Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
ON
by
September 2003
1
Table of Contents i
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
List of Appendices x
Acknowledgements xi
Abstrak xiii
Abstract xvi
2
2.4 Metacognitive Strategies and the Construction of 43
Knowledge
2.4.1 Regulation of Cognition 45
2.4.2 Metacognitive Strategies and Age 47
2.4.3 Metacognitive Scaffolding 48
2.5 Cooperative Learning and Learning Mathematics 52
with Understanding
2.5.1 Theoretical Perspective on Cooperative 53
Learning
2.5.2 Elements of Cooperative Learning 56
2.5.3 Teacher’s Role in Cooperative Learning 57
2.6 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive 60
Scaffolding and Learning Mathematics with
Understanding
2.6.1 Conceptual Understanding 63
2.6.2 Procedural Fluency 65
2.6.3 Strategic Competence 67
2.6.4 Adaptive Reasoning 70
2.6.5 Productive Disposition 72
2.7 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive 74
Scaffolding and Mathematical Reasoning
2.8 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive 77
Scaffolding and Real-Life Problem Solving
2.9 Cooperative Learning with Metacognitive 80
Scaffolding and Motivation
3.1 Introduction 83
3.2 Population and Sample 83
3.3 Experimental Conditions 84
3.4 Research Design 86
3.5 Instructional Materials and Instruments 88
3.5.1 Instructional materials 88
3.5.1.1 Adding and Subtracting Fractions 88
Unit
3.5.1.2 The Metacognitive Questions 89
Cards
3.5.2 Instruments 90
3.5.2.1 The Mathematics Achievement 90
Test
3.5.2.2 The Scoring of Mathematics 92
Achievement Test
3.5.2.3 The Metacognitive Knowledge 96
3
Questionnaire
3.5.3 Materials and Instruments Validity 96
3.5.4 Instruments Reliability 98
3.6 Procedures 98
3.6.1 The Pilot Study 99
3.6.2 The Formal Study 99
3.6.3 Groups’ Equivalence 100
3.6.4 Teachers’ Training 100
3.6.5 Implementation of the Study 102
4
4.3.8 Summary of Testing Hypotheses 4 (There 145
are interaction effects between the
instructional methods and the ability levels)
5
References
183
Appendices
199
6
List of Tables
Table Page
3.3 Pearson’s correlation among the three dependent variables (MP, MR, 113
and MK)
3.4 Pearson’s correlation among the covariates (pre-MP and pre-MR) 115
and the dependent variables (MP, MR, and MK)
4.1 Means and standard deviations on each dependent variable (pre-MP 118
and pre-MR), by the groups
4.3 Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for 122
each dependent variable by the instructional method
4.9 Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for 134
each dependent variable for low-ability students by the instructional
method
7
results by the instructional method and follow-up analysis of
variance (ANOVA) results of comparing low-ability students across
the three groups.
4.12 Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for 140
each dependent variable by the interaction between the instructional
methods and the ability levels (high-ability and low-ability)
8
List of Figures
Figure Page
4.1 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the 143
students’ ability levels on MP
4.2 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the 144
students’ ability levels on MR
4.3 Interaction effect between the instructional method and the 145
students’ ability levels on MK
9
List of Appendices
Appendix Page
200
Appendix A Metacognitive Questions Cards
10
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for all the bounties that Allah has showered on me which enabled me
complete this doctoral thesis. I also thank Allah for providing me with a supportive
I would like to express my appreciation to all the individuals without whom the
completion of this thesis would not be possible. First of all, my heartfelt thanks go to
my thesis major supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Merza bin Abbas, for his warm
and perseverance in guiding me through the entire research and thesis-writing process.
I would also like to express my particular thanks to the faculty and administrative staff
Malaysia, who provided facilities, and advice and support. My thanks also go to the
administrative staff of the Institute of Post-graduate Studies, IPS, USM, for their
assistance and support. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the principals,
teachers, and students of the primary schools which served as research sites: Al-
Muthana bin Harethah School, Huthaifa bin Alyaman School, and Abd Arrahman
assistance.
11
I am grateful to my colleagues, Dr. Sayed Anwar, Dr. Sharifa, Zainal, Oi, Husaini, 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. My gratitude
also goes to the administrative staff of the University of Science Malaysia’s Library
Georgia, Dr. Marjorie Montague, University of Miami, Dr. David Johnson and Dr.
Roger Johnson, University of Minnesota, and Dr. Khattab Abu Libdeh, Jordan
National Center for Educational Research and Development who provided valuable
Last but not least, my affectionate thanks go to my family for their unfailing love,
parents, my brothers and sisters, and my wife and my mother in-law. I would like to
during my graduate studies and patiently waited for me to finish my study. My mother,
may Allah reward you for your patience and prayers before and during my graduate
studies. I thank Allah for having a very understanding and loving wife. She has given
Words are inadequate to express my gratitude for their sacrifice, support, and patience
and I love them with all my heart. “May Allah reward and bless all of my family
members”.
12
ABSTRAK
perancahan metakognisi terhadap (a) prestasi matematik (MP), (b) taakulan matematik
(MR), dan (c) pengetahuan metakognisi (MK) di kalangan pelajar tahun lima di
pelajar berpencapaian tinggi dan rendah. Skor-skor MP, MR, and MK diukur melalui
Reka bentuk eksperimen kuasi yang menggunakan reka bentuk factorial 3 x 2 telah
digunakan dalam kajian ini. Faktor pertama ialah tiga paras kaedah pengajaran, iaitu
MP, MR, dan MK. Tiga sekolah rendah lelaki telah dipilih secara rawak dari
sekumpulan empat puluh empat sekolah rendah yang mengajar matematik di dalam
keupayaan. 240 pelajar lelaki di dalam kelas tahun lima dari tiga buah sekolah rendah
telah dipilih secara rawak, iaitu dua kelas dari setiap sekolah.
13
Satu ujian pra matematik telah ditadbirkan dan dua bulan sebelum kajian dimulakan
dan melaksanakan unit-unit latihan yang disediakan. 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. Setiap
kumpulan kooperatif CLMS terdiri dari dua pelajar pencapaian tinggi dan dua pelajar
pencapaian rendah dan setelah mendengar pengenalan dari guru belajar secara
kaedah kooperatif ini, pembelajaran pelajar dibantu oleh perancahan oleh guru, oleh
kad-kad soalan metakognisi dan oleh interaksi sesama pelajar. Ahli-ahli kumpulan CL
juga terdiri dari dua pelajar pencapaian tinggi dan dua pencapaian rendah dan belajar
secara kooperatif setelah mendengar pengenalan dari guru. Pelajar di dalam kumpulan
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, iaitu MP, MR dan MK . Juga pelajar pencapaian tinggi di dalam
kumpulan CLMS menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara signifikan
dari kumpulan T dalam skor-skor MP, MR dan MK, serta prestasi lebih tinggi yang
berbeza secara signifikan dari kumpulan CL dalam skor-skor MR dan MK. Pelajar
pencapaian tinggi di dalam kumpulan CL pula menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang
skor-skor MP, MR dan MK. Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa pelajar
pencapaian rendah di dalam kumpulan CLMS menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang
14
berbeza secara signifikan berbanding pelajar pencapaian rendah di dalam kumpulan
CL dan kumpulan T dalam skor-skor MP, MR, dan MK. Pelajar pencapaian rendah di
dalam kumpulan CL juga menunjukkan prestasi lebih tinggi yang berbeza secara
MK. Dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan kesan-kesan interaksi yang signifikan dalam
dengan pelajar pencapaian rendah mendapatkan manfaat yang lebih dari kaedah yang
digunakan.
ABSTRACT
15
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
reasoning (MR), and (c) metacognitive knowledge (MK) among fifth-grade students
in Jordan. The study further investigated the effects of cooperative learning with
students’ achievement in MP, MR, and MK. The MP, MR, and MK scores were
questionnaire.
in the study. The first factor was three levels of instructional method, namely, (a)
without any metacognitive scaffolding (CL), and (c) traditional instruction (T) with
neither cooperative learning nor metacognitive scaffolding. The second factor student
ability levels, namely, high-ability and low-ability. The dependent variables were
student achievement in MP, MR, and MK. 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. 240 male students who
studied in six fifth-grade classrooms were randomly selected from the three primary
A pre-mathematics achievement test was administered first, and then the CLMS and
CL methods were introduced to the students with practice units two months before
conducting the study. For the study, the focus was on the “Adding and Subtracting
16
Fractions” unit that was taught in all classrooms for 14 sessions at the end of the first
semester for the academic year 2002 / 2003. In the CLMS method, after listening to
their teacher’s introduction, students in small groups of two high-ability and two-low-
execute their mathematics exercises and solve mathematics problems. In this method,
students’ learning was scaffolded by the teacher, the metacognitive questions, and the
students worked cooperatively in small groups of two high-ability and two low-ability
students. In the T method, students were taught in the usual manner and solved the
The results showed that overall the students in the CLMS group significantly
the students in the T group in all measures. Additionally, the high-ability students in
the CLMS group significantly outperformed their counterparts in the T group in MP,
and MK but not in MP. The high-ability students in the CL group in turn significantly
outperformed their counterparts in the T group in MP, MR and MK. Also, 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, MR, and MK. The low-
in the T group in MR and MK but not in MP. Finally, 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.
17
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The study focused primarily upon the investigation of the effects of cooperative
knowledge in learning and solving problems involving the addition and subtraction of
fractions. This first chapter of the study presents the background to the statement of
the problem, specifies the statement of the problem and the purpose of the study, and
describes its questions and hypotheses, and presents the study theoretical framework
and the significance of the study. Finally, the chapter presents the operational
definitions.
technologies used in homes, schools, and the workplaces are all built on mathematical
knowledge. Many educational opportunities and good jobs require high levels of
universal, utilitarian subject, that is, so much a part of modern life that anyone who
Mathematics also has a more specialized, esoteric, and esthetic side. It epitomizes the
18
bring order to human affairs. For students to participate fully in society, they must
learn mathematics with understanding, how to connect mathematical ideas, and how
to reason mathematically. Students who cannot reason mathematically are cut off from
deprived not only from opportunity but also from competence in everyday tasks
that result learning with understanding in order to meet the changing demands of the
society.
processing is only of importance to the extent to which it explains how external reality
knowledge (Jonassen, 1991). This turning point of learning processes asks for
instruction that deals with students as builders not receivers of knowledge, students
who construct knowledge through interaction and connecting their experiences with
the current situations, and students who have learning strategies to help in building
instruction emphasizes the teaching of strategies that enable students to plan, monitor,
Particularly, for Jordan educational system, Jordanian human resource based economy
was hard hit in the wake of the 80s’ slump in the regional oil economy, which had
during its boom given tangible spillover benefits to the country in the form of
19
remittances from Jordanian skilled workforce working in Gulf Cooperation Council
Countries. The slump also caused the general education system and particularly
mathematics education to gradually lose its utility. The technological revolution and
sectors had changed the mathematical knowledge and skills requirements of labor
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. Under these circumstances,
to overhaul the general education system. Mathematics education was one of the core
subjects that received a lot of attention. The overarching objective of the reform plan
was to enhance student achievement levels. The key reform elements were
reconstructing the curricula, designing new textbooks and instructional materials, and
instructional methods for using new textbooks and materials (Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh,
1996).
To determine if the mathematics education reform has had the desired effects, in 1995,
reform (Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh, 1996). The findings showed that there was a
problem solving. The newly designed textbooks and in-service training did not cover
20
high-level cognitive skills, analytical thinking, and reasoning that help students to
build their knowledge and develop understanding (Innabi, Hanan; Kaisee, and Hind,
1995). Ahlawat and AL-Dajeh (1996) indicate that the mathematics materials after
was the weakest according to the post-reform achievement tests. Moreover, from the
(Ahlawat and Al-Dajeh, 1996). This indicates that mathematics teachers and materials
attention to the teaching of strategies that help students to build and develop
In the last year of the Jordan Education Reform Plan, the Third International
Jordan was among the 38 nations that participated in the study. TIMSS-R assessed
five mathematics content areas: fractions and number sense, measurement, data
representation (analysis, and probability), geometry, and algebra. The findings showed
that the average mathematics achievement across the all five mathematics areas of
Jordanian students was 428, which was lower than the international average which
was 487. The lowest average was in fractions and number sense with an average score
of 432, while the international average was 487. In terms of ranking, Jordan was
placed at number 32 out of 38. Singapore was ranked first with an average of 604
points. In terms of quality of the scores (students scored 616 or higher), 46 percent of
21
the scores of the Singapore students were in the top ten percent compared to only 3
For Jordanian eighth-grade students, for example, on an item testing for concept
3
knowledge of fractions that asked students to shade of 24 cells correctly, only
8
30.9% students responded correctly, while the rest gave different incorrect responses
like for example, shading 3, 8, 11 cells, or giving unclear responses. 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. So this finding shows that 30.9% of
Many factors may affect and contribute to the students’ mathematical understanding
perceived importance in school and life plays a very crucial role. For example,
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, 2000). Studies by Sternberg and Rifkin (1979) and
Thornton and Toohey (1985) have indicated that young children can benefit from
practice in most schools in Jordan has been to underestimate students’ real abilities to
learn mathematics.
The nature of mathematics is also called into question. It is usually classified as one of
the usual science subjects together with physics and chemistry but it is not taught as a
algorithms, and the teaching has focused on the acquisition of procedures (Gagne,
22
1985) and algorithms and heuristics (Landa 1983) in solving routine and novel
problems. Also Romberg (1988) indicates that mathematics in many cases is divorced
from science and other disciplines and then separated into subjects such as arithmetic,
algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and so on. Within each subject, ideas are selected,
separated, and reformulated into a rational order. This is followed by subdividing each
subject into topics, each topic into studies, each study into lessons, and each lesson
into specific facts and skills. This fragmentation of mathematics has divorced the
subject from reality and from learning with understanding. Such essential
also often lost from Jordanian textbooks and teaching methods (Abu Libdeh, 2000).
Thus, 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.
homework, and review. For example, instructions of teaching fractions emphasize the
23
procedures with much less concentration on developing analytical thinking like, for
sequential mastery of knowledge, 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,
plan, monitor, reason, and evaluate their knowledge (Wilkins and Jesse, 2000). Also
this teaching does not promote values and other knowledge associated with
The traditional sequence of teaching placing value, digit numbers, fractions, ratio
instead of integrating and connecting it. 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. Moreover, this instruction does not encourage students to
invest their reasoning, connection, and metacognitive strategies in their learning. That
is, students often receive problem-solving procedures from the teacher without actual
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,
1998), and learn mathematics with understanding (Carpenter and Lehere, 1999;
problems, demonstrate the necessary steps leading to their current solutions and their
students then follow the same steps in finding solutions to similar problems. This
24
pedagogical approach may be effective for high-ability students, but it may not work
with low-ability students. The explanations for low mathematics achievement of low-
ability students could be that they are not taught the appropriate strategies, cannot self-
regulate the study strategies, and do not understand how to apply these strategies
(Simpson, 1984).
The TIMSS-R (1999) findings reveal that Jordanian students’ achievement is still very
low even after ten years of educational system reform. Moreover, students’
understanding of mathematics has also not improved. As Abu Libdeh (2000) found, a
great deal of errors students gave is related to undetermined errors (unspecific errors
means that most Jordanian eighth-grade students are lacking in or do not have
et al., 1996), they are, to a greater extent, due to a lack of metacognitive strategies
shown that poor comprehenders are deficient in the use of metacognitive strategies
taught mathematics through an effective instruction that enables them to acquire and
with understanding.
In other words, students have to be taught and supported to plan, formulate and
represent the mathematical problems, analyze and identify the mathematical variables,
25
connect the relationships among the mathematical variables, ask themselves questions
outcomes (Kilpatrick et al., 2001; King, 1992), and to work cooperatively to learn
with understanding (Palincsar and Brown, 1984). Particularly, students need to learn
how to learn, that is, to be metacognitively trained. To date, insufficient attention has
been given to the important role the metacognitive strategies play in improving
instruction must start from the earliest grades. Simply offering or even requiring all
students to take a standard first year course in eighth-grade is no assurance that they
will succeed. This method virtually guarantees failure for a large number of students.
Instead, as Kilpatrick et al. (2001) suggest that students must begin to acquire the
Libdeh (2000) found that a great deal of Jordanian eighth-graders’ mathematical errors
New applications and new theories have given emphasis to instructional methods that
1991, and 1995) and the National Research Council (NRC, 1989) suggest that
of the skills and knowledge of workers, and therefore, mathematics instruction should
shift from concentrating on the products to the learning processes that comprise
26
learning strategies, planning, monitoring, evaluation, and reasoning. 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.
This view has sparked debate in the mathematics education community around the
nature of the effective mathematics instruction and the experiences students need to
Schools, 1999), while others argue for a focus on applications of mathematics and the
study of realistic mathematics (Apple, 1992). Others state that learning mathematics
Frankenstein (1990), for example, 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. Schoenfeld (1985) argues that effective
and methods, recognize relationships and think logically, and apply the appropriate
mathematical concepts, methods, and relations to solve problems. Still others argue
mastering and transferring the mathematical proficiency strands which are: conceptual
mathematics with understanding. Finally, Flavell et al. (1970) and Brown (1987) focus
understanding.
