It is the development of memory as applied cognition” (p. metacognitive knowledge). planful.Metacognition has been defined as an awareness of one’s own cognitive processes rather than the content of those processes together with the use of that self-awareness in controlling and improving cognitive processes (Biggs and Moore... Flavell (1977) refers to metacognition as metamemory which he describes as intelligent structuring and storage. Lawson. it is necessary to consider the 61 . goal-directed. 275). 191). and intelligent monitoring. Other researchers have referred to metacognition as “cognitive strategies” (Paris and Winograd. 1994). metacognitive experience). 1994. To differentiate metacognitive thinking from other kinds of thinking. deliberate storer and retriever of information” (p. a heightened sense of the ego as an active. “knowledge about executive control systems” (Brown et al.e. metacognitive skill).. intentional. “resources and self regulating learning” (Osman and Hannafin.

rather. they found that experts were flexible in that they take into account more factors than do novices in searching for information. metacognition sometimes has been defined simply as thinking about thinking. They concluded that argumentation may be an important strategy in problem solving (Gick. which can include what one knows about that internal representation. and how one feels about it. (1991). cognition of cognition. 906). In the social science study conducted by Voss et al. experts used strategies of argumentation more often than novices did. regardless of their content. Although perspectives differ in emphasis. students often need to apply general strategies. includes knowledge about the task and situations for which particular goal-specific strategies are appropriate.source of metacognitive thoughts: Metacognitive thoughts do not spring from a person’s immediate external reality. p. their source is tied to the person’s own internal mental representations of that reality. which are knowledge about and awareness of one’s own thinking and knowledge of when and where to use acquired strategies. how it works. Knowledge about one’s thinking includes information about one’s own capacities and limitations and awareness of difficulties as they arise during learning so that remedial action may be taken. “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena” (Hacker. 62 . Knowledge of when and where to use acquired strategies. Therefore. Additionally. 1986). there is common agreement that metacognitive strategies involve both the knowledge of and the regulation of cognition. which can be applied to the problems. Pressley and McCormick (1987) identify two components of knowledge of cognition. In the absence of domain-specific knowledge or lack of information in various content areas. or using Flavell’s (1979) words.1998.

and evaluation. Planning (processes selected prior to any task action) consists of setting goals. during (through monitoring). Monitoring (processes selected to keep track of what has been done. monitoring. Jacobs and Paris (1987).2. read or saw? Am I on the right track? How can I spot an error if I make one? How should I revise my plan if it is not working? Am I keeping good notes or records?” And at the evaluation stage the student asks him or herself metacognitive 63 . and after (through evaluation) the learning task. and goals) involves determining one’s level of understanding. In short. regulation of cognition is thinking before. and what still needs to be done for task solution) involves checking one’s progress and selecting appropriate repair strategies when originally-selected strategies are not working. (NCREL. during and after a learning task. activating relevant resources. 1995) point out that successful students ask themselves metacognitive questions before (through planning). which are planning. at the planning stage the student asks him or herself metacognitive questions such as: “What in my prior knowledge will help me with this particular task? What should I do first? Do I know where I can go to get some information on this topic? How much time will I need to learn this? What are some strategies that I can use to learn this?” At the monitoring stage the successful student asks him or herself metacognitive questions such as: “Did I understand what I just heard. evaluation refers to students’ ongoing assessments of their knowledge or understanding. resources. Evaluation (processes selected to judge the outcome of any action against criteria of effectiveness and efficiency. For example. and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.1 Regulation of Cognition Jacobs and Paris (1987) determine three components of regulation of cognition. what is currently being done. and selecting appropriate strategies.4. tasks.

first-degree operations. setting them into correspondence. but he does something else besides. Piaget has this propositions-about-propositions attribute in mind when he refers to formal operations as second-degree operations or operations to the second power” (p. etc. Inhelder and Piaget (1958) provide further elaboration on second-degree operations: “. seriating them. Formal operations. Flavell (1963) wrote: “What is really achieved in the 7-11-year period is the organized cognition of concrete objects and events per se (i. planful. a necessary something which is precisely what renders his thought formal rather than concrete. 254).). and then proceeds to operate further upon them. putting them into classes. operations which are possible” (p. i. casts them in the form of propositions. Thus. He takes the results of these concrete operations. and goal-directed thinking applied to one’s thoughts to accomplish cognitive tasks is deeply embedded in Piaget’s conceptualization of formal operations in which higher-ordered levels of thought operate on lower-ordered levels.e. the abilities of the adolescent begin to differentiate from those of the child (Hacker.. this notion of second-degree operations also expresses the general characteristics of formal thought. 205206). During this stage of cognitive development. make various kinds of logical connections between them (implications. which are thoughts about an external empirical reality. It goes beyond the framework of transformations bearing directly on empirical reality (first degree operations) and subordinates it to a system of hypothetico-deductive operations--i.. can become the object of higher-order thoughts in an attempt to discover not necessarily 64 . etc.). disjunction. then... identity.4. are really operations performed upon the results of prior (concrete) operations. The adolescent performs these first-order operations..questions such as: “Did my particular strategy produce what I had expected? What could I have done differently? How might I apply this line of thinking to other problems?” 2.e. too.1998). conjunction.e.2 Metacognitive Strategies and Age The idea of deliberate.

what is real but what is possible. “Formal thinking is both thinking about thought... and a reversal of relations between what is real and what is possible” (p. 341-342). Referring to Inhelder and Piaget’s work, Flavell (1977) wrote: “Another way to conceptualize it is to say that formal operations constitute a kind of metathinking, i.e., thinking about thinking itself rather than about objects of thinking. Children certainly are not wholly incapable of this and other forms of metacognition” (p. 107). So for young students, 11 year olds for example, they can think metacognitively and apply metacognitive strategies in their learning processes, particularly if they are taught and supported deliberately how and when to use these strategies. 2.4.3 Metacognitive Scaffolding Students in 7-11 years stage (concrete operations) have some abilities, and some higher levels of thinking that enable them to work in the next stage (formal operations), but they need a certain guidance and support from more capable and competent adults to reach that stage. These children need to narrow their zone of proximal development; they can be pushed to the next stage or can narrow their ZPD by scaffolding and supporting them. Vygotsky (1978) believes that students cannot independently narrow the zone of proximal development (Rosenshine and Meister, 1993). So the concept of scaffolding becomes a critical technique to bridge the gap between what the students can accomplish independently and what they can achieve with assistance or guidance of others. Therefore, scaffolding is a technique of teaching where the learning is assisted by the teacher or / and other capable peers (Slavin, 1994; Rosenshine and Meister, 1993). When using scaffolding, students are provided with “a great deal of support during the early stage of learning and then diminishing support and having the students take on increasing responsibility as soon as they are

65

able” (Slavin, 1994, p. 49). In this way, students are able to narrow the zone of proximal development initially with support, and retain this level of achievement as support is reduced. So awareness of a student’s ZPD helps a teacher gauge the tasks student is ready for, the kind of performance to expect, and the kinds of tasks that will help the student reaching his or her potential. Fading of support during scaffolding should eventually result in self-regulated learning, and thus more self-reliant students. Recent developments in pedagogy and educational science also picture this more active, self-reliant role of students, selfregulating their own learning process and actively creating new knowledge. For selfdirected learning, metacognition, “one’s awareness of one’s own cognition” (Alessi and Trollip, 2001, p. 28), is needed which is so helpful for life long learning. As students are being supported to work self-reliantly, they can learn how to learn, which is critical for their professional futures where they will be required to keep themselves up-to-date in their own professions. Brown et al. (1991) describe scaffolding in reciprocal teaching which enhances interactive learning. Interactive learning provides students with situations that push the boundaries of their abilities and actively engage them in tasks. It also gives students an opportunity to be students as they come to master a task and, once they have achieved mastery, to be teachers of those who are still learning. Brown et al. (1991) add that research indicates that problems which are too difficult at first for students to handle on their own, later become problem types they can solve independently when they have first received support and worked on them in a small group setting. That is, the teacher scaffolds students and students scaffold themselves. Therefore, scaffolding enables students to learn a body of coherent, usable, and meaningful knowledge within their zone of proximal development and “to develop a

66

repertoire of strategies that will enable them to learn new content on their own” (p. 150). King (1991a) affirms that matacognitive scaffolding, in the form of metacognitive questions help students to clarify the problem and access their existing knowledge and strategies when relevant. For example, to identify or redefine the problem, questions such as, “What are you trying to do here?” can be asked which is expected to help students determine the nature of the problem more precisely. Questions such as “What information is given to you?” would presumably help students to access prior knowledge, whereas the question “Is there another way to do this?” would foster greater access to known strategies. A question to monitor problem solving may be “Are you getting close to your goal?” Evaluation questions such as, “ Does the solution make a sense?” enable students to reflect on their problem solving process, for instance, to articulate the steps they have taken and decisions they have made, facilitating their understanding of the reasons behind actions. In sum, metacognitive scaffolding guide students’ attention to specific aspects of their learning process, helping students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning processes, and therefore, helping students to learn with understanding (Lin et al., 1999). King (1991a) found that many students lack the ability to engage in effective thinking and problem solving on their own; therefore, scaffolding in the form of metacognitive questions should be made to support students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, and therefore, learn with understanding. Moreover, this scaffolding is likely to enable students to make judgments about what can be known and what cannot and to justify the problem solution. Questions such as “What is your justification for that

67

solution?” would help students to construct cogent arguments for their point of view (Jonassen, 1997). Kramarskis et al. (2001) found that students with metacognitive scaffolding ask themselves questions about the nature of the problem (what is the problem all about?), about the appropriate strategies to solve the problem (what are the appropriate strategies to solve the problem, and why?), and about the construction of relationships between the previous and the new knowledge (What are the similarities / differences between the problem at hand and the problems solved in the past?). So students who are metacognitively scaffolded will more than likely be students who plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning processes and outcomes. In other words, they will more than likely be able to refer to the what, how, when, where and why of the learning processes and solutions. Wong (1985) affirms that teaching students to ask questions help them become sensitive to important points in a text and thus monitor the state of their reading comprehension. Palincsar and Brown (1984) indicate that in asking and answering questions concerning the key points of a selection, students are likely to find that problems of inadequate or incomplete comprehension can be identified and resolved. Van Zee and Minstrell’s (1997) study described “a reflective toss” through a questionanswer cycle between the teacher and the students, which revealed the influence of a teacher’s questions on a student’s reflective thinking process. It is evident that metacognitive questions serve to facilitate metacognition in planning by activating prior knowledge and attending to important information, in monitoring by actively engaging students in their learning process, and in evaluation through reflective thinking.

68

Others such as Burron et al. 1992) consider cooperative learning to be a form of critical pedagogy that moves classrooms and societies closer toward the ideal of social justice. in the present study. people do not learn in isolation from others. they are more likely to understand the materials better. but created and located in the learning environment” (p. and recognize and fill in gaps in their understanding. Caplow and Kardash (1995) characterize cooperative learning as a process in which “knowledge is not transferred from expert to student. reason and explain solutions. Other scholars (Kohn.209). Vygotsky (1978).5 Cooperative Learning and Learning Mathematics with Understanding A common response to the idea that students construct their knowledge is that students should be encouraged to work with others. Sapon-Shevin and Schniedewand. 1998). When students in cooperative learning settings ask and answer the metacognitive questions. 69 . the teacher in the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding group scaffolded students by asking metacognitive questions and students were coached to ask themselves and their group members metacognitive questions based on materials presented in the classroom. for example. develop new perspectives. they naturally learn and work cooperatively throughout their lives (Petraglia. As Dewey (1961) and Vygotsky (1978) suggest. 2. (1993) and Ossont (1993) see cooperative learning as a strategy to help students improving intellectual and social skills. Cooperative learning is defined differently by different researchers and theorists.Therefore. 1992. views cooperative learning as part of a process leading to the social construction of knowledge.

2. 1995). In these processes. Cognitive development from Piagetian view is the product of an individual. 1978). receive feedback. perhaps sparked by having to account for differences in perspectives with others (Rogoff. disequilibrium. existing schemes are altered to accommodate new information or new information is being assimilated into existing schemes. with members striving for joint benefit. in which intraindividual discord during thinking / problem solving leads to reequilibrium. and reequilibrium.Although there seems to be some differences between the definitions of cooperative learning. students’ interaction prompts the student to assimilate or 70 . This conflict initiates a process of cognitive or intellectual reconstruction in an individual. The process of knowing for Piaget comes about through the sequence of equilibrium.1 Theoretical Perspective on Cooperative Learning Piaget (1970) focuses on the individual as a starting point. 1990). This is what Piaget calls “cognitive conflicts” (Mugny and Doise. The aim of this cooperation is for students to maximize their own and each other’s learning. or are told of something that contradicts their believes or current understanding. Piaget believes that individuals work with independence and equality on each other’s ideas. Knowledge or information is provided through cooperation for the individual to use when becoming aware of differing perspectives and in resolving the differences between them. which are then strengthened. or by way of sociocognitive conflicts. so when they interact they learn. in which intreindividual differences during thinking / problem solving are catalysts for cognitive growth (Manion. there is common agreement that cooperative learning is an instructional method in which small groups of students work together to accomplish a shared goal through changing or reconstructing their knowledge. Therefore. Piaget stresses that these processes can occur either by way of cognitive conflicts.5.

As Manion (1995) indicates. Vygotsky (1978) focuses on the social basis of mind. 71 . Students’ social interaction with more competent students is essential to cognitive development. Vygotsky (1978) affirms that individual intellectual development cannot be understood without reference to the social setting in which the student is embedded. He believes that an individual makes use of the joint decision-making process itself to expand understanding and skill. they provide a profound conceptual base for cooperative learning. Cognitive development involves an individual’s appropriation or internalization of the social process as it is carried out externally in joint problem solving. and criticism. the planning of strategies in advance. Ismail (1999) believes that they actually complement each other. This interaction enables students to discuss and exchange their ideas and thoughts which in turn emulate rational thinking processes such as the verification of ideas. Although there seems to be some differences between Piaget and Vygotsky. spontaneous generation.accommodate his or her knowledge. students revise their ways of thinking to provide a better fit with reality when faced with discrepancies between their own ways of viewing the world and new information. Vygotsky is another psychologist who has done extensive work in social context. and if they are combined. the symbolic representation of intelligent acts. Student will then takes on and internalize these procedures thus enhancing the development of his or her intellectual abilities such as his or her problem solving capacities. In contrast to Piaget. So students’ cognitive or learning is developed through interaction with more skilled partners working in the zone of proximal development.

Johnson and Johnson (1999) identify three basic types of learning that goes on in any classroom: competitive learning where students compete to see who is the best. 1987). textbooks. and cooperative learning where students work cooperatively with a vested interest in each other’s learning as well as their own. Cooperation among students who celebrate each other’s successes. is still rare. but also they need to interact with each other to achieve their learning goals. So students need not only to interact with materials (i. individualistic learning where students work individualistically toward a goal without paying attention to other students. disabled or not.. They also should be able to select the appropriate pattern suited to the situation. Of the three patterns.e. However. bright or struggling. in the ideal classroom all three patterns are used. Even though these three patterns are not equally effective in helping students learn. but also for ensuring everyone in the group knows the material as well (Slavin. Students will face situations in which all three patterns are operating and they will need to be able to be effective in each. curriculum programs) or with the teacher. Students perceive that they can reach their learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also reach their goals (Johnson. 1981). it is important that students learn to interact effectively in each of these ways. This does not mean that they should be used equally. They are not only responsible for learning the material that is presented. competition is presently the most dominant where the students view the school as a competitive enterprise where one tries to do better than others.Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. and learn to work together regardless of ethnic backgrounds or whether they are male or female. encourage each other to do homework. but the cooperative pattern should 72 .

2 Elements of Cooperative Learning 73 . a group of students can be a cooperative learning group if the elements of cooperative learning are fulfilled. In other words. many learning and instructional approaches that apply cooperative learning have resulted in the students’ cognitive. intellectual. being used 60 to 70 percent of the time. The majority of the studies show that cooperative learning has advantages over the competitive and individualistic learning. If a group of students has been assigned to do a report.5. and affective growth (Johnson et al. social. (1986). 1996).. there needs to be an accepted common goal on which the group is rewarded for its efforts. 2. about 600 experimental and over 100 correlational studies have been conducted since 1898 which have compared these three learning types or patterns. A group of students sitting at the same table doing their own work. Slavin. but only one student does all the work and the others go along for a free ride. but free to talk with each other as they work. perhaps it could be called individualistic learning with talking. 1991. and a competitive pattern may be used 10 to 20 percent of the time (Johnson and Johnson. 1999). A cooperative group has a sense of individual accountability that means that all students need to know the material well for the whole group to be successful. Johnson and Johnson (1999) clarify that there is a difference between simply having students work in a group and structuring groups of students to work cooperatively. it is not a cooperative group. is not structured to be a cooperative group. According to Johnson et al. For this to be a cooperative learning situation. The individualistic pattern may be used 20 percent of the time. Moreover.dominate the classroom.

3 Teacher’s Role in Cooperative Learning 74 . Team members are strategically seated in order to encourage “eye-to-eye. Through team building activities. and the skills used to process and meet the goal. As students work toward a common goal. they can do alone tomorrow (Vygotsky. Positive interdependence: “All for one and one for all” “ Sink or swim together”. 2. 1978). knee-to-knee” interaction. Individual accountability: What students can do together today. Evaluating and processing: Students are given time and encouraged to participate in reflection about what was learned. These include: Promotive. team cooperation and fellow success becomes imperative.5. Although students work together in a cooperative group. In order for members to reach a common goal. each student is held accountable for individual learning. Face to Face Oral Communication: Students are placed in heterogeneous groups from 2 to 6 members.Johnson and Johnson (1987) have identified five basic elements of cooperative learning. students must utilize adequate cooperative social skills to function successfully. promotive behavior is facilitated. how it was learned. Cooperative Social Skills: Students work together to reach a common goal. Interpersonal. Individual student performance is assessed and the outcome is reported and celebrated by the individual as well as team members.

That is.1996). they explain strategies and mathematical ideas in their own words. mutual reasoning and conflict resolution are likely to occur. encourager. the teacher contributes in refinement and evaluation processes of learning outcomes. Finally. Because providing explanations is one of the best means for elaborating information and making connections (Slavin. which. asks questions. Also. checker. 1996) and students in cooperative settings often give explanations to each other. information is retained and understood through elaboration and construction of connections between prior knowledge and new knowledge (Wittrock. when students work with peers who are in various stages of mastering a task. to be a guide on the side rather than a sage on the stage. For learning mathematics. 75 . 1985).. the likelihood of constructing rich networks of knowledge under these conditions increases. in turn. 1986). and intervenes when necessary. Also the teacher contributes in deciding the group size and assigning group members and roles (e.g. etc). and according to the constructivist theories. 1978). a supervisor rather than instructor. summarizer. facilitates learning (Mevarech and Light. As students interact cooperatively. Observing other students solving a problem help students internalize either the cognitive functions they are attempting to master or those that are within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky. teacher’s role is to guide and support students to build or reconstruct their knowledge.Through the discussion above. recorder. thus helping one another to process complex cognitive activity (Schoenfeld. the role of the teacher in cooperative learning can be shown as a facilitator rather than prompter.. monitors the learning groups. The teacher specifies the instructional objectives. Researchers have emphasized the importance of mathematical communication to build students’ capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning (Stein et al. 1992).

” That is. problem solve. and whole-group learning.. and individual. and accomplish.. learning environments should be created in the way that promote active learning and teaching. 1987. math vocabulary (e. Students can be given tasks to discuss.According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM. Cooperative learning is one example of an instructional arrangement that can be used to foster active student learning.g. =. vocabulary and symbolic understanding can be facilitated with peer interactions and modeling. For example. Schoenfeld. or >) must be understood to work problems as there are no contextual clues to aid understanding. equivalent) and mathematical symbols (e.. <. 1999). Hoek et al.g.g. students must understand the language and symbols of mathematics because contextual clues. cooperative learning can be used to promote classroom discourse and oral language development. In almost all studies. are lacking in mathematics. 1997. Wiig and Semel (1984) describe mathematics as “conceptually dense. Finally. like those found in reading. classroom discourse. greater-than. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method is based on cognitive theories of learning that emphasize the important role of elaboration in constructing 76 . In a cooperative learning activity. 1991). Mevarech and Kramarski. which is an important dimension of mathematics learning and highly endorsed by math educators and researchers. the metacognitive strategies were employed in cooperative learning settings where small groups of 4 – 6 students studied together (e.. Also Teachers can use cooperative learning activities to help students make connections between the concrete and abstract level of instruction through peer interactions and carefully designed activities. denominator. small group.

2001). That is. Thompson. their experiences. 2000. and on a large body of research (e. Mevarech and Kramarski. They are drilled in arithmetic without applying the skills to problems that mean anything to them. Since this potential has not always materialized. 1992. their metacognitive strategies. For them. Kramarski. In most traditional mathematics classrooms. 1991. concepts. and Webb. students are frequently expected to learn facts. 1999. So their 77 . Stacey and Kay. Davidson. researchers suggested the embedding of metacognitive strategies in cooperative setting in order to provide an appropriate situation for students to elaborate their mathematical reasoning (Schoenfeld. Qin et al. 1986). 1992). and their attitudes toward mathematics into account (Brown.new knowledge (Wittrock. they have misconceptions about what mathematics is about and they do not take how students learn. national Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2. So most of them are familiar with only the computational aspects of mathematics and are likely to argue for its place in the school curriculum and for traditional methods of instructing students in computation... Mevarech. and skills divorced from any real context. 1992.6 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Learning Mathematics with Understanding Most of people believe that mathematics in all is about computation. and Kramarski et al. 1987. They usually learn abstract formulas in mathematics out of realistic contexts. 1989. the broad goal of learning process is to master the computational procedures regardless to what actually mathematics is about and regardless to the learning process itself. 1997. 1990..g. 1989a) showing that cooperative learning has the potential to improve mathematics performance because it provides a natural setting for students to supply explanations and elaborate their reasoning. 1995.

effective mathematics instruction should assist students to activate the metacognitive strategies in order to be able to learn mathematics with understanding and reason mathematically. 1993) suggest that a fundamental source of weakness underlying students’ performance may lie in students’ inabilities to actively monitor 78 . Work in the area of mathematics problem solving suggests that the deployment of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding underlie successful performance.learning are likely ineffective. and although they can acquire mathematical operations they are usually unable to apply them in different situations as Clark (1995) has concluded that when students interpret an activity as unrealistic and non-meaningful. Silver. 1987. Shoenfeld (1987) found that expert mathematicians engaged in decision-making and management behaviors at critical junctures during the problem-solving process. Therefore. Artzt and Armour-Thomas (in press). Other reviews of studies of mathematical problem solving (e. cultivated. encoding. found that a continuous interplay of cognitive and metacognitive behaviors was necessary for successful problem solving. and learning are likely to become over simplified and narrowly school-focused.g. In contrast. novice problem solvers did not appear to use these metacognitive strategies and often found themselves lost in the pursuits of “wild geese.22). and exploited. Garofalo and Lester.. the metacognitive strategies of students must be acknowledged. representation. A major function of all schooling must be to help create students who know how to learn” (p. 1985. King and Rosenshine.” More recently. Ertmer and Newby (1996) assert that “If schools are going to help all students become expert students. in their investigation of the analysis of problem solving in small groups.

