The role of metacognitive skills in learning to solve problems

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Learning LATEX by Doing$

120 to Coltec. Only threats have a negative influence on the status of the BM; the other types of events have no effect on the BM. In study II students encountered fewer threats than in study III. In the fixed event sequence in study III this was 4 out of 6, in the random event sequence in study II students were presented with fewer threats as all types of events had an equal chance of occurrence. Therefore, students in study III have to counter not only the decay function of the BM but also more negative effects of the threats. This then could result in a lower average OEI score for study III. However, the contrary is found. Another explanation lies in the fact that teams in study II chose less interventions than students in study III. It turns out that students in study II have chosen 4.29 interventions on average (SD = 2.85), whereas in study III students have chosen 5.36 interventions on average (SD = 2.82). This difference is significant (T = -2.37, p < 0.05). Therefore, students in study III choose more interventions than students in study II. This explains the higher final status of the BM for study III. Another t-test reveals that students in the no-model condition (mean = 5.10, SD = 2.43) have significantly chosen fewer interventions than students in the model condition (mean = 5.63, SD = 3.20; T = 4.29, p < 0.05). This accounts for the fact that students in the model condition achieve a slightly higher final status of the OEI scores than students in the nomodel condition. In conclusion, first, choosing more interventions for a particular event leads to a higher average business status of Coltec. It pays off to use the full budget available for interventions and to implement as many interventions as the budget allows. In this study, students choose more interventions than in the previous study and achieve a higher game result. Second, thinking about the choice of interventions for a particular event produces higher game results than when one chooses interventions randomly. The difference is however not large. The game could be improved by increasing the positive effect of ‘correct’ interventions on the BM. Then the overall status of Coltec would be an even better form of feedback on how one is solving KM problems. Then, the exit-questionnaire was administered with regard to the individual goals of students whilst playing KM Quest. In table 6.5 the results are given in terms of the number of times a specific goal was mentioned. ‘OEI’ refers to aiming at the highest organisational effectiveness indicators. ‘JS’ refers to aiming at the highest job satisfaction values (also an indicator in Coltec). ‘Knowledge’ refers to aiming at acquiring knowledge about the domain of Knowledge Management. ‘Kmap’ refers
Study III: added value of the task model 121 to aiming at the best possible knowledge map and ‘?’ refers to an unclear goal that was mentioned by the respondent. OEI Knowledge Kmap JS ? total No model 13 7 4 3 5 32 Model 15 9 4 1 4 33 Table 6.5. Number of times a specific goal is mentioned while playing KM Quest. The results indicate that no differences exist between the two conditions with respect to the personal goals students had while playing KM Quest. The students were instructed to acquire as much knowledge about the domain KM as possible. Students of both conditions appear to have mostly focused on increasing the Organisational Effectiveness Indicators which was not explicitly part of their instruction. This could be an affordance of KM Quest since these indicators have quite a central place in the main window of KM Quest. This goal overrules the aim of striving for knowledge. Still, no significant differences exist between students in both conditions. 6.3.2 Prospective and retrospective measurements The internal reliability coefficients for both the pre- and post-test of KMQUESTions and the transfer test are shown in table 6.6. The reliability of different parts of KMQUESTions and the transfer test is moderate to sufficient. With respect to metacognition, the reliability of this scale measured before and after task performance is sufficient. KR20 / Alpha Pre-test Post-test Declarative knowledge .64 .64 Procedural knowledge .78 .52 Transfer .55 Metacognition .60 .66 Table 6.6. Cronbach’s alpha (= KR20 for dichotomous items) coefficients of KMQUEStions, transfer test and the scale metacognition.
Page 1 and 2:
The role of metacognitive skills in
Page 3 and 4:
The role of metacognitive skills in
Page 5 and 6:
Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THEOR
Page 7:
Contents ix 6. STUDY III: ADDED VAL
Page 10 and 11:
xii Rienke Schutte, zonder de medew
Page 12 and 13:
2 in realistic settings and everyda
Page 14 and 15:
4 use a trade-off between efforts i
Page 16 and 17:
6 of this thesis are described. In
Page 18 and 19:
8 First an overview of relevant lit
Page 20 and 21:
10 In research concerning reading a
Page 22 and 23:
12 problem has actually been found
Page 24 and 25:
14 or whether domain specific metac
Page 26 and 27:
16 learners should be able to artic
Page 28 and 29:
18 piece of origami paper. Both mat
Page 30 and 31:
20 tion given to the problem solver
Page 32 and 33:
22 is rather directive. It does not
Page 34 and 35:
24 The problem solver has declarati
Page 36 and 37:
26 problem and the fact that studen
Page 38 and 39:
28 learn from them. In terms of Jan
Page 40 and 41:
30 This model is called DORMOBILE (
Page 42 and 43:
32 Second, the meta-level in proble
Page 44 and 45:
34 Figure 2.8. Theoretical model of
Page 46 and 47:
36 task-level. In order to keep the
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter 3 KM QUEST The goal of this
Page 51 and 52:
KM Quest 41 Figure 3.1. The Knowled
Page 53 and 54:
KM Quest 43 the fact that some plan
Page 55 and 56:
KM Quest 45 a dynamic simulation-ga
Page 57 and 58:
KM Quest 47 Quest. They are visuali
Page 59 and 60:
KM Quest 49 cesses in Coltec. For e
Page 61 and 62:
KM Quest 51 Figure 3.5. The Knowled
Page 63 and 64:
KM Quest 53 3.3.1.3 The IMPLEMENT p
Page 65 and 66:
KM Quest 55 process in an electroni
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 4 STUDY I: PILOT This chapt
Page 69 and 70:
Study I: Pilot 59 the spontaneous o
Page 71 and 72:
Study I: Pilot 61 Also, the questio
Page 73 and 74:
Study I: Pilot 63 however, to what
Page 75 and 76:
Study I: Pilot 65 ceived 12 questio
Page 77 and 78:
Study I: Pilot 67 objective, a seco
Page 79 and 80: Study I: Pilot 69 other. It also ex
Page 81 and 82: Study I: Pilot 71 In conclusion, th
Page 83 and 84: Study I: Pilot 73 Finally, the othe
Page 85 and 86: Study I: Pilot 75 Figure 4.2. Scree
Page 93: Study I: Pilot 83 alizations of the
Page 96 and 97: 86 of meaningful learning which can
Page 98 and 99: 88 opportunity events (instead of t
Page 100 and 101: 90 different occasions or settings.
Page 102 and 103: 92 conceptual correctness (54) the
Page 104 and 105: 94 The score on KMQUESTions indicat
Page 106 and 107: 96 is a variable that influences th
Page 108 and 109: 98 5.4 Discussion The hypothesis fo
Page 110 and 111: 100 mal company results. In the fol
Page 112 and 113: 102 more inclined to regulate domai
Page 114 and 115: 104 these skills in order to solve
Page 116 and 117: 106 Hypothesis 1: students acquire
Page 118 and 119: 108 KMQUESTions of study II was per
Page 120 and 121: 110 The second measurement of game
Page 122 and 123: 112 T-PROS because they did not occ
Page 124 and 125: 114 Category Rule Example Task Indi
Page 126 and 127: 116 vised by one experimenter in or
Page 128 and 129: 118 6.3 Results 6.3.1 Game results
Page 132 and 133: 122 6.3.2.1 Effects of learning and
Page 134 and 135: 124 Prospective Pre-test Post-test
Page 136 and 137: 126 Distribution Frequency 1 high 2
Page 138 and 139: 128 No − model Model Retrospectiv
Page 140 and 141: 130 model condition. Perhaps, perfo
Page 142 and 143: 132 Cog Tas Meta Total No-model con
Page 144 and 145: 134 Condition * Metacognition G MET
Page 146 and 147: 136 Figure 6.5. Relations between m
Page 148 and 149: 138 in the model condition: Visuali
Page 150 and 151: 140 Figure 6.7. Overview of relatio
Page 152 and 153: 142 ‘monitoring’. Prospective s
Page 154 and 155: 144 learning. Finally, in the no-mo
Page 156 and 157: 146 inclusion of a task model speci
Page 158 and 159: 148 interpreting the results on met
Page 160 and 161: 150 When no task model is available
Page 162 and 163: 152 Another perhaps more valid expl
Page 164 and 165: 154 havioural measures prove to be
Page 167 and 168: Appendix A Solving a problem in KM
Page 169 and 170: APPENDIX A: Solving a problem in KM
Page 171: APPENDIX A: Solving a problem in KM
Page 174 and 175: 164 to learning to solve problems.
Page 176 and 177: 166 cognition in a constructivist l
Page 178 and 179: 168 forward. The most important one
Page 181 and 182:
Chapter 9 SAMENVATTING Het huidige
Page 183 and 184:
Samenvatting 173 De aanwezigheid va
Page 185 and 186:
Samenvatting 175 gebruik van metaco
Page 187 and 188:
Samenvatting 177 nificant leereffec
Page 189 and 190:
References Akhras, F. and Self, J.
Page 191 and 192:
REFERENCES 181 Duffy, T. and Cunnin
Page 193 and 194:
REFERENCES 183 Nelson, T. (1999). C
Page 195:
REFERENCES 185 van Harmelen, F., Wi
Page 198 and 199:
Prototyping of CMS Storage Manageme
Page 200 and 201:
Human-Computer Interaction and Pres
Page 202:
A Model-driven Approach for Buildin
show all

The role of metacognitive skills in learning to solve problems

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?