27
There is general agreement that learning mathematics with understanding involves
more than competency in basic skills. Much more than mastering arithmetic and
mathematics with understanding is more than learning the rules and operations that
monitoring one’s current level of understanding and decides when it is not adequate
(Bransford et al., 2000). It helps students to manage their thinking, recognize when
they do not understand something, and adjust their thinking accordingly (Schoenfeld,
1992). In other words, metacognitive strategies guide students to think before, during,
and after a problem solution. It begins by guiding students to plan for selecting the
appropriate strategy to accomplish the task, and then continues as they select the most
effective strategy and afterward evaluate their learning process and outcomes (Hacker,
1998).
require abstract thinking that students become proficient in when they reach the
formal operation stage (12 years and above). Young students, for example, 11 year
28
olds need to be supported, guided, or pushed to be metacognitive thinkers. 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, support, or in collaboration with more capable peers.
beyond their independent current level, and this closes the distance between what is
and what is possible. That is, with scaffolding, students are supported to go beyond
their current thinking, so that they continually increase their capacities (Schofield,
1992).
Researchers (e.g., Palincsar and Brown, 1984; Wood et al., 1976) have investigated
reflection on complex tasks. In the studies of Palincsar and Brown (1984), Palincsar
(1986), and Palincsar et al. (1987), scaffolding involved modeling and dialogue to
provided coaching through question prompts, while King (1991a; 1992) modeled and
social context. When students interact with each other, they typically will learn,
29
receive feedback, and be informed of something that contradicts with their beliefs or
current understanding. This conflict often causes students to recognize and reconstruct
their existing knowledge (Rogoff, 1990). Cooperative learning has been strongly
1990; Weinstein et al., 1994). The report of the National Governors’ Association
(Brown and Goren, 1993) indicated that within cooperative learning setting, mixed
ability students work together to solve problems and complete tasks. In this setting,
low-ability students have the opportunity to model the study skills and work habits of
are students able to apply metacognitive strategies on their own, or do they need
students from metacognitive scaffolding method? Elawar (1992) observed that low-
ability 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. Costa (1985), Sternberg (1986 b) and Elawar (1992) indicated that low-
30
Although numerous research studies have been conducted on the separate effects of
attitudes, and self-efficacy, no study was found that addresses the effects of
Thus, 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
levels between students taught via the cooperative learning with metacognitive
scaffolding instructional method (CLMS), students taught via the cooperative learning
alone instructional method (CL), and students taught via the traditional instructional
method (T). The study also examined the effects of the instructional methods on high-
and metacognitive knowledge. As such, the study was focused on the following
questions:
31
1.3 Research Questions
1. Would students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than students
taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, would perform higher than students
2. Would high-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher
than high-ability students taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, would
perform higher than high-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a)
3. Would low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher
than low-ability students taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, would
perform higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a)
4. Are there interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels
32
1.4 Hypotheses
1. Students taught via CLMS instructional method will perform higher than students
taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, will perform higher than students
2. High-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method will perform higher
than high-ability students taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, will
perform higher than high-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a)
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)
4. There are interaction effects between the instructional methods and the ability levels
33
1.5 The Theoretical Framework
The theoretical base for this study comes from Piaget (1970) and Vygotsky (1978).
According to the constructivist paradigm, students learn because they have taken prior
knowledge and have reworked the new information into their current schema. A
schema consists of the pieces of knowledge already present in the person. The
processes, in Piagetian terms, that rework new information and incorporate it to prior
Piaget (1970) believes that individuals work with independence and equality on each
other’s ideas, so when the student is opposed new knowledge and interacts with others
understanding. This is what Piaget calls “cognitive conflicts” (Mugny and Doise,
strategies, they are more than likely enhanced to revise, evaluate, and guide their ways
34
While there is a general consensus that metacognitive strategies are developed with
age, the developing mind does not develop in isolation, but within a social, cultural
and linguistic environment such as in the case of the interaction with peers and adults.
The need to explain and justify to others, makes reflection on ones own thought thus,
reflective and metacognitive enables students to provide for themselves the supportive
and scaffolding role originally assigned to the adult or peer (Brown, 1987).
Vygotsky (1978) believes that there is a hypothetical region where learning and
development best take place. He identifies this region as the zone of proximal
development. This zone is defined as the distance between what an individual can
with the help of an adult or a more capable member of a group. This is often a higher-
ability individual. With cooperation, direction, or help, the individual is better able to
Furthermore, Vygotsky (1978) suggests that an active student and an active social
explores and tries alternatives with the assistance of a more skilled partner, as in an
instructor, or a more capable peer. The teacher and the partner guide and structure the
students’ activity, scaffolding their efforts to increase current skills and knowledge to
a higher competency level. Scaffolding is the support during a teaching session, where
a more skilled partner (adult or peer) adjusts the level of assistance given based on the
the task is new, and less is provided as competency grows (Berk and Winsler 1995).
The student is able to move forward and continues to develop new capabilities.
35
Therefore, guidance i.e., cooperatively and metacognitively, should be provided to
knowledge and strategies for information and problem manipulation (Salomon et al.,
1989 and Schraw, 1998), and metacognition includes knowledge of cognition and
regulation of cognition (Jacobs and Paris, 1987), such as planning, monitoring, and
development may also depend on having some relevant knowledge of the domain
Thus, this study investigated the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive
knowledge.
The information age has challenged educators to reexamine the role of the student and
of instruction from the constructivist perspective. As the student’s role changes from a
mathematics. Since learning mathematics with understanding requires skills more than
36
conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (Kilpatrick et al., 2001), cooperative
metacognitive questions that guide them to plan, understand, monitor, and evaluate
and reason their learning, not just guides them to master mathematical procedures. In
It is hoped that the findings of this study will contribute to further understanding of
teachers in Jordan will have additional instructional methods that can be used to
support students’ learning with understanding. Moreover, this will help educators in
Jordan in their search for an effective and efficient pedagogical strategy or model for
37
1.7 Operational Definitions
Metacognition:
The processes of considering and regulating student’s own learning that, include
planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the student’s current and previous knowledge.
These processes are activated before, during, and after the problem solution.
Scaffolding:
the task, and then gradually shifts responsibility to the students. In this manner, the
assistance.
together in groups of four members (two high-ability and two low-ability students) to
38
Cooperative learning Method (CL):
in groups of four members (two high-ability and two low-ability students) to solve a
problem or complete an assignment. The teacher is allowed to assist the groups but the
groups and the teacher are not provided with any metacognitive questions card.
mathematics concepts and procedures to the whole class. In this method, the teacher’s
teaching time is about 35 minute out of 45 minute of the session’s time. The teacher’s
concentration in this method is on mastering the task and developing specific skills.
High-ability students:
Low-ability students:
The student’s ability to make a decision about how to approach the mathematics
problem, select or generate the appropriate tactic to solve the problem, support the
situations.
39
The student’s ability to connect new mathematics ideas with ideas he has been known,
accurately.
The students’ score in conceptual understanding and procedural fluency items on the
Schools established by the Jordan Ministry of Education where students study from
the first to the tenth-grade. These schools are not coeducational, so there are male
40
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Understanding this serves educators to determine what and how they should teach.
While understanding how someone learns mathematics is a difficult task, the study of
psychology offers many contributions and deep understanding of how students learn
one hand, and serves in the understanding of how the teaching of mathematics should
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. 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
paradigms, theories, and models of learning based on the literature currently available
41
to identify the theory, model, and variables most promising for use in improving the
teaching of mathematics. The chapter also discusses the review of related literature on
The chapter continues with a discussion on mathematical reasoning and describes the
2.2
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, 1994). Meaning is derived
from the structure of reality, with the mind processing symbolic representations of
reality (Jonassen, 1991). This belief is very popular among educators and researchers
and has produced numerous theories and models as represented by behaviourism, and
42
by the nature and frequency of the S-R pairings. The paradigm for S-R theory is trial
and error learning in which certain responses come to dominate others due to rewards.
in human thinking. Thorndike (1932) states that in any given situation an animal has a
number of possible responses, and the action that would be performed depends on the
strength of the connection or bond between the situation and the specific action. The
bonds that go together should be taught together. In pedagogical terms, this yields a
drill and practice mode of instruction. At elementary school age for Thorndike, the
rules of arithmetic are said to have not been known. 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. Thorndike explains this in his law
Skinner (1968) further argues that an organism learns mainly by producing changes in
behavior. This may seem to be a simple truism except for the fact that Skinner argues
values as mentalism. Since these concepts are non-physical and therefore cannot be
measured, weighed, and counted, he refers to them as pre-scientific and says learning
need to move beyond such ideas and develop a true technology of behavior.
43
According to behaviorist principles, all learning processes are fully controlled by the
teacher. So the teacher has to understand all of the students’ behaviors and sub-
behaviors involved in the task, as well as the characteristics of the students. Also the
teacher has to create an instructional situation that requires students to practice the
gradually building more and more behaviors until the target behavior is achieved. This
process requires a great deal of time for complex, intricate tasks such as data
the human mind. Tiene and Ingram (2001) assert that behaviorism is unable to
effectively address the critical issue like how students think, understand, reason, and
build knowledge. Students are more than just the sum total of the behaviors that they
engage in. Students make plans, remember things, forget things, solve problems,
hypothesize, and much more. These aspects of cognition could not be fully understood
just by looking at behavior. Moreover, the role of the student in this environment is
Gagne (1985) indicates that there are several different types of learning, and each type
requires different types of instruction. He classifies human learning into five domains:
intellectual skills, motor skills, cognitive strategies, verbal information, and attitudes.
Different internal conditions such as acquisition and storage of prior capabilities, 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
necessary for each type of learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to be
problems; to learn attitudes, the student must be exposed to a credible role model or
Gagne suggests that learning tasks for intellectual skills can be organized in a
application, and problem solving (facts, concepts, principles, and problem solving)
(Aronson et al., 1983). In other words, the sequence in learning is from bottom up,
that is, from simple to complex (Gagne, 1985). Gagne asserts that the significance of
at each level. Doing a task analysis of a learning task identifies the prerequisites. He
subordinate skills that must be previously learned to enable the student to reach the
objective, and supporting prerequisites which are useful to facilitate learning but are
not essential for the learning to occur. He adds that learning hierarchies provide a
In addition, Gagne outlines nine instructional events that provide the external
45
For Gagne, mathematics is composed of a set of tasks to be learned and occurs
mastery of each subordinate element is essential to the attainment of the main task.
That is, learning of the task cannot occur without mastering their subordinate elements
and therefore mathematics instruction must start with the subordinate elements of the
task.
is concerned with identifying mental processes that underlie expert learning, thinking
and performance in any area. 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. Once uncovered, they are broken down into their relative
According to Landa, there are classes of problems for which it is necessary to execute
successfully solve any problem belonging to that class. There are also classes of
problems (creative or heuristic problems) for which precise and unambiguous sets of
46
For the content of learning, Landa maintains that students have to learn not only
knowledge but also the algorithms and heuristics of experts as well. Students also
have to learn how to discover algorithms and heuristics on their own. Landa
view, Landa affirms that learning algo-heuristic processes is more important than
For Landa, mathematics is also composed of a set of specific and general problems or
tasks that can be identified and taught sequentially. In this manner, Landa proposes the
“snowball” method of learning / teaching. This method entails the following sequence:
The first elementary operation in the chain is taught / learnt and practiced alone, then
the second elementary operation is taught / learnt alone, practiced alone then is
practiced together with the first, then the third is taught / learnt alone, practiced alone
and then practiced together with the first two, and so on, until all elementary
operations have been taught separately but practiced together (Landa, 1983).
operations (sum of all decisions and actions to produce a specific range element).
identifying the educational goals first and then identifying prototypic cognitive
processes (rules). There may be alternative rule sets for any given class of tasks.
47
Scandura identifies two types of rules: higher order rules and lower order rules.
Higher order rules generate new rules, and problem solving may be facilitated when
higher order rules are used. Higher order rules account for creative behavior
it possible to generate (learn) new rules. Lower order rules are simple rules that the
learning task starts with and are later reduced in number to derive higher order rules,
the redundant lower order rules from the rule set will be eliminated by the student
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.
The major steps in structural analysis are: (1) select a representative sample of
problems, (2) identify a solution rule for each problem, (3) convert each solution rule
into a higher order problem whose solutions is that rule, (4) identify a higher order
solution rule for solving the new problems, (5) eliminate redundant solution rules
from the rule set, and (6) continue the process iteratively with each newly-identified
set of solution rules. The result of repeatedly identifying higher order rules, and
eliminating redundant rules, is a succession of rule sets, each consisting of rules which
are simpler individually but collectively more powerful than the ones before.
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. The theory proposes that higher-order rules should be taught through
elaboration and replacement of lower order rules. The theory also suggests a strategy
48
for individualizing instruction by analyzing which rules a student has / has not
mastered and teach only the rules, or portions thereof, that have not been mastered.
1. The first step involves selecting a representative sample of problems such as 9-5,
248-13, or 801-302.
2. The second step is identifying the rules for solving each of the selected problems.
This step can be achieved by determining the minimal capabilities of the students
(e.g., can recognize the digits 0-9, minus sign, column and rows). Then the detailed
out in terms of the minimum capabilities of the students. For example, 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, the top number in the column to the left
3. The next step is identifying any higher order rules and eliminating any lower order
rules they subsume. In the case of subtraction, a number of partial rules can be
replaced with a single rule for borrowing that covers all cases.
4. 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
49
Scandura also sees mathematics as a set of existing rules or procedures and the goal of
Therefore, teaching process starts with the simplest solution path first and then moves
to the more complex paths or rule sets, that is, the appropriate sequence in teaching is
from bottom up. The students’ prior capabilities have to be taken into account before
the students.
The objectivist theories and models are based on the view that knowledge of the world
is fixed and can be quantified. These theories and models call for information or
knowledge to be taught to be divided into parts that are slowly assembled into whole
preexisting facts and procedures, free of context and value. Mathematics knowledge is
passed along from those who know to those who do not through authoritative means,
assemblers of knowledge and seek to transfer their thoughts and meanings to the
students. Lessons derived from these theories and models are teacher-centered and
depend heavily on textbooks for the structure of the course. The students are generally
(Hanley, 1994). Also the assessment of performance is end-centered, that is, the
concentration is on mastering the task. Being content-based, these theories and models
produce lessons that are presented below the student’s true cognitive ability.
50
These objectivist theories and models of teaching do not meet the needs of learning
through the process of inquiry and investigation (von Glasersfeld, 1995). These
theories and models also do not promote mathematical reasoning, adaptive expertise
The central idea of objectivist is that learning performance could be defined solely in
terms of observable behavior, and the teacher’s job is just to give orders and monitor
student responses. New theories soon emerged to challenge the behaviorists, the
earliest being Gestaltism (Schoenfeld, 1987). Gestalt theory is one of the early
learning theories which emphasize the role of understanding. It is also one of the first
to deal with issues of problem solving and creativity. Wertheimer (1959) is one of the
processes. The focus of Gestalt theory is the idea of grouping, i.e. characteristics of
stimuli cause us to structure or interpret a visual field or problem in a certain way. The
primary factors that determine grouping were: (1) proximity - elements tend to be
grouped together according to their nearness, (2) similarity - items similar in some
respect tend to be grouped together, (3) closure - items are grouped together if they
tend to complete some entity, and (4) simplicity - items will be organized into simple
figures according to symmetry, regularity, and smoothness. These factors are called
the laws of organization and are explained in the context of perception and problem
solving.
51
For learning mathematics, 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, is focused; but it does not become
isolated. A new, deeper structural view of the situation develops, involving changes in
functional meaning, the grouping, etc. of the items. Directed by what is required by
the structure of a situation for a crucial region, one is led to a reasonable prediction,
which like the other parts of the structure, calls for verification, direct or indirect. Two
directions are involved: getting a whole consistent picture, and seeing what the
structure of the whole requires for the parts." (P 212).
How humans learn has intrigued and troubled educators throughout history.
learning strategies. According to this view, learning in schools has to emphasize the
use of intentional processes that students can use to construct meaning from
information, experiences, and their own thoughts and beliefs. Mayer (1996) asserts
that successful students are active, goal-directed, self-regulating, and assume personal
meaning from information and experience. von Glasersfeld (1995) argues that: “From
and abstraction” (p.14). Fosnot (1996) mentions that “Rather than behaviors or skills
as the goal of instruction, concept development and deep understanding are the foci”
(p.10). This view of learning sharply contrasts with the one in which learning is the
The psychological theoretical base for constructivism comes from Piaget. He uses the
term schemata to describe mental or cognitive structures that allow one to think about,
52
organize and make sense of experiences (Borich and Tombari, 1997). The individual
the lifelong process by which the student constructs and modifies his or hers own
personal schemata. This occurs in two ways: a) existing schemata are organized into
interpretation i.e., meaning does not exist independently of the student (Mugny and
Doise, 1978).