Strategic Competence. abilities. 2001) reported positive effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding on students’ mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning. Kilpatrick et al. There is also some evidence about the role of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding in successful mathematics performance. reasoning. to diagnose and monitor their understanding and specific cognitive processes such as reworking problems. They reported that they were able to judge their own understanding. This framework has some similarities with the one used by Donn and Taylor (1992a) that structures different facets of mathematical or quantitative literacy (content knowledge.. and Productive Disposition.and subsequently regulate and evaluate the cognitive processes used during problem solution. the students were asked to recall their thoughts during mathematics instruction. For example. Adaptive Reasoning. They believe that learning mathematics with understanding has five interwoven and interdependent strands.. Other researchers (e. These five strands provide a framework for discussing the knowledge. and 79 . 1987. and beliefs that constitute mathematical proficiency. skills. with the California Public Schools framework (1999) that includes three components (conceptsl. 2001. procedures. (2001) clarify that learning mathematics with understanding is not about only computation or mathematical procedures. 1984) found that students’ metacognitive scaffolding for classroom learning was significantly related to their performance. Using a stimulated-recall procedure. appreciation of the societal impact of mathematics. Schonfeld. Xun. Kramarski et al. and checking their answers. Peterson et al. applying information at a specific level.g. namely Conceptual Understanding. Procedural Fluency. and disposition). (1982.

they describe their own thinking. because they learned by connecting facts and methods under their teacher’s guidance. procedural fluency (mathematics performance). connections. Since the mathematical proficiency strands are interrelated. When students are aware of their metacognitive thoughts. 1999). and problem solving) and includes additional specifications for reasoning. They have organized their knowledge into a coherent whole. 2. That is. They may attempt to explain the method to themselves and correct it if necessary. which enables them to learn new ideas by connecting these ideas to what they have already learned (Donovan et al. and communication. They monitor what they remember and try to figure out whether it makes sense. and also with the one used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Students with conceptual understanding are able to retrieve their knowledge and methods. procedural knowledge. the role of metacognitive scaffolding in teaching each strand will be briefly discussed. When students understand a method. Students with conceptual understanding know more than isolated facts and methods. The next section discusses the mathematical proficiency strands and focus on the role of metacognitive scaffolding in teaching conceptual understanding.reasoning) of mathematical competence. (NAEP. They understand why a mathematical idea is important and the kind of contexts in which it is useful. They can realistically assess what they are capable of learning and therefore they have 80 . 2000). they are unlikely to remember it incorrectly. 1992).6. and mathematical reasoning.1 Conceptual Understanding Conceptual understanding refers to an integrated and functional grasp of mathematical ideas. which features three mathematical abilities (conceptual understanding.. it is easier for them to remember and reconstruct the forgotten knowledge (Hiebert and Carpenter.

A significant indicator of conceptual understanding is being able to represent mathematical situations in different ways and knowing how different representations can be useful for different purposes. 2001). they are keeping track of what they are doing and knowing well how to use their previous knowledge to guide the problem solving actions.a good sense of what they know. The degree of student’s conceptual understanding is related to the richness and extent of the connections they have made (Kilpatrick et al. To find one’s way around the mathematical terrain. they are likely to learn with conceptual understanding. how they are similar. Students who are working cooperatively and scaffolded metacognitively ask themselves about the construction of relationships between the previous and the new knowledge (What are the similarities / differences between the problem at hand and the problems solved in the past?) (Kramarskis et al. Schonfeld (1987) and King and Rosenshine (1993) found that when students were metacognitively trained they could make connections between mathematical concepts in different areas. they are likely to gain the conceptual understanding and then to construct the correct solution. Also they know what they are currently doing. They have self-regulation. For example.. particularly errors of magnitude. So doing might help students to represent the problem in various representations. 2001). Conceptual understanding helps students avoid many critical errors in solving problems. and how they are different. So when students are metacognitively trained. “if they are multiplying 9. and by connecting these representations with each other. it is important to see how the various representations connect with each other.83 81 . therefore they can identify the similarities and differences between the various strategies used.

expect the product. 2000).65 and get 7519. and double-checking results. so multiplying two numbers less than 10 and 8 must give a product less than 80. They know that 10 x 8 = 80.6. p. 2. Students who work cooperatively and are scaffolded metacognitively are likely to understand the concept of addition. 2001. An efficient strategy is one that the student can carry out easily. knowledge of number facts and other important number relationships. knowledge of when and how to use them appropriately. Students within cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are likely to represent the problem in different ways where they can select the appropriate 82 .95 for the answer.6). among them careful recording. They might then suspect that the decimal point is incorrectly placed and check that possibility” (Kilpatrick et al. Efficiency implies that the student does not get bogged down in too many steps or lose track of the logic of the strategy.2 Procedural Fluency Procedural fluency refers to knowledge of procedures or algorithms. Students need to be flexible in order to choose an appropriate strategy for the problem at hand. and also to use one method to solve a problem and another method to double-check the results.. Flexibility requires the knowledge of more than one approach to solving a particular kind of problem. and skill in performing them flexibly. and check their learning strategy and the product. such as two-digit multiplication. 2001). Accuracy depends on several aspects of the problem-solving process. connect the current problem with the previous one. and efficiently (Kilpatrick et al.and 7. accurately. keeping track of sub problems and making use of intermediate results to solve the problem (Russell. represent the problem in different ways. and therefore. they can immediately decide that it cannot be right. they are unlikely to do critical errors.

would 83 . That is.. 1998). They practice problems in a way that requires different types of procedures (Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools. Therefore these students are unlikely to make mistakes during procedures application. For example. students who work individually with limited metacognitive strategies in fractions addition. This type of practice provides students with an opportunity to understand better how different procedures work by making them think about which is the most appropriate procedure for solving each problem. they mix subtraction and addition operations.. they represent different procedures and evaluate the outcomes then select the appropriate one and justify their selection. metacognitively trained students can modify or adapt procedures to make them easier to use (Carpenter et al. what are the similarities and differences between the current problem and the problems already were solved. and evaluate the outcome of any action. they are likely to refresh their mathematical learning and procedures.. 2001). In other words. 1993). comparing the differences and similarities of the current problem and the problems have been solved. they ask themselves about the appropriate approach to solve the problem (What are the appropriate approach / strategy / procedures to solve the problem? (Kramarskis et al. keep track of what has been done. and what is the appropriate procedure to solve the current problem.approach or procedure to solve the problem. 1999). Research indicates that long-term retention of mathematics procedures requires frequent refreshers at different points in the students’ mathematical learning (Bahrick et al. Therefore. For example. Moreover. They plan their learning by understanding the whole problem before getting start. Students who work cooperatively with metacognitive scaffolding always ask themselves questions like: what the whole problem is about.

2001). Students with experience in solving mathematical problems and with limited or without formulating experience usually encounter difficulties in figuring out exactly what the problem is (Kilpatrick et al.3 Strategic Competence Strategic competence refers to the ability to formulate mathematical problems. In other words they need experience and practice in both problem formulating and problem solving.ordinarily need paper and pencil to add 2 1 and . Therwefore. 2 2 2. while students within cooperative 4 2 learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting recognize that 2 1 equals to and 4 2 therefore they add 1 1 to mentally to get 1 as the result. and solve them. they should know a variety of solution strategies as well as determining which strategies might be useful for solving a specific problem. So for students to solve mathematical problems they need to formulate the problem first then they can use mathematics to solve it. represent them.6. represent the problem in different ways and connect these representations. They are encouraged to ask themselves what the whole problem is about. determine the similarities and differences between 84 . Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are encouraged to understand the whole problem first.

and to evaluate (after the solution). For example. if they encounter the following purchase problem: 3 1 Dinar. and evaluate the outcomes (Kramarskis et al. and solve the problem. How much 3 pieces of cake cost at Ali’s shop?” They may identify what the problem is about by studying the relationships among the variables in the problem and determine what is known and what to be found. That is.the problem on hand and others they have solved. symbolically. That is. they are likely to conclude that subtraction and multiplication initially should be used (problem formulation). or graphically. whether numerically. they are encouraged to plan (before the solution). With a formulated problem in hand. By doing so.. select the appropriate approach to solve the problem. monitor (during the solution). students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting may draw a number line and locate each cost per piece of cake on it to solve the problem. students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are more likely to represent it mathematically in some fashion. Ali’s shop price is Dinar 4 3 “At Ahmad’s shop the price of a piece of cake is less than Ahmad’s price. They avoid selecting numbers and preparing to perform arithmetic operations on them directly. Rather they are likely to construct a mental model of the variables and relations described in the problem. 2001). they generate a mathematical representation of the problem that captures the core mathematical elements and ignore the irrelevant features (Kilpatrick et al. represent. So doing assisted them to formulate. For the purchase problem. They build a mental image of the problem’s essential components. 2001). They may represent the problem by transforming the two 85 .

Students with strategic competence need to choose flexibly among the proposed approaches to suit the demands presented by the problem and the situation in which it was posed. For example. ) to solve the 12 12 (problem presentation). they focus on structural relationships that provide the clues for how the problem might be solved (Hagarty et al. Having many different representations students try to connect the relationships among them by determining the common mathematical structures.. They may offer fractions with a common denominator and formulate: 9 4 and as equivalent 12 12 86 . Therefore they are likely to conclude that they cannot subtract the numerators directly and try to find equivalent fractions with like denominators. That is. 2001). They are likely to represent the problem in different forms and therefore they have different solution approaches. and by comparing these approaches they can select the appropriate one that will be evaluated to check its appropriateness. For the purchase problem. they recognize that this problem relates to subtraction two fractions with unlike denominators and this is different from what they solved previously with like denominator fractions. Flexibility of approach can be seen when a method is adjusted or created to fit the requirement of the problem (Kilpatrick et al. 1995). 1995).fractions into equivalent fractions with a like denominator ( problem 9 4 . They compare the current problem with the previous one. Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are flexible in their approaches (Butler.. they may select the approach of transforming the two fractions into equivalent fractions with a like denominator as the appropriate approach to solve the problem.

One explanation is that metacognitive scaffolding allows individuals to plan. and evaluate their learning in a way that directly improves performance (Schraw and Dennison. 1989). Metacomponents are executive processes that control other cognitive components as well as receive feedback from these components. Sternberg (1986b) refers to metacognitive strategies as Metacomponents. 1994). 87 . 24). monitoring and evaluating problemsolving activities. sequence. They may 12 4 12 3 draw a rectangle and divide it into 4 equal pieces and shade 3 pieces. the 12 12 12 formulation would be: 5 5 5 15 + + = 12 12 12 12 = 5 4 1 4 =1 Because students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are encouraged to ask evaluation questions. For 3 pieces of cake.9 4 5 = as the difference in price for a piece of cake. monitor. Metacomponents are responsible for “figuring out how to do a particular task or set of tasks. These executive processes involve planning. Research indicates that metacognitively scaffolded students are more strategic and perform better than untrained students (Garner and Alexander. According to Stemberg (1986b). and then making sure that the task or set of tasks are done correctly” (p. and then they divide the rectangle into 12 equal pieces where they find that the three shaded pieces make nine pieces and so on for the other fractions (problem solving and evaluation). they are likely to check if the solution makes sense by testing if 9 3 4 1 equals to and equals to .

in learning mathematics. analogy. Students use it to navigate through the many facts.2. and determine when and how to break the problem into simpler parts. Mathematical answers are right because they follow from some agreed upon assumptions through series of logical steps (Kilpatrick et al. 2001). distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information. that they make sense. and metaphor. This reasoning stems from careful consideration of alternatives. and observing patterns. reasoning is used to settle disputes and disagreements and then knowledge is changed or reconstructed.6. procedures. Adaptive reasoning is the glue that holds everything together. and solution methods and to see that they all fit together in some way.4 Adaptive Reasoning Kilpatrick et al. Adaptive reasoning is much broader than formal proof and other forms of deductive reasoning. Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools (1999) identifies the mathematical reasoning steps as follows: a) making decisions about how to approach problems through analyzing the problem by identifying relationships.. concepts. and concepts in finding solutions through using 88 . it includes not only informal explanation and justification. (2001) refers to adaptive reasoning as the students’ ability to think logically about the relationships among the mathematical concepts and situations. b) using strategies. but also intuitive and inductive reasoning based in pattern. 1978). Since learning according to Piaget occurs by assimilation and/or accommodation through resolving the cognitive conflicts (Mugny and Doise. skills. the lodestar that guides learning. sequencing and prioritizing information. and includes knowledge of how to justify the conclusions.

terms and clear language.estimation to verify the reasonableness of calculated results. After the relationships were identified. realizing the methods of deriving the solution and demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the derivation by solving similar problems. procedures. diagrams. to formulate and summarize the real-life problem. mathematical reasoning refers to the students’ ability to identify the similarities and differences among facts. applying strategies and results from simpler problems to more complex problems.e. indicating the relative advantages of exact and approximate solutions to problems and give answers to specified degree of accuracy. justified strategies and results are applied in other situations (i. graphs. that is. strategies generalization and solving real-life problems). Pollack (1997) indicates that mathematical reasoning plays a significant role in student’s ability to take an open-ended question and transform it into unambiguous something to solve. tables. In summary. appropriate strategies for solving the problem are selected and reasonable reasons about strategies selection and calculated results are provided. using a variety of methods. and models. charts. expressing the solution clearly and logically by using the appropriate mathematical notation. symbols. Finally. and making precise calculations and check the validity of the results from the context of the problem. and developing generalizations of the results obtained and applying them in other situations. support solutions with evidence in both verbal and symbolic work. c) moving beyond a particular problem by generalizing to other situations through evaluating the reasonableness of the solution in the context of the original situation.. concepts. and situations and then think logically about the relationships among them. numbers. 89 . such as words. to explain mathematical reasoning.

90 . It is counterproductive for students to believe that there is some mysterious factor that determines their success in mathematics (Kilpatrick et al. For students to learn mathematics with understanding (proficiently).It is apparent from the steps of mathematical reasoning identified by the mathematics framework for California public schools that mathematical reasoning comprises both strategic competence and adaptive reasoning of Kilpatrick’s et al. they have to believe that mathematics is understandable.5 Productive Disposition Resnick (1987) refers to the productive disposition as the tendency to see mathematics as sensible. useful. 2. Dweck (1986) indicates that students who view their mathematical ability as fixed and test questions as measuring their ability rather than providing opportunities to learn are likely to avoid challenging tasks and be easily discouraged by failure. (2001) model of mathematical proficiency. the mathematical reasoning term in this study was used to indicate strategic competence and adaptive reasoning simultaneously.6. and worthwhile. with diligent effort. and solve problems. learning mathematics with understanding goes beyond being able to understand. Students’ disposition toward mathematics may play a crucial role in their understanding and success. coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy. and that they are capable of figuring it out. compute. It takes account of a disposition toward mathematics that is personal. not arbitrary. that. Therefore. whereas students who view ability as expandable in response to experience and training are more likely to seek out challenging situations and learn from them. Thus. it can be learned and used. For instance. 2001).

Kilpatrick et al. (2001) attribute the development of productive disposition to the development of the other mathematical proficiency strands. For example, when students build their own strategies to solve the mathematical task, their attitudes and beliefs about themselves as mathematics students become more positive. In addition, the more mathematical concepts they understand, the more sensible mathematics becomes. In contrast, when students are seldom given challenging mathematical tasks to do, they come to expect that memorizing rather than sense is the appropriate approach to learn mathematics, and they begin to lose confidence in themselves as students. Similarly, when students see themselves as capable to operate the mathematical procedures and reason mathematically, their disposition is more likely to be positive. Since students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are more likely to have conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, and adaptive reasoning, they seem to have a positive attitudes and beliefs. Also, when students apply the metacognitive strategies within the cooperative learning environment, they discuss, share, and contrast their ideas and their teacher ideas. This conflict environment is likely to enhance students to see themselves as capable to learn with understanding (Cobb et al., 1995), which in turn, seems to help them to have a positive attitudes and beliefs.

2.7 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Mathematical Reasoning Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are more than likely to reason mathematically in their learning situations. They are guided about the knowledge of when, where, and why to use the strategies for problem

91

solving (Pressley and McCormick, 1987). As metacognitive scaffolding comprises planning, monitoring, and evaluation, metacognitively trained students are likely to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning strategies and solutions. Planning is essential to formulate, identify, and define the problem and then building the relationships among its concepts and procedures. To select the appropriate strategies, the students need to regulate or monitor their problem performance by self-generating feedback. Evaluation enhances students to reflect on their solutions or alternatives so as to direct their future steps (Jacobs and Paris, 1987). Since mathematical reasoning requires thinking about the relationships between mathematical facts, concepts, and situations, students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are enhanced to identify the similarities and differences between the current problem and the ones they have already solved. Doing so is likely to enable them to compare concepts, procedures, and strategies which in turn, enable them to establish the relationships among them. For example, when the

students encounter the following task

3 2 + to solve, the teacher asks: what are the 4 5

differences / similarities between the current task and those you solved last class? What in your prior knowledge will help you in this particular task? What you should think about first? By answering these questions, students may possibly reach to the conclusion that the current task is regarding adding two fractions with unlike denominators. Studies conducted by Chi et al. (1994); Mevarech and Kramarski, (in press); Slavin (1996); Cossey’s (1997); and Webb (1989) showed that metacognitive scaffolding is one of the best means for making connections between mathematical facts, concepts, and procedures.

92

While mathematical reasoning requires selecting appropriate strategies for solving the task and justifying both the strategies’ selection and the task’s solution, students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting seem to be able to select and justify the appropriate strategies for solving the task. For the adding fractions with unlike denominator example, the teacher asks metacognitive questions that help students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning such as: Is the sum would be less than or greater than 1? Thinking to answer this question is likely leading students to answer “the sum will be greater than 1”, and then the teacher asks why?

By relating to their previous knowledge, students may justify that

2 1 is greater than , 5 4

and

3 1 + equals to 1, so the sum will be greater than 1. The teacher then asks what 4 4

are the appropriate strategies to find the sum of these two fractions? What should you do first? Students with metacognitive scaffolding are likely to respond that they can not add directly unless they make the two denominators equal. How you should do so? The teacher asks. The students are likely to compare this task with the previous ones

and relate it to the equivalent fractions and offer

15 8 and as equivalent fractions 20 20

with a common denominator. The teacher asks students to justify why they have chosen 20 as the common denominator. By relating to the Least Common Multiple (LCM), students seem to respond that 20 is the smallest number that both five and four go into. How did you come up with that? the teacher asks. Again through understanding and relating to the LCM, students are likely to answer “by multiplying 5 and 4. The teacher then asks students to write down the processes of solving the

93

task. Within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting, students are likely to write the solution as follows: 3 2 + 4 5 3×5 2×4 3×5 + 2 × 4 + = 4×5 5× 4 4×5 = 15 + 8 20 23 20

=

=

The teacher asks, are you in the right track? How do you check if the solution makes sense? How do you know that you have added the same fractions as in the original task? How well did you do? The students may use different representations (graphs,

models, symbols, numbers line, etc) to prove that

3 15 2 equivalent to and 4 20 5

equivalent to

8 . Hoek et al. (1999) and Mevarech (1999) studies showed that 20

metacognitive scaffolding is effective for developing the selection of the appropriate

strategies for solving the problem. Finally, mathematical reasoning requires applying strategies in other situations. Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are more likely to generalize their learning strategies to other situations. Based on the adding two fractions with unlike denominators example, the teacher asks: how might you apply this line of thinking to other situations? Could you derive a rule that would work for adding or subtracting any fractions with unlike denominators? The teacher then provides different tasks, word-problems, and real-life problems regarding adding

94

solving this kind of problems requires students to regulate the selection and execution of a solution process. Real-life problems entail multiple solutions. The solution process involves generating and selecting solutions. searching and selecting information. and (c) monitoring and evaluation. (b) solution processes. The general nature of these problems is that the goals are vaguely defined or unclear (Voss and Post. and the information needed to solve them is not entirely contained in the problem statements. They are generally problems in which one or several aspects of the situation are not specified. Finally. A representation problem is established by constructing a problem space. Since real-life problem solving may generate a large number of possible goals. 2. Sinnott (1989) insists that the solvers must have a mechanism or strategies for selecting the best goal or solution.and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators and asks the students to solve them through applying the same line of thinking they applied before. solution paths. their descriptions are not clear. Hong (1998) summarized the processes of real-life problems which their goals are vaguely defined into three processes: (a) representation problem. 1985).8 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Real-Life Problem Solving Real-life problems are problems that people encounter in everyday life. 1988). it is not obvious what actions to take in order to solve them (Chi and Glaser. 1983). including defining problems. Since reallife problems usually have no clear goals and require the consideration of alternative solutions as well as competing goals. That is. or no solutions at all (Kitchner. the monitoring and evaluating process requires assessing the solution by developing justifications for it. when goals or 95 . and developing justification for the selection. consequently.

. it is very critical to learn solving real-life problems. Lesh (1985) indicates that getting a collection of isolated concepts in a student’s head (e. It is not that traditional teaching practices do not use examples. it does not guarantee that situations will be recognized in which the ideas are useful or that they will be retrievable when they are needed. measurement. real-life problems and other devices. activities. students learn the concept of 1 2 effectively by solving a problem like if two ice cream cones cost 10 cents. decimals. Tiene and Ingram (2001) assert that the best approach of teaching is to ground all learning as much as possible in tasks. 2001). addition. fractions.action alternatives are unclearly defined. they will learn them most effectively while engaged in meaningful tasks. For instance. students have to organize and direct their cognitive endeavors in different ways. If it is important for students to learn facts. negative numbers) does not guarantee that these ideas will be organized and related to one another in some useful way. (1989) assert that when learning includes real-life problems. proportional reasoning. students acquire content and skills through the resolution of problems. Students are taught the isolated basics and then are expected to apply them to artificial problems (Tiene and Ingram. how much does one cone cost? That is.g. learning to solve real-life problems produces active learning and easily retrieved knowledge as Brown et al. multiplication. It is that the overall approach is turned around the wrong way. 96 . and problems that are meaningful to the students. Because students need and use mathematics in their everyday lives.

1997.For learning mathematics. monitoring. the students will be engaged in multiple mathematics processes and they will learn how mathematical concepts are related to one another in a useful and meaningful way. to reflect on the goals and solution processes and to construct cogent arguments for their proposed solutions. Lin and Lehman (1999). King (1991a. Such experiences also require students to talk and think about mathematics with one another and with the teacher (Lesh. students are enhanced to solve real-life problems because they are encouraged too plan. they provide the most viable. Davis and Linn (2000). the most defensible and the most cogent argument to support their preferred solution. monitored. As students select a good solution from among the many viable solutions. and evaluated their own processes 97 . In addition. In a study of history experts. students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting may also evaluate their selection by examining and comparing other alternatives. Within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting. when situations are mathematized in the classroom such as balancing a class budget. 1991b). and defend it against alternative solutions (Jonassen. 1989. successful students planed. 1985). 2002) found that planning. Wineburg (1998) found that planning. and Kramarski et al. Voss and Post. Palincsar and Brown (1984. monitoring. and evaluation helped students to solve a real-life problem in the absence of domain knowledge. 1988).. Sinnott (1989) noted that during the process of solving a real-life problem. Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are likely to reason and defend their selections and solutions. to monitor problem-solving processes. and evaluation enhanced metacognitive knowledge and reflective thinking which enhanced the processes of solving real-life problems.

. 1992). greater creativity and risk taking. Their motivations tend to focus on learning processes such as understanding and mastery of mathematical concepts (Duda and Nicholls. 1992. 2. bad grades. good grades.9 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding and Motivation Motivation is the reason why an individual behaves in a given manner in a given situation. 1988).and movements from state to state.. approval) or to avoid punishment (e.” Students who are intrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks because they enjoy them. and choice of an activity in the absence of an extrinsic reward (Lepper. they tend to exhibit a number of pedagogically desirable behaviors including increased time on task. 1992). and it determines whether or not one will engage in a given pursuit (Ames. When students engage in tasks in which they are motivated intrinsically. On the other hand students who are extrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks to obtain rewards (e. and emotional reactions. They feel that learning is important with respect to their self-images. Academic intrinsic motivation is the drive or desire of the student to engage in learning “for its own sake. one’s beliefs about what is important. intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. more elaborative processing and monitoring of comprehension. disapproval). 1993a). selection of deeper and more efficient performance and learning strategies. as well as select information. These students’ motivations tend to focus on learning products as 98 . solutions. selection of more difficult tasks. persistence in the face of failure. It exists as part of one’s goal structures.g. and they seek out learning activities for the sheer joy of learning (Middleton. Two distinct types of academic motivation interrelate in most academic settings.g.

it is essential for learning. and when the social climate fosters interaction and cooperation among students” (p. In this case. learning is an active process in which the students construct their own knowledge.obtaining favorable judgments of their performance from teachers. 312). 1990). Bruner (1973) maintain that student may be motivated more quickly when given a problem they cannot solve. Driscoll (1998) declares “Motivation appears to be enhanced when students’ expectancies are satisfied. Not only is it the case that motivation helps learning. beliefs. 1992). There are many ways to promote motivation. Hein (1991) indicates that motivation is a key component in learning. Motivation is 99 . when they attribute their successes to their own efforts and effective learning strategies. students are challenged by the task and they will be motivated more. but it is also important as an outcome (Ames. Garrison (1997) expounds that “to direct and sustain motivation students must become active students” (p. Task motivation is integrally connected to task control and self-management. than they are when given some little things to learn on the promise that if they learn these well. 8). and attitudes in students that will sustain a long-term involvement and that will contribute to quality involvement in learning” (p. 1973). parents.413). three weeks later they will be able to solve an exciting problem (Shulman. She adds “Effective teachers are those who develop goals. According to constructivist point of view. 1998). Intrinsic motivation is important because it contributes to learning processes and achievement. The motivation that teachers wish their students to have is intrinsic motivation. Teachers often complain that their students are not motivated and hence cannot or do not learn well (Driscoll. So they encounter difficult problems that they cannot solve by using only their current knowledge. and peers or avoiding negative judgments of their performance (Ames.

