The role of metacognitive skills in learning to solve problems

58
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results of the first empirical study (pilot) that was
performed on KM Quest are described. Two research goals guide this
pilot study.
To explore meaningful learning and metacognition in a constructivist
learning environment.
To develop a concurrent measurement instrument for metacognition
and an analysis tool for process measures of learning.
4.1.1 Types of learning
Learning can be conceptualised on a continuum from no learning via
rote learning to meaningful learning (Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978;
Mayer, 2002). Rote learning involves storing material in long-term memory
and subsequently being able to recall or retrieve it at a later stage
in a similar setting without necessarily understanding it (Mayer, 2002).
It involves memorizing material without associating it with prior knowledge
and without giving it a meaningful context for the learner.
The added value of meaningful learning lies in the fact that it requires
the learner to actively integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge.
Meaningful learning is especially important in constructivist learning
environments. As Mayer (2002) puts it “a focus on meaningful learning
is consistent with the view of learning as knowledge construction in
which students seek to make sense of their experiences” (Mayer, 2002,
p. 227). An overview of the constructivist principles is given in chapter
2 of this thesis. According to Ausubel et al., (1978) the essence of
meaningful learning is that the learner is able and willing to connect the
new meaning with his or her existing cognitive structure and that the
material to be learned is potentially meaningful for the learner.
Transfer relates to the fact that the learner understands the instructional
material and is able and willing to apply it to another setting.
Meaningful learning is an essential condition for transfer of knowledge
to occur (Ausubel et al., 1978; Baker & Mayer, 1999; Mayer, 2002).
Only when the newly acquired knowledge is understood, one is able to
apply it in a similar setting. However, lack of transfer does not necessarily
imply that learning did not occur. One could very well understand
certain principles but one is not (yet) capable of applying it to another
setting because, for instance, the new setting is too different from the
initial setting in which the knowledge was acquired.
A common distinction is made between low-road and high-road transfer
(Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Low-road transfer (or near transfer) involves
extensive and varied practice in a certain domain which leads to