For mathematics, 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
their leaning process. Ahmed (1987) asserts that “Mathematics can be effectively
dealing with situations using particular kinds of thinking skills” (p.24). Carpenter and
Lehrer (1999) indicate that the critical learning of mathematics by students occurs as a
and by discourse with other students and teachers in classrooms. So students must
with understanding. Hiebert and Carpenter (1992) assert that learning mathematics
53
with understanding implies students not only must learn the concepts and procedures
of mathematics (its design features), but they must learn to use such ideas to solve
functions). Therefore the concentration should shift from judging student learning in
deep understanding of the concepts and procedures and their ability to apply them to
understanding, new ideas take on meaning by the ways they are related to other ideas.
processes that they have already understood. Although learning with understanding
entails forging connections between what the students already know and the
simply as appending new concepts and processes to existing knowledge. Over the
long run, developing understanding involves more than simply connecting new
Therefore, the role of the teacher and the role of students should be appropriate to this
learning environment. The teacher’s role should be shifted from being an orator to a
learning manager and facilitator who manages, directs, 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. Doyle (1988)
argues that teachers should be especially attentive to the extent to which meaning is
54
emphasized and the extent to which students are explicitly expected to demonstrate
understanding of the mathematics underlying the activities in which they are engaged.
ideas and the activities in which students engage in are frequently drawn. 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
to encourage the students to link between the knowledge what they have already
learned and the new knowledge. The students’ role should also be changed from
knowledge by connecting the relationships between what they have known and what
they are learning. The students’ role should also be shifted to confront their
understanding in light of what they encounter in the new learning situation (Manion,
1995). If what the students encounter is inconsistent with their current understanding,
The teacher has to keep in mind that students come to the learning situations with
knowledge gained from previous experience, 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
prior knowledge, interests, and motivation. Such mismatches may cause students to
fail to engage with the task in ways that will maintain a high level of cognitive
activity.
55
Cognitive structure is the central idea of Piaget’s (1970) theory. Cognitive structures
are patterns of physical or mental action that underlie specific acts of intelligence and
structures (i.e., development stages): sensorimotor (0-2 years) where intelligence takes
the form of motor actions; preoperations period (3-7 years) where intelligence is
intuitive in nature; The concrete operational stage (8-11 years) where the cognitive
structure is logical but depends upon concrete referents; and formal operations (12 and
development identified by Piaget are associated with characteristic age spans, they
Piaget indicates that cognitive structures are not stable and they change through the
children construct, or create logic and number concepts from within rather than learn
them by internalization from the environment (Piaget 1971; Piaget and Szeminska
Piaget explores the implications of his theory to all aspects of cognition, intelligence
with students in the concrete operational stage, learning activities should involve
56
problems of classification, ordering, location, and conservation using concrete objects.
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,
A critical factor that relates to the learning process and construction of knowledge is
(1978) states that cognitive development is dependent on social interaction, and that
cultural development has two levels: social and interpersonal. During social
interaction, the students recognize the new knowledge and then internalize it. So for
Vygotsky suggests that students can be guided by explanation, demonstration, and can
attain to higher levels of thinking if they are guided by more capable and competent
adults. This conception is better known as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
The Zone of Proximal Development is the gap between what is known and what is not
known, that is, generally higher levels of knowing. The ability to attain higher levels
of knowing is often facilitated and, in fact, depends upon, interaction with other more
advanced peers, who for Vygotsky are generally adults. Through increased interaction
and involvement, students are able to extend themselves to higher levels of cognition.
Vygotsky defines the Zone of Proximal Development as “the distance between the
57
level of potential development as determined through problem solving under the
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” The ZPD is thus the difference
between what students can accomplish independently and what they can achieve in
The sociocultural development enriches the active learning processes and contributes
objectivist learning environments. Interactions between the student and the content,
between the student and the instructor, and between the students themselves are
necessary for learning and for the shared social construction of knowledge (American
active process in which, students construct new ideas or concepts based upon their
current or past knowledge. The student selects and transforms information, constructs
Bruner believes that students can and have to discover knowledge by themselves. So
the teacher should encourage students to discover their knowledge. The teacher and
student should engage in an active dialog i.e., Socratic learning where the teacher’s
58
that the curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the students
continually build knowledge upon what they have already learned. He maintains that
learning starts from the top down, that is, it begins with problem solving that makes
students learn the fundamentals because they need them. Instruction for him is a roller
coaster ride of successive disequilibrium and equilibrium until the desired cognitive
Bruner asserts that knowing is a process not a product. He describes three levels of
student’s representation: the enactive level where the student manipulates materials
directly. The second level is the ikonic level where the student deals with mental
images of objects but does not manipulate them directly. The final level is the
symbolic level where the student is strictly manipulating symbols and no longer
mental images of object. This sequence is an out growth of the developmental work of
Transfer of learning for Bruner (1960) occurs when the student can identifying from
which, if learned well, can be transferred both to other subject matters within that
balance. If the teacher teaches the balance of trade in economics in such a way that
when ecological balance is considered, students will see the parallel and this could be
students discover and build their knowledge. Instruction should be concerned with the
experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness), it
59
organization), and instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation (going
The central point of constructivism is that learning involves more than just the transfer
of information from the teacher to a student; instead, each student plays an active role
in working with and integrating the information according to his or her own
learning skills, and monitoring one’s own comprehension (Gordon, 1996). Therefore,
to construct or reconstruct his or her knowledge, the student needs to employ certain
techniques regarding managing his or her thinking like thinking about thinking,
planning, monitoring, and evaluation. In other words for students to reach the
equilibrium case (resolving the conflicts), and then assimilate or / and accommodate
strategies are techniques that students use to plan, monitor and control, and evaluate
their own cognitive processes (Flavell, 1976). These strategies are seldom taught
directly and tend to develop naturally in only good students (Smith and Ragan, 1993).
However Jacobson (1998), Perkins and Grotzer (1997), and Halpern (1996) indicate
that metacognitive strategies can be systematically taught to most students. Also Paris
and Winograd (1990) argue that teachers can promote metacognitive strategies
directly by guiding students about effective problem solving strategies and discussing
60
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, 1993). Other
Winograd, 1990), “knowledge about executive control systems” (Brown et al., 1994),
learning” (Osman and Hannafin, 1994, Lawson, 1995) and “knowledge and regulation
intelligent structuring and storage, intelligent search and retrieval, and intelligent
awareness of oneself as “an actor in his environment, that is, a heightened sense of the
ego as an active, deliberate storer and retriever of information” (p. 275). “It is the
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.e., metacognitive
knowledge), what one is currently doing (i.e., metacognitive skill), or what one’s
61
source of metacognitive thoughts: Metacognitive thoughts do not spring from a
person’s immediate external reality; rather, their source is tied to the person’s own
internal mental representations of that reality, which can include what one knows
about that internal representation, how it works, and how one feels about it. Therefore,
cognition, which are knowledge about and awareness of one’s own thinking and
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 of when and where to use acquired strategies,
includes knowledge about the task and situations for which particular goal-specific
information in various content areas, students often need to apply general strategies,
which can be applied to the problems, regardless of their content. In the social science
study conducted by Voss et al. (1991), they found that experts were flexible in that
they take into account more factors than do novices in searching for information.
Additionally, experts used strategies of argumentation more often than novices did.
(Gick, 1986).
62
2.4.1 Regulation of Cognition
Jacobs and Paris (1987) determine three components of regulation of cognition, which
are planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Planning (processes selected prior to any
task action) consists of setting goals, activating relevant resources, and selecting
appropriate strategies. Monitoring (processes selected to keep track of what has been
done, what is currently being done, and what still needs to be done for task solution)
involves checking one’s progress and selecting appropriate repair strategies when
the outcome of any action against criteria of effectiveness and efficiency, evaluation
short, regulation of cognition is thinking before, during and after a learning task.
Jacobs and Paris (1987); and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory,
(NCREL, 1995) point out that successful students ask themselves metacognitive
questions before (through planning), during (through monitoring), and after (through
evaluation) the learning task. For example, 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, 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
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?”
The idea of deliberate, planful, and goal-directed thinking applied to one’s thoughts to
During this stage of cognitive development, the abilities of the adolescent begin to
“What is really achieved in the 7-11-year period is the organized cognition of concrete
objects and events per se (i.e., putting them into classes, seriating them, setting them
into correspondence, etc.). The adolescent performs these first-order operations, too,
but he does something else besides, a necessary something which is precisely what
renders his thought formal rather than concrete. He takes the results of these concrete
operations, casts them in the form of propositions, and then proceeds to operate
further upon them, i.e., make various kinds of logical connections between them
(implications, conjunction, identity, disjunction, etc.). Formal operations, then, are
really operations performed upon the results of prior (concrete) operations. 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. 205-
206).
“... this notion of second-degree operations also expresses the general characteristics
first-degree operations, which are thoughts about an external empirical reality, can
64
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
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
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
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
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
learning, and thus more self-reliant students. Recent developments in pedagogy and
educational science also picture this more active, self-reliant role of students, self-
regulating their own learning process and actively creating new knowledge. For self-
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
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.
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).
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
knowledge, whereas the question “Is there another way to do this?” would foster
“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,
helping students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning processes, and
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
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
Van Zee and Minstrell’s (1997) study described “a reflective toss” through a question-
answer cycle between the teacher and the students, which revealed the influence of a
thinking.
68
Therefore, in the present study, the teacher in the cooperative learning with
questions and students were coached to ask themselves and their group members
in cooperative learning settings ask and answer the metacognitive questions, they are
more likely to understand the materials better, develop new perspectives, reason and
A common response to the idea that students construct their knowledge is that students
should be encouraged to work with others. As Dewey (1961) and Vygotsky (1978)
suggest, people do not learn in isolation from others, they naturally learn and work
Vygotsky (1978), for example, views cooperative learning as part of a process leading
pedagogy that moves classrooms and societies closer toward the ideal of social justice.
“knowledge is not transferred from expert to student, but created and located in the
learning environment” (p.209). Others such as Burron et al. (1993) and Ossont (1993)
social skills.
69
Although there seems to be some differences between the definitions of cooperative
method in which small groups of students work together to accomplish a shared goal
for students to maximize their own and each other’s learning, with members striving
is provided through cooperation for the individual to use when becoming aware of
having to account for differences in perspectives with others (Rogoff, 1990). The
process of knowing for Piaget comes about through the sequence of equilibrium,
schemes, which are then strengthened. Piaget stresses that these processes can occur
which intreindividual differences during thinking / problem solving are catalysts for
cognitive growth (Manion, 1995). Piaget believes that individuals work with
independence and equality on each other’s ideas, so when they interact they learn,
receive feedback, or are told of something that contradicts their believes or current
understanding. This is what Piaget calls “cognitive conflicts” (Mugny and Doise,
70
accommodate his or her knowledge. As Manion (1995) indicates, 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. In
contrast to Piaget, Vygotsky (1978) focuses on the social basis of mind. He believes
that an individual makes use of the joint decision-making process itself to expand
solving.
understood without reference to the social setting in which the student is embedded.
more skilled partners working in the zone of proximal development. 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, the planning of
generation, and criticism. Student will then takes on and internalize these procedures
thus enhancing the development of his or her intellectual abilities such as his or her
Although there seems to be some differences between Piaget and Vygotsky, Ismail
(1999) believes that they actually complement each other, and if they are combined,
71
Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work
together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. 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). They are not only responsible for learning the
material that is presented, but also for ensuring everyone in the group knows the
material as well (Slavin, 1987). So students need not only to interact with materials
(i.e., textbooks, curriculum programs) or with the teacher, but also they need to
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,
paying attention to other students, and cooperative learning where students work
cooperatively with a vested interest in each other’s learning as well as their own. Of
the three patterns, competition is presently the most dominant where the students view
the school as a competitive enterprise where one tries to do better than others.
Cooperation among students who celebrate each other’s successes, encourage each
whether they are male or female, bright or struggling, disabled or not, is still rare.
Even though these three patterns are not equally effective in helping students learn, it
is important that students learn to interact effectively in each of these ways. Students
will face situations in which all three patterns are operating and they will need to be
able to be effective in each. They also should be able to select the appropriate pattern
suited to the situation. However, in the ideal classroom all three patterns are used. This
does not mean that they should be used equally, but the cooperative pattern should
72
dominate the classroom, being used 60 to 70 percent of the time. The individualistic
pattern may be used 20 percent of the time, and a competitive pattern may be used 10
According to Johnson et al. (1986), about 600 experimental and over 100 correlational
studies have been conducted since 1898 which have compared these three learning
types or patterns. The majority of the studies show that cooperative learning has
learning and instructional approaches that apply cooperative learning have resulted in
the students’ cognitive, intellectual, social, and affective growth (Johnson et al., 1991;
Slavin, 1996).
Johnson and Johnson (1999) clarify that there is a difference between simply having
group of students sitting at the same table doing their own work, but free to talk with
each other as they work, is not structured to be a cooperative group, perhaps it could
situation, there needs to be an accepted common goal on which the group is rewarded
for its efforts. If a group of students has been assigned to do a report, but only one
student does all the work and the others go along for a free ride, it is not a cooperative
group. 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. In other
73
Johnson and Johnson (1987) have identified five basic elements of cooperative
Positive interdependence: “All for one and one for all” “ Sink or swim together”. As
students work toward a common goal, team cooperation and fellow success becomes
imperative.
Individual accountability: What students can do together today, they can do alone
performance is assessed and the outcome is reported and celebrated by the individual
goal. In order for members to reach a common goal, students must utilize adequate
Evaluating and processing: Students are given time and encouraged to participate in
reflection about what was learned, how it was learned, and the skills used to process
74
Through the discussion above, the role of the teacher in cooperative learning can be
shown as a facilitator rather than prompter, a supervisor rather than instructor. The
teacher specifies the instructional objectives, monitors the learning groups, asks
questions, and intervenes when necessary. Also the teacher contributes in deciding the
group size and assigning group members and roles (e.g., recorder, summarizer,
encourager, checker, etc). Finally, the teacher contributes in refinement and evaluation
processes of learning outcomes. That is, teacher’s role is to guide and support students
to build or reconstruct their knowledge, to be a guide on the side rather than a sage on
the stage.
explanations is one of the best means for elaborating information and making
under these conditions increases. Also, when students work with peers who are in
various stages of mastering a task, mutual reasoning and conflict resolution are likely
to occur, which, in turn, facilitates learning (Mevarech and Light, 1992). 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
strategies and mathematical ideas in their own words, thus helping one another to
75
According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; 1991),
learning environments should be created in the way that promote active learning and
teaching; classroom discourse; and individual, small group, and whole-group learning.
learning and highly endorsed by math educators and researchers. Students can be
given tasks to discuss, problem solve, and accomplish. 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.
Finally, cooperative learning can be used to promote classroom discourse and oral
dense.” That is, students must understand the language and symbols of mathematics
because contextual clues, like those found in reading, are lacking in mathematics. For
mathematical symbols (e.g., =, <, or >) must be understood to work problems as there
vocabulary and symbolic understanding can be facilitated with peer interactions and
modeling.
Schoenfeld, 1987; Mevarech and Kramarski, 1997; Hoek et al., 1999). The
76
new knowledge (Wittrock, 1986), and on a large body of research (e.g., Davidson,
1990; Qin et al., 1995; Stacey and Kay, 1992; and Webb, 1991, 1989a) showing that
provides a natural setting for students to supply explanations and elaborate their
reasoning. Since this potential has not always materialized, researchers suggested the
Most of people believe that mathematics in all is about computation. 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. For them, the broad goal of learning process is to master the
regardless to the learning process itself. That is, they have misconceptions about what
mathematics is about and they do not take how students learn, their experiences, their
metacognitive strategies, and their attitudes toward mathematics into account (Brown,
facts, concepts, and skills divorced from any real context. They are drilled in
arithmetic without applying the skills to problems that mean anything to them. They
77
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
encoding, representation, and learning are likely to become over simplified and
narrowly school-focused.
Ertmer and Newby (1996) assert that “If schools are going to help all students become
cultivated, and exploited. A major function of all schooling must be to help create
students who know how to learn” (p.22). Therefore, effective mathematics instruction
Work in the area of mathematics problem solving suggests that the deployment of
contrast, novice problem solvers did not appear to use these metacognitive strategies
and often found themselves lost in the pursuits of “wild geese.” More recently, Artzt
metacognitive behaviors was necessary for successful problem solving. Other reviews
of studies of mathematical problem solving (e.g., Garofalo and Lester, 1985; Silver,
1987; King and Rosenshine, 1993) suggest that a fundamental source of weakness
78
and subsequently regulate and evaluate the cognitive processes used during problem
solution.
There is also some evidence about the role of cooperative learning with metacognitive
(1982, 1984) found that students’ metacognitive scaffolding for classroom learning
students were asked to recall their thoughts during mathematics instruction. They
reported that they were able to judge their own understanding, to diagnose and
problems, applying information at a specific level, and checking their answers. Other
researchers (e.g., Schonfeld, 1987; Xun, 2001; Kramarski et al., 2001) reported
Kilpatrick et al. (2001) clarify that learning mathematics with understanding is not
framework for discussing the knowledge, skills, abilities, and beliefs that constitute
mathematical proficiency. This framework has some similarities with the one used by
79
reasoning) of mathematical competence, and also with the one used by the National
communication. The next section discusses the mathematical proficiency strands and
ideas. Students with conceptual understanding know more than isolated facts and
methods. They understand why a mathematical idea is important and the kind of
contexts in which it is useful. They have organized their knowledge into a coherent
whole, which enables them to learn new ideas by connecting these ideas to what they
have already learned (Donovan et al., 1999). Students with conceptual understanding
are able to retrieve their knowledge and methods. That is, because they learned by
connecting facts and methods under their teacher’s guidance, it is easier for them to
remember and reconstruct the forgotten knowledge (Hiebert and Carpenter, 1992).
They monitor what they remember and try to figure out whether it makes sense. They
may attempt to explain the method to themselves and correct it if necessary. When
students are aware of their metacognitive thoughts, they describe their own thinking.