In contrast. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 100 . Mathematics instruction plays an important role in encouraging students’ motivation to learn mathematics. they see themselves as capable of understanding and then doing mathematics effectively (Cobb and Yackel. Students who view their mathematical ability as expandable in response to experience and training are more likely to seek out challenging situations and learn from them.broadly conceived to include an understanding of ways in which the knowledge can be used. students who view their mathematical ability is fixed are likely to avoid challenging problems and be easily discouraged by failure (Dweck. These students are encourager to negotiate among themselves the norms of conduct in the class. they will perceive mathematics as useful and worthwhile and then they will see themselves as effective students of mathematics (Resnick. When students are mathematically motivated. Unless the student knows the reasons why. 1995). Motivation is particularly important in learning mathematics with understanding. Even by the most severe and direct teaching. and when those norms allow students to be comfortable in doing mathematics and sharing their ideas with others. Students within cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting. 1986). he or she may not be very involved in using the knowledge that may be instilled in him or her. are likely to be motivated more to learn mathematics. 1987).

3. the procedures. existing intact classes were used (O’deh and Malkawi. the instructional materials and instruments. mathematical reasoning. all the materials and instruments used in this study were translated into Arabic. 1992). In order to implement this study in a naturalistic school setting. 3. The sample consisted of 240 male students who studied in six fifth-grade classrooms and were randomly (simple random sample) 101 . the research design.2 Population and Sample The population of this study comprised male fifth grade students enrolled in the first public educational directorate in Irbid Governorate in the first semester for the academic year 2002 / 2003. It describes in detail the population and sample.1 Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS) and cooperative learning (CL) methods on mathematics performance. It is important to note that everyday classroom instructions and all reading materials (except for the English subject) used in the participating schools are in the Arabic Language. Therefore. This chapter discusses the methodology that was used in this study. the experimental conditions. The first public educational directorate in Irbid Governorate includes 44 male primary schools. and metacognitive knowledge among high and low ability fifth-grade students in Jordan. and data analysis procedure and the method that was used in the analysis of data. Public schools in Jordan are not coeducational.

T (control group): students taught mathematics via the present classroom practice (traditional method). 102 . The size of the classes was approximately similar. 3. CL: Students taught mathematics via Cooperative Learning with no Metacognitive Scaffolding (n = 79).were from approximately equivalent socioeconomic status as defined by the Jordan Ministry of Education. and had taught in heterogeneous classrooms. The three schools were also randomly selected from the primary schools where mathematics was taught in heterogeneous classrooms with no grouping or ability tracking. and the mean age of the students was 10. mathematical reasoning. All the teachers were men who had similar levels of education (B. Students in the selected schools – as well as all Irbid Government schools . (See table 3. The teachers who taught the experimental groups were exposed to one week training on the instructional methods.3 Experimental Conditions The three schools were assigned randomly to one of the following conditions: 1. and metacognitive knowledge.Ed. The participating students were informed that the purpose of this study was to examine different learning strategies that may help in the improvement of students’ mathematics performance.selected from three different male primary schools i. two classes from each school. had more than 7 years of experience in teaching mathematics. Each of the three male teachers who participated in this study taught two classrooms. that is. major in mathematics).e. 3. 2.6 years.. CLMS: students taught mathematics via the Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding method (n = 80). without Metacognitive Scaffolding or Cooperative Learning methods (n = 81).1).

discussed. The CLMS group was asked metacognitive questions by the teacher and students in this group used metacognitive questions cards in cooperative learning setting. and interacted in groups with no MQ Without Cooperative Learning Metacognitive Scaffolding a) The teacher asked metacognitive questions{MQ} and coached students to ask MQ b) Students used metacognitive questions cards Without teacher’s metacognitive scaffolding Without metacognitive questions cards Without teacher’s metacognitive scaffolding Without metacognitive questions cards The three groups were different from one another in terms of the instructional method and materials used. whereas the T group studied in the usual manner with neither cooperative learning.1: Mechanisms for the three groups Group 1 (CLMS) N = 80 Group 2 (CL) N = 79 Group 3 (T) N = 81 The whole class with neither cooperative learning nor Metacognitive Scaffolding Cooperative Learning with metacognitive scaffolding Cooperative Learning with no Metacognitive Scaffolding Cooperative learning Students worked. teacher’s metacognitive questions.Table 3. The CL group studied cooperatively with neither teacher’s metacognitive questions nor using metacognitive questions cards. discussed. and asked themselves and their members metacognitive questions Cooperative Learning Students worked. 3. interacted in groups.4 Research Design 103 . nor metacognitive questions cards.

Cooperative learning instructional method (CL). = O10 = O12 = Post-test.ability (Y2) Independent Variable (Instructional Method) CLMS 1 4 CL 2 5 T 3 6 O1 X1 O3 X2 O5 X0 O7 X1 O9 X2 O11 X0 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y2 Y2 Y2 O2 O4 O6 O8 O10 O12 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) = X1: CLMS X2: CL X0: T Y1: High-ability Y2: Low-ability O1 = O3 = O5 = O7 O2 = O4 = O6 = O8 O9 = O11 = Pre-test. The research design is illustrated in table 3. Cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding instructional method (CLMS). 104 .This quasi-experimental study was designed to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning methods on mathematics performance. and metacognitive knowledge. Table 3. mathematical reasoning. 2. The independent variable of this study was the instructional method with three categories: 1. It was designed to investigate the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variables at each of the two levels of the moderator variable. Traditional instructional method (T). The study employed Factorial Design 3x2. 3.2.2: Research Design Moderator Variable (Ability) High-ability (Y1) Low.

and metacognitive knowledge in a naturalistic setting of the classroom. 2. Metacognitive knowledge (MK).5. Slavin (1996) recommended the use of such research design because it enables researchers to hold constant all factors other than the ones being studied. 2. and 3. mathematical reasoning.The moderator variable was the ability level with two categories: 1.1 Instructional materials In order to study the students’ mathematics performance. and (c) traditional instructional method with neither cooperative learning nor metacognitive scaffolding. Low-ability.5 Instructional Materials and Instruments 3. the instructional 105 . The dependent variables were: 1. (b) cooperative learning with no metacognitive scaffolding instructional method. Mathematical reasoning (MR). Mathematics performance (MP). High-ability. 3. The design of the present study compares three instructional methods (a) cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding instructional method.

Mixed Numbers. Subtracting two Fractions which one Fraction’s Denominator is Multiple of the second Fraction’s Denominator. and b) This topic was scheduled by the schools to be covered by the teacher in early December 2002 / 2003. which are. and Subtracting Fractions Problem Solving respectively. Within each school. The “Adding and subtracting Fractions” unit consists of 12 lessons. Jordanian students start learning the basics of adding and subtracting fractions in the fifth-grade. the teacher 106 . Adding Fractions Problem Solving. Equivalent Fractions. which is also the same duration of time planned for this study. teacher’s lesson plans. Subtracting Mixed Numbers. Adding Fractions. This low performance in fractions. Comparing and Ordering Fractions and Mixed Numbers. Introduction to Fractions. Simplifying Fractions.1 Adding and Subtracting Fractions Unit “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” was the unit chosen for this study.1. This particular unit was chosen for two reasons: a) Jordan eighth-students’ performance regarding fractions according to the TIMSS-R (1999) findings was very low and students committed many undetermined errors.materials used in this study were based on the fourth unit from the mathematics textbook (Adding and Subtracting Fractions) designed by the Ministry of Education for all fifth-grade students in Jordan. and metacognitive questions card. particularly addition and subtraction of fractions demands Jordanian educators to pay attention to this particular topic. 3. The TIMSS-R study was conducted on eighth-grade students but according to the Jordanian curriculum the topic of fractions is taught in the fifth-grade. Adding Mixed Numbers. Subtracting two Fractions which one Fraction’s Denominator is not Multiple of the second Fraction’s Denominator.5.

and “why” as well as 107 . These questions were categorized into the following groups of metacognitive questions: Planning: “What is the problem all about?” “What are the strategies we can use to solve the problem and why?” (There were 8 questions in this category). (NCREL. Each lesson started with the new topic explanation and followed by mathematical exercises and problem solving. The students taught via the CLMS method used the questions cards to scaffold their learning processes when they engaged in cooperative learning activities with their respective peers. such as “what”. and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 3. monitoring. All sessions were presented from written lesson plans to ensure that all participating students in the three groups received the same quantity of knowledge. These questions were closely paralleled to the Kilpatrick’s model of mathematical proficiency (2001). Monitoring: “Are we on the right track?” (There were 9 questions in this category).2 The Metacognitive Questions Cards A set of metacognitive questions cards (see Appendix A) was developed by the researcher based on the metacognition components (planning.conducted the class according to his assigned teaching method for 15 sessions. One session (45 minutes) was conducted to teach the first ten lessons and two sessions to teach the last two lessons as planned from the Ministry of Education in teacher’s guide. They consisted of questions supporting mathematical proficiency and mathematical reasoning skills. and evaluation) designed by Jacobs and Paris (1987). 1995).1. Evaluation: “What explanations can we make and what evidence do we have to justify that our solution is the most viable?” (There were 5 questions in this category).5. “how”.

selecting the appropriate strategies to solve the problem. The test-retest reliability coefficient of that test was . and metacognitive knowledge. The mathematical competency test consisted of 5 conceptual understanding items. to develop metacognitive thinking. such as questions regarding making decisions about approaching the problem. 3.5. and regarding generalizing the solution processes to other situations. 1999). the researcher constructed these respective items (see appendix B) based on Kilpatrick’s model (2001). A mathematics achievement test was used to assess students’ mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning and a metacognitive questionnaire was used to assess students’ metacognitive knowledge. 11 procedural fluency items. 1991b). mathematical reasoning. and to develop mathematical reasoning. 3. These questions were designed to facilitate students’ understanding of domain knowledge.93. The students taught via the CLMS method were instructed and reminded frequently to think about the questions.1 The Mathematics Achievement Test (The pre-Test and post-Test) The mathematics achievement test administered by the three groups’ participants in this study was adapted from the mathematical competency test developed by Jbeili (1999).2.2 Instruments In this study. The test-retest approach of measuring reliability is considered the best approach that provides the test’s consistency over time (Tuckman. Since there were no mathematical reasoning items included in that test. and use the questions to facilitate their problem solutions.5. two major instruments were used to assess students’ mathematics performance. and one problem solving regarding adding and subtracting fractions.questions that were found in King’s generic question stems (King. NCTM 108 .

The second kind (6 items) was based on open-ended tasks regarding conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. adding and subtracting fractions. and mathematical reasoning. One kind (10 items) was based on multiple-choice items regarding conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. The student had to calculate the mixed fruit juice volume in each shop. (b) procedural fluency. and justify and support the solutions with evidence. The mathematics achievement test questions were composed of four kinds of items. The 8 items asked students to estimate the results. The pre-test and post-test questions were similar in content but their order and numbering were randomized. The mathematics achievement test questions covered the following topics: equivalent fractions. the reliability coefficient was measured by applying the test on a pilot sample. explain the solution clearly. and adding and subtracting mixed numbers. and Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools (1999). compare the prices and quality. simplifying fractions.standards (2000). comparing and ordering fractions and mixed numbers. The problem asked students to decide the better buy from two different prices and quality of mixed fruit juice. Three constructs. which tightly correspond to the mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning. procedural fluency. were identified as important for measuring mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning for this study: (a) conceptual understanding. and (c) mathematical reasoning. The fourth kind was a real-life problem that involved conceptual understanding. The mathematical reasoning items were designed to require students to go beyond presenting facts to thinking about those facts. The mathematics achievement test questions consisted of 24 mathematical items and sub items and a real-life problem. The third kind (8 items) was specifically designed to assess students’ mathematical reasoning. decide the 109 . With these new added items.

(2001). explain which sign >. The distribution of the mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning items and their scores across conceptual understanding (CU). “In the following item.g.better buy. (2001) and has a repeated .. 3.5. and a total score ranging from 0 to 10. <. students received a score of either 1 (correct answer) or 0 (incorrect answer). For each item. For example.” A score of 0 indicates incorrect selection and explanations or explanations that are irrelevant to the task (e.2 The Scoring of Mathematics Achievement Test The total score of the test was 44.90 interjudge reliability. 9 5 < 2 because when the 3 110 . Mathematical reasoning items: The scoring procedure is adopted from Kramarski et al. 9 5 … 2 . and a total score ranging from 0 to 6. students received a score between 0 and 2. and a total score ranging from 0 to 16. To gain a deeper understanding of students’ mathematical reasoning. the items regarding mathematical reasoning and the mathematical reasoning criteria in the real-life problem were separately analyzed following the method used by Kramarski et al. procedural fluency (PF). or = that will 3 make the statement true. The 24 mathematics items and sub items and the real-life problem scoring were as follows: Multiple-choice items: For each item. and mathematical reasoning (MR) is illustrated in appendix C. Open-ended task items: For each item. students received a score of either 1 (correct answer) or 0 (incorrect answer).2. and provide reasons for his decision.

Students’ answers were scored on these criteria. A score of 2 indicates a clear.86 interjudge reliability.g.. since the denominators (15. 27 9 2 > . were identified as important for measuring students’ ability to solve the real-life problem.. unambiguous explanation of student’s mathematical reasoning (e. A score of 1 indicates an explanation that has some satisfactory elements but may has omitted a significant part of the task (e.g. Nothing is mentioned about numerator or transferring it into a common denominator). 27 10 > .denominator is smaller the value is greater. The criteria were: 111 . which tightly correspond to the conceptual understanding. procedural fluency. Nothing is mentioned about the denominators. the fraction with the larger numerator is the larger fraction if the denominators 15 are the same. each criterion ranges from 0 (no solution) to 3 (highest level solution). when transform into equivalent fractions with a like denominator 5 3 15 and 10 . and mathematical reasoning. 9 2 > because when transformed into a common denominator the numerator 27 is 5 3 bigger than the numerator 10. 15 15 The real-life problem: A scoring rubrics (see appendix D) was adapted from the Kramarski et al. Four criteria. 15) are same and the numerator 27 is bigger than the numerator 10. and a total score ranging from 0 to 12. (2001) procedure with a repeated .

1. distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information. providing evidence. Identifying relationships. Referencing all data (referring to all data in each of the two offers: mixed fruit juice volume. Processing information (figuring the calculations correctly. Making justifications for the suggested solution (giving reasons. and justifying the suggestion. and provide an appropriate solution to the required task. or any other representation for comparisons and identifying similarities/differences between the representations.Mathematical Reasoning). diagram. components.Conceptual Understanding). 112 . and prices. If a student’s final response is “I suggest buying the mixed fruit juice from Ali’s shop because both volumes are same and Ali’s price is cheaper than Ahmad’s price”. 4. writing the solution processes. Organizing information: The student does not use any representation to present his calculation or conclusion-Score 0. The student has given a very brief answer and the scoring will be as follows: Reference to all data: The student refers to the prices and volumes but he does not refer to the quality-Score 2. Processing information: The calculations are correct but the student does not write explicitly the solution process-Score 2. 3.Mathematical Reasoning). 2.Procedural Fluency). Example 1. Organizing information (summarizing the data in a table.

Organizing information: The student summarizes all data in a table and provides written explanations. Although the two volumes are same (each fraction in the first offer is equivalent to the each fraction in the second offer). and each juice components (quality)-Score 3. but he does not justify his reasoning (how Ali’s price is cheaper than Ahmad’s price)-Score 2.-Score 3. volumes. The total score: 6 Example 2: If a students’ final response is “I suggest buying the mixed fruit juice from Ahmad’s shop. 113 . So although Ali’s price 8 is cheaper by 1 1 1 1 ( = ) dinar than Ahmad’s price. Processing information: The calculations are correct and the student writes explicitly the solution process-Score 3. the better buy is Ahmad’s 4 2 4 4 juice because its quality is better than Ali’s juice. the components of Ahmad’s juice are 100% fruit juice. Making justifications: The student explains his suggestion and justifies his reasoning (how Ali’s price is cheaper than Ahmad’s price)-Score 3. The student has summarized all relevant and irrelevant data in table and given a thorough explanation. but Ali’s juice contains 6 litters of water. The scoring will be as follows: Reference to all data: The student refers to the prices.Making justifications: The student explains his suggestion.

83.g. and from Xun (2001) self-report questionnaire. 3.86 respectively.g. The first category (5 items) was focused on strategies used before the solution process (planning) (e.5. Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (always) and a total mean score ranging from 1 to 3. the metacognitive questions card.The total score: 12 3. assessed students’ metacognitive knowledge regarding their problem-solving strategies. Metacognitive questionnaire scoring: Each item was constructed on a 3-point. “I tried to understand the problem before I attempted to solve it”). I tried to find evidence to justify and support my solutions”).. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of those questionnaires were .. and the third (5 items) was focused on strategies used at the end of the solution process (evaluation) (e. “I summarized what were given and what were wanted in a table”).5. The adapted metacognitive knowledge questionnaire consists of 15 items grouped into three categories. the scoring procedure of assessing mathematical reasoning items.3 The Metacognitive Knowledge Questionnaire The metacognitive knowledge questionnaire (see appendix E) was adapted from the study of Montague and Bos (1990).2. and 114 .. after the translation to Arabic language. two education mathematics supervisors.3 Materials and Instruments Validity Although the materials and instruments used in this study were derived from theories principles and standards. . two experienced mathematics teachers. the second (5 items) category was focused on strategies used during the solution process (monitoring) (e.g. and two mathematics education university lecturers in Jordan reviewed the lesson plans.

4.1(a. Evaluators agreed that the questions 1. 7. 3. or MR) the question represented and which of the metacognitive knowledge component (planning. MR.the scoring rubrics of assessing the real-life problem.2 (a. therefore they were removed from the questionnaire. and comments were taken into account until there were no discrepancies among the evaluators. Then the evaluators reviewed the mathematics achievement test questions and the metacognitive knowledge questionnaire items. Since evaluators were in disagreement about question 4. Each looked at each question in the test and at each item in the questionnaire and assessed which of the mathematical proficiency strand (CU. MR. PF. evaluators agreed that the first five items of each scale (planning. d).1 (e). and 11 (criterion 5). and MR strands respectively.1. with all reporting confidence scores 10. and MR strands respectively. 4. the questions were removed from the test. PF. MR.2. PF. b. The researcher met the evaluators and discussed the questions regarding these materials and instruments during the evaluation process. However. there were disagreement about the last three items of each scale (9 items). and rated their confidence in their response. PF. 3. CU. using scale from 1 (weak) to 10 (strong). 9. or evaluation) the item represented.2. The evaluators’ suggestions. After an overall 115 . 10. were selected as test questions and questionnaire items following Chung (2002). 2. CU. CU.1. questions 4. which had received 7 or more scores from all evaluators. monitoring. monitoring.1 . c. and question 11 (real-life problem) (criterion 1 to 4) were represented to MR. and evaluation) were represented. For the questionnaire items validity. CU.2.2 (e). feedback.2. c. d). PF. b. with all reporting confidence scores 10. with all 9 scales. MR. with all reporting confidence scores 8. and 10. 9.1. d) were represented to CU. and 5 (a. Only questions and items. 8. 6. 5 (e). CU.2. were represented to CU. and PF strands respectively. b. c.

they were considered valid materials and instruments for conducting this study.. Permissions were sought from the educational development and research department of the Jordan Ministry of Education (see appendix F). the mathematics achievement test and the metacognitive knowledge questionnaire. 116 . with the additional items and translation to Arabic. and it was .64. and from the participating schools’ principals.84 for the metacognitive knowledge questionnaire. 3. 3. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the mathematics achievement test was .60 for planning. . The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients showed that the study instruments were satisfactory reliable. the researcher obtained permissions from a number of different parties for conducting the pre-experimental study and the experimental study.6 Procedures Prior to the implementation of the study.5. the First Public Educational Directorate in Irbid Governorate (see appendix G) where the participating schools are located.88. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients for the metacognitive questionnaire categories were .4 Instruments Reliability Two major instruments were used in this study i. and evaluation respectively.agreement was reached on the validity of the materials and instruments.e. Although the instruments used in this study were adapted from reliable instruments. monitoring. . a pilot test was carried out and the scores from the pilot study test and the metacognitive questionnaire were collected and a set of reliability tests were conducted to determine the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients.66.

major in mathematics). the mathematics achievement test and the metacognitive knowledge questionnaire. The participants were randomly assigned to the two experimental conditions i..Ed. Each teacher taught two classes in each school.1 The Pilot Study Prior to the formal study sessions. had more than 7 years of experience of teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms were selected (one from each school). in terms of using the metacognitive questions cards.e.2 The Formal Study For the experiment. who were not going to participate in the formal study. and secondly. The teachers were exposed to one week training about teaching adding and subtracting fractions with MSCL and CL methods. training of teachers. Permission was sought from each school’s principal. At session 15. The researcher selected randomly 80 participants from a randomly selected primary school.6. major in mathematics) and had more than 7 years of experience in teaching mathematics were selected to teach the participants in the pilot study. to test the instruments reliability i. teachers conducted classes according to their assigned teaching methods for 14 sessions. Within each condition.. sessions duration. 3.6.e. MSCL and CL groups. to test the materials and instruments. There were two purposes to the pilot study: first. the researcher randomly selected three schools from the 44 male primary schools in Irbid Governorate. Three mathematics teachers with a similar level of education (B. all participants were administered the mathematics achievement test and immediately responded to the metacognitive questionnaire items. a pilot study was conducted to validate research procedures.3. Each teacher’s classes were randomly assigned into the 117 .Ed. Two male teachers who had a similar level of education (B. and the test and the questionnaire durations.

the teachers assigned to the experimental groups participated in one week training sessions that focused on pedagogical issues regarding teaching mathematics.. procedural fluency. 3. the teachers continued conducting classes according to their assigned teaching methods until the end of the first semester. They worked with the new methods and materials and learned how to use them with their students. The materials included the mathematics textbooks. The pre-test was focused on students’ conceptual understanding. the high-ability students and the low-ability students.4 Teachers’ Training Prior to the beginning of this study. 118 . In the present study.3 Groups’ Equivalence To test the assumption that the participants across the three groups were equivalent. The pre-test papers were scored by the researcher.6. Within each school.e. the focus was on the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit that was taught in all classrooms for 14 sessions at the end of the first semester. and examples of metacognitive questions. The teachers were informed that they would be part of an experiment in which new instructional methods were being tested.three instructional methods described earlier. the scores by the three groups were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) for Windows computer software (version 11. explicit lesson plans.5). The researcher then discussed with each teacher about his assigned instructional method and appointed one day with each one to discuss about training. the pre-test was conducted two months before the beginning of the study.6. To determine if there were statistically significant differences between the groups’ mean scores i. and mathematical reasoning. 3.

119 . Finally. The procedures of selecting groups and assigning group members were explained to the teacher. The researcher met the teacher for feedback and assessment regarding the application of the teaching method. the T teacher was not exposed to the metacognitive scaffolding or to the cooperative learning training. He was informed to use metacognitive questions in his explanations and coach his students to use metacognitive questions when they solve the mathematical problems. The CL teacher was trained about teaching mathematics within cooperative learning setting. The researcher met the teacher for feedback and assessment regarding the application of the teaching method. he was asked to teach as he used to teach in a usual manner. and about selecting groups and assigning groups’ members. He was exposed to some examples about the nature of the metacognitive questions and how to use and train students to use them in a cooperative learning setting.The CLMS teacher was trained explicitly about using cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding in the teaching of Adding and Subtracting Fractions. The researcher checked his lesson plans and his methods of teaching to ensure that he followed the traditional method. He was not exposed to any training about metacognitive scaffolding method.

