2015
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2014.996796
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring the Impacts of Cognitive and Metacognitive Prompting on Students’ Scientific Inquiry Practices Within an E-Learning Environment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
22
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Zhang, Hsu, Wang, and Ho (2015) showed that metacognitive prompts helped students monitor and evaluate their learning, and promoted scientific understanding while engaging in scientific inquiry. Sandi-Urena, Cooper, and Stevens (2011) showed that metacognitive prompts aimed at fostering planning, monitoring, and evaluating, improved college students' problem-solving skills.…”
Section: Metacognitive Prompts For Supporting Scientific Readingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zhang, Hsu, Wang, and Ho (2015) showed that metacognitive prompts helped students monitor and evaluate their learning, and promoted scientific understanding while engaging in scientific inquiry. Sandi-Urena, Cooper, and Stevens (2011) showed that metacognitive prompts aimed at fostering planning, monitoring, and evaluating, improved college students' problem-solving skills.…”
Section: Metacognitive Prompts For Supporting Scientific Readingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chen and Chiu (2015) used collaboration scripts as metacognitive scaffolding, while applied the COPES model to design metacognitive scaffolding for experimental goal setting and planning. Other studies have also found that the mixture of cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding could enhance learners' cognitive skills (Berthold, Nuckles & Renkl, 2007;Zhang et al, 2015). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 33 empirical studies in SRL within computer-based learning environments revealed that the characteristics of learners and the features of tasks (including the types of SRL supports) affect the quality of learners' SRL (Winters, Greene & Costich, 2008).…”
Section: Cognitive Versus Metacognitive Scaffoldingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The metacognitive scaffolding functions as a guide that reminds learners to reflect on their goals and to find available resources and methods to solve problems (Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1999). Three types of mechanism were used as metacognitive scaffolding or metacognitive tools in technology-infused learning environments (Zimmerman & Tsikalas, 2005): & Immediate feedback, which could facilitate learners to monitor and evaluate their learning, & Persistent display of task-related information, which could encourage learners to monitor their learning progress, and & Collaborative workspaces, which could provide students an indication of their learning status from others' perspectives Metacognitive scaffolding in general leads learners to monitor their learning process, identify difficulties, and take productive moves or adjustments to reach their learning goals (Zhang, Hsu, Wang & Ho, 2015). In contrast, cognitive scaffolding was used to help learners overcome their learning difficulties due to their lower-level cognition, such as conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge, and strategies (Davis, 2003;Nuckles, Hubner & Renkl, 2008).…”
Section: Cognitive Versus Metacognitive Scaffoldingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, cognitive and metacognitive attributes have strong links with learners' inquiry processes, especially the planning and analyzing skills. Therefore, science magazine, as an integrated learning resource of inquiry, has the ability to train students starting from the planning to the evaluation of outcomes (Zhang, Hsu, Wang, & Ho, 2015). It, however, requires more than teaching but also investigative and analytical skills from the teachers (Bryce, Wilmes, & Bellino, 2015).…”
Section: Before Revisionmentioning
confidence: 99%