They can realistically assess what they are capable of learning and therefore they have
80
a good sense of what they know. Also they know what they are currently doing. They
have self-regulation, they are keeping track of what they are doing and knowing well
how to use their previous knowledge to guide the problem solving actions. So when
students are metacognitively trained, they are likely to learn with conceptual
understanding.
can be useful for different purposes. To find one’s way around the mathematical
terrain, it is important to see how the various representations connect with each other,
how they are similar, and how they are different. The degree of student’s conceptual
understanding is related to the richness and extent of the connections they have made
(Kilpatrick et al, 2001). Students who are working cooperatively and scaffolded
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., 2001),
therefore they can identify the similarities and differences between the various
strategies used. So doing might help students to represent the problem in various
representations, and by connecting these representations with each other, they are
likely to gain the conceptual understanding and then to construct the correct solution.
Schonfeld (1987) and King and Rosenshine (1993) found that when students were
in different areas.
problems, particularly errors of magnitude. For example, “if they are multiplying 9.83
81
and 7.65 and get 7519.95 for the answer, they can immediately decide that it cannot be
right. They know that 10 x 8 = 80, so multiplying two numbers less than 10 and 8
must give a product less than 80. They might then suspect that the decimal point is
incorrectly placed and check that possibility” (Kilpatrick et al., 2001, p.6). Students
who work cooperatively and are scaffolded metacognitively are likely to understand
the concept of addition, connect the current problem with the previous one, represent
the problem in different ways, expect the product, and check their learning strategy
and the product, and therefore, they are unlikely to do critical errors.
when and how to use them appropriately, and skill in performing them flexibly,
accurately, and efficiently (Kilpatrick et al, 2001). Flexibility requires the knowledge
of more than one approach to solving a particular kind of problem, such as two-digit
for the problem at hand, and also to use one method to solve a problem and another
implies that the student does not get bogged down in too many steps or lose track of
the logic of the strategy. An efficient strategy is one that the student can carry out
easily, keeping track of sub problems and making use of intermediate results to solve
Students within cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are likely
to represent the problem in different ways where they can select the appropriate
82
approach or procedure to solve the problem. That is, 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., 2001). They plan their
learning by understanding the whole problem before getting start, keep track of what
has been done, comparing the differences and similarities of the current problem and
the problems have been solved, and evaluate the outcome of any action. Therefore
these students are unlikely to make mistakes during procedures application. They
Framework for California Public Schools, 1999). For example, they mix subtraction
and addition operations. 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. In other words, they
represent different procedures and evaluate the outcomes then select the appropriate
et al., 1993). Students who work cooperatively with metacognitive scaffolding always
ask themselves questions like: what the whole problem is about, what are the
similarities and differences between the current problem and the problems already
were solved, and what is the appropriate procedure to solve the current problem.
Therefore, they are likely to refresh their mathematical learning and procedures.
them easier to use (Carpenter et al., 1998). For example, students who work
83
2 1
ordinarily need paper and pencil to add and , while students within cooperative
4 2
2 1
learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting recognize that equals to and
4 2
1 1
therefore they add to mentally to get 1 as the result.
2 2
represent them, and solve them. So for students to solve mathematical problems they
need to formulate the problem first then they can use mathematics to solve it. In other
words they need experience and practice in both problem formulating and problem
determining which strategies might be useful for solving a specific problem. Students
formulating experience usually encounter difficulties in figuring out exactly what the
Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are
encouraged to understand the whole problem first. They are encouraged to ask
themselves what the whole problem is about, represent the problem in different ways
and connect these representations, determine the similarities and differences between
84
the problem on hand and others they have solved, select the appropriate approach to
solve the problem, and evaluate the outcomes (Kramarskis et al., 2001). That is, they
are encouraged to plan (before the solution), monitor (during the solution), and to
evaluate (after the solution). So doing assisted them to formulate, represent, and solve
the problem. For example, if they encounter the following purchase problem:
3 1
“At Ahmad’s shop the price of a piece of cake is Dinar. Ali’s shop price is Dinar
4 3
less than Ahmad’s price. 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. By doing
so, they are likely to conclude that subtraction and multiplication initially should be
With a formulated problem in hand, students within the cooperative learning with
image of the problem’s essential components. 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. That
is, they generate a mathematical representation of the problem that captures the core
mathematical elements and ignore the irrelevant features (Kilpatrick et al, 2001). For
the purchase problem, 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. They may represent the problem by transforming the two
85
9 4
fractions into equivalent fractions with a like denominator ( , ) to solve the
12 12
structures. That is, they focus on structural relationships that provide the clues for how
the problem might be solved (Hagarty et al., 1995). They compare the current problem
with the previous one. For example, 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. Therefore they are likely to
conclude that they cannot subtract the numerators directly and try to find equivalent
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. Flexibility of approach can be seen when a method is adjusted or created
to fit the requirement of the problem (Kilpatrick et al., 2001). Students within the
approaches (Butler, 1995). 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 may select the approach of
transforming the two fractions into equivalent fractions with a like denominator as the
9 4
appropriate approach to solve the problem. They may offer and as equivalent
12 12
86
9 4 5
- = as the difference in price for a piece of cake. For 3 pieces of cake, the
12 12 12
5 5 5 15
formulation would be: + + =
12 12 12 12
5
=
4
1
=1
4
setting are encouraged to ask evaluation questions, they are likely to check if the
9 3 4 1
solution makes sense by testing if equals to and equals to . They may
12 4 12 3
draw a rectangle and divide it into 4 equal pieces and shade 3 pieces, 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).
Metacomponents are responsible for “figuring out how to do a particular task or set of
tasks, and then making sure that the task or set of tasks are done correctly” (p. 24).
more strategic and perform better than untrained students (Garner and Alexander,
sequence, monitor, and evaluate their learning in a way that directly improves
87
2.6.4 Adaptive Reasoning
Kilpatrick et al. (2001) refers to adaptive reasoning as the students’ ability to think
logically about the relationships among the mathematical concepts and situations. This
how to justify the conclusions. Adaptive reasoning is the glue that holds everything
together, the lodestar that guides learning. Students use it to navigate through the
many facts, procedures, concepts, and solution methods and to see that they all fit
together in some way, that they make sense. Adaptive reasoning is much broader than
formal proof and other forms of deductive reasoning, it includes not only informal
explanation and justification, but also intuitive and inductive reasoning based in
through resolving the cognitive conflicts (Mugny and Doise, 1978), in learning
follow from some agreed upon assumptions through series of logical steps (Kilpatrick
et al., 2001).
observing patterns, and determine when and how to break the problem into simpler
parts. b) using strategies, skills, and concepts in finding solutions through using
88
estimation to verify the reasonableness of calculated results, applying strategies and
results from simpler problems to more complex problems, using a variety of methods,
such as words, numbers, symbols, charts, graphs, tables, diagrams, and models, to
explain mathematical reasoning, expressing the solution clearly and logically by using
the appropriate mathematical notation, terms and clear language; support solutions
with evidence in both verbal and symbolic work, indicating the relative advantages of
exact and approximate solutions to problems and give answers to specified degree of
accuracy, and making precise calculations and check the validity of the results from
other situations through evaluating the reasonableness of the solution in the context of
the original situation, realizing the methods of deriving the solution and demonstrate a
unambiguous something to solve, that is, to formulate and summarize the real-life
problem.
similarities and differences among facts, concepts, procedures, and situations and then
think logically about the relationships among them. After the relationships were
identified, appropriate strategies for solving the problem are selected and reasonable
reasons about strategies selection and calculated results are provided. Finally, justified
strategies and results are applied in other situations (i.e., strategies generalization and
89
It is apparent from the steps of mathematical reasoning identified by the mathematics
framework for California public schools that mathematical reasoning comprises both
mathematical proficiency. Thus, the mathematical reasoning term in this study was
Resnick (1987) refers to the productive disposition as the tendency to see mathematics
as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own
have to believe that mathematics is understandable, not arbitrary, that, with diligent
effort, it can be learned and used, and that they are capable of figuring it out. It is
counterproductive for students to believe that there is some mysterious factor that
mathematics with understanding goes beyond being able to understand, compute, and
understanding and success. For instance, 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
response to experience and training are more likely to seek out challenging situations
90
Kilpatrick et al. (2001) attribute the development of productive disposition to the
students build their own strategies to solve the mathematical task, their attitudes and
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
be positive.
Since students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting
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
capable to learn with understanding (Cobb et al., 1995), which in turn, seems to help
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
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,
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
turn, enable them to establish the relationships among them. For example, when the
3 2
students encounter the following task + 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
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
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?
2 1
By relating to their previous knowledge, students may justify that is greater than ,
5 4
3 1
and + 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
15 8
and relate it to the equivalent fractions and offer and as equivalent fractions
20 20
with a common denominator. The teacher asks students to justify why they have
(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
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,
3 15 2
models, symbols, numbers line, etc) to prove that equivalent to and
4 20 5
8
equivalent to . Hoek et al. (1999) and Mevarech (1999) studies showed that
20
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
and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators and asks the students to solve them
Real-life problems are problems that people encounter in everyday life. They are
generally problems in which one or several aspects of the situation are not specified.
The general nature of these problems is that the goals are vaguely defined or unclear
(Voss and Post, 1988), their descriptions are not clear, and the information needed to
solve them is not entirely contained in the problem statements; consequently, it is not
obvious what actions to take in order to solve them (Chi and Glaser, 1985). Real-life
1983). Since real-life problem solving may generate a large number of possible goals,
Sinnott (1989) insists that the solvers must have a mechanism or strategies for
Hong (1998) summarized the processes of real-life problems which their goals are
vaguely defined into three processes: (a) representation problem, (b) solution
information, and developing justification for the selection. The solution process
involves generating and selecting solutions. Finally, the monitoring and evaluating
process requires assessing the solution by developing justifications for it. Since real-
life problems usually have no clear goals and require the consideration of alternative
solutions as well as competing goals, solving this kind of problems requires students
to regulate the selection and execution of a solution process. That is, when goals or
95
action alternatives are unclearly defined, students have to organize and direct their
Because students need and use mathematics in their everyday lives, it is very critical
1
to learn solving real-life problems. For instance, students learn the concept of
2
effectively by solving a problem like if two ice cream cones cost 10 cents, how much
does one cone cost? That is, learning to solve real-life problems produces active
learning and easily retrieved knowledge as Brown et al. (1989) assert that when
learning includes real-life problems, students acquire content and skills through the
resolution of problems.
It is not that traditional teaching practices do not use examples, real-life problems and
other devices. It is that the overall approach is turned around the wrong way. Students
are taught the isolated basics and then are expected to apply them to artificial
problems (Tiene and Ingram, 2001). Lesh (1985) indicates that getting a collection of
decimals, proportional reasoning, fractions, negative numbers) does not guarantee that
these ideas will be organized and related to one another in some useful way; 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. Tiene and Ingram (2001) assert that the
activities, and problems that are meaningful to the students. If it is important for
students to learn facts, they will learn them most effectively while engaged in
meaningful tasks.
96
For learning mathematics, when situations are mathematized in the classroom such as
processes and they will learn how mathematical concepts are related to one another in
a useful and meaningful way. Such experiences also require students to talk and think
about mathematics with one another and with the teacher (Lesh, 1985).
Within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting, students are
enhanced to solve real-life problems because they are encouraged too plan, to monitor
construct cogent arguments for their proposed solutions. In a study of history experts,
Wineburg (1998) found that planning, monitoring, and evaluation helped students to
solve a real-life problem in the absence of domain knowledge. Lin and Lehman
(1999); Davis and Linn (2000); King (1991a, 1991b); Palincsar and Brown (1984,
1989; and Kramarski et al., 2002) found that planning, monitoring, and evaluation
Students within the cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding setting are
likely to reason and defend their selections and solutions. As students select a good
solution from among the many viable solutions, they provide the most viable, the most
defensible and the most cogent argument to support their preferred solution, and
defend it against alternative solutions (Jonassen, 1997; Voss and Post, 1988). In
setting may also evaluate their selection by examining and comparing other
alternatives. Sinnott (1989) noted that during the process of solving a real-life
problem, successful students planed, monitored, and evaluated their own processes
97
and movements from state to state, as well as select information, solutions, and
emotional reactions.
situation. It exists as part of one’s goal structures, one’s beliefs about what is
important, and it determines whether or not one will engage in a given pursuit (Ames,
settings, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Academic intrinsic motivation is the drive
or desire of the student to engage in learning “for its own sake.” Students who are
intrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks because they enjoy them. They feel
that learning is important with respect to their self-images, and they seek out learning
activities for the sheer joy of learning (Middleton, 1992, 1993a). Their motivations
mathematical concepts (Duda and Nicholls, 1992). When students engage in tasks in
which they are motivated intrinsically, they tend to exhibit a number of pedagogically
desirable behaviors including increased time on task, persistence in the face of failure,
difficult tasks, greater creativity and risk taking, selection of deeper and more efficient
On the other hand students who are extrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks
to obtain rewards (e.g., good grades, approval) or to avoid punishment (e.g., bad
98
obtaining favorable judgments of their performance from teachers, parents, and peers
Teachers often complain that their students are not motivated and hence cannot or do
not learn well (Driscoll, 1998). The motivation that teachers wish their students to
1990). She adds “Effective teachers are those who develop goals, beliefs, and attitudes
in students that will sustain a long-term involvement and that will contribute to quality
There are many ways to promote motivation. Garrison (1997) expounds that “to direct
and sustain motivation students must become active students” (p. 8). Task motivation
they attribute their successes to their own efforts and effective learning strategies, and
when the social climate fosters interaction and cooperation among students” (p. 312).
students construct their own knowledge. So they encounter difficult problems that
they cannot solve by using only their current knowledge. In this case, students are
challenged by the task and they will be motivated more. Bruner (1973) maintain that
student may be motivated more quickly when given a problem they cannot solve, than
they are when given some little things to learn on the promise that if they learn these
well, three weeks later they will be able to solve an exciting problem (Shulman,
1973). Hein (1991) indicates that motivation is a key component in learning. Not only
is it the case that motivation helps learning, it is essential for learning. Motivation is
99
broadly conceived to include an understanding of ways in which the knowledge can
be used. Unless the student knows the reasons why, he or she may not be very
involved in using the knowledge that may be instilled in him or her. Even by the most
useful and worthwhile and then they will see themselves as effective students of
expandable in response to experience and training are more likely to seek out
challenging situations and learn from them. In contrast, students who view their
mathematical ability is fixed are likely to avoid challenging problems and be easily
students are encourager to negotiate among themselves the norms of conduct in the
class, and when those norms allow students to be comfortable in doing mathematics
and sharing their ideas with others, they see themselves as capable of understanding
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
100
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with
among high and low ability fifth-grade students in Jordan. This chapter discusses the
methodology that was used in this study. It describes in detail the population and
sample, the experimental conditions, the research design, the instructional materials
and instruments, the procedures, and data analysis procedure and the method that was
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, all the materials and instruments used in this study were
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. The first public educational directorate in Irbid
Governorate includes 44 male primary schools. Public schools in Jordan are not
coeducational.
In order to implement this study in a naturalistic school setting, existing intact classes
were used (O’deh and Malkawi, 1992). The sample consisted of 240 male students
who studied in six fifth-grade classrooms and were randomly (simple random sample)
101
selected from three different male primary schools i.e., two classes from each school.
The three schools were also randomly selected from the primary schools where
tracking. The size of the classes was approximately similar, and the mean age of the
students was 10.6 years. Students in the selected schools – as well as all Irbid
defined by the Jordan Ministry of Education. Each of the three male teachers who
participated in this study taught two classrooms. All the teachers were men who had
similar levels of education (B.Ed. major in mathematics), had more than 7 years of
teachers who taught the experimental groups were exposed to one week training on
the instructional methods. The participating students were informed that the purpose
of this study was to examine different learning strategies that may help in the
metacognitive knowledge.
The three schools were assigned randomly to one of the following conditions:
102
Table 3.1: Mechanisms for the three groups
N = 80 N = 79 N = 81
Without teacher’s
Metacognitive Scaffolding Without teacher’s metacognitive
a) The teacher asked metacognitive scaffolding scaffolding
metacognitive questions{MQ}
and coached students to ask MQ
b) Students used metacognitive Without metacognitive Without
questions cards questions cards metacognitive
questions cards
The three groups were different from one another in terms of the instructional method
and materials used. The CLMS group was asked metacognitive questions by the
teacher and students in this group used metacognitive questions cards in cooperative
metacognitive questions nor using metacognitive questions cards, whereas the T group
studied in the usual manner with neither cooperative learning, teacher’s metacognitive
103
This quasi-experimental study was designed to investigate the effects of cooperative
The study employed Factorial Design 3x2. It was designed to investigate the effects of
the independent variable on the dependent variables at each of the two levels of the
Independent Variable
Moderator
(Instructional Method)
Variable
(Ability)
CLMS CL T
High-ability (Y1) 1 2 3
Low- ability (Y2) 4 5 6
O1 = O3 = O5 = O7 = O9 = O11 = Pre-test.
The independent variable of this study was the instructional method with three
categories:
(CLMS).
104
The moderator variable was the ability level with two categories:
1. High-ability.
2. Low-ability.
The design of the present study compares three instructional methods (a) cooperative
Slavin (1996) recommended the use of such research design because it enables
researchers to hold constant all factors other than the ones being studied.
105
materials used in this study were based on the fourth unit from the mathematics
for all fifth-grade students in Jordan, teacher’s lesson plans, and metacognitive
questions card.
“Adding and Subtracting Fractions” was the unit chosen for this study. 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
this particular topic. 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.