5. He discussed with them about the importance and the role of this method in developing their mathematics performance.1 The Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive Scaffolding (CLMS) Method In this treatment. The teacher introduced the processes of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method to the students. The teacher spent some time on explicitly introducing the concepts of how students can become metacognitive students within this learning environment. why they would learn metacognitive strategies.6. Because students’ scores were interval variables. Scores above the median (16) were labeled as high-ability and below the median were labeled as low-ability following Tuckman (1999).3. reasoning. the pre-test was conducted first and then students were informed that in the following weeks they would be exposed to an instructional method that would help them become more effective managers of their own learning activities. The scores were placed in numerical order and then the median score was located. The remaining groups were selected by repeating the same procedure with the reduced list. they were converted to nominal variables. and how they could apply these strategies in solving real-life problems. After the discussion on cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method. Each group was formed by randomly choosing two high-ability students and two low-ability students. 120 . The median of the scores was the criterion of assigning students to the group. and metacognitive knowledge.6. They were divided into high and low-abilities based on their pre-test scores in mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning. students were assigned into groups based on their ability.5 Implementation of the Study 3.

next we.When the grouping was completed. In the first session.... the teacher introduced and explained the new topic for about 30 minutes to the whole class by asking him-self metacognitive questions regarding planning. The metacognitive questions asker read the questions from the metacognitive questions card and asked his group members. For example. recorder. then we. so what should I do? Do I know where I can go to get some 121 .. These roles were rotated among students after each session so that each group member played each one several times. and the recorder wrote down the solution steps. additions. The formal experiment lasted 15 sessions (14 sessions for implementing the method and 1 session for administrating the test and the questionnaire).. and the justifications of that solution. the teacher said. The summarizer summarized orally the main ideas and the key points to solve the problem. but this task includes fractions with different denominators. they would be asked to complete a mathematics achievement test and a questionnaire. the teacher randomly assigned a metacognitive question asker. before solving the problem. or subtraction. students’ roles in their group were assigned. the explanations. just before the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit was taught. summarizer.. instead of saying. and evaluation. monitoring. the presenter presented. “I need to know what the whole task is about. First we. The teacher applied the CLMS instructional method two months before the formal experiment with practice units. fractions.. students were informed that at the end of this unit. explained. Within each group. and presenter and then he described each role. etc? What is given and what is not given? What in my prior knowledge will help me with this particular task? Last time I have learned about adding fractions with the same denominators. is it about the whole numbers. Finally. For the formal experiment... and justified the solution to the whole class.

e. the metacognitive questions cards were distributed to the groups. and represent it from different perspectives. After the teacher’s explanation. the teacher also asked metacognitive questions regarding monitoring. the teacher summarized the learning processes through metacognitive questions before (planning). and how can I decide that? Did my particular strategy produce what I had expected? What could I have done differently? How might I apply this line of thinking to other problems? Finally. At the end of his explanation.information on this task? What are some strategies that I can use to learn this? I should find a way to transform one of the denominators to be same as the other then I can add. The students were asked to do their exercises and solve the assigned mathematical problems in groups for about 15 minutes. and after (evaluation) of the learning task and encouraged students to apply them in learning adding and subtracting fractions. students were encouraged and trained to ask these questions. During his explanation process. did I understand what I have just decided to do? Am I on the right track? How can I spot an error if I make one? How should I revise my plan if it is not working? Am I keeping good notes or records? Again. responding to the “why do we do 122 . For example. Students were encouraged to talk about the task. during (monitoring). This is important because according to Palincsar and Brown (1984). explain to each other. The teacher had explained to the students about the reasons for doing each of the steps on the matacognitive questions cards.. so how should I do this?” The teacher then coached and encouraged students to ask these metacognitive questions within the cooperative setting. the teacher asked and trained students to ask metacognitive questions regarding evaluation such as: Did the solution make a sense. providing reasons for doing a particular action (i.

the teacher collected the metacognitive questions cards and assessed and evaluated students’ performance. in the third session it was about 20 minute and so on until the time became when the teacher taught for about 10 minutes regarding the new topic and the students continued learning by their own using the metacognitive questions cards. the explanation. and had students celebrate the work of group members. the metacognitive questions asker had read the problem and asked aloud. the group members discussed the issue until the disagreement was resolved. in the second session it was about 25 minutes. for example. discussed with the whole class to ensure that students carefully process the effectiveness of their learning group. the teacher monitored each learning group and intervened by asking more metacognitive questions if necessary. the summarizer orally summarized the solution. the teacher and students followed the same method and procedures and the group members’ roles were rotated after each session. and the justification and discussed with his colleagues. and justification were in hand. When the disagreement was resolved. the teacher’s time in the first session was 30 minutes. the colleagues listened to the mathematics metacognitive question and tried to answer. the metacognitive scaffolding input by the teacher was gradually reduced. namely in 123 . Whenever there was no consensus. In this way. the recorder has written them down and the presenter has presented to the whole class. With the solution. However. During these processes. After one month of implementing the CLMS instructional method.this” question) during a learning strategy usage training will increase the likelihood that the strategy will continue to be used by the participating students after the training. At the end of the session. explanation. For the next sessions.

In the first session. the teacher introduced and explained the new topic for 25 minutes to the whole class and then proceeded to teach in a usual manner. the teacher randomly assigned reader. After the 124 . The formal experiment lasted 15 sessions (14 sessions for implementing the method and 1 session for administrating the test and the questionnaire). For example. Because there were students left over. Within each group. The pre-test was conducted first and then students were informed that in the following weeks they would be exposed to an instructional method that would help them to improve their learning activities. The teacher applied the CL instructional method two months before the formal experiment with practice units. The teacher introduced the cooperative learning method stages and discussed with the students about the importance of using this method in mathematics classroom. they were immediately asked to complete the metacognitive questionnaire.the last mathematics session of this experiment (session 15). Students were assigned into heterogeneous small groups following the same procedures of assigning students to the groups in the CLMS condition. For the formal experiment. and presenter and then he has described each role. After completing the test. he used the board and explained the main ideas of today’s lesson. students taught via cooperative learning instructional method with no metacognitive scaffolding. one group of three members was formed (one high-ability student and two low-ability students). they would be asked to complete a mathematics achievement test and a questionnaire. just before the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit was taught.2 The Cooperative Learning (CL) Method In this treatment. the students were asked to complete the mathematics achievement test. summarizer.5.6. students were informed that at the end of this unit. 3. recorder.

the students were asked to complete the mathematics achievement test. the teacher and students followed the same method and procedures and the group members’ roles were rotated each session.teacher’s explanation of the new topic to the whole class. During the session. For the next sessions. the colleagues discussed about the learning task and asked themselves different questions (but they were not trained to ask metacognitive questions). the recorder. and the presenter played the same roles of their counterparts in the CLMS group. students were 125 . Finally. students were asked to do their exercises and solve the assigned mathematical problems in groups for 20 minutes. the students ensured that all of them mastered the task. and he responded to students’ questions. After one month.3 The Traditional (T) Method The control group served as a comparison group with no intervention. the teacher intervened when needed to improve task work and teamwork. namely. but he did not use metacognitive scaffolding. Therefore. namely in the last mathematics session of this experiment (session 15). At the end of the session. ensured that students carefully process the effectiveness of their learning group. Just before the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit was taught. and the students were not exposed to cooperative learning or metacognitive scaffolding. The summarizer. After completing the test. and had students celebrate the work of group members. 3. the teacher of this group continued teaching as he usually did. The reader read the problem aloud.6.5. The pre-test was conducted two months before teaching the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit. he asked questions regarding the task such as: what are the procedures of adding two fractions with different denominators. the teacher assessed and evaluated students’ performance. they were immediately asked to complete the metacognitive questionnaire.

three mathematics education supervisors. the teacher introduced. So the teacher intervened when needed to help some students to solve their mathematical problems.4 Monitoring the Implementation of the Study During the first two months of implementing this study. In this condition. After the teacher’s explanation. Each mathematics education supervisor was informed to observe his assigned teacher following the checklists prepared by the researcher to ensure the fidelity to the implementation. the students practiced the mathematical items individually using their textbooks and teacher’s notes and sometimes employed any method the teacher saw fit for 10 minutes.5. Sometimes the teacher explained and informed the students about the procedures of solving the problem. In session 15. At the end of each session. whose job was to regularly visit the three teachers in their classes.6. they asked for the teacher’s help. visited the three teachers twice a month. The checklist of the CLMS group contained questions such as: Did the teacher follow his lesson plans correctly? Did the teacher ask metacognitive questions during his explanations? Did the teacher 126 . explained. In the whole 14 sessions of implementing T method. When the students faced difficulties during solving the mathematical problems. 3. the teacher reviewed the day’s lesson with the whole class. and manipulated the new concepts and procedures of today’s lesson using the board and the textbook for 35 minutes to the whole class. the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” teaching lasted 15 sessions (14 sessions for teaching and 1 session for administrating the test and the questionnaire). the students were asked to complete the mathematics achievement test. The metacognitive questionnaire was passed out to the students immediately after they completed the mathematics achievement test. and finally could not find the solution.informed that at the end of this unit. they would be asked to complete a mathematics achievement test and a questionnaire.

the three mathematics education supervisors visited the three teachers twice a week and followed the same checklists to ensure the implementation fidelity. namely. 127 . Also the researcher met each teacher twice a week to ensure fidelity to the treatment following the checklists used by the three mathematics education supervisors.assign the groups correctly? Did the teacher gradually reduce his metacognitive scaffolding input? Did the teacher distribute the metacognitive questions cards to the all groups? Did each group member play different roles? The checklist of the CL group contained questions such as: Did the teacher follow his lesson plans correctly? Did the teacher assign the groups correctly? How long did the teacher's explanation last? How long did the students work cooperatively? Did each group member play different roles? The checklist of the T group contained questions such as: Did the teacher follow his lesson plans correctly? How long did the teacher's explanations last? How long did student spend to solve the mathematics problems individually? During the last month of implementing this study. The mathematics test items and the metacognitive questionnaire items were scored by the researcher using the scoring rubrics. At the end of session 15. during the teaching of "Adding and Subtracting Fractions Unit". the researcher collected the mathematics test and the metacognitive questionnaire papers from the three participating groups.

In addition.7. be used to compare the three mean scores. mathematics performance (MP) and mathematical reasoning (MR). two-way multivariate analysis of variance (two-way MANOVA) test willstatistical technique was conducted.. Since there are were two dependent variables i.e. two-way ANOVA will be used to compare the high-achievers across the three group and to compare the low-achievers across the groups. and a three groups and one moderator variable with two levels (high-ability and low-ability). The correlation coefficient will be measured to ascertain the instruments reliability. 3. 3. the participants’ average scores on the pre-test in mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning(mathematics and Arabic) will be were analyzed to determine if there are were statistically significant differences between the groups’ mean scores.1 The pre-Experimental Study Findings Analysis Groups’ Equivalence To test the assumption that the participants (high and low ability students) across the three groups are equivalent.3.7.7 Data Analysis Procedure and Method 3. a reliability test was conducted for the mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning test and for the metacognitive questionnaire items to determine the Chronbach Alpha reliability values.2 The Experimental Study Findings Analysis 128 . namely.2 Instruments Reliability The test-retest reliability coefficient for the mathematical achievement test and the metacognitive questionnaire will be measured through entering the findings into the SPSS computer program.7.

MR. MR. All of the statistical analysis tests will bewere computed at 0. and MK across the three groups. and MK across the three groups. and MK of the three groups. by conducting two-way MANCOVA without splitting files. The test and the questionnaire items were scored by the researcher and The results will be analyzed to determine if there are were any statistically significantce differences between the three groups on the dependent variables. a series follow up two-way analysis of covariance (two-way ANCOVAs) were used to identify where the differences resided. Then MANOVA was conducted with splitting file technique to compare highability students against high-ability students’ MP. the interaction effects between the instructional method and the ability level (high-ability and low-ability) was measured.At the end of this study. a moderator variable with two levels. and the pre-test as a covariate.) and three dependent variables. MR. MANCOVA will be was conducted first to compare MP. Finally. 129 . and metacognitive knowledge (MK). Since the follow up ANCOVAs results were statistically significant. the two experimental groups and the control group participants will completed the mathematics achievement performance and mathematical reasoning test and filled out the metacognitive questionnaire. two-way multivariate analysis of variancecovariance (two-way MANCOVA) test will bewas conducted to compare the three adjusted mean scores on mathematics achievementperformance (MP).05 level of significance. Because the overall two-way MANCOVA results were statistically significant. the post hoc pair wise comparison technique using the /lmatrix command was used to identify where the differences in adjusted means resided. While there arewas an independent variable with (three levels. mathematical reasoning (MR). The same technique was used to compare low-ability low-achievers’ students against low-ability students’ MP.

Two-way MANOVA is used to examine the effects of two or more independent variables on a set of dependent variables (Stevens.3. a one-way analysis (ANOVA) is conducted to further examine or identify where the differences reside. 1998). post-test minus pre-test for the two groups. If subsequent overall MANOVA results are statistically significant. 1986). because gains are limited in size by the difference between the test’s ceiling and the magnitude of the pre-test score (Tuckman. Analysis of covariance gives results preferable to those of a direct comparison of gain scores i. Analysis of covariance adjusts the mean of each dependent variable to what they would be if all groups started out equally on the covariate. If there is no correlation. A two-way MANOVA enables us to (1) examine the joint effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables.3 Justifications for using two-way MANCOVA / MANOVA Two-way multivariate analysis of covariance is used to determine how each dependent variable is influenced by two independent variables while controlling for a covariate (Hair et al.. 1986).e. MANOVA is not considered since 130 .. In this study. A moderate to strong correlation among the dependent variables is an additional justification for using two-way MANOVA. and (2) get more powerful tests by reducing error (within-cell) variance (Stevens. pre-MP and pre-MR have been shown to correlate with the dependent variables. 1999). MANCOVA is to reduce the size of the error term in the analyses thereby increasing power (Stevens.7. 1986). thus they were considered as appropriate covariates. or if the correlation is weak among the dependent variables.

3. The results of the Pearson's correlation (see Table 3.746** .7. mathematical reasoning MR. and MK) Variable MP MR MK MP Participants (n = 240) MR MK _ .652** _ . and metacognitive knowledge MK). 3. The purpose was to determine if there were statistical justifications to use multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (Stevens.4 Pearson’s Correlation The scores of the mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning test and the scores of the metacognitive questionnaire were analyzed by examining the relationships among the multiple dependent variables by using Pearson's correlation technique. MR.01 level. significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).3) indicated an overall correlation among the three dependent variables (mathematics performance MP. Table 3. Thus.3 Pearson’s correlation among the three dependent variables (MP.a single outcome measure may be diluted in a joint test involving many variables that display no effect.5 Assumptions for MANOVA / MANCOVA A preliminary analysis was conducted to determine whether the prerequisite assumptions of MANOVA / MANCOVA were met before proceeding the multivariate analysis. In such a situation. the assumption of normality. equality of variance-covariance matrices. individual univariate tests are directly conducted. 1986).7. 131 .757** _ Note. ** suggests that correlation is significant at the 0.

001 was not significant. F (12.360. However. if the largest group size divided by the smallest group size is less than 1. for this particular study. In addition. p > .185.001 was significant. 65332) = 1. F (12. rejecting of this assumption has minimal impact since the groups were of approximately equal sizes. 122811) = 2.459. Therefore.420. The M-estimators had strong agreement among 4 estimators. The Levene’s Test tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is statistically similar across groups.001 was not significant. Box’s M Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups. p < .. p > . thus accepting the assumption of homogeneity of the variance. The value for Box’s M of comparing the three groups regardless of the ability level = 68. The assumption of normality was supported by the data.and the linear relationship between the covariates and the dependent variables were examined. The results from the Levene’s Test for homogeneity of variance of comparing the three groups regardless of the ability level for each of the dependent variables 132 . F (30. rejecting this assumption has minimal impact if the groups are of approximately equal size i. the value for Box’s M of comparing low-ability students across the three groups = 29. 66085) = 2.5 (Hair et al.e. All Q-Q plots fall along the straight line showing that the normality in all variables was reasonable.200. 1998). thus rejecting the assumption of homogeneity of the variances..217. The value for Box’s M of comparing high-ability students across the three groups = 18.

To examine the assumption that the covariates must have some relationship with the dependent variables (Hair et al. 234) = 1.01 level. 234) = 4.681. 1998).001. and for MK. F (2. the results from the Levene’s Test for homogeneity of variance of comparing the low-ability students across the three groups for each of the dependent variables indicated that homogeneity of variance has been met for all the three dependent variables. p > . p > .427. F (2. p > . and for MK. p >. The results from the Levene’s Test for homogeneity of variance of comparing the high-ability students across the three groups for each of the dependent variables indicated that homogeneity of variance has been met for all the three dependent variables. p > . F (2.001. and MK) 133 . 117) = 2.001. For MP. for MR. MR. 217) = . The results of the Pearson’s correlation (see Table 3. the scores of the mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning test and the scores of the metacognitive questionnaire were analyzed by examining the relationships among the covariates and the dependent variables by using Pearson’s correlation technique. p > ..955. and metacognitive knowledge MK). and for MK.001.001.001. In addition.4) indicated an overall correlation among the two covariates (pre-MP and pre-MR) and the three dependent variables (mathematics performance MP. 117) = .indicated that homogeneity of variance has been met for all the three dependent variables. p > . mathematical reasoning MR. p > . For MP.042.001. F (5. F (5.001.801. 117) = 4. 117) = .224.378.339.4 Pearson’s correlation among the covariates (pre-MP and pre-MR) and the dependent variables (MP. for MR. for MR.001. For MP. p > . F (2.210. 234) = 3. significant at the . F (5. Table 3. F (2. F (2. 117) = 1.

The pairwise comparisons statistic was used for the post hoc results.01 level (2-tailed).Covariate / Variable Pre-MP Pre-MR MP Participants (n = 240) MR . After determining that the assumptions were met. the pairwise comparisons among the three dependent variables.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results of the study from the data analyses of the preexperimental study as well as the experimental study. providing the MANCOVA result was statistically significant. the two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (two-way MANCOVA). the univariate results were examined for each dependent variable. ** suggests that correlation is significant at the 0.658** MK . CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 4. the univariate tests. The analyses were carried out through various statistical techniques such as the two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).513** . The results of the multivariate tests.442** .316** . the univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). the one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (one-way MANCOVA). and the post hoc pair wise comparison using the /lmatrix 134 . the two-way analysis of covariance (two-way ANCOVA). Then. the post hoc comparisons were performed to identify where the differences resided. as well as the descriptive statistics for the dependent variables are reported in Chapter Four. the interaction effect.522** . For the significant univariate results.719** Note. the multivariate statistical output was examined.

The data were compiled and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for Windows computer software (version 11. mathematical reasoning (MR). a pre-test that measures premathematics performance and pre-mathematical reasoning was conducted before the beginning of the study. in response to the groups’ equivalence are reported first. While there were three groups with moderator variable with two levels i. twoway multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with splitting file technique was conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the groups’ mean scores i.e. MR.. and the findings of testing these hypotheses are presented. To achieve this purpose. and two dependent variables i. premathematics performance (pre-MP) and pre-mathematical reasoning (pre-MR). Each hypotheses tested is followed by a summary of testing that hypotheses. Hypotheses regarding the effects of the instructional methods on students’ mathematics performance (MP). and MK are tested. Finally. the summary of findings to research questions 1 . and the findings of testing these hypotheses are presented.command analysis..e.e. 4.4 is presented.. Next the hypotheses regarding the effects of the instructional methods on high-ability and low-ability students’ MP. and metacognitive knowledge (MK) are tested. 135 . The results of the pre-experimental study. high-ability against high-ability students and low-ability against low-ability students across the three groups.5).2 The pre-Experimental Study Results The purpose of the pre-experimental study was to test the assumption that the participants across the three groups were equivalent in mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning. high-ability and low-ability.

0476 for CLMS. and 3.7368. CL. and T respectively. 7. the scores of the three groups on pre-MP were very close.4872 136 .5500.4639 7.1220.2.9474. (3.5134 9. Table 4.1 Statistical Data Analysis Table 4. For low-ability students. Both dependent variables had the same points (22 points for each).2750.1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for the dependent variables (pre-MP and pre-MR) by the groups.1289 11.5000 . (8. CL.5500 1.9762 for CLMS. CL.9762 1.1377 2.0857 11. The scores of the three groups on preMR were very close. by the groups Dependent Variables Ability High (H) Low (L) H (n = 40) L (n = 40) CL H (n = 38) L (n = 41) T H (n = 42) L (n = 39) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean Pre-MP Pre. The scores of high-ability student on pre-MR had also relatively similar means. and T respectively).1750.9474 1. and 7.4872 for CLMS. 9.2564 for CLMS.0754 9. 7.5684 7.2750 1.8144 3. 11.5000.5991 3.1220 1. CL. The scores of high-ability student on pre-MP across the three groups had relatively similar means.9756. 11.1750 1.MR Group CLMS 11. 2.7368 2.0476 1. and 11.2564 7.9756 1.1 Means and standard deviations on each dependent variable (pre-MP and preMR). and 9.4. and T respectively).7525 8. and T respectively.

201) respectively. Also the results indicated that there were no significant statistical differences between the low-ability students in pre-MP and pre-MR.625 ( p = . Therefore.196) and 1.SD 1. and if there were significant statistical differences between the low-ability students on pre-MP and pre-MR across the three groups. Table 4. p = . 117) of 2. with an F ratio (2. the results of the univariate ANOVA tests.803 ( p = .255. To evaluate the multivariate (MANOVA) differences.65) and 1. Total score on pre-MP = 22. the assumption that the high-ability 137 .2. This means that there were no statistically significant differences between high-ability students and no statistically significant differences between low-ability students across the three groups in pre-MP and pre-MR. with an F ratio (2. which are represented in Table 4. The MANOVA results of comparing high-ability students against high-ability students and low-ability students against low-ability students across the three groups were statistically not significant (F = 1.135). (F = 2. two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted.064) respectively. showing overall differences between high-ability students and low-ability students across the three groups on pre-MP and pre-MR. and total score on pre-MR = 22 To examine if there were significant statistical differences between the high-ability students on pre-MP and pre-MR across the three groups. Further.5706 1. 2001).187) respectively.773.2 presents the results of two-way multivariate analysis of variance. p = .4346 Note. indicated that there were no significant statistical differences between the high-ability students in pre-MP and pre-MR. Pillai’s Trace criterion was considered to have acceptable power and to be the most robust statistic against violations of assumptions (Coakes and Steed.700 ( p =.653 ( p = . 117) of 1.

653 ( p =.625 ( p = .803 ( p = . Table 4.065) 1.187) Univariate F df = 2.135) 1.773 ( p =. 117 138 .2 Summary of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) pre-MP and pre-MR results and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results.participants across the three groups and the low-ability participants across the three groups are equivalent in mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning was met.201) Multivariate F Pillai's Trace 1.196) 1.255 ( p =.700 ( p =.064) 2. MANOVA Effect and Dependent Variables Group Effect Highability Pre-Mathematics Performance (pre-MP) Pre-Mathematical Reasoning (pre-MR) Group Effect Lowability Pre-Mathematics Performance (pre-MP) Pre-Mathematical Reasoning (pre-MR) Pillai's Trace 2.

A two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to analyze the effects of the instructional method on the three dependent variables. as well as the interaction between the instructional method and the ability levels effects on the three dependent variables. The statistical differences of the three groups were compared and analyzed according to each of the three dependent variables. mathematical reasoning (MR). and metacognitive knowledge while controlling students’ pre-MP and pre-MR on the pre-test. mathematical reasoning. specifically on high-ability and low-ability students’ mathematics performance. and metacognitive knowledge (MK). The research hypotheses were tested using 139 .3 The Experimental Study Results The purpose of the experimental study was to examine the effects of the instructional methods on mathematics performance (MP).4.

