The role of metacognitive skills in learning to solve problems

Study III: added value of the task model 125
As far as interaction effects are concerned, only one such effect exists,
a within-subjects interaction effect between acquiring general procedural
knowledge (from pre- to post-test) and metacognition measured retrospectively
(F = 4.55, p < 0.05). Students who score low on the use of
metacognitive skills measured after task performance show more learning
with respect to general procedural knowledge than students who
score high on the use of metacognitive skills. It appears that weaker
students in terms of self-reported use of metacognitive skills after task
performance learn most, regardless of condition.
A possible explanation for the interaction effect found could be that
students in the MS+ group already perform better on the pre-test than
students in the MS− group because they have a relatively good framework
of general metacognitive skills available that helps them in answering
more questions correctly after they have had the introductory
training session. A side-effect then could be that this overshadows a
potential learning effect. The a priori comparisons show, however, that
no differences exist on pre-test scores. Therefore this explanation is not
corroborated.
An alternative exploratory perspective on this interaction effect is the
following: perhaps students who report the less frequent use of metacognitive
skills pay more attention to what the students say who report
the more frequent use of these skills in the chat facility. The former
students could learn a lot from the latter, without actually having to
put in the effort. This effect is known in the literature as the ‘free-rider’
or ‘social loafing’ effect (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). The free-rider effect
in collaborative learning situations concerns team members who avoid
expending effort on the task because the other team members put in
enough effort.
A quantitative investigation of whether the free-rider effect occurs, is
performed. The distribution of high and low scores on metacognition
within teams is explored. Table 6.11 shows the distribution. This effect
could be expected to occur particularly in mixed teams (in which team
members differ in self-reported metacognitive skills). This concerns 12
out of 16 teams. The question is whether the members of these 12 teams
perform differently from the members of the remaining four teams. A t-
test reveals that no significant differences exist on the post-test of general
procedural knowledge.
In order to pursue the exploration in a qualitative way, the communication
protocols are investigated. If this idea were to be true then one
should find that students who report less frequent use of metacognitive
skills (and gain high scores on general procedural knowledge), are rather
passive in their communication whereas the students who report the