Jordanian students start learning the basics of adding and subtracting fractions in the
fifth-grade; and b) This topic was scheduled by the schools to be covered by the
teacher in early December 2002 / 2003, which is also the same duration of time
The “Adding and subtracting Fractions” unit consists of 12 lessons, which are,
Fractions, Comparing and Ordering Fractions and Mixed Numbers, Adding Fractions,
Subtracting Fractions Problem Solving respectively. Within each school, the teacher
106
conducted the class according to his assigned teaching method for 15 sessions. Each
lesson started with the new topic explanation and followed by mathematical exercises
and problem solving. 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. All sessions were presented from written lesson plans to
ensure that all participating students in the three groups received the same quantity of
knowledge.
evaluation) designed by Jacobs and Paris (1987); and North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory, (NCREL, 1995). 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. These questions were
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).
Monitoring: “Are we on the right track?” (There were 9 questions in this category).
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).
and mathematical reasoning skills, such as “what”, “how”, and “why” as well as
107
questions that were found in King’s generic question stems (King, 1991b). These
questions regarding making decisions about approaching the problem, selecting the
appropriate strategies to solve the problem, and regarding generalizing the solution
processes to other situations. The students taught via the CLMS method were instructed
and reminded frequently to think about the questions, and use the questions to facilitate
3.5.2 Instruments
In this study, two major instruments were used to assess students’ mathematics
this study was adapted from the mathematical competency test developed by Jbeili
(1999). The test-retest reliability coefficient of that test was .93. The test-retest
approach of measuring reliability is considered the best approach that provides the
test’s consistency over time (Tuckman, 1999). The mathematical competency test
problem solving regarding adding and subtracting fractions. Since there were no
mathematical reasoning items included in that test, the researcher constructed these
With these new added items, the reliability coefficient was measured by applying the
The pre-test and post-test questions were similar in content but their order and
of 24 mathematical items and sub items and a real-life problem. The mathematics
simplifying fractions, comparing and ordering fractions and mixed numbers, adding
and subtracting fractions, and adding and subtracting mixed numbers. Three
performance and mathematical reasoning for this study: (a) conceptual understanding,
(b) procedural fluency, and (c) mathematical reasoning. The mathematics achievement
test questions were composed of four kinds of items. One kind (10 items) was based
The second kind (6 items) was based on open-ended tasks regarding conceptual
understanding and procedural fluency. The third kind (8 items) was specifically
about those facts. The 8 items asked students to estimate the results, explain the
solution clearly, and justify and support the solutions with evidence. The fourth kind
and mathematical reasoning. The problem asked students to decide the better buy from
two different prices and quality of mixed fruit juice. The student had to calculate the
mixed fruit juice volume in each shop, compare the prices and quality, decide the
109
better buy, and provide reasons for his decision. To gain a deeper understanding of
students’ mathematical reasoning, the items regarding mathematical reasoning and the
The total score of the test was 44. The distribution of the mathematics performance
and mathematical reasoning items and their scores across conceptual understanding
appendix C. The 24 mathematics items and sub items and the real-life problem scoring
were as follows:
Multiple-choice items: For each item, students received a score of either 1 (correct
Open-ended task items: For each item, students received a score of either 1 (correct
Kramarski et al. (2001) and has a repeated .90 interjudge reliability. For each item,
students received a score between 0 and 2, and a total score ranging from 0 to 16. For
9 2
example, “In the following item, … , explain which sign >, <, or = that will
5 3
make the statement true.” A score of 0 indicates incorrect selection and explanations
9 2
or explanations that are irrelevant to the task (e.g., < because when the
5 3
110
denominator is smaller the value is greater. Nothing is mentioned about numerator or
has some satisfactory elements but may has omitted a significant part of the task (e.g.,
9 2
> because when transformed into a common denominator the numerator 27 is
5 3
bigger than the numerator 10. Nothing is mentioned about the denominators. A score
9 2 27
(e.g., > , when transform into equivalent fractions with a like denominator
5 3 15
10
and , the fraction with the larger numerator is the larger fraction if the denominators
15
are the same, since the denominators (15, 15) are same and the numerator 27 is bigger
27 10
than the numerator 10, > .
15 15
The real-life problem: A scoring rubrics (see appendix D) was adapted from the
Kramarski et al. (2001) procedure with a repeated .86 interjudge reliability. Four
ability to solve the real-life problem. Students’ answers were scored on these criteria,
each criterion ranges from 0 (no solution) to 3 (highest level solution), and a total
111
1. Referencing all data (referring to all data in each of the two offers: mixed fruit juice
Fluency).
Example 1. 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”.
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
Organizing information: The student does not use any representation to present his
calculation or conclusion-Score 0.
Processing information: The calculations are correct but the student does not write
112
Making justifications: The student explains his suggestion, but he does not justify his
Example 2: If a students’ final response is “I suggest buying the mixed fruit juice from
Ahmad’s shop. Although the two volumes are same (each fraction in the first offer is
equivalent to the each fraction in the second offer), the components of Ahmad’s juice
6
are 100% fruit juice, but Ali’s juice contains litters of water. So although Ali’s price
8
1 1 1 1
is cheaper by ( - = ) dinar than Ahmad’s price; the better buy is Ahmad’s
4 2 4 4
The student has summarized all relevant and irrelevant data in table and given a
Reference to all data: The student refers to the prices, volumes, and each juice
components (quality)-Score 3.
Organizing information: The student summarizes all data in a table and provides
written explanations.-Score 3.
Processing information: The calculations are correct and the student writes explicitly
Making justifications: The student explains his suggestion and justifies his reasoning
113
The total score: 12
The metacognitive knowledge questionnaire (see appendix E) was adapted from the
15 items grouped into three categories. The first category (5 items) was focused on
strategies used before the solution process (planning) (e.g., “I tried to understand the
problem before I attempted to solve it”); the second (5 items) category was focused on
strategies used during the solution process (monitoring) (e.g., “I summarized what
were given and what were wanted in a table”); and the third (5 items) was focused on
strategies used at the end of the solution process (evaluation) (e.g., I tried to find
type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (always) and a total mean score ranging from 1
to 3.
Although the materials and instruments used in this study were derived from theories
principles and standards, after the translation to Arabic language, two experienced
education university lecturers in Jordan reviewed the lesson plans, the metacognitive
questions card, the scoring procedure of assessing mathematical reasoning items, and
114
the scoring rubrics of assessing the real-life problem. The researcher met the
evaluators and discussed the questions regarding these materials and instruments
during the evaluation process. The evaluators’ suggestions, feedback, 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
test and at each item in the questionnaire and assessed which of the mathematical
proficiency strand (CU, PF, or MR) the question represented and which of the
represented, and rated their confidence in their response, using scale from 1 (weak) to
10 (strong). Only questions and items, which had received 7 or more scores from all
evaluators, were selected as test questions and questionnaire items following Chung
(2002).
Evaluators agreed that the questions 1, 2.1 ,2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 6, 7, 8, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, and
10.2, were represented to CU, CU, MR, CU, MR, PF, PF, PF, CU, MR, CU, and MR
strands respectively, with all reporting confidence scores 10, questions 4.1(a, b, c, d),
4.2 (a, b, c, d), and 5 (a, b, c, d) were represented to CU, MR, and PF strands
were represented to MR, CU, PF, and MR strands respectively, with all reporting
confidence scores 8. Since evaluators were in disagreement about question 4.1 (e), 4.2
(e), 5 (e), and 11 (criterion 5), the questions were removed from the test. For the
questionnaire items validity, evaluators agreed that the first five items of each scale
(planning, monitoring, and evaluation) were represented, with all reporting confidence
scores 10. However, there were disagreement about the last three items of each scale
(9 items), therefore they were removed from the questionnaire. After an overall
115
agreement was reached on the validity of the materials and instruments, they were
Two major instruments were used in this study i.e., the mathematics achievement test
and the metacognitive knowledge questionnaire. Although the instruments used in this
study were adapted from reliable instruments, with the additional items and translation
to Arabic, a pilot test was carried out and the scores from the pilot study test and the
alpha reliability coefficient of the mathematics achievement test was .88, and it was
coefficients for the metacognitive questionnaire categories were .64, .66, .60 for
3.6 Procedures
Prior to the implementation of the study, the researcher obtained permissions from a
number of different parties for conducting the pre-experimental study and the
experimental study. Permissions were sought from the educational development and
research department of the Jordan Ministry of Education (see appendix F), the First
participating schools are located, and from the participating schools’ principals.
116
3.6.1 The Pilot Study
Prior to the formal study sessions, a pilot study was conducted to validate research
selected primary school, who were not going to participate in the formal study. There
were two purposes to the pilot study: first, to test the materials and instruments, in
teachers, and the test and the questionnaire durations; and secondly, to test the
instruments reliability i.e., the mathematics achievement test and the metacognitive
knowledge questionnaire. Two male teachers who had a similar level of education
(B.Ed. major in mathematics) and had more than 7 years of experience in teaching
mathematics were selected to teach the participants in the pilot study. The teachers
were exposed to one week training about teaching adding and subtracting fractions
with MSCL and CL methods. The participants were randomly assigned to the two
experimental conditions i.e., MSCL and CL groups. Within each condition, teachers
session 15, all participants were administered the mathematics achievement test and
For the experiment, the researcher randomly selected three schools from the 44 male
primary schools in Irbid Governorate. Permission was sought from each school’s
principal. Three mathematics teachers with a similar level of education (B.Ed. major
heterogeneous classrooms were selected (one from each school). Each teacher taught
two classes in each school. Each teacher’s classes were randomly assigned into the
117
three instructional methods described earlier. The researcher then discussed with each
teacher about his assigned instructional method and appointed one day with each one
To test the assumption that the participants across the three groups were equivalent,
the pre-test was conducted two months before the beginning of the study. The pre-test
determine if there were statistically significant differences between the groups’ mean
scores i.e., the high-ability students and the low-ability students, the scores by the
three groups were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) for
Prior to the beginning of this study, the teachers assigned to the experimental groups
regarding teaching mathematics. The teachers were informed that they would be part
of an experiment in which new instructional methods were being tested. They worked
with the new methods and materials and learned how to use them with their students.
The materials included the mathematics textbooks, explicit lesson plans, and examples
classes according to their assigned teaching methods until the end of the first semester.
In the present study, 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.
118
The CLMS teacher was trained explicitly about using cooperative learning with
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. 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
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 CL teacher was trained about teaching
mathematics within cooperative learning setting, and about selecting groups and
assigning groups’ members. He was not exposed to any training about metacognitive
scaffolding method. The researcher met the teacher for feedback and assessment
regarding the application of the teaching method. Finally, the T teacher was not
was asked to teach as he used to teach in a usual manner. The researcher checked his
lesson plans and his methods of teaching to ensure that he followed the traditional
method.
119
3.6.5 Implementation of the Study
In this treatment, 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
scaffolding method to the students. He discussed with them about the importance and
the role of this method in developing their mathematics performance, reasoning, and
metacognitive knowledge. 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, and how they could
into groups based on their ability. They were divided into high and low-abilities based
median of the scores was the criterion of assigning students to the group. Because
students’ scores were interval variables, they were converted to nominal variables. The
scores were placed in numerical order and then the median score was located. Scores
above the median (16) were labeled as high-ability and below the median were labeled
choosing two high-ability students and two low-ability students. The remaining
groups were selected by repeating the same procedure with the reduced list.
120
When the grouping was completed, students’ roles in their group were assigned.
Within each group, the teacher randomly assigned a metacognitive question asker,
summarizer, recorder, and presenter and then he described each role. The
metacognitive questions asker read the questions from the metacognitive questions
card and asked his group members. The summarizer summarized orally the main ideas
and the key points to solve the problem, and the recorder wrote down the solution
steps, the explanations, and the justifications of that solution. Finally, the presenter
presented, explained, and justified the solution to the whole class. These roles were
rotated among students after each session so that each group member played each one
several times.
The teacher applied the CLMS instructional method two months before the formal
experiment with practice units. For the formal experiment, just before the “Adding
and Subtracting Fractions” unit was taught, students were informed that at the end of
this unit, they would be asked to complete a mathematics achievement test and a
implementing the method and 1 session for administrating the test and the
questionnaire). 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, monitoring, and evaluation. For example, before solving the
problem, instead of saying, First we..., next we..., then we..., the teacher said, “I need
to know what the whole task is about, is it about the whole numbers, fractions,
additions, or subtraction, 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, but this task includes fractions with
different denominators, so what should I do? Do I know where I can go to get some
121
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
The teacher then coached and encouraged students to ask these metacognitive
questions within the cooperative setting. Students were encouraged to talk about the
task, explain to each other, and represent it from different perspectives. During his
monitoring. For example, 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, students were encouraged
and trained to ask these questions. At the end of his explanation, the teacher asked and
trained students to ask metacognitive questions regarding evaluation such as: Did the
solution make a sense, 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, the teacher summarized the learning processes
(evaluation) of the learning task and encouraged students to apply them in learning
After the teacher’s explanation, the metacognitive questions cards were distributed to
the groups. The students were asked to do their exercises and solve the assigned
mathematical problems in groups for about 15 minutes. The teacher had explained to
the students about the reasons for doing each of the steps on the matacognitive
questions cards. This is important because according to Palincsar and Brown (1984),
providing reasons for doing a particular action (i.e., responding to the “why do we do
122
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.
In this way, the metacognitive questions asker had read the problem and asked aloud,
the colleagues listened to the mathematics metacognitive question and tried to answer.
Whenever there was no consensus, the group members discussed the issue until the
disagreement was resolved. When the disagreement was resolved, the summarizer
orally summarized the solution, the explanation, and the justification and discussed
with his colleagues. With the solution, explanation, and justification were in hand, the
recorder has written them down and the presenter has presented to the whole class.
During these processes, the teacher monitored each learning group and intervened by
asking more metacognitive questions if necessary. At the end of the session, the
teacher collected the metacognitive questions cards and assessed and evaluated
students’ performance, discussed with the whole class to ensure that students carefully
process the effectiveness of their learning group, and had students celebrate the work
of group members.
For the next sessions, the teacher and students followed the same method and
procedures and the group members’ roles were rotated after each session. However,
the metacognitive scaffolding input by the teacher was gradually reduced, for
example, the teacher’s time in the first session was 30 minutes, in the second session it
was about 25 minutes, 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. After one month of implementing the CLMS instructional method, namely in
123
the last mathematics session of this experiment (session 15), the students were asked
to complete the mathematics achievement test. After completing the test, they were
In this treatment, students taught via cooperative learning instructional method with
no metacognitive scaffolding. The pre-test was conducted first and then students were
method that would help them to improve their learning activities. The teacher
introduced the cooperative learning method stages and discussed with the students
about the importance of using this method in mathematics classroom. Students were
assigned into heterogeneous small groups following the same procedures of assigning
students to the groups in the CLMS condition. Because there were students left over,
one group of three members was formed (one high-ability student and two low-ability
students). Within each group, the teacher randomly assigned reader, summarizer,
The teacher applied the CL instructional method two months before the formal
experiment with practice units. For the formal experiment, just before the “Adding
and Subtracting Fractions” unit was taught, students were informed that at the end of
this unit, they would be asked to complete a mathematics achievement test and a
implementing the method and 1 session for administrating the test and the
questionnaire). 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. For
example, he used the board and explained the main ideas of today’s lesson. After the
124
teacher’s explanation of the new topic to the whole class, students were asked to do
their exercises and solve the assigned mathematical problems in groups for 20
minutes. The reader read the problem aloud; the colleagues discussed about the
learning task and asked themselves different questions (but they were not trained to
ask metacognitive questions). The summarizer, the recorder, and the presenter played
the same roles of their counterparts in the CLMS group. At the end of the session, the
students ensured that all of them mastered the task. During the session, the teacher
intervened when needed to improve task work and teamwork, but he did not use
metacognitive scaffolding, namely, he asked questions regarding the task such as:
what are the procedures of adding two fractions with different denominators, and he
responded to students’ questions. Finally, the teacher assessed and evaluated students’
performance, ensured that students carefully process the effectiveness of their learning
group, and had students celebrate the work of group members. For the next sessions,
the teacher and students followed the same method and procedures and the group
members’ roles were rotated each session. After one month, namely in the last
mathematics session of this experiment (session 15), the students were asked to
complete the mathematics achievement test. After completing the test, they were
The control group served as a comparison group with no intervention. Therefore, the
teacher of this group continued teaching as he usually did, and the students were not
conducted two months before teaching the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit.
Just before the “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit was taught, students were
125
informed that at the end of this unit, they would be asked to complete a mathematics
achievement test and a questionnaire. In this condition, the “Adding and Subtracting
Fractions” teaching lasted 15 sessions (14 sessions for teaching and 1 session for
implementing T method, the teacher introduced, explained, and manipulated the new
concepts and procedures of today’s lesson using the board and the textbook for 35
minutes to the whole class. After the teacher’s explanation, 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. When the
students faced difficulties during solving the mathematical problems, and finally could
not find the solution, they asked for the teacher’s help. So the teacher intervened when
needed to help some students to solve their mathematical problems. Sometimes the
teacher explained and informed the students about the procedures of solving the
problem. At the end of each session, the teacher reviewed the day’s lesson with the
whole class. In session 15, the students were asked to complete the mathematics
achievement test. The metacognitive questionnaire was passed out to the students
During the first two months of implementing this study, three mathematics education
supervisors, whose job was to regularly visit the three teachers in their classes, visited
the three teachers twice a month. 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 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
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, namely, during the teaching of
"Adding and Subtracting Fractions Unit", the three mathematics education supervisors
visited the three teachers twice a week and followed the same checklists to ensure the
implementation fidelity. 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. At the end of session 15, the researcher collected the
mathematics test and the metacognitive questionnaire papers from the three
participating groups. The mathematics test items and the metacognitive questionnaire
127
3.7 Data Analysis Procedure and Method
Groups’ Equivalence
To test the assumption that the participants (high and low ability students) across the
three groups are equivalent, the participants’ average scores on the pre-test in
between the groups’ mean scores. Since there are were two dependent variables i.e.,
mathematics performance (MP) and mathematical reasoning (MR), and a three groups
and one moderator variable with two levels (high-ability and low-ability), two-way
was conducted. In addition, a reliability test was conducted for the mathematics
performance and mathematical reasoning test and for the metacognitive questionnaire
be used to compare the three mean scores, namely, two-way ANOVA will be used to
compare the high-achievers across the three group and to compare the low-achievers
across the groups.