157 14.2842 16.1500 2.3 presents overall means.742 . standard deviations. mean Std.156 16.1646 2.1 Testing of Hypothesis 1 Students taught via cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS) instructional method will perform higher than students taught via cooperative learning (CL) instructional method who. mean Std. Table 4. CL.the results from the two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Error Mathematical reasoning (MR) Mean SD Adj.147 a a 2. CLMS.639 .2928 16.155 12. 4.7284 2.145 a a 140 .576 .146 a a 2. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge. The results of the analysis were used to answer Research Questions 1-4. in turn.184 .611 .3.289 . adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable by the instructional method Dependent Variables Mathematics Performance (MP) Mean SD Adj.3 Means.5570 16. adjusted means.7351 17.6500 17. will perform higher than students taught via traditional (T) instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). Table 4. and standard errors of each dependent variable by the instructional method. standard deviations.7654 2.3390 18. and T.3875 12. Error The Instructional Method CLMS CL T N= 80 N= 79 N= 81 18.7336 14.

021 a 1.9485 . which are represented in table 4. This means that there were some statistical differences on at least one dependent variable. This means that the instructional method had a main effect on MP. and metacognitive knowledge adjusted mean scores between the CLMS. This effect accounted 141 .299 .000). Total score on MP = 22. Further. MR.718 .000) and pre-MR (F = 16. total score on MR = 22. The covariates pre-MP (F = 15. a. p = . the CL.020. Error 2. p = . Table 4.021 a 1. mean Std.3094 1. The F ratio of MP (2. showing overall differences for the independent variable of instructional method effect and the three dependent variables.600 ( p = . p = . indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the three dependent variables (MP.575. mathematical reasoning.4 presents the results of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). the results of the univariate ANCOVA tests.5250.2788 1.4.020 a Note. and MK).000) had significant effects. preMR = 5. Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: pre-MP = 10. while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR.553. multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted. while controlling the pre-MP and the pre-MR.7243 . The MANCOVA results of comparing the three groups were statistically significant (F = 46.954 . The Pillai’s Trace was used to evaluate the multivariate (MANCOVA) differences.Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) Mean SD Adj.000). and the T groups.2975 . 237) was 45.1417. and total score on MK = 05 To examine if there were statistically significant differences in mathematics performance.2541 2.

for 28% of the variance of MP (Eta2 = .282). The F ratio of MR (2, 237) was 162.490 ( p = .000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on MR. This effect accounted for 58% of the variance of MR (Eta 2 = .583). The F ratio of MK (2, 237) was 202.729 ( p = .000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on MK. This effect accounted for 64% of the variance of MK (Eta2 = .636).

Table 4.4 Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results.

MANCOVA Effect, Dependent Variables, and Covariate Group Effect Mathematics Performance(MP) Mathematical Reasoning(MR) Metacognitive knowledge (MK) Pre-MP Pre-MR 15.020 ( p = .000) 16.553 ( p = .000) Multivariate F Pillai's Trace 46.575 ( p = .000) 45.600 ( p = .000) 162.490 ( p = .000) 202.729 ( p = .000) Univariate F df = 2, 237

142

The MANCOVA results of comparing the three groups on the three dependent variables indicated that there were statistically significant differences between at least two groups in the three dependent variables. Therefore, the researcher further investigated the univariate statistics results (analysis of covariance ANCOVA) by performing a post hoc pairwise comparison using the /lmatrix command for each dependent variable in order to identify significantly where the differences in the adjusted means resided. Table 4.5 is a summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons. .

**Table 4.5 Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons
**

Dependent Variable

Mathematics Performance (MP) Comparison Group CLMS vs. CL CLMS vs. T CL vs. T Adj.Mean Difference 1.131 Sig .000 Mathematical Reasoning (MR) Adj.Mean Difference 2.105 Sig .000 Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) Adj.Mean Difference .345 Sig .000

2.103

.000

3.713

.000

.581

.000

.972

.000

1.608

.000

.236

.000

Note.

143

The adjusted mean differences shown in this table are the subtraction of the second condition (on the lower line) from the first condition (on the upper line); for example, 1.131 (Adjusted Mean Difference for Mathematics Performance) = CLMS – CL.

Table 4.3 displays the means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors of different conditions by the dependent variables. Table 4.4 and table 4.5 show that there are statistical adjusted mean differences among the three conditions in the three dependent variables. The adjusted mean differences are presented below. Mathematics performance. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS) group (Mean = 18.7, SD = 2.3, Adj.mean = 18.7, p = .000) significantly outperformed the other two groups (CL and T), with an adjusted mean difference of 1.131 and 2.103 respectively. On other hand, the cooperative learning (CL) group (Mean = 17.6, SD = 2.7, Adj.mean = 17.6, p = .000) significantly outperformed the control group (T) (Mean = 16.8, SD = 2.3, Adj. mean = 16.6) with an adjusted mean difference of .972. (Effect sizes on MP were .47 and .34 for comparing the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively). Mathematical reasoning. The CLMS group (Mean = 16.6, SD = 2.3, Adj.mean = 16.3, p = .000) significantly outperformed the CL and T group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.105 and 3.713 respectively. The CL group (Mean = 14.7, SD = 2.7, Adj.mean = 14.9, p = .000) significantly outperformed the T group (Mean = 12.7, SD = 2.4, Adj.mean = 12.6) with an adjusted mean difference of 1.608. (Effect sizes on MR were .83 and .60 for comparing the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively). Metacognitive knowledge. The CLMS group (Mean = 2.3, SD = .3, Adj.mean = 2.3, p = .000) significantly outperformed the CL and T group, with an adjusted mean

144

difference of .345 and .581 respectively. The CL group (Mean = 1.9, SD = .3, Adj.mean = 2, p = .000) significantly outperformed the T group (Mean = 1.7, SD = .3, Adj.mean = 1.7), with an adjusted mean difference of .236. (Effect sizes on MK were 1.25 and .80 for comparing the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively).

4.3.2 Summary of Testing Hypothesis 1 (CLMS > CL > T) The statistical results confirm the hypothesis, showing that students taught via cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding instructional method performed significantly higher than the students taught via cooperative learning instructional method who, in turn, performed significantly higher than the students taught via the traditional instructional method in (a) mathematics performance, (b) mathematical reasoning, and (c) metacognitive knowledge. 4.3.3 Testing of Hypotheses 2 High-ability students taught via cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding instructional method (CLMSH ) will perform higher than high-ability students taught via cooperative learning instructional method ( CLH ) who, in turn, will perform higher than high-ability students taught via the traditional instructional method (T H ) in (a) mathematics performance (MP), (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge. Table 4.6 presents overall means, standard deviations, adjusted means, and standard error of each dependent variable for high-ability students by the instructional method, CLMS, CL, and T.

145

4808 14.968 .Table 4.908 .236 14.4275 16. Error 146 .620 .6 Means.2945 19. standard deviations.4500 1.5526 1.4286 1.250 16.227 a a Mathematical reasoning (MR) Mean SD Adj.6101 18.244 17.241 a a 18. adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable for high-ability students by the instructional method Dependent Variables The Instructional Method CLMS CL T N= 40 N= 38 N= 42 Mean SD Adj. Error 20.438 .528 .374 .6190 1.8701 17.000 1.6939 20. mean Std.234 a a Mathematics Performance (MP) 20.8000 1. mean Std.

mean Std. a.575.4317 .030 a Note. which are represented in table 4. in CL.7 presents the results of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).8083. indicated that there were statistically significant differences between high-ability students across the three groups in the three dependent variables (MP. while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR. MR. and total score on MK = 05 To examine if there were statistically significant differences in mathematics performance. and metacognitive knowledge adjusted mean scores between the high-ability students in CLMS group. The MANCOVA results of comparing the high-ability students across the three groups were statistically significant (F= 46.2123 . and in T group. the results of the univariate ANCOVA tests. while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR.419 . Table 4. Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: pre-MP = 11. showing overall differences for the independent variable of instructional method effect on high-ability students and the three dependent variables.553.2244 2.000). and MK). The Pillai’s Trace was used to evaluate the multivariate (MANCOVA) differences. This means that there were some statistical differences between high-ability students across the three groups on at least one dependent variable.032 a 1.9492 . 147 .956 .1861 1. Total score on MP = 22.1929 2. The covariates preMP (F = 15. preMR = 7.000) had significant effects. p = . p = . Further. multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted. Error 2.002) and pre-MR (F = 16.218 .031 a 2. mathematical reasoning.7.3083.Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) Mean SD Adj.020. p = . total score on MR = 22.

and Covariate Group Effect Mathematics Performance(MP) Mathematical Reasoning(MR) Metacognitive knowledge (MK) Pre-MP Pre-MR 15. 117) was 162.000).The F ratio of MP (2. This effect accounted for 48% of the variance of the high-ability students’ MR (Eta2 = .553 ( p = . Table 4.002) 16. 117) was 202.000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on high-ability students’ MK.000) Univariate F df = 2. This means that the instructional method had a main effect on high-ability students’ MR.000).729 ( p = .729 (p = .258).7 Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results of comparing high-ability students across the three groups. The F ratio of MR (2.000) Multivariate F Pillai's Trace 46. This means that the instructional method had a main effect on high-ability students’ MP.477). 117 148 . 117) was 45.600 ( p = . This effect accounted for 49% of the variance of the high-ability students’ MK (Eta2 = . MANCOVA Effect.000) 45. This effect accounted for 26% of the variance of the high-ability students’ MP (Eta 2 = .494). The F ratio of MK (2.600 ( p = .490 ( p = . Dependent Variables.490 ( p = .000) 202.000) 162.575 ( p = .020 ( p = .

Therefore.000 Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) Adj.8 is a summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between high-ability students across the three groups.Mean Difference 1.620 Sig . Table 4.The MANCOVA results of comparing high-ability students across the three groups on the three dependent variables indicated that there were statistically significant differences between high-ability students in at least two groups on the three dependent variables.8 Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between high-ability students across the three groups Dependent Variable Mathematics Performance (MP) Comparison Group CLMS vs.201 Sig . the researcher further investigated the univariate statistics results (analysis of covariance ANCOVA) by performing a post hoc pairwise comparison using the /lmatrix command for each dependent variable in order to identify significantly where the differences in the adjusted means resided.Mean Difference . Adj.Mean Difference . Table 4.000 149 .081 Mathematical Reasoning (MR) Adj.594 Sig .

Mathematics performance. with an adjusted mean difference of . Adj.7.98 for 150 .620.090 and 1. The adjusted mean differences are presented below. .000 .6 displays the means.4) (p = .261 .471 respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between highability students in CLMS group and high-ability students in CL group (p = .620 (Adjusted Mean Difference for Mathematics Performance) = CLMS – CL. with adjusted mean differences of 2.7 and table 4.463 . standard deviations.000).CL CLMS vs.1.5.754 .4. SD = . Table 4. (Effect sizes on MP were .000 Note. SD = 1.mean = 19.5) high-ability students and the CL (Mean = 20. The CLMS (Mean = 20.mean = 20. Adj.090 .8 show that there are statistical adjusted mean differences among the highability students in the three conditions on the three dependent variables unless no statistical adjusted mean differences between high-ability students in CLMS and CL groups in mathematics performance.0.471 .000 .081).000 1. T CL vs.3. adjusted means and standard errors of high-ability students in the three groups by the dependent variables. The adjusted mean differences shown in this table are the subtraction of the second condition (on the lower line) from the first condition (on the upper line). Adj. for example.mean = 18.000 3. T 2.28 and . SD = 1.000 1.6. Table 4.348 .9) highability students significantly outperformed the T high-ability students (Mean = 18.

comparing high-ability students in the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively). Mathematical reasoning. The CLMS (Mean = 17.8, SD = 1.9, Adj.mean = 17.9) highability students significantly outperformed the CL and T high-ability students, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.594 (p = .000) and 3.348 (p = .000) respectively. The CL (Mean = 16.6, SD = 1.4, Adj.mean = 16.4) high-ability students significantly outperformed the T high-ability students (Mean = 14.6, SD = 1.5, Adj.mean = 14.6) with an adjusted mean difference of 1.754 (p = .000). (Effect sizes on MR were .84 and 1.3 for comparing high-ability students in the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively). Metacognitive knowledge. The CLMS (Mean = 2.4, SD = .2, Adj.mean = 2.4) highability students significantly outperformed the CL and T high-ability students, with adjusted mean differences of .201 (p = .000) and .463 (p = .000) respectively. The CL (Mean = 2.2, SD = .2, Adj.mean = 2.2) high-ability students significantly outperformed the T high-ability students (Mean = 1.9, SD = .2, Adj.mean = 1.9) with an adjusted mean difference of .261 (p = .000). (Effect sizes on MK were 1.2 and 1.4 for comparing high-ability students in the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively). 4.3.4 Summary of Testing Hypothesis 2 (CLMSH > CLH > TH) The statistical results partially support the hypothesis, that is, “CLMS H > CLH” is confirmed in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge while in mathematics performance is not. High-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method performed significantly higher than high-ability students taught via CL

151

instructional method in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge but they did not perform significantly higher in mathematics performance. “CLMSH, CL H > TH” is confirmed. High-ability students taught via CLMS and high-ability students taught via CL instructional methods performed significantly higher than the highability students taught via T instructional method in mathematics performance, mathematical reasoning, and metacognitive knowledge. 4.3.5 Testing of Hypotheses 3 Low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method will perform higher than Low-ability students taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, will perform higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP), (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge. Table 4.9 presents overall means, standard deviations, adjusted means, and standard error of each dependent variable for low-ability students by the instructional method, CLMS, CL, and T.

Table 4.9 Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable for low-ability students by the instructional method

Dependent Variables

The Instructional Method CLMS CL T N= 40 N= 41 N= 39

152

Mathematics Performance (MP)

Mean SD Adj. mean Std. Error

**16.8500 1.2517 16.923 .198 14.5000 1.2195 14.662 .177 2.1633 .2086 2.170 .026
**

a a a

**15.2927 1.4533 15.367 .194 11.9512 1.4992 11.967 .174 1.7041 .1578 1.706 .025
**

a a a

**14.9744 1.3858 14.821 .199 10.6923 1.1955 10.509 .179 1.4821 .1008 1.472 .026
**

a a a

Mathematical reasoning (MR)

Mean SD Adj. mean Std. Error

Metacognitive Knowledge (MK)

Mean SD Adj. mean Std. Error

**Note. a. Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: pre-MP = 8.9750, preMR = 3.2417.
**

Total score on MP = 22, total score on MR = 22, and total score on MK = 05

To examine if there were statistically significant differences in mathematics

performance, mathematical reasoning, and metacognitive knowledge adjusted mean scores between the low-ability students in CLMS group, in CL group, and in T group, while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted. Table 4.10 presents the results of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), showing overall differences for the independent variable of instructional method effect on low-ability students and the three dependent variables, while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR. The Pillai’s Trace was used to evaluate the multivariate (MANCOVA) differences. The MANCOVA results of comparing the low-ability students across the

153

three groups were statistically significant (F = 27.918, p = .000). The covariates preMP (F = 12.202, p = .000) and pre-MR (F = 10.620, p = .000) had significant effects. This means that there were some statistical differences between low-ability students across the three groups on at least one dependent variable. Further, the results of the univariate ANCOVA tests, which are represented in table 4.10, indicated that there were statistically significant differences between low-ability students across the three groups in the three dependent variables (MP, MR, and MK). The F ratio of MP (2, 117) was 29.823 ( p = .000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on low-ability students’ MP. This effect accounted for 34% of the variance of the low-ability students’ MP (Eta2 = .342). The F ratio of MR (2, 117) was 138.065 ( p = .000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on low-ability students’ MR. this effect accounted for 71% of the variance of the low-ability students’ MR (Eta2 = .706). The F ratio of MK (2, 117) was 188.719 (p = .000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on low-ability students’ MK. This effect accounted for 77% of the variance of the low-ability students’ MK (Eta2 = .766).

Table 4.10 Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results of comparing low-ability students across the three groups.

MANCOVA Effect, Dependent Variables, and Covariate Multivariate F Pillai's Trace Univariate F df = 2, 117

154

Table 4.620 ( p = . Therefore.202 ( p = .000) 29.918 ( p =.000) 12.719 ( p = .000) 138.065 ( p = .000) 188.11 Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between low-ability students across the three groups Dependent Variable Mathematics Performance Mathematical Reasoning Metacognitive Knowledge 155 .11 is a summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between low-ability students across the three groups.000) 10. Table 4.000) The MANCOVA results of comparing low-ability students across the three groups on the three dependent variables indicated that there were statistically significant differences between low-ability students in at least two groups on the three dependent variables. the researcher further investigated the univariate statistics results (analysis of covariance ANCOVA) by performing a post hoc pairwise comparison using the /lmatrix command for each dependent variable in order to identify significantly where the differences in the adjusted means resided.Group Effect Mathematics Performance(MP) Mathematical Reasoning(MR) Metacognitive knowledge (MK) Pre-MP Pre-MR 27.823 ( p = .

153 .9 displays the means. Table 4. T CL vs. SD = 1.555 (Adjusted Mean Difference for Mathematics Performance) = CLMS – CL. SD = 1.000 4.053 1. adjusted means and standard errors of low-ability students in the three groups by the dependent variables.000 . 3. for example. The adjusted mean difference shown in this table is the subtraction of the second condition (on the lower line) from the first condition (on the upper line).9) low-ability students significantly outperformed the CL (Mean = 15.000 (MR) Adj.000 Note.234 .5.Mean Difference .3.Mean Difference 2.mean = 15.000) and 2. Adj. However.mean = 14. Mathematics performance. SD = 1.8. Adj.4. 1.4) and the T (Mean = 14.458 . Adj.464 Sig . The CLMS (Mean = 16.11 show that there are statistical adjusted mean differences among the lowability students in the three conditions on the three dependent variables unless no statistical adjusted mean differences between low-ability students in CL and T group in mathematics performance.555 (p = . T Adj. standard deviations.696 Sig .Mean Difference 1.555 Sig . CL CLMS vs.8) low-ability students with adjusted mean differences of 1.9.000) respectively.546 . Table 4.000 .000 (MK) Adj. The adjusted mean differences are presented below.(MP) Comparison Group CLMS vs.000 .10 and table 4. there were no significant differences between low-ability 156 .698 .101 (p = .mean = 16.000 2.101 .

000) respectively. mathematical reasoning. 4.23 for comparing lowability students in the CLMS and CL. respectively). Adj.7) lowability students significantly outperformed the CL and T high-ability students.05 for comparing low-ability students in the CLMS and CL.9) low-ability students significantly outperformed the T low-ability students (Mean = 10. and CL and the T group. Adj. with adjusted mean differences of 2.2) lowability students significantly outperformed the CL and T high-ability students.12 and .2.2. and metacognitive knowledge.mean = 10. SD = 1.7. SD = .mean = 2.mean = 14. Mathematical reasoning.2. Adj. Low-ability 157 . respectively). and CL and the T group.698 (p = . Metacognitive knowledge.546. respectively).7. (Effect sizes on MK were 4. The CLMS (Mean = 14. The CLMS (Mean = 2.1.234 (p = .153 (p = .2 for comparing low-ability students in the CLMS and CL. that is. “CLMSL > CLL” and “CLMSL > TL” are confirmed in mathematics performance. with adjusted mean differences of .7) low-ability students significantly outperformed the T low-ability students (Mean = 1. The CL (Mean = 11.6 Summary of Testing Hypothesis 3 (CLMSL > CLL > TL) The statistical results partially support the hypothesis.5.5) with an adjusted mean difference of 1.6 and 2.000) respectively.458 (p = . SD = .000).5) with an adjusted mean difference of .000). SD = . Adj. Adj.students in CL group and low-ability students in T group (p = . with an adjusted mean difference of .696 (p = .464 (p = . The CL (Mean = 1. (Effect sizes on MR were 2.3.5.mean = 1.9. SD = 1.7.2.mean = 1. SD = 1.13 and 1.5.mean = 11.000) and 4. (Effect sizes on MP were 1. and CL and the T group.000) and .053). Adj. “CLL > TL” is confirmed in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge while in mathematics performance is not.

mathematical reasoning. adjusted means. Table 4. standard deviations. and metacognitive Table 4. and metacognitive knowledge but they did not perform significantly higher in mathematics performance. Low-ability students taught via CL instructional method performed significantly higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in mathematical reasoning.12 Means. knowledge. standard deviations.12 presents overall means. 4. mathematical reasoning.students taught via CLMS instructional method performed significantly higher than low-ability students taught via CL instructional method and than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in mathematics performance. and standard error of each dependent variable by the interaction between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability). and metacognitive knowledge.3.7 Testing of Hypotheses 4 There are interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability) on mathematics performance. adjusted means and standard errors for each dependent variable by the interaction between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability) Dependent Variables Mathematic Mathematical s Reasoning Performance MR MP Metacognitiv e Knowledge MK 158 .

Error Mean SD Adj.8000 1. and total score on MK = 05 To examine if the effects of instructional method on mathematics performance.2244 2.000 1. total score on MR = 22.8701 16.267 16. Error Mean SD Adj.9512 1. Total score on MP = 22.262 10.6923 1.7041 .802 . preMR = 5.252 2.226 .287 18. Error 20.4992 13.1008 1.2195 15.4500 1.155 .277 11. mathematical reasoning.734 .2517 16. mean Std. and metacognitive knowledge depend on the ability level in 159 .1417.Instructional Method CLMS Ability High (H) Low (L) H (n = 40) Mean SD Adj.430 .681 .296 16.997 .4808 13.833 .1955 11.4275 15.038 2.269 17.2517 17. Error Mean SD Adj.2945 18. mean Std.266 16. mean Std.4821 .5250.545 .4286 1.2123 .745 .9492 .690 .5000 1.6190 1.5526 1.1861 1.035 2.1633 . mean Std.9744 1.219 .1578 1.2086 2.039 1.249 14. a Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: pre-MP = 10.6101 17.723 .159 .279 14.964 .035 a a a L (n = 40) a a a CL H (n = 38) a a a L (n = 41) a a a T H (n = 42) a a a L (n = 39) a a a Note.285 20. mean Std. mean Std.440 . Error Mean SD Adj. Error Mean SD Adj.4317 .213 .038 1.8500 1.3858 15.1929 2.269 14.472 .8500 1.6939 19.037 1.

However. indicated that there were statistically significant interaction effects across the three groups in MR and MK. the results of the two-way univariate ANCOVA tests. and in T group. showing overall differences for the interaction between instructional method and ability level effect on the three dependent variables. This means that there were some statistical interaction effects on at least one dependent variable across the three groups. The covariates pre-MP (F = 15. Further. Table 4.13 presents the results of two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).557 (p = . which are represented in table 4.553. The MANCOVA results of the interaction effects on the three dependent variables was statistically significant (F = 4. This interaction accounted for 3% of the variance of the students’ MR (Eta2 = .000) had significant effects. Table 4. This means that the interaction effect was statistically significant on students’ MR.035). This means that the interaction effect was statistically significant on students’ MK. while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR.05). p = .CLMS group.020.836.13 Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the interaction effect and follow-up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results across the three groups. The F ratio of MR (2.13. 237) was 3.000) and pre-MR (F = 16.000). p = . 160 .083). p = . 237) was 10. 237) was 2.401 (p= .000).917 ( p > . The Pillai’s Trace was used to evaluate the multivariate (MANCOVA) differences. in CL. This interaction accounted for 8% of the variance of the students’ MK (Eta2 = . The F ratio of MK (2. two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted. while controlling preMP and pre-MR. The F ratio of MP (2. there were no statistically significant interaction effects across the three groups in MP.028).

