International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment
APA
In-text citation: (Kuzle, 2013)
Reference: Kuzle, A. (2013). Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Kuzle A. Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2013;8(1), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272
Chicago
In-text citation: (Kuzle, 2013)
Reference: Kuzle, Ana. "Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2013 8 no. 1 (2013): 20-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272
Harvard
In-text citation: (Kuzle, 2013)
Reference: Kuzle, A. (2013). Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), pp. 20-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272
MLA
In-text citation: (Kuzle, 2013)
Reference: Kuzle, Ana "Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2013, pp. 20-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Kuzle A. Patterns of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem-Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2013;8(1):20-40. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272

Abstract

This paper describes the problem solving behavior of two preservice teachers as they worked individually on three nonroutine geometry problems. A dynamic tool software, namely the Geometer’s Sketchpad, was used as a tool to facilitate inquiry in order to uncover and investigate the patterns of metacognitive processes. Schoenfeld’s (1981) model of episodes and executive decisions in mathematics problem solving was used to identify patterns of metacognitive processes in a dynamic geometry environment. During the reading, understanding, and analysis episodes, the participants engaged in monitoring behaviors such as sense making, drawing a diagram, and allocating potential resources and approaches that helped make productive decisions. During the exploring, planning, implementation, and verification episodes, the participants made decisions to access and consider knowledge and strategies, make and test conjectures, monitor the progress, and assess the productivity of activities and strategies and the correctness of an answer. Cognitive problem-solving actions not accompanied by appropriate metacognitive monitoring actions appeared to lead to unproductive efforts. Redirection and reorganizing of thinking in productive directions occurred when metacognitive actions guided the thinking and when affective behaviors were controlled.

References

  • Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137–175.
  • Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glasser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 225–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Carlson, M. P., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cycle nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 45–75.
  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.
  • Fey, J. T., Hollenbeck, R. M., & Wray, J. A. (2010). Technology and the mathematics curriculum. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (pp. 41–49). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognition aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1992). Metacognitive and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive development inquiry. In T. O. Nelson (Ed.), Metacognition: Core readings (pp. 3–8). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 163–176.
  • Goldenberg, E. P., Harvey, W., Lewis, P. G., Umiker, R. J., West, J., & Zodhiates, P. (1988). Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the graphical representation of functions (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED294712).
  • Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role od a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.
  • Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clemens, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  • Lawson, M. J., & Chinnappan, M. (2000). Knowledge connectedness in geometry problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 26–43.
  • Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  • Lester, F. K. (1994). Musing about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). Mathematical problem solving. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition (pp. 69–92). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • Olive, J., & Makar, K., with, Hoyos, V., Kor, L. K., Kosheleva, O., & Sträßer R. (2010). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology – Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 133–177). New York: Springer.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Pólya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally copyrighted in 1945).
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1981, April). Episodes and executive decisions in mathematical problem solving (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED201505). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
  • Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem solving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.
  • Stanic, G., & Kilpatrick, J. (1989). Historical perspectives on problem solving in mathematics curriculum. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 1–31). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodologial considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.
  • Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25–48.
  • Wilson, J. W., Fernandez, M. L., & Hadaway, N. (1993). Mathematical problem solving. In P. S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics (pp. 57– 77). New York: Macmillan.
  • Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.