The test-retest reliability coefficient for the mathematical achievement test and the
metacognitive questionnaire will be measured through entering the findings into the SPSS
instruments reliability.
128
At the end of this study, the two experimental groups and the control group
mathematical reasoning test and filled out the metacognitive questionnaire. The test
and the questionnaire items were scored by the researcher and The results will be
between the three groups on the dependent variables. While there arewas an
independent variable with (three levels, a moderator variable with two levels,) and
MANCOVA will be was conducted first to compare MP, MR, and MK of the three
groups. Then MANOVA was conducted with splitting file technique to compare high-
ability students against high-ability students’ MP, MR, and MK across the three
groups. The same technique was used to compare low-ability low-achievers’ students
against low-ability students’ MP, MR, and MK across the three groups. Because the
two-way analysis of covariance (two-way ANCOVAs) were used to identify where the
significant, the post hoc pair wise comparison technique using the /lmatrix command
was used to identify where the differences in adjusted means resided. Finally, by
between the instructional method and the ability level (high-ability and low-ability)
was measured. All of the statistical analysis tests will bewere computed at 0.05 level
of significance.
129
3.7.3 Justifications for using two-way MANCOVA / MANOVA
(Hair et al., 1998). MANCOVA is to reduce the size of the error term in the analyses
thereby increasing power (Stevens, 1986). Analysis of covariance adjusts the mean of
each dependent variable to what they would be if all groups started out equally on the
comparison of gain scores i.e., post-test minus pre-test for the two groups, because
gains are limited in size by the difference between the test’s ceiling and the magnitude
of the pre-test score (Tuckman, 1999). In this study, pre-MP and pre-MR have been
shown to correlate with the dependent variables, thus they were considered as
appropriate covariates.
enables us to (1) examine the joint effect of the independent variables on the
dependent variables, and (2) get more powerful tests by reducing error (within-cell)
correlation is weak among the dependent variables, MANOVA is not considered since
130
a single outcome measure may be diluted in a joint test involving many variables that
display no effect. In such a situation, individual univariate tests are directly conducted.
The scores of the mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning test and the
technique. The purpose was to determine if there were statistical justifications to use
Pearson's correlation (see Table 3.3) indicated an overall correlation among the three
Table 3.3
Pearson’s correlation among the three dependent variables (MP, MR, and MK)
Variable MP MR MK
Participants (n = 240)
MP _
MR .746** _
MK .652** .757** _
131
and the linear relationship between the covariates and the dependent variables were
examined.
The assumption of normality was supported by the data. The M-estimators had strong
agreement among 4 estimators. All Q-Q plots fall along the straight line showing that
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. The
Levene’s Test tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent
The value for Box’s M of comparing the three groups regardless of the ability level =
68.217, F (30, 122811) = 2.200, p < .001 was significant, thus rejecting the
minimal impact if the groups are of approximately equal size i.e., if the largest group
size divided by the smallest group size is less than 1.5 (Hair et al., 1998). Therefore,
for this particular study, rejecting of this assumption has minimal impact since the
The value for Box’s M of comparing high-ability students across the three groups =
18.185, F (12, 65332) = 1.459, p > .001 was not significant. In addition, the value for
Box’s M of comparing low-ability students across the three groups = 29.420, F (12,
66085) = 2.360, p > .001 was not significant, thus accepting the assumption of
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
indicated that homogeneity of variance has been met for all the three dependent
variables. For MP, F (5, 234) = 3.210, p > .001, for MR, F (5, 234) = 1.681, p > .001,
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. For MP, F (2, 117) = 2.801, p > .001, for MR, F (2, 117) = .427, p > .001,
and for MK, F (2, 117) = 1.955, p > .001. In addition, 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. For MP, F (2, 117) = .339,
p > .001, for MR, F (2, 217) = .042, p > .001, and for MK, F (2, 117) = 4.378, p >
.001.
To examine the assumption that the covariates must have some relationship with the
dependent variables (Hair et al., 1998), 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
correlation (see Table 3.4) indicated an overall correlation among the two covariates
(pre-MP and pre-MR) and the three dependent variables (mathematics performance
Table 3.4
Pearson’s correlation among the covariates (pre-MP and pre-MR) and the
dependent variables (MP, MR, and MK)
133
Covariate / Variable MP MR MK
Participants (n = 240)
After determining that the assumptions were met, the multivariate statistical output
was examined. Then, providing the MANCOVA result was statistically significant, the
univariate results were examined for each dependent variable. For the significant
univariate results, the post hoc comparisons were performed to identify where the
differences resided. The pairwise comparisons statistic was used for the post hoc
results. The results of the multivariate tests, the univariate tests, the pairwise
comparisons among the three dependent variables, the interaction effect, as well as the
descriptive statistics for the dependent variables are reported in Chapter Four.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study from the data analyses of the pre-
experimental study as well as the experimental study. The analyses were carried out
(two-way ANCOVA), and the post hoc pair wise comparison using the /lmatrix
134
command analysis. The data were compiled and analyzed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for Windows computer software (version 11.5).
The results of the pre-experimental study, in response to the groups’ equivalence are
metacognitive knowledge (MK) are tested, and the findings of testing these
hypotheses are presented. Next the hypotheses regarding the effects of the
instructional methods on high-ability and low-ability students’ MP, MR, and MK are
tested, and the findings of testing these hypotheses are presented. Each hypotheses
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
beginning of the study. While there were three groups with moderator variable with
two levels i.e., high-ability and low-ability, and two dependent variables i.e., pre-
way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with splitting file technique was
groups’ mean scores i.e., high-ability against high-ability students and low-ability
135
4.2.1 Statistical Data Analysis
Table 4.1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for the dependent variables (pre-MP
and pre-MR) by the groups. Both dependent variables had the same points (22 points
for each). The scores of high-ability student on pre-MP across the three groups had
relatively similar means, 11.1750, 11.7368, and 11.0476 for CLMS, CL, and T
respectively. The scores of high-ability student on pre-MR had also relatively similar
means, 7.5000, 7.9474, and 7.9762 for CLMS, CL, and T respectively. For low-ability
students, the scores of the three groups on pre-MP were very close, (8.5500, 9.1220,
and 9.2564 for CLMS, CL, and T respectively). The scores of the three groups on pre-
MR were very close, (3.2750, 2.9756, and 3.4872 for CLMS, CL, and T respectively).
Table 4.1
Means and standard deviations on each dependent variable (pre-MP and pre-
MR), by the groups
136
SD 1.5706 1.4346
students on pre-MP and pre-MR across the three groups, and if there were significant
statistical differences between the low-ability students on pre-MP and pre-MR across
conducted.
Table 4.2 presents the results of two-way multivariate analysis of variance, showing
overall differences between high-ability students and low-ability students across the
differences, Pillai’s Trace criterion was considered to have acceptable power and to be
the most robust statistic against violations of assumptions (Coakes and Steed, 2001).
and low-ability students against low-ability students across the three groups were
Further, the results of the univariate ANOVA tests, which are represented in Table 4.2,
indicated that there were no significant statistical differences between the high-ability
students in pre-MP and pre-MR, with an F ratio (2, 117) of 1.653 ( p = .196) and 1.700
( p =.187) respectively. Also the results indicated that there were no significant
statistical differences between the low-ability students in pre-MP and pre-MR, with an
F ratio (2, 117) of 2.803 ( p = .65) and 1.625 ( p = .201) respectively. This means that
groups in pre-MP and pre-MR. Therefore, the assumption that the high-ability
137
participants across the three groups and the low-ability participants across the three
met.
Table 4.2
Summary of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) pre-MP and pre-MR
results and follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results.
138
4.3 The Experimental Study Results
The purpose of the experimental study was to examine the effects of the instructional
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. The research hypotheses were tested using
139
the results from the two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and
univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The results of the analysis were used to
instructional method will perform higher than students taught via cooperative
learning (CL) instructional method who, in turn, will perform higher than students
taught via traditional (T) instructional method in (a) mathematics performance (MP),
Table 4.3 presents overall means, standard deviations, adjusted means, and standard
errors of each dependent variable by the instructional method, CLMS, CL, and T.
Table 4.3
Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for each
dependent variable by the instructional method
Adj. mean a a a
18.742 17.611 16.639
Std. Error .156 .157 .155
Adj. mean a a a
16.289 14.184 12.576
Std. Error .146 .147 .145
140
Metacognitive Knowledge Mean 2.2975 1.9485 1.7243
(MK)
SD .2541 .3094 .2788
Adj. mean a a a
2.299 1.954 1.718
Std. Error .021 .021 .020
scores between the CLMS, the CL, and the T groups, while controlling the pre-MP
showing overall differences for the independent variable of instructional method effect
and the three dependent variables, while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR. The Pillai’s
16.553, p = .000) had significant effects. This means that there were some statistical
Further, the results of the univariate ANCOVA tests, which are represented in table
4.4, indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the three dependent
variables (MP, MR, and MK). The F ratio of MP (2, 237) was 45.600 ( p = .000). This
means that the instructional method had a main effect on MP. This effect accounted
141
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.
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
performing a post hoc pairwise comparison using the /lmatrix command for each
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
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
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
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
Mathematical reasoning. The CLMS group (Mean = 16.6, SD = 2.3, Adj.mean = 16.3,
difference of 2.105 and 3.713 respectively. The CL group (Mean = 14.7, SD = 2.7,
= 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
144
difference of .345 and .581 respectively. The CL group (Mean = 1.9, 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).
The statistical results confirm the hypothesis, showing that students taught via
significantly higher than the students taught via cooperative learning instructional
method who, in turn, performed significantly higher than the students taught via the
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,
145
Table 4.6
Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for each
dependent variable for high-ability students by the instructional method
Adj. mean a a a
20.528 19.908 18.438
Std. Error .244 .250 .236
Adj. mean a a a
17.968 16.374 14.620
Std. Error .234 .241 .227
146
Metacognitive Knowledge Mean 2.4317 2.2123 1.9492
(MK)
SD .2244 .1929 .1861
Adj. mean a a a
2.419 2.218 1.956
Std. Error .031 .032 .030
scores between the high-ability students in CLMS group, in CL, and in T group, while
was conducted.
showing overall differences for the independent variable of instructional method effect
on high-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 high-ability students across the
three groups were statistically significant (F= 46.575, p = .000). The covariates pre-
This means that there were some statistical differences between high-ability students
Further, the results of the univariate ANCOVA tests, which are represented in table
4.7, indicated that there were statistically significant differences between high-ability
students across the three groups in the three dependent variables (MP, MR, and MK).
147
The F ratio of MP (2, 117) was 45.600 ( p = .000). This means that the instructional
method had a main effect on high-ability students’ MP. This effect accounted for 26%
of the variance of the high-ability students’ MP (Eta 2 = .258). The F ratio of MR (2,
117) was 162.490 ( p = .000). This means that the instructional method had a main
effect on high-ability students’ MR. This effect accounted for 48% of the variance of
the high-ability students’ MR (Eta2 = .477). The F ratio of MK (2, 117) was 202.729 (p
= .000). This means that the instructional method had a main effect on high-ability
students’ MK. This effect accounted for 49% of the variance of the high-ability
Table 4.7
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.
148
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. Therefore, the researcher further investigated the univariate statistics results
using the /lmatrix command for each dependent variable in order to identify
significantly where the differences in the adjusted means resided. Table 4.8 is a
summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between high-ability students across the
three groups.
Table 4.8
Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between high-ability students across
the three groups
Dependent Variable
149
CL
Note.
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,
.620 (Adjusted Mean Difference for Mathematics Performance) = CLMS – CL.
Table 4.6 displays the means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors
of high-ability students in the three groups by the dependent variables. Table 4.7 and
table 4.8 show that there are statistical adjusted mean differences among the high-
ability students in the three conditions on the three dependent variables unless no
below.
high-ability students and the CL (Mean = 20.0, SD = 1.3, Adj.mean = 19.9) high-
SD = .1.6, Adj.mean = 18.4) (p = .000), with adjusted mean differences of 2.090 and
ability students in CLMS group and high-ability students in CL group (p = .081), with
an adjusted mean difference of .620. (Effect sizes on MP were .28 and .98 for
150
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) high-
adjusted mean difference of 1.594 (p = .000) and 3.348 (p = .000) respectively. The
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) high-
adjusted mean differences of .201 (p = .000) and .463 (p = .000) respectively. The CL
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).
The statistical results partially support the hypothesis, that is, “CLMS H > CLH” is
151
instructional method in mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge but
> TH” is confirmed. High-ability students taught via CLMS and high-ability students
taught via CL instructional methods performed significantly higher than the high-
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
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,
Table 4.9
Means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors for each
dependent variable for low-ability students by the instructional method
152
Mathematics Performance Mean 16.8500 15.2927 14.9744
(MP)
SD 1.2517 1.4533 1.3858
Adj. mean a a a
16.923 15.367 14.821
Std. Error .198 .194 .199
Adj. mean a a a
14.662 11.967 10.509
Std. Error .177 .174 .179
Adj. mean a a a
2.170 1.706 1.472
Std. Error .026 .025 .026
scores between the low-ability students in CLMS group, in CL group, and in T group,
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 pre-
This means that there were some statistical differences between low-ability students
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%
(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
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.
154
Group Effect 27.918 ( p =.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. Therefore, the researcher further investigated the univariate statistics results
using the /lmatrix command for each dependent variable in order to identify
significantly where the differences in the adjusted means resided. Table 4.11 is a
summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between low-ability students across the
three groups.
Table 4.11
Summary of post hoc pairwise comparisons between low-ability students across
the three groups
Dependent Variable
155
(MP) (MR) (MK)
Note.
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); for example,
1.555 (Adjusted Mean Difference for Mathematics Performance) = CLMS – CL.
Table 4.9 displays the means, standard deviations, adjusted means and standard errors
of low-ability students in the three groups by the dependent variables. Table 4.10 and
table 4.11 show that there are statistical adjusted mean differences among the low-
ability students in the three conditions on the three dependent variables unless no
Adj.mean = 15.4) and the T (Mean = 14.9, SD = 1.4, Adj.mean = 14.8) low-ability
students with adjusted mean differences of 1.555 (p = .000) and 2.101 (p = .000)
156
students in CL group and low-ability students in T group (p = .053), with an adjusted
mean difference of .546. (Effect sizes on MP were 1.12 and .23 for comparing low-
ability students in the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group, respectively).
Mathematical reasoning. The CLMS (Mean = 14.5, SD = 1.2, Adj.mean = 14.7) low-
adjusted mean differences of 2.696 (p = .000) and 4.153 (p = .000) respectively. The
with an adjusted mean difference of 1.458 (p = .000). (Effect sizes on MR were 2.13
and 1.05 for comparing low-ability students in the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T
group, respectively).
Metacognitive knowledge. The CLMS (Mean = 2.7, SD = .2, Adj.mean = 2.2) low-
adjusted mean differences of .464 (p = .000) and .698 (p = .000) respectively. The CL
the T low-ability students (Mean = 1.5, SD = .1, Adj.mean = 1.5) with an adjusted
mean difference of .234 (p = .000). (Effect sizes on MK were 4.6 and 2.2 for
comparing low-ability students in the CLMS and CL, and CL and the T group,
respectively).
The statistical results partially support the hypothesis, that is, “CLMSL > CLL” and
157
students taught via CLMS instructional method performed significantly higher than
low-ability students taught via CL instructional method and than low-ability students
knowledge.
Table 4.12 presents overall means, standard deviations, adjusted means, and standard
error of each dependent variable by the interaction between the instructional methods
Table 4.12
Means, standard deviations, 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)
158
Ability
Instructional High (H)
Method Low (L)
159
CLMS group, in CL, and in T group, while controlling pre-MP and pre-MR, two-way
method and ability level effect on the three dependent variables, while controlling pre-
MP and pre-MR. The Pillai’s Trace was used to evaluate the multivariate
significant effects. This means that there were some statistical interaction effects on at
Further, the results of the two-way univariate ANCOVA tests, which are represented in
table 4.13, indicated that there were statistically significant interaction effects across
the three groups in MR and MK. The F ratio of MR (2, 237) was 3.401 (p=
.035). This means that the interaction effect was statistically significant on students’
MR. This interaction accounted for 3% of the variance of the students’ MR (Eta2 =
.028). The F ratio of MK (2, 237) was 10.557 (p = .000). This means that the
accounted for 8% of the variance of the students’ MK (Eta2 = .083). However, there
were no statistically significant interaction effects across the three groups in MP. The
Table 4.13
Summary of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results by the
interaction effect and follow-up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results across the
three groups.