237 2.000) The two-way MANCOVA results of the interaction effects on MR and MK indicated that there were statistically significant interaction effects between the instructional method and the students’ ability level in at least one group.035) 10.000) 16. the researcher further investigated the interaction effect results by plotting the interaction between the instructional method and the students’ ability level on MR and MK to identify significantly where the interactions resided.401 ( p = . and Covariates Group Effect Mathematics Performance(MP) Mathematical Reasoning(MR) Metacognitive knowledge (MK) Pre-MP Pre-MR Multivariate F Pillai's Trace 4.557 ( p = . Dependent Variables.MANCOVA Effect.056) 3. Figure 4.553 ( p = . Also the interaction between the instructional method and the students’ ability level on MP is plotted.000) 15.020( p = .836( p = .000) Univariate F df = 2.917 ( p = . 161 .1 shows the interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability level across the three groups on MP. Therefore.

highability and low-ability students taught via CLMS. Therefore. CL.1 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability levels on MP Figure 4. 162 . In other words.20 19 MP Adjusted Mean Scores 18 17 Ability 16 High-ability 15 CLMS Low-ability CL T Instructional Method Figure 4.2 shows the interaction between the instructional method and the students’ ability level across the three groups on mathematical reasoning (MR).1 shows that there is no interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability level on MP across the three groups. Figure 4. the effect of the instructional methods on MP did not depend on the ability level. and T instructional methods benefited equally in mathematics performance.

3 shows the interaction between the instructional method and the students’ ability level across the three groups on metacognitive knowledge (MK). Figure 4.2 shows that the low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method benefited more than the high-ability students taught via the same instructional method in mathematical reasoning.2 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability levels on MR Figure 4.18 17 MR Adjusted Mean Scores 16 15 14 13 Ability High-ability Low-ability CL T 12 11 CLMS Instructional Method Figure 4. the figure shows that the high-ability and lowability students taught via CL and T instructional methods benefited equally in mathematical reasoning. 163 . However.

8 Summary of Testing Hypotheses 4 (There are interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels) The statistical interaction results and the interaction figures partially confirm the hypotheses. However. the figure shows that the high-ability and lowability students taught via CL and T instructional methods benefited equally in metacognitive knowledge.3. showing that there were interaction effects between the CLMS instructional method and the ability levels where low-ability students benefited more than the high-ability students in MR and MK but benefited equally in MP.4 CLMS Instructional Method Figure 4.8 Ability 1. 4.6 2.3 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability levels on MK Figure 4. There were 164 .3 shows that the low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method benefited more than the high-ability students taught via the same instructional method in metacognitive knowledge.2.6 High-ability Low-ability CL T 1.4 MK Adjusted Mean Scores 2.0 1.2 2.

This is evidenced by the statistical results that the students taught via the CL method significantly performed higher that the students taught via the T method in (a) 165 . the performance of the T instructional method did not depend on the ability levels. High-ability and low-ability students taught via the T instructional method benefited equally in MP. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK)? Overall. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. 1. MR.9 Summary of Findings to Research Questions 1 – 4 The findings to the four research questions are summarized below.no interaction effects between the CL instructional method and the ability level. Would students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than students taught via CL instructional method who. there were no interaction effects between the T instructional method and the ability levels. and MK. Finally. CL instructional method has significant positive effects on students’ (a) mathematics performance. High-ability and low-ability students taught via the CL instructional method benefited equally in MP. the performance of the CL instructional method did not depend on the ability level. CLMS instructional method has significant positive effects on students’ (a) mathematics performance. (b) mathematical reasoning. MR. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. and MK. In addition. That is.3. (b) mathematical reasoning. would perform higher than students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). This is evidenced by the statistical results that the students taught via the CLMS method significantly performed higher than the students taught via the CL and the students taught via the T methods in (a) mathematics performance. That is. (b) mathematical reasoning. 4. in turn. and (c) metacognitive knowledge.

would perform higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) 166 . (b) mathematical reasoning. (b) mathematical reasoning. would perform higher than high-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP). Would low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than low-ability students taught via CL instructional method who. Also CL instructional method has significant positive effects on high-ability students’ (a) mathematics performance. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. The high-ability students taught via the CL method significantly performed higher than the high-ability students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. 2. (b) mathematical reasoning. 3. The high-ability students taught via the CLMS method significantly performed higher than the high-ability students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. except in (a) mathematics performance. the high-ability students taught via the CLMS method significantly performed higher than the highability students taught via the CL method. in turn. in turn. (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK)? CLMS instructional method has positive effects on high-ability students’ (a) mathematics performance. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. Would high-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than high-ability students taught via CL instructional method who. (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge.mathematics performance. In addition.

4.e. There were no interaction effects between the CL instructional method and the ability levels i.. The low-ability students taught via the CL method significantly performed higher than the low-ability students taught via the T method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. CL instructional method has significant positive effects on low-ability students’ (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. (b) mathematical reasoning. and metacognitive knowledge? There were interaction effects between the CLMS instructional method and the ability levels with low-ability students benefited more than the high-ability students in mathematical reasoning (MR) and metacognitive knowledge (MK) but benefited equally in mathematics performance (MP). MR. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. but they did not perform significantly higher in (a) mathematics performance. and MK. Are there interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability) on mathematics performance. The low-ability students taught via the CLMS method significantly performed higher than the low-ability students taught via the CL and the T methods in (a) mathematics performance.mathematics performance (MP). there were no interaction effects between the T instructional method and 167 . (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK)? CLMS instructional method has significant positive effects on low-ability students’ (a) mathematics performance. mathematical reasoning. Finally. In addition. high-ability and low-ability students taught via the CL instructional method benefited equally in MP.

MR. high-ability and low-ability students taught via the T instructional method benefited equally in MP.the ability levels i. and MK. 168 ..e.

and metacognitive knowledge were measured through a mathematics achievement test and a metacognitive knowledge questionnaire.CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5. They studied “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit. and (c) metacognitive knowledge.1 Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS) and cooperative learning (CL) on (a) mathematics performance. (b) mathematical reasoning.e. and Traditional instructional method (T). two classes from each school. The dependent variables were: Mathematics performance (MP). The moderator variable was the ability level with two categories: High-ability and Low-ability. and Metacognitive knowledge (MK). and (c) metacognitive knowledge among fifth-grade students in Jordan. Data was collected during the first semester of the academic year 2002 / 2003. (b) mathematical reasoning. Mathematical reasoning (MR). Two months before the instructional treatment. mathematical reasoning. The sample consisted of 240 Jordanian male students who studied in six fifth-grade classrooms and were randomly selected from three different male primary schools i. The independent variable was the instructional method with three categories: Cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding instructional method (CLMS). the participating students were given the 169 .. Students’ mathematics performance. The study further investigated the effects of CLMS and CL on high-ability and low-ability students’ (a) mathematics performance. Cooperative learning instructional method (CL).

and metacognitive knowledge based on ability levels are discussed. the students were given the mathematics achievement test (post-test) and the metacognitive knowledge questionnaire. The third section focuses on the interaction effects. Then students were divided into high and low-abilities based on their pre-test scores in mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning. The fifth section suggests implications for educators. and metacognitive knowledge. students worked cooperatively and used metacognitive questions cards. Immediately. The fourth section presents the summary and conclusions. In T method. the seventh section summarizes the limitations of the present study. The first section focuses on the general effects of the instructional methods on mathematics performance. after the instructional treatment. students worked cooperatively and did not use metacognitive questions cards. while in CL method. students neither worked cooperatively nor used metacognitive questions cards. In the second section. 170 .mathematics achievement test (pre-test). CL method. The present chapter is organized in seven main sections. In CLMS method. Students were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions – CLMS method. interpretations of the results are discussed. mathematical reasoning. the effects of the instructional methods on mathematics performance. Finally. or T method. mathematical reasoning. The sixth section proposes implications for future research. In this chapter.

While conceptual understanding is enhanced by constructing relationships between the 171 . and Metacognitive Knowledge CLMS and CL instructional methods had significant positive effects overall on students’ (a) mathematics performance. significantly outperformed the students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. The findings on cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS) support the hypothesis that cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding not only improves mathematics performance. Students taught via the CLMS method (working cooperatively and also using metacognitive questions cards) significantly outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method who.2. and King (1991a). (b) mathematical reasoning. in turn. as shown by the studies of Schoenfeld (1985). 5. Mathematical Reasoning. The metacognitive questions have provided the students with cues to important aspects of the problem and helped them to identify the problem and identify relevant and important information. (1984). (b) mathematical reasoning.2 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance. but also improves mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge.1 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance The effectiveness of CLMS method on mathematics performance that consists of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency support King and Rosenshine’s (1993) study that found that guidance through questioning enhances problem representation and improves conceptual understanding. Peterson et al. Peterson et al. and (c) metacognitive knowledge.5. and (c) metacognitive knowledge.(1982).

2001). 172 .previous and the new knowledge (Kilpatrick et al. the CLMS method encouraged students to identify the similarities and differences between the problem at hand and the problems solved in the past.?” helped the students to select the appropriate approach from many approaches to solve the problem. The findings of this study are consistent with studies by Schonfeld (1987) and Xun (2001) that questioning strategies enabled students to connect what they learned with their current learning situation. In this regard. The high mathematics performance requires acquiring relevant conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge. This probably accounts for the better performance of the students taught via CLMS method over the students taught via CL method who. in turn. and efficiency are fundamental components of procedural fluency (Kilpatrick et al. they were able to keep track of sub-problems and make use of intermediate results to solve the problem and therefore to be more accurate and more efficient learners. Students taught via the CLMS method were provided with the opportunity to execute their mathematical procedures fluently.. Because students asked questions such as “am I on the right track?. Working cooperatively and using the metacognitive questions provided the students with more than one approach to solve the problem. cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method enabled students to modify and adapt procedures to make them easier to use. The performance of the problem solver acts on these requisites. accuracy. metacognitive questions assisted students to enhance their understanding of a given domain knowledge. Flexibility. 2001). Thus. Metacognitive questions helped students to make connections between different factors and constraints and link to the solutions. Metacognitive question such as “what is the appropriate approach to ….

Students taught via the CL method worked cooperatively. and therefore. monitor. or evaluate their solution procedures. The cooperative group provides a more intimate setting that permits such direct and unmediated communication (Shachar and Sharan. The low performance of the students taught via the T method in this study emerged from the poor conceptual understanding and procedural techniques employed in solving tasks and problems. In the last meeting with the control group’s teacher. they were able to maneuver the computations more accurately than the students in the other two groups. the teacher reported that students in this group worked individually and did not use metacognitive questions. The teacher’s report shows that students in the traditional group had insufficient conceptual understanding and procedural fluency and did not sufficiently or elaborately engage in the planning. Therefore. did not plan. this is the self-management aspect of metacognitive strategies. According to Cross and Parts (1988). and mentioned that the students also immediately started the computations when the questions were given to them. The control group’s teacher was satisfied with the performance of his group.performed better than the students taught via T method. 173 . 1994). Such a context. Cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method enabled students to acquire the appropriate procedural problem solving techniques. proponents of cooperative learning believe. is a key to students engaging in real discussion and wrestling with ideas. monitoring and evaluation phases in solving their problems. Also some of students were anxious as to the specific demands of the questions. the CL method provided the students with the opportunities to stretch and extend their thinking more than the students taught via the T method who worked individually.

the students elaborated on the information gained from the metacognitive questions and learned from it. 2002) found that working cooperatively and using metacognitive questions facilitated metacognitive knowledge. According to constructivist theories. The effectiveness of CLMS method on mathematical reasoning support other findings by Chi et al. These findings are similar to Cossey (1997) findings that indicate that the more often seventh and eighth graders are exposed to metacognitive 174 . in turn. Also Kramarski et.2 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematical Reasoning The results of this study indicate that cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method enabled students to reflect on the similarities and differences between previous and new tasks. was greater than with the T method. affected mathematical reasoning and students’ ability to transfer their knowledge to solve mathematical authentic tasks. Mevarech and Kramarski. in turn. and to consider the use of strategies that are appropriate for solving the problem.. The ability of constructing networks of knowledge with the CLMS method was greater than with the CL method which. and Webb (1989) that show that cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding is one of the best means for elaborating information and for making connections.5. (in press). which. (1994).2. 1986). By understanding why and how a certain solution to a task and a problem has been reached. information is retained and understood through elaboration and construction of connections between prior knowledge and new knowledge (Wittrock. The learning processes produced by the CLMS method enhanced the students’ mathematical reasoning. al. Slavin (1996). (2001. as well as to comprehend each problem before attempting a solution.

1996)..support such as pattern seeking. 1999) that cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding is effective for developing problem-solving ability because it enables students to link quantitative knowledge and situational knowledge. conjectures. Students taught via the CLMS method could reason mathematically because they were guided about the knowledge of when. 1994). and why to use the strategies for the problem-solving. The metacognitive questions comprise of planning. Specifically.. a mental representation is constructed that supports mathematical reasoning (Cecil and Roazzi. 1999.g.g. so they could reason mathematically better than the students taught via the CL method that focused only on working cooperatively and the students’ interaction was not structured. and 175 . When the two types of knowledge are joined. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method forced students to activate such processes. the greater are their gains on mathematical reasoning. but also enabled them to replace their earlier inappropriate strategies with a new virtually errorless process which is an essential element of mathematical reasoning. and evaluation (Stein et al. the use of metacognitive questions guided students to analyze the entire situation described in the task or in the problem and thereby did not only enhance their understanding. monitoring. mathematical reasoning problems) depends on the activation of metacognitive processes more than on solving tasks at a lower level of cognitive complexity (e. where.. and giving reasons for ideas. regulation. Mevarech.. conceptual and procedural problems) because the former requires careful planning. monitoring. The findings of this study support earlier findings (Hoek et al. The process of solving tasks at a high level of cognitive complexity (e.

were able to select and justify the appropriate strategies for solving the problem because they were trained how to do so. monitor. Monitoring questions enabled students to regulate or monitor their problem performance by self-generating feedback which enabled them to select the appropriate strategies. According to Piaget (1970).evaluation questions. They were trained to ask metacognitive questions such as “what is the appropriate strategy to solve …? And “how do we justify the appropriateness of our strategy?” Also mathematical reasoning requires applying strategies in other situations. This is what Piaget calls cognitive conflicts. students work with independence and equality on each other’s ideas. The students taught via the CLMS method were supported to generalize their learning strategies to other situations. and therefore enabled them to reason mathematically more than the other two groups. This conflict created a case of disequilibrium for the students. Questions such as “how do we apply this line of thinking to other situations?” and “can we derive a rule that would work for …?” enabled students to generalize their strategies. The students taught via the CLMS method. Planning questions enabled students to formulate. Metacognitive 176 . identify. and evaluate their learning strategies and solutions. The students taught via the CLMS method encountered situations that contradicted their believes or understanding. and to define the task or the problem and then build the relationships among its concepts and procedures. Evaluation questions enabled students to reflect on their solutions or alternatives so as to direct their future steps. One of the most important components of mathematical reasoning is the appropriate strategies selection and the justification of selecting these strategies. Students taught via the CLMS method were required to plan.

This learning situation created cognitive conflicts between the students and within every student which helped then to reason mathematically to reequilibriate their thinking. monitoring. Since learning with understanding according to Piaget occurs by assimilation or accommodation through resolving the cognitive conflicts. and can attain to higher levels of thinking. and guide their ways of thinking to provide a better fit with reality and therefore their ability to reason mathematically was improved.. Working cooperatively and using metacognitive questions provided students with the opportunity to explain. enabled them to extend themselves to higher levels of mathematical reasoning. which directed students to rethink their ideas. The students taught via the CLMS method were forced to revise. Vygotsky (1978) suggests the ZPD which is the difference between what students can accomplish independently and what they can achieve under support and guidance. The students taught via the CLMS method were provided with the opportunity to be able to attain higher levels of knowing which were facilitated by the interaction between the low-ability and the high-ability students. in turn. 177 . the students taught via the CLMS method were actively able to adjust and construct their knowledge set and strategies to settle disputes and disagreements and then their knowledge was assimilated or accommodated. Also when the students discussed with each other.questions that comprise planning. evaluate. and justify their solutions which.e. students can be scaffolded by explanation. For Vygotsky (1978). In other words. modify. and evaluation questions assisted students to assimilate or accommodate their knowledge and therefore reequilibrate their thinking. different point of views emerged which pushed cognitive development by causing disequilibrium. demonstration. students taught via the CLMS method were scaffolded through the cooperation i.

Brown and Palincsar. the benefits of cooperative learning in mathematical reasoning were maximized.. Palincsar et al. metacognitive questions served to facilitate the cooperative learning processes through eliciting responses from some students. In this regard. There may be times when group members do not know how to ask questions or how to elaborate thoughts. 178 . 1989b. and the responses may invoke further questions from other students who may require elaboration. and through the use of metacognitive questions which helped the students in narrowing their ZPD. Kramarski et al. 1987. or there may be times when group members are not willing to ask questions or respond to others’ questions. or there may be times when group members do not see the need for cooperation. 2002) on the effectiveness of cooperative learning in supporting students’ mathematical reasoning and cognitive and metacognitive development. Webb (1989b) found that the students who learned most were those who provided explanations to others in their group.. they also suggest that there were certain conditions in which the use of cooperative learning fully worked to facilitate learning. and when they shared prior experiences.. While the findings of this study confirmed previous research (Lin et al. Greene and Land (2000) found that cooperative learning was useful in influencing the development of ideas only when group members offered suggestions. The students taught via the CL method were scaffolded through only the cooperation which enabled them to reason mathematically better than the students taught via the T method whose learning were not scaffolded. 2001. when they were open to negotiation of ideas. Webb. Webb’s (1989b) model of cooperative learning further revealed that different conditions and patterns of cooperation might lead to different learning outcomes. 1989. when the metacognitive scaffolding was provided to students for group cooperation. 1982. 1999.high-ability and low-ability interaction. Therefore.

2000. Lin and Lehman. which helped them to obtain metacognitive knowledge and transfer their understanding to novel problems and situations. 1991b.reasoning. which were all consistent in concluding that cooperative learning and questioning strategies enhanced metacognitive knowledge and reflective thinking. Palincsar and Brown. which in turn helped them to monitor their own understanding.g. Also cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding directed students’ attention to relevant information which made them aware of the important factors and aspects to be considered. The findings of this study support Chi et al.2. or explanation from their peers. monitor. The use of metacognitive questions directed students’ attention to plan.. 1991a. such as “what are the evidences to justify…?” helped the students to reflect upon and explain their own actions and decisions. 1984.’s (1989) and Lin and Lehman (1999) findings that metacognitive questions and self-explanation facilitated problem-solving processes and assisted students to make arguments for 179 .3 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Metacognitive Knowledge The effectiveness of the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method on metacognitive knowledge confirms the results of previous studies (e. 1999. The findings of this study confirm that the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method facilitated metacognitive thinking by directing the students’ attention. The evaluation questions in the metacognitive questions card. 1989). and evaluate their learning processes. 5. King. Davis and Linn. In this study the cooperative learning of the students taught via the CLMS method was structured and guided by the metacognitive questions cards and therefore these students were assisted to explain and reason their solution processes.

which required justification for a solution or suggestion. (1999) showed. recognizing limitations in their solutions. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method guided students to develop solutions by building upon each other's ideas. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method helped students to elicit responses and explanations. In this regard. providing feedback. The students taught via the CLMS method were provided with multiple perspectives. Metacognitive questions also helped students to monitor their status of understanding in their problem solving processes by constantly referring back to the goals of the problem. elaborating or modifying their thoughts. Multiple perspectives gave an opportunity for students to reflect upon and evaluate their solution processes as the findings of Lin et al. students re-examine their thinking process. questioning each other. and thus make thinking explicit. The students also were forced to check each other’s ideas to test if the selected solution was feasible or not. CLMS method facilitated students’ metacognitive knowledge in the problem-solving process through planning. Masui and De Corte (1999) findings show that students who used metacognitive questions had more knowledge about orienting and self-judging themselves than did students in the control groups. or making justifications for their solutions or decisions. which promote comprehension of the one who received the explanation and the one who gave the explanation and feedback (Webb. 1989b). and checking the solution process. and as a result. Metacognitive questions 180 . which facilitated the continuous monitoring of the problem-solving process. monitoring and evaluation.their solutions and decisions. The choices of perspectives direct students’ attention to the important aspects of the problem that they might not have thought about.

181 .enhanced planning by activating prior knowledge and attending to important information. who utilized this cooperative questioning strategy more extensively than the CL and T students. 1979. It also helps students to realize what they know and more importantly. monitoring by actively engaging students in their learning process. This learning environment somewhat encouraged students to produce high level thinking questions and provide evidence for their solutions more than the T students. and enhanced evaluation through reflective thinking. A possible reason that the students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method who. it helps the students to know what they do not know (King. in turn. Previous research (Flavell. outperformed the students taught via the T method in metacognitive knowledge is that the CLMS method forced students to ask more metacognitive questions than the CL method which. in turn. The students taught via the CL method worked cooperatively where multiple responses were provided. 1984) showed that learning strategies that used cooperative learning and questioning activities function as a testing mechanism that allows students to monitor their own comprehension. reported higher metacognitive knowledge levels than the other two groups. Palinscar and Brown. The production of these questions. Therefore. responses. 1989). the students taught via the CLMS. forced students to ask more thinking and hinting questions than the T method. and feedback during the cooperative setting promoted higher level thinking and understanding. and thus more metacognitive knowledge for participating students. Students taught via the CLMS method were constantly trained to produce metacognitive questions and responses.

The low-ability students taught via the CL method significantly outperformed their counterparts taught via the T method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. there were no statistically significant differences between the low-ability students taught via the CL method and the low-ability students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. (b) mathematical reasoning. there were no statistically significant differences between the high-ability students taught via the CLMS method and the high-ability students taught via the CL method in (a) mathematics performance.3 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance. and Metacognitive Knowledge Based on Ability Levels The results of this study showed that the high-ability students taught via CLMS method (high-ability students working cooperatively and also using metacognitive questions cards) significantly outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. However. 182 . (b) mathematical reasoning.5. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. Mathematical Reasoning. Also the results showed that the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method (low-ability students working cooperatively and also using metacognitive questions cards) significantly outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method and taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. However. The highability students taught via the CLMS method and the high-ability students taught via the CL method significantly outperformed their counterparts taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance.

Through directing and guiding the low-ability students. and evaluation and justifications. In addition to their habitual use of learning strategies. explanations. the high-ability students taught via the CLMS method worked cooperatively and were provided with metacognitive questions which assisted them to discuss. Ryan. The CLMS method forced the high-ability students to ask the low-ability students and 183 . 1981). high-ability students have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organized in ways that reflect a deep understanding of their subject matter. 1976. Working cooperatively and using metacognitive questions further gave the opportunity to the high-ability students to actively engage in negotiation and meaning sharing. and outperformed the high-ability students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. reason. they asked metacognitive questions that challenged one’s thinking and required planning.1 Performance of High-Ability Students Taught Via CLMS The high-ability students taught via the CLMS method outperformed the high-ability students taught via the CL method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. explain. Meichenbaum. the high-ability students’ reasoning. Also the CLMS method gave the opportunity to the highability students to direct the low-ability students’ attention to the relevant features of the problem they could not understand. monitoring.5. Basically. the CLMS method created a setting for the high-ability students to construct arguments. and evaluate their and other students’ learning processes. In such an environment. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. 1976. and make justifications. (b) mathematical reasoning.3. argumentation and justification were supported. elaboration. and therefore the high-ability students habitually use active learning strategies needed to monitor understanding (Golinkoff.

themselves questions before. focus on the similarities and differences between previous and new tasks. Such a characteristic assisted the high-ability students to reflect on their own thinking. as well as on comprehending the problem before attempting a solution and reflecting on the use of strategies that are appropriate for solving the problem. Asking and receiving answers of these metacognitive questions assisted the high-ability students to analyze the whole situation described in the problem. actions. and after the solution processes. during. and thus enhanced their understanding and enabled them to evaluate. Working cooperatively with the low-ability students and asking and answering metacognitive questions provided the high-ability students with multiple perspectives and guided them to see things they might have overlooked. Also the CLMS method encouraged the high-ability students to perceive the similarities and 184 . evaluated their solutions. Also formulating and answering metacognitive questions forced the high-ability students to identify the main ideas and the ways the ideas relate to each other and to the students’ prior knowledge and experiences. and decisions. they modified their thinking. Metacognitive questions within the cooperative learning setting provided the highability students with prompts to important features of the task and helped them to recognize the problem and recognize relevant and important information. and alter the inappropriate strategies with a new virtually errorless process which are an essential elements of mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. the CLMS method assisted the high-ability students’ mathematics performance that comprises conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. justify. and as a result. Additionally. planned remedial actions. and monitored and checked their and other students’ solution processes.

to assess the degree to which these 185 . the findings of this study showed that although the adjusted mean of the high ability students taught via the CLMS method was higher. Additionally. 1976. In this regard. However. Working cooperatively and asking and answering metacognitive questions assisted the highability students to create connections between different aspects and constraints and relate to the solutions. Meichenbaum. the high-ability students habitually often use active learning strategies needed to monitor understanding (Golinkoff. there were no statistically significant differences between the high-ability students taught via the CLMS method and the high-ability students taught via the CL method in (a) mathematics performance. the CLMS method improved the high-ability students’ conceptual understanding and mathematical procedures. the CLMS method guided the high-ability students to establish learning goals for tasks and problems. the two major elements of mathematics performance which were within their mastery. Thus. The high-ability students taught via the CLMS method worked cooperatively with the low-ability students and asked and answered metacognitive questions. 1981).differences between the current and the problems already solved previously. unlike mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. 1976. In this situation. This is due to the nature of the tasks and the problems that required conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge tasks and problems require. metacognitive scaffolding did not assist the high-ability students to outperform their counterparts taught via the CL method in mathematics performance. The processes of solving these tasks and problems require mastering the procedures and applying these procedures step by step more than the activation of metacognitive strategies which. Ryan.

