Comparing Metacognition Assessments of Mathematics in Academically Talented Students

Abstract

Metacognition is a psychological construct that refers to people's knowledge and regulation of their thinking, learning, and problem-solving processes (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1979). Over the past 35 years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of metacognition in mathematics learning and performance (e.g., De Corte, Greer, & Verschaffel, 1996; Jacobse & Harskamp, 2012). Indeed, metacognition has been found to have significant effects on mathematics performance both at the elementary and secondary levels (Dignath & Buttner, 2008), and the National Research Council identified metacognition as one of three components central to learning and teaching (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Speaking to the continued importance of metacognition, researchers continue to examine metacognition with regard to mathematics performance (e.g., Jacobse & Harskamp, 2012) and gifted populations (e.g., Hannah & Shore, 2008; Snyder, Nietfeld, & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011). Instruments that provide reliable information from which valid inferences about students' metacognitive abilities can be drawn are essential for researchers who study the impact of metacognition on academic achievement and for educators who are responsible for developing and assessing students' metacognitive abilities. When examining the relationships between metacognition and mathematics performance, metacognition is measured in two different ways. In the psychology literature, researchers predominantly use quantitative scales such as self-report questionnaires to measure metacognition (

Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Regulation in Self-Regulatory Learning Style, and in Its Effects on Performance Expectation and Subsequent Performance across Diverse School Subjects

“…The early work of Flavell (1976;Brown (1978) and the more recent work of Brown (1987) and Schoenfeld (1987) suggest four constructs of metacognition, i.e., knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition, beliefs about cognition, and awareness of cognition. Since then, have been efforts to synthesize and organize theory and research in metacognition, and its components are recognized to be metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences and metacognitive skills/strategies (see 2014;Jacobs & Paris, 1987;Veenman, 2011;Young, 2010).…”

Formative Assessment Using the “Think Aloud” Method for the Development of Executive Functions and Mathematical Problem-Solving Ability

“…The present intervention also demonstrated the effective use of the "think aloud method" as a form of formative assessment and self-assessment that for the development students" executive functions and mathematical ability (Fox et al, 2011;García Fernández et al, 2016;Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2017;Jacobse & Harskamp, 2012;Vandevelde et al, 2015;Young & Worrell, 2018).Through this method,teachers are given the opportunity to evaluate their students" knowledge and skills, to intervene in order to strengthen them and to monitor their progress. By guiding the executive functions, teachers can develop activities with specific cognitive goals and provide targeted verbal feedback to enhance the metacognitive consciousness of students.…”

“…This method has been presented as an important tool for the educator to provide feedback to his students, to design effective educational interventions and to enhance mathematical problemsolving abilities as well as metacognition and self-control (Fox et al, 2011;García Fernández et al, 2016;Gidalevich & Kramarski, 2017;Jacobse & Harskamp, 2012;Vandevelde et al, 2015;M. V. J. Veenman, 2011;Young & Worrell, 2018).…”

Gifted underachievement within a self‐regulated learning framework: Proposing a task‐dependent model to guide early identification and intervention

“…Several intervention approaches have demonstrated little to no effect according to self-report questionnaires but demonstrated positive effects when more task-specific, event measures were used (e.g., Cleary, Velardi, & Schnaidman, 2017). Similarly, event measures are generally more predictive of actual achievement than are more global, aptitude measures (e.g., Young & Worrell, 2018). Further, event measures are better aligned with assessing intervention effectiveness for specific SRL strategies because more global, aptitude-based measures often aggregate scores across strategies, tasks, or contexts (Rovers, Clarebout, Savelberg, de Bruin, & van Merriënboer, 2019), which may reduce their ability to detect specific needs or changes over time.…”