160
MANCOVA Effect, Dependent Variables, Multivariate F Univariate F
and Covariates Pillai's Trace df = 2, 237
that there were statistically significant interaction effects between the instructional
method and the students’ ability level in at least one group. Therefore, 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. Also the interaction between the
instructional method and the students’ ability level on MP is plotted. Figure 4.1 shows
the interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability level
161
20
19
18
17
Ability
16
High-ability
15 Low-ability
CLMS CL T
Instructional Method
Figure 4.1
Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability
levels on MP
Figure 4.1 shows that there is no interaction effect between the instructional method
and the students’ ability level on MP across the three groups. In other words, high-
ability and low-ability students taught via CLMS, CL, and T instructional methods
Figure 4.2 shows the interaction between the instructional method and the students’
162
18
17
15
14
13
Ability
12 High-ability
11 Low-ability
CLMS CL T
Instructional Method
Figure 4.2
Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability
levels on MR
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. However, the figure shows that the high-ability and low-
mathematical reasoning.
Figure 4.3 shows the interaction between the instructional method and the students’
163
2.6
2.4
MK Adjusted Mean Scores
2.2
2.0
1.8
Ability
1.6
High-ability
1.4 Low-ability
CLMS CL T
Instructional Method
Figure 4.3
Interaction effect between the instructional method and the students’ ability
levels on MK
Figure 4.3 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. However, the figure shows that the high-ability and low-
metacognitive knowledge.
4.3.8 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, 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. There were
164
no interaction effects between the CL instructional method and the ability level. That
is, the performance of the CL instructional method did not depend on the ability level.
High-ability and low-ability students taught via the CL instructional method benefited
equally in MP, MR, and MK. Finally, there were no interaction effects between the T
instructional method and the ability levels. That is, 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, MR, and MK.
1. Would students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher than students
taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, would perform higher than students
Overall, CLMS instructional method has significant positive effects on students’ (a)
knowledge. 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, (b)
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
mathematics performance, (b) mathematical reasoning, and (c) metacognitive
knowledge.
2. Would high-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher
than high-ability students taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, would
perform higher than high-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a)
knowledge. The high-ability students taught via the CLMS method significantly
performed higher than the high-ability students taught via the T method in (a)
students taught via the CLMS method significantly performed higher than the high-
ability students taught via the CL method. Also CL instructional method has
taught via the CL method significantly performed higher than the high-ability students
taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance, (b) mathematical reasoning
3. Would low-ability students taught via CLMS instructional method perform higher
than low-ability students taught via CL instructional method who, in turn, would
perform higher than low-ability students taught via T instructional method in (a)
166
mathematics performance (MP), (b) mathematical reasoning (MR) and (c)
CLMS instructional method has significant positive effects on low-ability students’ (a)
knowledge. 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
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, but they did not perform significantly higher in (a)
mathematics performance.
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
the CL instructional method and the ability levels i.e., high-ability and low-ability
students taught via the CL instructional method benefited equally in MP, MR, and
MK. Finally, there were no interaction effects between the T instructional method and
167
the ability levels i.e., high-ability and low-ability students taught via the T
168
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with
fifth-grade students in Jordan. The study further investigated the effects of CLMS and
questionnaire.
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.e.,
two classes from each school. They studied “Adding and Subtracting Fractions” unit.
The independent variable was the instructional method with three categories:
(T). The moderator variable was the ability level with two categories: High-ability and
Data was collected during the first semester of the academic year 2002 / 2003. Two
months before the instructional treatment, the participating students were given the
169
mathematics achievement test (pre-test). Students were randomly assigned to one of
the three conditions – CLMS method, CL method, or T method. Then students were
divided into high and low-abilities based on their pre-test scores in mathematics
worked cooperatively and did not use metacognitive questions cards. In T method,
Immediately, after the instructional treatment, the students were given the
The present chapter is organized in seven main sections. The first section focuses on
reasoning, and metacognitive knowledge based on ability levels are discussed. The
third section focuses on the interaction effects. The fourth section presents the
summary and conclusions. The fifth section suggests implications for educators. The
sixth section proposes implications for future research. Finally, the seventh section
170
5.2 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance,
Mathematical Reasoning, and Metacognitive Knowledge
metacognitive knowledge.
Students taught via the CLMS method (working cooperatively and also using
via the CL method who, in turn, significantly outperformed the students taught via the
metacognitive knowledge.
the hypothesis that cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding not only
Peterson et al.(1982); Peterson et al. (1984); and King (1991a), but also improves
(1993) study that found that guidance through questioning enhances problem
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. While
171
previous and the new knowledge (Kilpatrick et al, 2001), the CLMS method
encouraged students to identify the similarities and differences between the problem at
hand and the problems solved in the past. 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.
factors and constraints and link to the solutions. In this regard, metacognitive
knowledge.
fluency (Kilpatrick et al, 2001). Students taught via the CLMS method were provided
cooperatively and using the metacognitive questions provided the students with more
than one approach to solve the problem. Metacognitive question such as “what is the
appropriate approach to …..?” helped the students to select the appropriate approach
from many approaches to solve the problem. Because students asked questions such as
“am I on the right track?, 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
method enabled students to modify and adapt procedures to make them easier to use.
understanding and procedural knowledge. The performance of the problem solver acts
on these requisites. This probably accounts for the better performance of the students
taught via CLMS method over the students taught via CL method who, in turn,
172
performed better than the students taught via T method. Cooperative learning with
procedural problem solving techniques, and therefore, they were able to maneuver the
computations more accurately than the students in the other two groups. According to
Cross and Parts (1988), this is the self-management aspect of metacognitive strategies.
Students taught via the CL method worked cooperatively. The cooperative group
provides a more intimate setting that permits such direct and unmediated
wrestling with ideas. Therefore, the CL method provided the students with the
opportunities to stretch and extend their thinking more than the students taught via the
The low performance of the students taught via the T method in this study emerged
solving tasks and problems. In the last meeting with the control group’s teacher, the
teacher reported that students in this group worked individually and did not use
metacognitive questions, did not plan, monitor, or evaluate their solution procedures,
and mentioned that the students also immediately started the computations when the
questions were given to them. Also some of students were anxious as to the specific
demands of the questions. The control group’s teacher was satisfied with the
performance of his group. The teacher’s report shows that students in the traditional
group had insufficient conceptual understanding and procedural fluency and did not
173
5.2.2 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematical Reasoning
The results of this study indicate that cooperative learning with metacognitive
between previous and new tasks, as well as to comprehend each problem before
attempting a solution, and to consider the use of strategies that are appropriate for
solving the problem. The learning processes produced by the CLMS method enhanced
mathematical reasoning support other findings by Chi et al. (1994); Mevarech and
Kramarski, (in press); Slavin (1996); and Webb (1989) that show that cooperative
learning with metacognitive scaffolding is one of the best means for elaborating
information and for making connections. By understanding why and how a certain
solution to a task and a problem has been reached, the students elaborated on the
information gained from the metacognitive questions and learned from it. Also
Kramarski et., al. (2001, 2002) found that working cooperatively and using
the CLMS method was greater than with the CL method which, in turn, was greater
than with the T method. These findings are similar to Cossey (1997) findings that
indicate that the more often seventh and eighth graders are exposed to metacognitive
174
support such as pattern seeking, conjectures, and giving reasons for ideas, the greater
The findings of this study support earlier findings (Hoek et al., 1999; Mevarech, 1999)
situational knowledge. When the two types of knowledge are joined, a mental
1994).
processes more than on solving tasks at a lower level of cognitive complexity (e.g.,
conceptual and procedural problems) because the former requires careful planning,
monitoring, regulation, and evaluation (Stein et al., 1996). The cooperative learning
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
the entire situation described in the task or in the problem and thereby did not only
enhance their understanding, but also enabled them to replace their earlier
Students taught via the CLMS method could reason mathematically because they were
guided about the knowledge of when, where, and why to use the strategies for the
175
evaluation questions. Students taught via the CLMS method were required to plan,
monitor, and evaluate their learning strategies and solutions. Planning questions
enabled students to formulate, identify, and to define the task or the problem and then
build the relationships among its concepts and procedures. Monitoring questions
feedback which enabled them to select the appropriate strategies. Evaluation questions
steps.
strategies selection and the justification of selecting these strategies. The students
taught via the CLMS method, were able to select and justify the appropriate strategies
for solving the problem because they were trained how to do so. They were trained to
ask metacognitive questions such as “what is the appropriate strategy to solve …? And
requires applying strategies in other situations. The students taught via the CLMS
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, and therefore enabled them to reason mathematically more than the other
two groups.
According to Piaget (1970), students work with independence and equality on each
other’s ideas. The students taught via the CLMS method encountered situations that
conflicts. This conflict created a case of disequilibrium for the students. Metacognitive
176
questions that comprise planning, monitoring, and evaluation questions assisted
their thinking. The students taught via the CLMS method were forced to revise,
evaluate, and guide their ways of thinking to provide a better fit with reality and
accommodation through resolving the cognitive conflicts, 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,
disequilibrium, which directed students to rethink their ideas. This learning situation
created cognitive conflicts between the students and within every student which
can attain to higher levels of thinking. 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.
Working cooperatively and using metacognitive questions provided students with the
opportunity to explain, modify, and justify their solutions which, in turn, enabled them
students taught via the CLMS method were scaffolded through the cooperation i.e.,
177
high-ability and low-ability interaction, and through the use of metacognitive
questions which helped the students in narrowing their ZPD. 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. Therefore, when the metacognitive scaffolding was provided to
While the findings of this study confirmed previous research (Lin et al., 1999;
Palincsar et al., 1987; Webb, 1982, 1989b; Brown and Palincsar, 1989; Kramarski et
suggest that there were certain conditions in which the use of cooperative learning
fully worked to facilitate learning. Greene and Land (2000) found that cooperative
learning was useful in influencing the development of ideas only when group
members offered suggestions, when they were open to negotiation of ideas, and when
they shared prior experiences. There may be times when group members do not know
how to ask questions or how to elaborate thoughts, 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. Webb’s (1989b)
model of cooperative learning further revealed that different conditions and patterns of
cooperation might lead to different learning outcomes. Webb (1989b) found that the
students who learned most were those who provided explanations to others in their
learning processes through eliciting responses from some students, and the responses
may invoke further questions from other students who may require elaboration,
178
reasoning, or explanation from their peers. 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.
metacognitive knowledge confirms the results of previous studies (e.g., Lin and
Lehman, 1999; Davis and Linn, 2000; King, 1991a, 1991b; Palincsar and Brown,
1984, 1989), which were all consistent in concluding that cooperative learning and
knowledge and transfer their understanding to novel problems and situations. Also
relevant information which made them aware of the important factors and aspects to
be considered, which in turn helped them to monitor their own understanding. The
findings of this study confirm that the cooperative learning with metacognitive
attention.
The evaluation questions in the metacognitive questions card, such as “what are the
evidences to justify…?” helped the students to reflect upon and explain their own
actions and decisions. The findings of this study support Chi et al.’s (1989) and Lin
179
their solutions and decisions, and thus make thinking explicit. Metacognitive
problem solving processes by constantly referring back to the goals of the problem.
Masui and De Corte (1999) findings show that students who used metacognitive
questions had more knowledge about orienting and self-judging themselves than did
The cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding method helped students to elicit
responses and explanations, which promote comprehension of the one who received
the explanation and the one who gave the explanation and feedback (Webb, 1989b).
develop solutions by building upon each other's ideas, questioning each other,
providing feedback, and checking the solution process. The students also were forced
to check each other’s ideas to test if the selected solution was feasible or not, which
The students taught via the CLMS method were provided with multiple perspectives.
Multiple perspectives gave an opportunity for students to reflect upon and evaluate
their solution processes as the findings of Lin et al. (1999) showed. The choices of
perspectives direct students’ attention to the important aspects of the problem that they
might not have thought about, and as a result, students re-examine their thinking
180
enhanced planning by activating prior knowledge and attending to important
A possible reason that the students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their
counterparts taught via the CL method who, in turn, 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,
forced students to ask more thinking and hinting questions than the T method.
Students taught via the CLMS method were constantly trained to produce
and feedback during the cooperative setting promoted higher level thinking and
Previous research (Flavell, 1979; Palinscar and Brown, 1984) showed that learning
testing mechanism that allows students to monitor their own comprehension. It also
helps students to realize what they know and more importantly, it helps the students to
know what they do not know (King, 1989). Therefore, the students taught via the
CLMS, who utilized this cooperative questioning strategy more extensively than the
CL and T students, reported higher metacognitive knowledge levels than the other two
groups. The students taught via the CL method worked cooperatively where multiple
produce high level thinking questions and provide evidence for their solutions more
181
5.3 Effects of the Instructional Methods on Mathematics Performance,
The results of this study showed that the high-ability students taught via CLMS
method in (b) mathematical reasoning and (c) metacognitive knowledge. The high-
ability 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
high-ability students taught via the CLMS method and the high-ability students taught
Also the results showed that the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method
cards) significantly outperformed their counterparts taught via the CL method and
taught via the T method in (a) mathematics performance, (b) mathematical reasoning,
and (c) metacognitive knowledge. The low-ability students taught via the CL method
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.
182
5.3.1 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, and outperformed the high-ability students taught via the T
metacognitive knowledge.
Basically, 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, and
therefore the high-ability students habitually use active learning strategies needed to
addition to their habitual use of learning strategies, the high-ability students taught via
the CLMS method worked cooperatively and were provided with metacognitive
questions which assisted them to discuss, explain, and evaluate their and other
students’ learning processes. Also the CLMS method gave the opportunity to the high-
ability students to direct the low-ability students’ attention to the relevant features of
the problem they could not understand. Through directing and guiding the low-ability
supported. Working cooperatively and using metacognitive questions further gave the
sharing, they asked metacognitive questions that challenged one’s thinking and
justifications. In such an environment, the CLMS method created a setting for the
CLMS method forced the high-ability students to ask the low-ability students and
183
themselves questions before, during, and after the solution processes. Asking and
to analyze the whole situation described in the problem, focus on the similarities and
differences between previous and new tasks, 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, and thus enhanced their understanding and enabled them to
evaluate, justify, and alter the inappropriate strategies with a new virtually errorless
knowledge.
Working cooperatively with the low-ability students and asking and answering
and guided them to see things they might have overlooked. Also formulating and
main ideas and the ways the ideas relate to each other and to the students’ prior
reflect on their own thinking, actions, and decisions, and as a result, they modified
their thinking, planned remedial actions, evaluated their solutions, and monitored and
Metacognitive questions within the cooperative learning setting provided the high-
ability students with prompts to important features of the task and helped them to
recognize the problem and recognize relevant and important information. Also the
CLMS method encouraged the high-ability students to perceive the similarities and
184
differences between the current and the problems already solved previously. Working
cooperatively and asking and answering metacognitive questions assisted the high-
ability students to create connections between different aspects and constraints and
relate to the solutions. In this regard, the CLMS method improved the high-ability
However, the findings of this study showed that although the adjusted mean of the
high ability students taught via the CLMS method was higher, 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)
This is due to the nature of the tasks and the problems that required conceptual
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
problems require. Additionally, the high-ability students habitually often use active
1976; Ryan, 1981). The high-ability students taught via the CLMS method worked
cooperatively with the low-ability students and asked and answered metacognitive
questions. In this situation, the CLMS method guided the high-ability students to
establish learning goals for tasks and problems, to assess the degree to which these
185
goals are being met, and, if necessary, to modify the strategies being used to meet the
goals. Also the CLMS method forced the high-ability students to discuss with and ask
the low-ability students metacognitive questions before, during, and after the
processes of solving the mathematical tasks and problems. Therefore, the CLMS
method assisted and guided the high-ability students to activate their metacognitive
processes, 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, during, 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 thus, they
were more guided to execute the tasks and problems that required mathematical
understanding and procedural fluency. The effect of this activity is evidenced by the
high-ability students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their counterparts
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
cooperatively with the low-ability students, the CL method gave an opportunity to the
high-ability students to discuss, clarify ideas, and evaluate each others’ ideas.
186
terms of knowledge and experience contributes positively to the learning process.
Within the cooperative learning environment, the high-ability students are confronted
with different interpretations of a given situation, and thus, the CL method created
cognitive conflicts among the students which then enhanced them to discuss, explain,
evaluate, and modify their opinions to reequilibriate their thinking to learn with
opportunities to learn from each other’s skills and experiences. Working cooperatively
reasons for their judgments and reflecting upon the criteria employed in making these
judgments. Thus, each opinion was subject to careful scrutiny. The ability to admit
that one’s initial opinion may have been incorrect or partially flawed improved the
knowledge scores of the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method is
explained by the fact that within cooperative setting, the metacognitive scaffolding
guided the low-ability students in the right direction through the metacognitive
sound arguments, evaluate solutions, and explain reasons for viable alternative
solutions. This indicates that the low-ability students during problem solving need
support and guidance in the problem solving process. The CLMS method forced each
187
assisted the low-ability students to generate more questions which served as a
guideline to help them start the problem solving task. The CLMS method gave the
opportunity to every student to ask questions before, during, and after the processes of
solving the problem, to generate more questions among the group members, and to
The findings of this study overcome learning deficiencies involving low ability
students as found by Graesser and Person (1994) and others. Graesser and Person
(1994) found that low-ability students usually asked low frequency, short answer, and
shallow questions and argue that this phenomenon can be attributed to difficulties at
three different levels, one of them being the low-ability students’ difficulty identifying
their own knowledge deficits, unless students had high amounts of domain
knowledge. 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; and they may also lack the procedural knowledge for
discriminating what it is that they do know from that which they do not know. Xun
(2001) indicates that if the frequency of questions is low or if the questions asked are
superficial, there would not be many explanations elicited from other students or even
In this study, the low-ability students taught via the CLMS method were provided with
important and relevant questions before, during, and after the processes of solving the
problem which, in turn, helped to elicit their responses, elaborate their thinking and
articulate their reasoning and therefore, they solved the problems more correctly than
188
the other two groups. Whether the response is verbally articulated or thoughtfully
effective strategy for enhancing reflection and metacognition (Chi et al., 1989).
jump immediately into computation aspects of problem solving when faced with the
task of solving complex problems (Lin et al., 1999). The low-ability students in this
study may lack the ability to engage in effective thinking and problem solving on their
own; thus the CLMS method enabled them to induce higher-order thinking and
provided them with tools that they did not already possess. Also the CLMS method
guided low-ability students’ attention to specific aspects of their learning process such
before, during and after the processes of solving the problems, which enhanced their
metacognitive knowledge.
The low-ability students taught via the CL method worked with the high-ability
students together to solve problems and complete tasks. In this setting, the low-ability
students had the opportunity to model the study skills and work habits of more
proficient students. Through cooperation, 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. However, 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
method and the low-ability students taught via the T method in (a) mathematics
conceptual understanding and procedural fluency does not depend on the activation of
reasoning. The low-ability students taught via the CL method worked cooperatively
with the high-ability students. 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, in turn enhanced the
guide them to activate their metacognitive processes, and assisted them to concentrate
on formulating and understanding the problem more than on the procedures of solving
the problem. The low-ability students taught via the CL method were assisted to focus
knowledge.
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, could not self-regulate the study strategies, and did not
understand how to apply these strategies. In the last meeting with the teacher who
190
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. The teacher’s report
confirmed that the low-ability students taught via the T method generally lack well-
students taught via the T method were not scaffolded via cooperation and
metacognitive questions, and thus they might have been at a loss as to how to start to
solve the problems. They might not have known what questions to ask, they might not
generate many questions to ask; or even if they did ask questions, the questions might
not be focused or in-depth. Thus, they had limited abilities to solve problems require
Within the traditional teaching method, the low-ability students often received less
teacher time, attention, and were asked a fewer number of process-oriented questions
(Leder, 1987). 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, and thus may not gave these students more time and attention,
and may not encouraged them to participate in the whole class public interaction.
Also, the low-ability students taught via the T method were given much greater time
191
5.4 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. This finding
students. The CLMS method created cognitive discrepancies or cognitive conflicts and
therefore encouraged the students to resolve them. The causal sequence began with the
metacognitive questions that generated tension while creating the discrepancy, which
in turn caused disequilibrium, and the student then strived to resolve the discrepancies
via mental activity. In this case, CLMS method challenged low-ability students to
change their cognitive structure or schema to make sense of the environment, to think
about alternative solutions and consider various perspectives. The CLMS method
knowledge to settle disputes and disagreements and then the knowledge was
questions activated the low-ability students’ prior knowledge related to the new
concluded that the low-ability students who are habitually deficient in the use of
Meichenbaum, 1976; Ryan, 1981) were through MS enhanced to perform like the high
192
ability students. The high ablity students were already habitual users of the processes
of metacognition (Golinkoff, 1976; Meichenbaum, 1976; Ryan, 1981) and thus despite
working cooperatively and asked and answered metacognitive questions did not
frequently received less teacher time, attention, and were asked a fewer number of
critical need of a learning method like the CLMS method that challenged them and
then forced them to attend to the instructions sufficiently. The CLMS method assisted
the low-ability students to organize the new material, integrate the information with
existing knowledge and guide the encoding of schema. Also, the low-ability students
taught via the CLMS method were supported to construct their mathematical
Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, that is, “the distance between the
actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level
guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Through working
textual materials, and solving problems, and thus the low-ability students reached
levels in mathematics achievement and metacognitive knowledge that they could not
193
reach without cooperation and metacognitive scaffolding. Therefore, 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, p. 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. 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.
194
5.5 Summary and Conclusions
This study found that the use of metacognitive scaffolding helped the students to fully
benefit from cooperative learning. Overall the CLMS group outperformed the CL
group in all measures, showing that for fifth-grade mathematics cooperative learning
The low-ability students taught via the CLMS method outperformed their counterparts
reasoning, and metacognitive knowledge. 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. This study shows that the cooperative learning method, when
learn mathematics with understanding, reason mathematically, and obtain and apply
metacognitive strategies.
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, and
outperformed their counterparts in the T method in MP, MR and MK. The high-ability
students taught via the CL method in turn outperformed their counterparts taught via
The CLMS method was highly effective in the teaching of conceptual understanding
and procedural fluency (mathematics performance) for both high-ability and low-
ability students, but the interaction effects showed that the CLMS method is very
195
effective for enhancing mathematical reasoning and metacognitive knowledge among
low-ability students.
From these findings, it can be concluded that the use of metacognitive scaffolding
helped the students to fully benefit from cooperative learning. When students are
benefit much from the cooperative learning process. Therefore, the cooperative
method alone. It follows that the cooperative learning process should be scaffolded
method is effective for younger students and for improving performance in all aspects
further is an effective method across abilities, but is especially beneficial for low
ability students.
196
5.6 Implications for Educators
From the discussion of the findings, it is evident in this study that cooperative learning
close examination of the results revealed that cooperative learning alone is insufficient
not costly. Therefore, the effectiveness, the high learn ability level and the cost
effectiveness of this method make this method a good candidate for inclusion in the
in teacher education programs. There are several skills, such as grouping, drawing
metacognitive questions, and reflection, that pre-service and in-service teachers need
197
In the usual manner, low-ability students do not get the same attention and do not have
the knowledge and skills as high-ability students. In this study, the findings showed
more attention and guide and assist them metacognitively. If low-ability students
receive more attention and assisted metacognitively, they can perform almost as high-
Finally, at present, many state proficiency tests and international examinations (e.g.,
problems and tasks that ask students to explain their reasoning in writing. To acquaint
students with such tasks, teachers should use metacognitive questions cards as
guidelines and ask students to score one another’s reasoning by using the
198
5.7 Implications for Future Research
The findings of this study raise several questions for further research:
Therefore, the quality of group interactions in CLMS and CL methods is not known. It
Second, Students’ motivation is an interesting area for future research. Webb and
Palincsar (1996) point out, “Groups are social systems. Students’ interaction with
others is not only guided by the learning task, it is also shaped by their emotions,
learning, others are not." (p. 855). Therefore, the effect of cooperative learning with
further investigation.
Third, the findings of this study call for the design of additional learning environments
based on similar components. The extent to which the CLMS and CL methods used in
the present study are effective also for children at different grades, different gender,
different mathematical topics, or for different subjects is not known at present and
Finally, an interesting question raised in this study relates to the effects of providing
issue, students who worked cooperatively and used metacognitive questions cards
199
should be compared with students work individually and use metacognitive questions
cards.
200
5.8 Limitations of the Study
This study sought to investigate the effects of cooperative learning with metacognitive
two ability levels (high and low) in Jordan. This study was conducted in the natural
setting of the class. The following are some limitations may restrict the probability of
First, Jordan Government schools are not coeducational, so this study samples limited
to the male fifth-grade students in the primary schools of Irbid directorate. The results
found in this study may not be generalizable to the female fifth-grade students in other
Second, this study limited to the “Adding and Subtracting fractions” unit in the fifth-
grade textbook, and this may restrict generalizing the study findings to the rest of
report measures or/and direct observation of students’ interaction and strategy use and
development. However, the researcher justifies that the students’ age (11 years) may
relied primarily on the questionnaire data for the investigation of the students’
metacognitive knowledge.
201
REFERENCES
Alessi, S. M., and Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and
development (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Apple, M. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in
mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
23, 5, 412-431.
Aronson, Dennis T., and Briggs, J. (1983). Contributions of Gagné and Briggs to a
prescriptive model of instruction, in Reigeluth, C.M. (1983) (e.d).
Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current
Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
202
Bennett, N., and Desforges, C. (1988). Matching classroom tasks to students’
attainments. Elementary School Journal, 88, 221–234.
Berk, L., and Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding Children's Learning: Vygotsky and Early
Childhood Education. Washington D.C.: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Biggs, J. B., and Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Bonk, C. J., and Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner-centered Web instruction for higher-
order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-
based instruction(pp. 167-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., Reeve, R. A., Ferrara, R. A., and Palincsar, A. S.
(1991). Interactive learning and individual understanding: The case of
reading and mathematics. In Landsmann, L. T. (Ed.), Culture, schooling,
and psychological development (pp. 136-170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Co.
Brown, P., and Goren, P. (1993). Ability, grouping and tracking: Current issues and
concerns. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
Brown, C., Hedberg, J., and Harper, B. (1994). Metacognition as a basis for learning
support software. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7, 2, 3-26.
Brown. J. S. Collenis. A and Duguid. P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher 18. 32-42.
Brown, A., L., and Palincsar, A. S., (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and
individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
203
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.
Burron, B., James, M., and Ambrosio, A. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning
in a physical science course for elementary/middle level preservice
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 7, 697-707.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V. R., Fennema, E., and Empson, S. B. (1998).
A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children’s
multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 29, 1, 3-20.
Cecil, S. J., and Roazzi, A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from
Brazil. In J. S. Sternberg and R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context:
Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74-100). England:
Academic Press.
Chi, M., Bassok., M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., and Glaser, R. (1989). Self-
explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve
problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
Chi, M. T. H., and Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227-250). New
York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Chi, M., de Leeuv, N., Chiu, M.-H., and Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-
explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439 - 477.
Coakes, J., Steed, G. (2001). SPSS. Analysis Without Anguish: Version 10.0 for
Windows. Australia: John Wiley and Sons.
204
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., and Wood, T. (1995). The teaching experiment classroom. In P.
Cobb and H. Bauersfeld (Eds.). The emergence of mathematical meaning;
Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 17-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cross, D.R. and Parts, S.G. (1988) Developmental and instructional analyses of
children's metacognition and reading comprehension, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 131-142.
Donn, S., and Taylor, A. (1992a). 3a focus group working paper, (TIMSS document
ref. ICC313). Vancouver: International Coordination Centre.
Donovan, M., Bransford, J. and Pellegrion, J. (1999). How people learn: Bridging
research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Driscoll, M.P. (1998). Web-based training: Using technology to design adult learning
experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
205
Duda, J. L., and Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in
schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.
Ertmer, P. A., and Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated,
and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., and Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration
within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individuality and in
groups. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an
emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A.G. and Hoyt, J.D. (1970) Developmental changes in
memorisation processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 323-340
Frankenstein, M. (1990). Incorporating race, gender, and class issues into a critical
mathematical literacy curriculum. Journal of Negro Education, 59, 3, 336-
347.
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston .
206
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-34. Retrieved from: EBSCOhost on-line
database (EBSCOhost, AN 1486).
Gavelek, J. R., and Raphael, T. E. (1985). Metacognition, instruction, and the role of
questioning activities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, and T.
G. Waller. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp.
103-136). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Graesser, A. C., and Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 1, 104-137.
Hair, F. J., Anderson, E., Tatham, L., and Black, C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5 th edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
207
Hiebert, J., and Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
Hoek, D., van den Eden, P., and Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and
cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary
education. Learning and Instruction, 9, 427-448.
Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to
adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J. (1964). The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. NY:
Harper and Row.
Innabi, Hanan; Kaisee, and Hind (1995). Learning achievement of basic cycle students
in mathematics. Amman: NCHRD.
Ismail, H-N,. (1999). Learning within scripted and non-scripted peer tutoring
sessions: The Malaysian context. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Indiana University.
Jacobs, J. E., and Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues
in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22,
255-278.
Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson. (1987). Learning Together and Alone (2nd Ed).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
208
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., and Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer
assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 23, 3, 382-392.
Kamii, C. (2000). Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic. 2nd ed. NY: Teachers College
Press.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., and Findell, B. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children
Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kohn, A. (1992). Resistance to cooperative learning: Making sense of its deletion and
dilution. Journal of Education, 174, 2, 38-56.
209
Kramarski, B. (2000). The effects of different instructional methods on the ability to
communicate mathematically. In Tadao Nakahara and Masataka Koyama
(eds.). Education, proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Mathematical Reasoning.
Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan, 1, 167 – 171.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., and Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive
instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 49, 225 – 250.
Lesh, R. (1985). Processes, skills, and abilities needed to use mathematics in everyday
situations. Education and Urban Society, 17, 4, 439-446.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., and Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to
support reflection. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 47,
3, 43-62.
210
Masui, C., and De Corte, E. (1999). Enhancing learning and problem solving skills:
Orienting and self-judging, two powerful and training learning tools.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 6, 517-542.
Mathematics framework for California public schools (1999). Kindergarten through
grade twelve. Sacramento: California Department of Education
Mevarech, Z.R., and Light, P.H. (1992). Peer-based interaction at the computer:
looking backward, looking forward. Learning and Instruction, 2, 275-280.
Mevarech, Z. R., and Kramarski, B. (in press). The effects of metacognitive training
versus worked-out examples on students' mathematical reasoning. Journal of
Educational Psychology.
Middleton, J. A., Littlefield, J., and Lehrer, R. (1992). Gifted students' conceptions of
academic fun: An examination of a critical construct for gifted education.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 38-44.
Moore, M. G., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mugny, G., and Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflicts and structure of individual
and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8,
1181-1192.
211
National assessment of educational progress (2000). National assessment governing
board. Mathematics framework for the 1996 and 2000 National assessment of
educational progress. Washington, DC: Author. Available:
http://www.nagb.org.
National Research Council. (1989). Everyday counts: A report to the nation on the
future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Available: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5777.html.
National Research Council. (1998). High school mathematics at work: Essays and
Examples for the education of all students. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. Available: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5777.html.
O’deh, A., Malkawi, F. (1992). The scientific research basics in education and human
sciences, research components and their statistical data analysis. Jordan,
Irbid: Yarmouk University.
OECD: 2000, Measuring Students Knowledge and skills, The PISA 2000 assessment
of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy.
Ossont, D. (1993). How I use cooperative learning. Science Scope, 16, 8, 28-31.
212
Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., and Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading
comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 3 and 4, 231-253.
Pelligrini, A. D., Galda, L., and Flor, D. (1996). Relationships, Individual Differences
and Children's Use of Literate Language. Unpublished manuscript.
Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Stark, K. D., and Waas, G. A. (1984). Students'
cognitions and Time on task during mathematics instruction. American
Educational Research Journal, 21: 487-515.
Peterson, P.L., and Swing, S. R., Braverman, M. T., and Buss, R. (1982). Students'
aptitudes and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 4, 535-47.
Petraglia. J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (Mis) Application of
constructivism to the design of educational technology. ETR and D, 46, 53-65.
Piaget, J. (1970). The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. New
York: Grossman.
Piaget, Jean. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J., and Szeminska, A. (1965). The Child's Conception of Number. New York:
W. W. Norton and Co.
Pollack, H. (1997). Solving problems in the real world. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Why
numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow's America (pp. 91 - 105).
New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive
efforts and problem solving., Review of Educational Research 65, 129 – 144.
213
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social
context. NY: Oxford University Press.
Romberg, T. (1988). Comments: NCTM’s curriculum and evaluation standards.
Teacher College Record, 100, 1, 8-21.
Rosenshine, B. and Meister, C. (1993). The Use of Scaffolds for Teaching Higher-
Level Cognitive Strategies. In Woolfolk, A.K. (Ed.). Readings and Cases in
Educational Psychology, 5th ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T., and Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of
proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a
reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 4, 620-627
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., and Steinbach, R. (1984). Teach ability of reflective
processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173-190.
214
Schraw, G. (1998). On the development of adult metacognition. In M. C. Smith and T.
Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from education
psychology (pp. 89-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Shachar, H. and Sharan, S. (1994) Talking, relating and achieving: Effects of
cooperative learning and whole-class instruction, Cognition and Instruction,
12, 4, 313-353.
Slavin, R.S. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational
Leadership, 45, 4, 7-13.
Smith, P. L., and Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Stacey and Kay. (1992). Mthematical problem solving in groups – are two heads
better than one? Journal of Mathematical Behavior 11, 3, 261 – 275.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W. and Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for
mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used
in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 2, 455-488.
215
Sternberg, R. J., and Rifkin, B. (1979). The development of analogical reasoning
processes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 27, 195-232.
Stevens, J. (1986). Multivariate statistics for the social science. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The Fundamentals of Learning. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Thornton, C. A., and Toohey, M. A. (1985). Basic math facts: Guidelines for teaching
and learning. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 1, 44-57.
Tiene, D., and Ingram, A. (2001). Exploring Current Issue in Educational Technology.
N Y: Ridge and Madison.
Van Zee, E., and Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 2, 227-269.
Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., and Engle, R. A. (1991). From
representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international
relations. In R. J. Sternberg and P. A. Frensh (Eds.), Complex problem solving.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Webb, N. (1989b). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal
of Educational Research, 13, 21-40.
216
Webb, N. M., and Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C.
Berliner and R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
841-873). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive Thinking (Enlarged Ed.). New York: Harper and
Row.
Wiig, E., and Semel, E. (1984). Language assessment and intervention for the
learning disabled child. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Wilkins and Jesse, L. M. (2000). Preparing for the 21st century: The status of
quantitative literacy in the United States. School Science and Mathematics, 100,
8, 405-418.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
217