Working cooperatively with the low-ability students. Therefore. and after the processes of solving the problem assisted the high-ability students to focus on the processes of solving problems at a higher level of cognitive complexity. and (c) metacognitive knowledge. Also the CLMS method forced the high-ability students to discuss with and ask the low-ability students metacognitive questions before. the CL method gave an opportunity to the high-ability students to discuss. The effect of this activity is evidenced by the higher attainment in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge i.2 Performance of High-Ability Students Taught Via CL The findings of this study showed that the high-ability students taught via the CL method outperformed their counterparts taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance.3. 5.e. the CLMS method assisted and guided the high-ability students to activate their metacognitive processes. and thus. clarify ideas. and aided them to focus on formulating and understanding the problem more than on mastering the procedures of solving the problem. Working cooperatively and asking and answering metacognitive questions before. the high-ability students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge.goals are being met. According to Vygotsky (1978). and after the processes of solving the mathematical tasks and problems. (b) mathematical reasoning. Group diversity in 186 . during. during. to modify the strategies being used to meet the goals.. if necessary. they were more guided to execute the tasks and problems that required mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge than those that required conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. and. students are capable of performing at higher levels when working cooperatively than when working individually. and evaluate each others’ ideas.

Questions on planning. Also the CL method provided the high-ability students with opportunities to learn from each other’s skills and experiences. the metacognitive scaffolding guided the low-ability students in the right direction through the metacognitive questions and the questions generated by the high-ability students.3 Performance of Low-Ability Students Taught Via CLMS The higher mathematics performance. This indicates that the low-ability students during problem solving need support and guidance in the problem solving process. evaluate solutions. and metacognitive knowledge scores of the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method is explained by the fact that within cooperative setting. The CLMS method forced each student to be asker. explain. Thus. summarizer. and presenter by rotation. and explain reasons for viable alternative solutions. each opinion was subject to careful scrutiny. and thus. the high-ability students are confronted with different interpretations of a given situation. and modify their opinions to reequilibriate their thinking to learn with understanding. Working cooperatively helped the high-ability students to go beyond simple statements of opinion by giving reasons for their judgments and reflecting upon the criteria employed in making these judgments.terms of knowledge and experience contributes positively to the learning process. Within the cooperative learning environment. monitoring. The ability to admit that one’s initial opinion may have been incorrect or partially flawed improved the high-ability students’ mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. evaluate. the CL method created cognitive conflicts among the students which then enhanced them to discuss. mathematical reasoning. and evaluation guided the low-ability students to construct sound arguments.3. Working cooperatively with high-ability students and using the metacognitive questions 187 . recorder. 5.

In this study. and after the processes of solving the problem which. they solved the problems more correctly than 188 .assisted the low-ability students to generate more questions which served as a guideline to help them start the problem solving task. helped to elicit their responses. Graesser and Person (1994) found that low-ability students usually asked low frequency. (1989). The findings of this study overcome learning deficiencies involving low ability students as found by Graesser and Person (1994) and others. one of them being the low-ability students’ difficulty identifying their own knowledge deficits. As found by Chi et al. and they may also lack the procedural knowledge for discriminating what it is that they do know from that which they do not know. in turn. unless students had high amounts of domain knowledge. and after the processes of solving the problem. to generate more questions among the group members. and shallow questions and argue that this phenomenon can be attributed to difficulties at three different levels. Xun (2001) indicates that if the frequency of questions is low or if the questions asked are superficial. self-explanation was an important component to monitor one’s learning process. during. elaborate their thinking and articulate their reasoning and therefore. The CLMS method gave the opportunity to every student to ask questions before. and to elaborate thoughts in responding to those questions. there would not be many explanations elicited from other students or even themselves. the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method were provided with metacognitive questions and worked cooperatively. which assisted them to ask important and relevant questions before. during. short answer. Gavelek and Raphael (1985) also pointed that low-ability students may lack the background knowledge necessary to ask their own questions or even answer the questions of others.

the findings of this study showed the although the mean of the low ability students in the CL group was higher there were the findings of this study showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the low-ability students taught via the CL 189 . Through cooperation. 5.4 Performance of Low-Ability Students Taught Via CL The low-ability students taught via the CL method worked with the high-ability students together to solve problems and complete tasks. Metacognitive scaffolding is especially important for low-ability students who tend to jump immediately into computation aspects of problem solving when faced with the task of solving complex problems (Lin et al.. In this setting. Whether the response is verbally articulated or thoughtfully considered. monitoring and evaluation of their own problem-solving processes before. 1999). However. thus the CLMS method enabled them to induce higher-order thinking and provided them with tools that they did not already possess. The low-ability students in this study may lack the ability to engage in effective thinking and problem solving on their own. answering one’s own questions in the form of self-explanation can be an effective strategy for enhancing reflection and metacognition (Chi et al.. Also the CLMS method guided low-ability students’ attention to specific aspects of their learning process such as planning. 1989).3. during and after the processes of solving the problems. which enhanced their metacognitive knowledge. the low-ability students were provided with different perspectives which helped them to evaluate and justify their solution processes and therefore they outperformed their counterparts who taught via the T method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. the low-ability students had the opportunity to model the study skills and work habits of more proficient students.the other two groups.

guide them to activate their metacognitive processes. in turn enhanced the high-ability students to provide the low-ability students with multiple perspectives. and therefore. The low-ability students taught via the CL method were assisted to focus on solving problems at a higher level of cognitive complexity. The process of solving tasks required conceptual understanding and procedural fluency does not depend on the activation of metacognitive processes as much as process of solving tasks required mathematical reasoning.method and the low-ability students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance. could not self-regulate the study strategies. The low-ability students taught via the CL method worked cooperatively with the high-ability students. they concentrated more on tasks and problems required mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge than those required conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. 5.5 Performance of Low-Ability Students Taught Via T The explanations for the low mathematics achievement and metacognitive knowledge of the low-ability students taught via the T method could be that they were not taught the appropriate strategies. In this study. This learning environment encouraged the low-ability students to discuss with and ask the high-ability students questions regarding the processes of solving the mathematical tasks and problems which.3. and did not understand how to apply these strategies. This concentration is evidenced by outperforming their counterparts taught via the T method in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. and assisted them to concentrate on formulating and understanding the problem more than on the procedures of solving the problem. In the last meeting with the teacher who 190 . mathematics performance tasks required conceptual understanding and procedural fluency.

attention.applied the T method. the teacher reported that most of the low-ability students were confused when they encountered a mathematical problem and they were unable to explain the strategies they employed to find the correct solution. This may happened with the low-ability students taught via the T method because the teacher reported that he himself determines the success of the low-ability students. the questions might not be focused or in-depth. The low-ability students taught via the T method were not scaffolded via cooperation and metacognitive questions. the low-ability students often received less teacher time. they had limited abilities to solve problems require mathematical reasoning and metacognitive strategies. or even if they did ask questions. 191 . the low-ability students taught via the T method were given much greater time and emphasis to mathematical procedures. The teacher’s report confirmed that the low-ability students taught via the T method generally lack welldeveloped mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. 1987). and may not encouraged them to participate in the whole class public interaction. They might not have known what questions to ask. Thus. Also. Within the traditional teaching method. and thus may not gave these students more time and attention. they might not generate many questions to ask. and thus they might have been at a loss as to how to start to solve the problems. and were asked a fewer number of process-oriented questions (Leder.

the metacognitive questions helped to activate the low-ability students’ schemata and thus enabled them to retrieve information. The causal sequence began with the metacognitive questions that generated tension while creating the discrepancy. The CLMS method encouraged low-ability students’ mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge to settle disputes and disagreements and then the knowledge was assimilated and accommodated. elaborate knowledge. to think about alternative solutions and consider various perspectives. This finding is interpreted within the context of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’ theories. Therefore. and represent understandings of the problem to be solved. particularly the “why” questions activated the low-ability students’ prior knowledge related to the new concepts. The metacognitive questions. which in turn caused disequilibrium. and the student then strived to resolve the discrepancies via mental activity. 1976. CLMS method challenged low-ability students to change their cognitive structure or schema to make sense of the environment. In this case. 1970). 1981) were through MS enhanced to perform like the high 192 . 1976. It can be concluded that the low-ability students who are habitually deficient in the use of active learning strategies needed to monitor understanding (Golinkoff. Meichenbaum. Ryan. the CLMS method played a critical role in enhancing cognitive development of low-ability students.4 Interaction Effects An interesting finding in this study is that the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method benefited more than the high-ability students taught via the same method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge.5. The CLMS method created cognitive discrepancies or cognitive conflicts and therefore encouraged the students to resolve them. Seen according to Piaget’s cognitive-development theory (Piaget.

attention. 1976. 1981) and thus despite working cooperatively and asked and answered metacognitive questions did not benefit as much from the CLMS method. Central to the notion of working cooperatively and using metacognitive questions is Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development. the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method were supported to construct their mathematical knowledge by their own and therefore learn mathematics with understanding. 1997). Meichenbaum. and frequently received less teacher time. “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance.ability students. or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). the low-ability students were provided with modeling of higher-level thinking and more sophisticated ways of constructing arguments. and solving problems. and thus the low-ability students reached levels in mathematics achievement and metacognitive knowledge that they could not 193 . understanding textual materials. 1987). Ryan. The high ablity students were already habitual users of the processes of metacognition (Golinkoff. Therefore. Low-ability students in the traditional teaching were rarely exposed to high-level reasoning and mathematical discussions (Mevarech and Kramarski. The CLMS method assisted the low-ability students to organize the new material. and were asked a fewer number of process-oriented questions (Leder. the low-ability students were in a critical need of a learning method like the CLMS method that challenged them and then forced them to attend to the instructions sufficiently. 1976. integrate the information with existing knowledge and guide the encoding of schema. Also. that is. Through working cooperatively with high-ability students and asking and answering metacognitive questions.

194 . the CLMS method helped the low-ability students to fully utilize their potential abilities and to progress from what Vygotsky called their “actual developmental level” to their “level of potential development” (1978. 86). The high ability students in all groups were already independently functioning at ZPD levels which were higher than those of the low ability students. p.reach without cooperation and metacognitive scaffolding. Therefore. The CLMS method had a positive effect on the ZPD levels of high ability students but dramatically enhanced the ZPD levels the low ability students.

MR and MK. The low-ability students taught via the CL method in turn outperformed their counterparts taught via the T method in MR and MK but not in MP. is an effective method to achieve the goal of helping low-ability students learn mathematics with understanding.5 Summary and Conclusions This study found that the use of metacognitive scaffolding helped the students to fully benefit from cooperative learning. but the interaction effects showed that the CLMS method is very 195 . and metacognitive knowledge. This study shows that the cooperative learning method. Overall the CLMS group outperformed the CL group in all measures. when embedded with metacognitive scaffolding and implemented correctly in the classrooms. The high-ability students taught via the CL method in turn outperformed their counterparts taught via the T method in MP. The CLMS method was highly effective in the teaching of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (mathematics performance) for both high-ability and lowability students. The low-ability students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL and T methods in mathematics performance. The high-ability students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method in MR and MK but not in MP. MR and MK. mathematical reasoning. and obtain and apply metacognitive strategies. and outperformed their counterparts in the T method in MP.5. reason mathematically. showing that for fifth-grade mathematics cooperative learning alone was not sufficient as a form of scaffolding.

monitoring. It follows that the cooperative learning process should be scaffolded appropriately. and modeling through metacognitive scaffolding. negotiating meanings. 196 . elaborating. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method is effective for younger students and for improving performance in all aspects of mathematics. cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method is superior to cooperative learning method alone. explaining. they benefit much from the cooperative learning process. Therefore. questioning. . When students are actively engaged in activities such as planning. it can be concluded that the use of metacognitive scaffolding helped the students to fully benefit from cooperative learning. The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method further is an effective method across abilities.effective for enhancing mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge among low-ability students. constructing arguments. The metacognitive scaffolding is especially effective in improving students’ mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge. From these findings. and evaluation. but is especially beneficial for low ability students. the cooperative learning method is inadequate without metacognitive scaffolding or.

and metacognitive knowledge. 197 . metacognitive scaffolding can be integrated in instructional design. Also the use of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method in the classroom requires an approach to assessment and evaluation that is different from the present system. curriculum design. There are several skills. Therefore. and metacognitive knowledge. mathematical reasoning. mathematical reasoning. The implementation of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method is not costly. A more authentic and performance-based assessment criteria. that pre-service and in-service teachers need to be trained. drawing metacognitive questions. such as grouping. A close examination of the results revealed that cooperative learning alone is insufficient as a form of scaffolding. and reflection. mathematical reasoning. Therefore. or web-based design to develop mathematics performance. the effectiveness. it is evident in this study that cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method is effective in supporting students’ mathematics performance.5. Also it is inferred that the metacognitive scaffolding was particularly effective in supporting low-ability students’ mathematics performance.6 Implications for Educators From the discussion of the findings. and metacognitive knowledge and facilitate self-regulated learning (Brown and Palincsar. that pre-service and in-service teachers need to be trained to develop to accompany the implementation of this method in the classroom. computer based design. the high learn ability level and the cost effectiveness of this method make this method a good candidate for inclusion in the development of the pedagogical approach. 1989). The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method should be included in teacher education programs.

many state proficiency tests and international examinations (e. Finally. the findings showed that the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding is particularly effective in supporting low-ability students’ mathematics performance. teachers should use metacognitive questions cards as guidelines and ask students to score one another’s reasoning by using the metacognitive questions cards and activating metacognitive processes.2000 administered by OECD. they can perform almost as highability students as the findings of this study proved. teachers should give low-ability students more attention and guide and assist them metacognitively.1999 or PISA.g. Therefore. low-ability students do not get the same attention and do not have the knowledge and skills as high-ability students. TIMSS.2000 countries) include problems and tasks that ask students to explain their reasoning in writing. mathematical reasoning. at present.In the usual manner. To acquaint students with such tasks. In this study.. If low-ability students receive more attention and assisted metacognitively. and metacognitive knowledge. 198 .

Therefore. the effect of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning on students’ motivation is worth further investigation. mathematical reasoning. To address the issue.7 Implications for Future Research The findings of this study raise several questions for further research: First. and attitudes. and metacognitive knowledge. others are not. it is also shaped by their emotions. the quality of group interactions in CLMS and CL methods is not known. Second. Finally." (p. Students’ interaction with others is not only guided by the learning task. “Groups are social systems. an interesting question raised in this study relates to the effects of providing metacognitive scaffolding in cooperative learning setting versus providing metacognitive scaffolding in an individual learning setting on mathematics performance. Therefore. Students’ motivation is an interesting area for future research. different gender. It would be particularly interesting to examine how high-ability and low-ability students interact with each other in the CLMS and the CL methods.5. The extent to which the CLMS and CL methods used in the present study are effective also for children at different grades. or for different subjects is not known at present and may be investigated in future research. the findings of this study call for the design of additional learning environments based on similar components. 855). perceptions. no formal observations and / or interviews were conducted in this study. students who worked cooperatively and used metacognitive questions cards 199 . Webb and Palincsar (1996) point out. different mathematical topics. Third. Some social-emotional processes are beneficial for learning.

should be compared with students work individually and use metacognitive questions cards. 200 .

The third limitation was associated with measuring students’ metacognitive knowledge. The results found in this study may not be generalizable to the female fifth-grade students in other educational directorates in Jordan. Jordan Government schools are not coeducational. this assessment procedure may be insufficient as there are no verbal report measures or/and direct observation of students’ interaction and strategy use and development. This study was conducted in the natural setting of the class. However. so this study samples limited to the male fifth-grade students in the primary schools of Irbid directorate. Students’ metacognitive knowledge was assessed via a metacognitive questionnaire. Second.8 Limitations of the Study This study sought to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning strategies on mathematics performance. the researcher relied primarily on the questionnaire data for the investigation of the students’ metacognitive knowledge. the researcher justifies that the students’ age (11 years) may restrict the implementation of these assessment procedures. mathematical reasoning. The following are some limitations may restrict the probability of generalizing its findings: First. 201 . and this may restrict generalizing the study findings to the rest of mathematics concepts and subjects. this study limited to the “Adding and Subtracting fractions” unit in the fifthgrade textbook.5. and metacognitive knowledge among fifth-grade students of two ability levels (high and low) in Jordan. Therefore.

(1995). Ames.M. and Da'jeh. M. (2001). Cognition and Instruction. Do the standards go far enough? Power. (1983) (e. S. 1987.. Artzt. Hall. Aronson. P. (1996. 5. Hillsdale. (2000. (1990). Ahmed. K.. (1992).: American Psychological Association.. 1-10. K. Bahrick. Reconstructive processing of memory content for high versus low test scores and grades. (2003). Journal of Educational Psychology. Needham Heights. F. Contributions of Gagné and Briggs to a prescriptive model of instruction. Enhancing instructional quality through educational reform: Value. D. 84. K. (1983). J. Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform (Report No. Amman. 91(3).d). (1998). R. Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current Status. S. HMSO.. Better Mathematics. p. AN 9705111791). Ames. 412-431. November). Dennis T. Mahwah. MA: Allyn and Bacon. Jordan. (1992). in Reigeluth. H. 24. Washington. Teachers College Record.added after four years. 409-422. and Trollip. J. L. Baroody.493). and Dunlosky. Paper presented at the international conference on mathematics education into the 21st century: Mathematics for living. Fostering children's mathematical power: An investigative approach to K8 mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. and Briggs. and student motivation. policy. ED 411. December). and practice in mathematics education. C. Classrooms: Goals..REFERENCES Abu Libdeh. Paper presented at the Forty-Third IECT World Assembly held in Amman. and Armour-Thomas. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 7. M. Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.. (1993). E. 23. NJ: Prentice-Hall.). A. 261–271. A. Jordan. Motivation: What teachers need to know. C. H. Retrieved from: EBSCOhost on-line database (EBSCOhost. Alessi. structures. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A. Ahlawat. Apple. J.C. C. A. Analysis of Students' Errors in Mathematics Problem Solving. American Psychological Association. 202 .

C.). schooling. A. R. (1994). NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Interactive learning and individual understanding: The case of reading and mathematics. The process of learning. (1993). and Harper. and apprenticeship. Brown. Elementary School Journal. and Tombari. motivation.C. Biggs. Matching classroom tasks to students’ attainments. mind. In B. (1997). T. R. experience.. Brown. B. 136-170). 2. In L. (1988). teamwork. New York: Prentice Hall. Hillsdale. (eds. Berk. Norwood.Bennett. In Landsmann. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. DC: National Academy Press. F.. C. NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. P. L. (1987) Metacognition. learning. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. J. P. executive control.. Norwood. Bransford. Washington. 393-451). Khan (Ed.. Washington. Brown. J. (Eds. 7. S. Brown. and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. (1995). 203 . and Moore. 32-42.. Englewood Cliffs. P. (1996). Ferrara.). Ability. and Desforges.. B. (1989).. A. G. and Kluwe. A. and Winsler. D. B. DC: National Governors' Association. and school. J.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. J. J. grouping and tracking: Current issues and concerns. C. A and Duguid. In Weinert. and Goren. S. Metacognition as a basis for learning support software. (Ed.. How people learn: Brain.). Reconceiving mathematics instruction: A focus on errors. A. and Cocking.. Brown. Brown.) Metacognition.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and psychological development (pp. 88. A.. Collenis. 3-26. (1991). NJ: Ablex Publishing Co. 2nd edition. and understanding. Reeve.. Hedberg. J. Educational Researcher 18. C. L. Borich. Culture. Knowing. R.. Washington D. Campione. Brown. 167-178). R. H. L. J. A. T. (1989). and Palincsar. L. A. R.. NY: Addison Wesley. N. Learner-centered Web instruction for higherorder thinking. S. L.. N. and other even more mysterious mechanisms. 221–234. A. Hillsdale. self-regulation. L. and Reynolds.. A. E. (1993). Resnick (Ed. Borasi. P. M (1997) Educational psychology: A contemporary approach.). R.. Guided. H. (2000). cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Performance Improvement Quarterly. Webbased instruction(pp. Scaffolding Children's Learning: Vygotsky and Early Childhood Education. Bonk. and Palincsar.

MA: Harvard University Press. Cognitive Science. G. H.-H. (1973). Australia: John Wiley and Sons. Chung. Carpenter. A. 204 . Going Beyond the Information Given. SPSS. Freeman and Company. Chiu. T.. (1995). Clark. M. New York: W. E. and Glaser. (1999). (1995). In R. H. L. Eliciting selfexplanations improves understanding. The Process of Education. (1985). 170-190 Caplow. J. C. Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. Innovative Higher Education. B.. The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. 28. Franke. New York: Norton. Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. A. Coakes. J.). the Pennsylvania State University. R. (1989). Chi.. J. Butler. Lewis. Chi. Bassok. R.Bruner. and Glaser.. The Effect of the Availability of Technology on Teachers’ Use of Technology and Student Achievement on Standardized Tests. P.. and Kardash. Burron. Collaborative learning activities in graduate courses. Training. Wagner (Eds.477. R.. Romberg (Eds). 13. Sternberg (Ed. S. Jacobs. Cecil. J. de Leeuv. England: Academic Press. The effects of cooperative learning in a physical science course for elementary/middle level preservice teachers. Sternberg and R. K.. and Roazzi. In E. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. (1995). A. In J. Classroom that promote mathematical understanding. 18. S. Cambridge. M. 697-707. Cognitive Science. C. (1994). Promoting strategic learning by post secondary students with learning disabilities. 3.. D. 7. R. (1993).0 for Windows. (2001).. and Empson. P. Bruner. Journal of Learning Disabilities. C. J.. (1994). Mahwah.. and Ambrosio.). 3-20. Fennema. (1998). 85-90. T.. James. M. Problem solving ability.. and Lehere. 227-250). T.. B. S. 19. Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. M. Analysis Without Anguish: Version 10.. M. Reimann. A. (1960). 1.21st Century Human Performance. 207-221. NJ: Erlbaum. 74-100). Steed. 439 . 30. 6. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Fennema and T. M. M. and Lavancher. N. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29. R. M. (2002). 145-182. Chi. J.. L. V. J.. Carpenter.. Selfexplanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.

19. Reston. T. 17-24). Goetz.837. (1988). Cross. A. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J. New York: Academic Press Davis. 80. D. Washington..G. (1988) Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. New York: Macmillan. Costa. Vancouver: International Coordination Centre. Yackel. (1996) Forming knowledge: Constructivist learning and experiential education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Understanding Pedagogy and Its Impact on Learning.R. Davidson.P. and Pellegrion.. (1961) Democracy and education. Bauersfeld (Eds. How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Cooperative learning strategies.. W. J. Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. (1985).Cobb. Educational Psychologist. A. (1995). Cossey. NJ: Erlbaum. and Taylor.. P. R. 8. 22. L. Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 76-81. 205 . M. E. and P. Weinstein. Mathematical communication: Issues of access and equity. Hillsdale. Alexander (Eds. Stanford University.. Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE.Cooperative Learning in Mathematics. Driscoll.A. (2000). The emergence of mathematical meaning. 103-120). 819. E. The Journal of Experiential Education. 167–180. New York: Academic Press. F. (1990). (TIMSS document ref. ICC313).P. S. (1997). M. and Linn. Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. A. In C. DeLay. instruction. Donovan. Driscoll. Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment.). CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. N. Donn. Bransford. 23. San Francisco. E. Dewey. D. and Wood. (1999). in Mortimore (Ed) (1999: p47). Doyle. Psychology of learning for instruction.). DC: National Academy Press. and Parts. 131-142. The teaching experiment classroom. Web-based training: Using technology to design adult learning experiences. R. Dansereau. E. (1988). and evaluation (pp. (1998). T. S. M. Cripps and McGilchrist (1999). 3a focus group working paper. International Journal of Science Education. J. Cobb and H. Developing Minds: A Resource Book of Teaching Thinking. London: Paul Chapman. Journal of Educational Psychology. In P. (1992a). (1994). M.

Cognitive Monitoring. Journal of Negro Education. and practice. M. P. A. gender. Effects of teaching metacognitive skills to students with low mathematics ability.) Constructivism: Theory. and Alexander. and Hoyt. Incorporating race. Instructional Science. and Newby. R. 109 – 21. Cognitive development.D. Metacognition. Gagne. and reflective.. T. J. J. Friedrichs. R. Mahwah. Teaching and Teacher Education. Feltovich. Fosnot (Ed. Spiro. K. In C. perspectives.). American psychologist. NJ: Erlbaum.G. 59. Educational Psychologist.. and Nicholls. 1-24. (1992). J.. 24.. (1985). (1986). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. 143-158. P. (1963). J. The nature of intelligence. (1992). 41. (1970) Developmental changes in memorisation processes. J. New York: D. American Psychologist. Flavell. C. and Mathematical Performance. F. 8. In L. H. 24. (1989). 1040-1048. and Lester. New York: Holt. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and Feltovich. Flavell. Coulson. and class issues into a critical mathematical literacy curriculum. (1996). Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning. H. Garofalo.. 3. Journal of Educational Psychology. Ertmer. Frankenstein. A. 163-176 206 . L. L. Flavell.8-33). NJ: Prentice-Hall.Duda.. NY: Teachers College Press. Dweck. H. (1996). Koschmann (Ed. (1990). 906-911. J. M. B. (pp.). J. (1996). J. Motivational processes affecting learning. 290–299. 3. G. CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. The expert learner: Strategic. J. (1985). C. Cognitive Psychology. J.. J. Van Nostrand. self-regulated. Garner. A. 323-340 Fosnot. Englewood Cliffs. Resnick (Ed. individuality and in groups. R. The Conditions of Learning (4th ed. Elawar. 84. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 16. J. C. 34. (1979). Flavell. 1. H. The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Rinehart and Winston . Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. R. P. 336347.. Hillsdale. In T. (1976). Flavell. H.). J. Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity. (1977). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.

Question asking during tutoring. In D. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. and human performance (pp. E. MacKinnon. Mahwah. 12. 18-32. 46-55. (1995). (Eds. and Person. E. 23. Halpren. 87. T. 1-23). Mayer. Tatham. AN 1486). Educational Psychologist. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and A. Waller.). Orlando. (1994). 1 and 2. Hacker.). R. Hanley. 207 . L. and Raphael. Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. G. Gavelek.. D. Journal of educational psychology. Tracks for learning: Metacognition and learning technologies. M. Multivariate Data Analysis (5 th edition). 2. FL: Academic Press. Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations. S. Gordon. Constructivist learning theory.edu/UMS+ State/UMD Projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism. and the role of questioning activities. N. (1997). C.html Graesser. (1991. (1998). (2000). Journal of Educational Computing Research.Garrison. 104-137. J. Reading research quarterly. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. Retrieved from: EBSCOhost on-line database (EBSCOhost. C. (1996).edu. M. Dunlosky. Metacognition. A. Greene. and Land. J. Golinkoff. J. (1998). 58-59. A comparison of reading comprehension processes in good and poor comprehenders. International committee of museum educators.au/gen/aset/ajet/ajet12/wi96p46. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://cleo. 151-180. Hacker. In D. (1996). F. R. 623-659. cognition.txt.. B. G. A. J.. October). L. 1. A. Hein. C. C. D. J.. Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Umd. (1985). 11. Graesser (Eds. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. Adult Education Quarterly. R. Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Forrest-Pressley. 103-136).. Available at: http:// www. M. 18-34. Conference Jerusalem. Hair. 99-120. 21.murdoch. Problem solving strategies. Hagarty. R. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. instruction.. Metacognition. E. S. E.. Anderson. and Monk. K. On constructivism. and T. G. American Educational Research Journal. (1976). 1. and Black. Gick. A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving with the World Wide Web. A. D. J. (1986). (1994). 48(1). 31. Inform. L.

(1999). 579-589. Jacobs. (1999). and Hind (1995). Innabi. (1987). R. University Park. and Piaget. J. Unpublished Master Thesis.Hiebert. and Smith.. D. In D. J. Yarmouk University. D. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 22.. Learning achievement of basic cycle students in mathematics. Johnson. and R. and Piaget. Indiana University. Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition. PA. (1981). Johnson. A. A. R. Hoek. P. Grouws (Ed. S. M. New York: Macmillan. (1991).. (1999). Hong. Amman: NCHRD. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The effects of instructional computer on direct and delayed achievement of fifth grade students in mathematics.T. Inhelder. Inhelder. (1987). (1998). (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. (1999). and Carpenter. The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. The relationship between well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in multimedia simulation. Educational Researcher. 118. Learning and teaching with understanding. MN: Interaction Book Company. Learning together: Cooperative. van den Eden. measurement.. Hanan. 65–97).W. (1964). NJ: Prentice Hall. 5-10. 9. Student-student interaction: the neglected variable in education. The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. competitive. Johnson. Learning within scripted and non-scripted peer tutoring sessions: The Malaysian context. (1992). P. K. Ismail.. T.. Johnson. W. Learning Together and Alone (2nd Ed). Jacobson.). B. S. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. Englewood Cliffs.. and Terwel. H-N. J. 2. T. and Johnson. Teachers improving learning using metacognition with selfmonitoring learning strategies. I.. E. Education. 208 . B. 4. J. and Paris. and instruction. (1958). Johnson. 255-278. J. Educational Psychologist. R. NY: Harper and Row. G. New York: Basic Books. The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.. Edina. Kaisee. Learning and Instruction. N.. Jbeili. D. D. D. W. and individualistic learning. Johnson. 427-448.

Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia. 1. 111-126. (1991b). Kitchner. (2001). 27. 2nd ed. competitive. (1986). R. 366 – 381. (2000). Journal of Education. Washington. metacognition. TIMMS – Performance of Singapore secondary students. (1991) Objectivism Versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development. and Pereira.. D. and epistemistic cognition: A threelevel model of cognitive processing. NY: Teachers College Press. 382-392. Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problemsolving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. Cognition. Fractions. C. B.Johnson. B. Effect of guided cooperative questioning on children's knowledge construction. Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures.. Educational Psychologist. K. 209 . Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic. A. and individualistic learning. 39. S. (1991a). Part B: Proportionality. Resistance to cooperative learning: Making sense of its deletion and dilution. 127-148 King.. King. (1992).. (1997). 14. D. (1993). Kamii. 5. 23. and Number Sense. Journal of Experimental Education. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Johnson. Jonassen. Instructional design models for well-structured and illstructured problem-solving learning outcomes. J. 2. B. M. 54-70. B. 1. A. Measurement. Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Swafford. 26. H. 307-317. Kaur. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 61(2). 83. and Rosenshine. 331-346. King. M. 45. Kohn. Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. and Stanne. A. D. DC: National Academy Press. 65-94. Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. 23. 3. W. 174. (1992). A. L. J. 5 – 14. King. King. 3. 38-56. Kilpatrick. Comparison of computer assisted cooperative. (1983). 1. 3. Human Development. H. 222-232. American Educational Research Journal. Jonassen. and Findell. A.. Educational Technology: Research and Development. (2000). T. (1989). A.

Kinzer. 3.design theories and models. skills. (1995). proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Mathematical Reasoning. and Secules. A. (1988). X.. The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Lin. Instructional.Kramarski. (2001). Englewood cliffs. A. Z.. 439-446. Teacher student interaction: A case study. Journal of educational research. In Reigeluth. and heuristics in education. 837-858. G. and Lieberman. Cognition and Instruction. An overview of their current status. Landa. (1999). (2000). Kramarski. R. 5. Designing technology to support reflection. Hiroshima University. Leder. C. E. Hmelo. R. 4. 17. R. 18. 289–309. (1987). 210 . Z. Kramarski. (1995).. Japan.). C. Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Lawson. Indiana University. Effects of multilevel versus unilevel metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Mevarech. M. In Tadao Nakahara and Masataka Koyama (eds. Educational Studies in Mathematics. (1983). 49. Lesh. B. J. Hillsdale NJ: PrenticeHall. B. L. L. Processes. and Lehman. J. (1999). and Arami. Hiroshima. Education. R. X. NJ: Educational Technology Publications. and abilities needed to use mathematics in everyday situations. Science teaching and the development of thinking. Algorithmization... Education and Urban Society. K. (2002). 292-301. D. Lin... 167 – 171. Mevarech. Lepper. C. Manion. Educational Technology: Research and Development. B. The benefits of peer collaboration on strategy use. 255-271. 1. T. (1985). 43-62. 94. Instructional regulation and control: cybernetics.. 3. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 47. Educational Studies in Mathematics. metacognitive causal attribution. 225 – 250. M. Landa. V. 7. The algo-heuristic theory of instruction. M. (1976). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. and recall. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. (1983). C. The effects of different instructional methods on the ability to communicate mathematically.

2. Z. Z.. Learning and Instruction. Gifted students' conceptions of academic fun: An examination of a critical construct for gifted education. E. University of Wisconsin-Madison.. (in press). and Kearsley. R. A. Dissertation Abstracts International.H. In Knights. Distance education: A systems view. Littlefield. 371-388. R. 4. (1999). A. Doctoral dissertation. M. Sacramento: California Department of Education Mayer. (Eds). An analysis of the congruence of teachers' and students' personal constructs regarding intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom. 195 – 205. and Doise. Baltimore: University Park Press. 53. Belmont. 34. S. 9. Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. 2. (1999).. The Journal of Educational Research. B.R. Peer-based interaction at the computer: looking backward. 275-280.. looking forward.. R. European Journal of Social Psychology. J. Cognitive factors as determinants of learning disabilities. 36. 211 . Socio-cognitive conflicts and structure of individual and collective performances. (1997). D. Z. Cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of eighth-grade students' mathematical problem solving. Learning and Instruction. Middleton. (1976).Masui. (1992). R. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.. W. G. 1181-1192. Mevarech. R. 31. 8. and Lehrer. 92. Mugny. and Light. (1993a). Students as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. C.. G. Z. Middleton. and Kramarski. J. Montague. Mathematics framework for California public schools (1999). 2. and Kramarski. 38-44.. M.161. Educational Psychologist. Mevarech. Mevarech. (1978). 151 . 6. R. (1992). Gifted Child Quarterly. Journal of Educational Psychology. (1996). 517-542. and Bakker.. 365-395. 31-50A. The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students' mathematical reasoning. P. Moore. IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. Kindergarten through grade twelve. and Bos. J. (1990). two powerful and training learning tools. Learning and Individual Differences.. A cognitive function approach. Meichenbaum. G. D. Mevarech. B. and De Corte. Enhancing learning and problem solving skills: Orienting and self-judging. (1996). The neuropsychology of learning disorders: Theoretical approaches. American Educational Research Journal. C.

M. 1 and 2. Available: http://www.. OECD: 2000. 8. DC: National Academy Press. (1995). 1. E and Hannafin. 5-13. Reston. VA: Author.nap. (1989). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston. VA: Author. A. (1989). Educational Psychologist. M. (1998). 28-31. Curriculum and evaluation standards for teaching mathematics. DC: Author. (1994). mathematical and scientific literacy. Mathematics framework for the 1996 and 2000 National assessment of educational progress. Reston. 21. Available: http://books. Effects of advance questioning and prior knowledge on science learning.National assessment of educational progress (2000).nap.nagb. Everyday counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. (1986). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Washington. Malkawi. 2. National Research Council.edu/catalog/5777. 16. J.html. (1992). (2000). Osman. Professional standards for teaching mathematics. S. Jordan. Measuring Students Knowledge and skills. Palincsar. L. The scientific research basics in education and human sciences. research components and their statistical data analysis. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Science Scope. 117-175 212 . VA: Author.html. How I use cooperative learning. and Brown. Irbid: Yarmouk University. Journal of Educational Research. Ossont. S. The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Reston. (1993). Assessment standards for school mathematics. The PISA 2000 assessment of reading. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Palincsar. Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. A. D. Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Research Council. A. 73-98. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.org O’deh. A..edu/catalog/5777.org. Metacognitive questions. (1991). Available: http://www. (1984). Washington. F. VA: Author. Available: http://books. DC: National Academy Press. Washington. 88. Cognition and Instruction. High school mathematics at work: Essays and Examples for the education of all students.ncrel. (1995). National assessment governing board.

J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.). 231-253. DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.. Students' aptitudes and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal. A. D. and Martin. F. J. Relationships. A.). The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Piaget. Instructions for self-regulated reading. S. and Brown. D. R. Teaching intelligence. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (1987).. Pollack. In L. Paris. Norton and Co... (1997). C. G. B.. Hillsdale. Individual Differences and Children's Use of Literate Language. M. H. 46. Solving problems in the real world. Advanced educational psychology for educators. A. Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. S. D. and Buss.. New York: W. Peterson. (1989). Piaget.. Review of Educational Research 65. Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow's America (pp. (1987). Idol (Eds. D. Swing. A. 535-47. 15-51). A. DC: National Academy Press. Biology and Knowledge.Palincsar. L. P. 52. E. R. 129 – 144. P. Pressley. 74. S.. In L. (1997). (1998).. J. Z. Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. W. B. S. Resnick and L.. The Child's Conception of Number. Education and learning to think. Galda. 4.. and Waas. G. (1970). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. and Grotzer. and Flor. L. 10. American Psychologist. T. (1995). (1990). Jean. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. In B. (1984). Steen (Ed. D. (1982).L. and Winograd. Perkins. S. Klopfer (Eds. S. L. Piaget. R. (1971). Palincsar. Journal of Educational Psychology. Petraglia. A. How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction.. Johnson. A. Washington. Stark. 213 . 21: 487-515.. 22. Resnick. Jones and L. New York: HarperCollins.. K. A. Washington. R. 91 . W. N.. Qin. M. and McCormick. 1125-1133.. P. Peterson. (1996). Pelligrini. Students' cognitions and Time on task during mathematics instruction. (1965). Braverman. Unpublished manuscript. T. Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. and policy makers. 53-65. New York: Grossman. A. M. The real world on a short leash: The (Mis) Application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. and Swing. 3 and 4. Brown. and Johnson. and Szeminska. B. 19-39). researchers. Educational Psychologist. (1987).).. T. L.105). ETR and D. L.

Advances in reading research.M. 8. A. G. Millenium focus issue: Perspectives on principles and standards. A. 1.. An overview of their current status. In Woolfolk. H. (2000). M. C. NY: Academic Press Scandura. 8-21. (1992). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. (1987). 189-215).. Instructional strategies based on the structural learning theory. Hillsdale. (1983). G. H. C. In Ferrucci. R. Instructional.). Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 174. H. Schoenfeld (Ed. B. Problem Solving: A Structural/Process Approach with Instructional Applications. Comments: NCTM’s curriculum and evaluation standards. Teach ability of reflective processes in written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cognitive Science. what are the questions? Journal of Education. In T. Readings and Cases in Educational Psychology. Ryan. In D. Romberg. E. K. (eds).design theories and models. XXXII. A. and Steinbach. and sense making in mathematics. M. (1984). (1988). 2. E. If cooperative learning's the answer. New York: Academic Press. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (1983). (Ed. S. J. (1977). Grouws (Ed. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.Rogoff. Hillsdale NJ: Prentice-Hall Scardamalia. C. Teacher College Record. 620-627 Sapon-Shevin.K. (1992). The New England Math Journal. Identifying and remediating failures in reading comprehension: Toward an instructional approach for poor comprehension. Schoenfeld. The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Waller and G. H.). Rosenshine. (1993).. A. J. 10-37.). and Meister. B. 81..). 40-54 Keene.. Scandura. J. 100. The Use of Scaffolds for Teaching HigherLevel Cognitive Strategies. N. and Heid. M. B. Russell. (1985) Mathematical Problem-Solving. NY: Oxford University Press. A. Developing computational fluency with whole numbers in the elementary grades. (1990). 2.. (1981). In Reigeluth. MacKinnon (Eds. 214 . Salomon. Journal of Educational Psychology. T. and Schniedewand. 173-190. and Guterman. (1989). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving. 5th ed. metacognition. Bereiter. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. M. T. B. New York: Macmillan. What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. Schoenfeld. NH: Association of Teachers of Mathematics. M. Globerson. Schoenfeld. 4. E. 334-371).

Slavin. Contemporary Educational Psychology. (1996). Sinott (Ed. J.. Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice.. L. G. 12. (1987). Hillsdale. M. Smith and T. ed. Sternberg. (1986b). Upper Saddle River. Osborne. J. (1994) Talking. 460-475.). Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. New York: Appleton. 89-106). A.. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know. and Sharan. 215 . L. In J. B. 455-488. Educational Leadership. what we need to know. 45. Skinner. In Crosswhitein. (1989). (Eds. (1968). R. Journal of Reading.S.). In M. (1996). and Henningsen. J. Ohio: Charless A. R.Schraw. E. Mahwah. Instructional design. R. Shulman. 33. Schoenfeld. S. D. 136 – 42. T. Higgins. S. Stacey and Kay. (1994). New York: Praeger. and Dennison. (1973).. R. Psychological Controversies in the Teaching of Science and Mathematics. "Foundations of Cognitive Theory and Research for Mathematics Problem Solving Instruction.). A. K. Cognition and Instruction. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Contemporary Educational Psychology. E. relating and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. 7-13. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Simpson. Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. P.E. and Ragan. D." In A.. Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. Jones Publishing Company. (1993). 21. R. American Educational Research Journal. Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. Pourchot (Eds. Slavin. (1987).. 19. M. 3-18). Silver. L. (1994). M. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. and Shumway. S. Smith. (1998). Grover. 4369. 4. Sinnott. Schraw. On the development of adult metacognition. Adult learning and development: Perspectives from education psychology (pp. 2. C. November.. Publishers. (1992). The technology of teaching. G. Slavin. R. 72-99). 313-353. W. Teaching Mathematics: Psychological Foundations (pp. Mthematical problem solving in groups – are two heads better than one? Journal of Mathematical Behavior 11. Stein. H. 3. R. H. The status of study strategy instruction: implications for classroom teachers. (1984). Worthington. 261 – 275. Shachar. F. 4. B. J. J. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. Intelligence applied. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. J.

J. Exploring Current Issue in Educational Technology. B. (1978). and Minstrell. J. (1979). Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. C. 44-57. A. Task – related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups.. (1989a). New York: Teachers College Press. 475-484. H.S. Cambridge. M. Basic math facts: Guidelines for teaching and learning.. 5. T. J. 74. (2001). A.).). Frensh (Eds. 22. 366 – 389. Lawrence. J. Thorndike. Voss. E. Chi. Tiene. C. Vygotsky. A. J. TIMSS-R International study center (1999). R. In M.. (1985). International Journal of Educational Research.. International Mathematics Report. (1991). and Rifkin. Journal of Educational Psychology. and Post. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Findings from IEA's repeat of the Third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Webb. and Engle. (1995). J. B. Tuckman.. F. A. In R. E. The Fundamentals of Learning. Wolfe. (1988). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 13. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. 9-19. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. 13. A. Stevens. N.. Webb. 6. (1986). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. M. M. N. and Ingram. International Journal of Educational Research. M. A. Complex problem solving. Washington.Sternberg. F. Learning Disabilities Focus. R. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. E. A. Group composition. The nature of expertise (pp. 227-269. (1997). Hillsdale. On the solving of ill-structured problems. N Y: Ridge and Madison. von Glasersfeld. and Toohey. R. Voss. Multivariate statistics for the social science. Conducting educational research. Van Zee. MA: Boston College. Chestunt Hill. J. 27.. (1999). 261-285). MA: Harvard University Press. 195-232. DC: The Falmer Press. (1991). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. (1982). Farr (Eds. Hillsdale. Using questioning to guide student thinking. Webb. (1989b). The development of analogical reasoning processes.. 1. N. Webb. J. W. 216 . D. 5th edition. Hillsdale. group interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Sternberg and P. Glaser and M. Thornton. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. N. L. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2. R. (1932). 21-40.

Wittrock. E. (1976). B. 2.). 89-100. C. In M. N. (1985). In D. Heath and Company. Columbus. 17.. Wood. and Semel. S. In W. C. 227-268. K. Svinicki and C. Wiig. N.). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. AN 759257). 405-418. G. Calfee (Eds. M. New York: Macmillan.. Group processes in the classroom. Wittrock (Ed. J. Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed. Handbook of educational psychology (pp. and Palincsar. (2000). 359-367). Wilkins and Jesse.Webb. Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert-expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Chism. J. S.) (pp.). Retrieved from EBSCOhost on-line database (EBSCOhost. F. Scaffolding students problem-solving processes on an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. OH: Merrill. L. (1984). (1996). Weinstein. Wineburg.. Menges. Language assessment and intervention for the learning disabled child. and Ross.C. 32. J. Bruner.. The role of tutoring in problem solving. G. McKeachie. the Pennsylvania State University. 55. (1998). 319-346. Wong. (1986). Y. New York: Harper and Row.). C. School Science and Mathematics. Motivating students to become more responsible for learning. Cognitive Science. M. (1998). (2001). Productive Thinking (Enlarged Ed. Xun. Weinstein (Eds. E. 217 . and Stone. S. M. 841-873). Berliner and R. L. M. E. Students' thought processes. 190-197. Teaching tips (9th Ed. Review of Educational Research. A. (1994). G. Lexington. Toronto: D. C. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. M. V. R. C. Wertheimer. S. 8. Meyer. E. Teaching Students How to Learn. Preparing for the 21st century: The status of quantitative literacy in the United States. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan. D. 22. 100.). M. Self-questioning instructional research: A review. College Student Journal. White. (1959). D..

- differentiated strategies for student profile
- Antonio (Thesis) New
- 2-culminating-assignment
- Analysis of Division Achievement Tests in Secondary Chemistry and Biology for SY 2009-2010
- electricity carousel
- Virtualization and Cloud Computing Overview Ppt
- The Vanity of the Rat
- Cooperative Learning
- Makalah Strategi Metakognitif
- Handbook of Metacognition in Education (Educational Psychology) - Routledge (2009)
- Oakley Scaffolding
- A Beginning Teacher's Guide to Special Educational Needs.pdf
- The Motivation and Attitudes Towards Learning Slang in English a Study of the Fourth-year Undergr
- FINAL THESIS PROPOSAL
- Enhance Year 5 Pupils Performance in Mathematics through STAD model
- Teaching Competency of Secondary Teacher Educators In Relation To Their Metacognition Awarness
- sarah observation feb 19 2014
- Teaching English Vocabulary Using Game1 2
- night genocide project
- lesson plan - ed psy
- jillian schoer 4
- 230-1464-1-PB (3)
- Formative Assessment Full Paper
- Eksner Orellana 2012-Libre
- ed 434 oral language portfolio assignment
- Weight Grisel PlaceValue StudentTeaching
- laurenjose ob may12
- lesson example with differentiation and accomodations
- Thesis CSR
- THE LANGUAGE PORTFOLIO AS A STRATEGY TO IMPROVE ESL WRITING IN STUDENTS OF FIRST GRADE OF SECONDARY AT SAGRADOS CORAZONES SCHOOL

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading