This study focuses on pre-service teachers’ engagement in metacognitive activities while preparing a teaching unit in the course Methods and Practice in teaching. The study compares the effects of the metacognitive engagement on pedagogical knowledge and self-regulatory behavior under two conditions: On-line metacognitive engagement (OME), and face-to-face metacognitive engagement (FME). Both groups were exposed to the same metacognitive activities based on using self-questions that serve as cues for setting goals, planning, monitoring, and evaluation (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003). However, the groups differ in the way of engagement in learning. The OME group was encouraged to search on-line for the course demands, and resources for solving their tasks, and the FME group was taught face-to-face by the teacher.

Participants (n=95) were asked to perform a pre/post SRL questionnaire, to plan a lesson, and to reflect by writing on the process of their planning and using meta-cognitive questioning. Results indicated that at the end of the study the OME group outperformed the FME group on various components of SRL behaviors: Cognition, metacognition, and motivation. They also reflected more easily on their regulation of cognition by focusing on planning, monitoring, debugging and evaluation processes. In addition, they exhibited more pedagogical knowledge based on designing a lesson unit by setting learning goals, and planning activities. The practical and theoretical implications of preparing pre-service teachers online will be discussed at the conference.

In recent years, the role of self-regulated learning (SRL) in education has elicited much interest. Research has focused on students’ self-regulation skills in addition to subject matter knowledge for successful learning. Students are self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process (e.g., Pintrich, 2000). However, research indicated that in spite of the importance of such learning, students have difficulties in SRL behavior. Even adult learners sometimes fail to use self-regulation strategies. Thus, learners need support to identify effective ways to reflect on and regulate their ideas (e.g., Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006; Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003).

As teacher educators, we are committed to preparing teachers for SRL by reflecting on the complexity of teaching, be thoughtful about their teaching practices, and consider multiple perspectives in learning needs of their students (e.g., NCATE, 2002). Moreover, it is not likely that SRL skills are going to be put into practice by teachers who do not have pedagogical understanding of the notion of SRL and do not use it to develop students’ skills.

Our study raises the question about the conditions which SRL can be optimally enhanced in learning of pre-service teachers. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of metacognitive engagement in different learning environments on pedagogical knowledge and self-regulation behaviors of pre-service teachers in two conditions: Online meta-cognitive engagement (OME) and face-to-face metacognitive engagement (FME). The metacognitive activities were aimed to help pre-service teachers to plan, observe and regulate their learning processes.

Method and instructions

Participants were 95 pre-service university teachers who studied in two groups during one semester (13 lessons). The OME group (n=47) studied in a computerized environment using online strategies for the course demands. Whereas, the FME group (n=48) studied in regular face-to-face lessons. Both groups studied Methods and Practice in teaching courses, and were exposed to the same metacognitive activities during their studies. The activities were based on self-questioning that serve as cues for setting goals (e.g., “What is the goal of my task”?), planning (e.g., “What sources of information are relevant for the goals”?), monitoring (e.g., “Have I chosen an appropriate learning strategy for the goals”?), and evaluating the operation (e.g., “How and in what ways I might improve my functioning during the learning process”?). The OME group was encouraged to use the metacognitive questions during their online searching and the FME group was advised to use them in face-to-face discussion.

Measures

The study utilized three measures regarding pedagogical knowledge, and self-regulation.

Pedagogical knowledge: The students were asked to plan a unit learning lesson for high school students by focusing on the same principles that they were exposed to in learning. Student’s planning was analyzed by five criteria-setting learning goals, planning activities, content, didactic materials, and space, and was scored on a 3-point scale ranging from low (1) to high (3).

SRL questionnaire: A pre/post meta-cognitive questionnaire based on Schraw and Dennison, (1994) metacognitive inventory was administrated: The questionnaire was composed of three parts: Cognition - using simple strategies, critical thinking, and problem solving, metacognition knowledge - declarative, procedural and conditional, and motivation - value of task, expectancy, and self-efficacy. Scoring ranged on a scale from never (1) to always (5). Alpha Cronbach equals to .87.

Reflections: Students were asked to reflect by writing on the process of metacognitive activities. Reflections were analyzed three times during the semester by the regulation of cognition index-planning, information management, monitoring, debugging, and evaluation. Scoring ranged on a three-point scale from low (1) to high (3).

Results

MANOVA indicated that at the end of the study the OME group exhibited more pedagogical knowledge based on planning a lesson than the FME: Setting learning goals (M=3.5, 2.7; SD=1.2, 1.3; F (1, 92)=8.36 , p<0.01), planning activities (M=3.3, 2.4; SD=0.88, F (1, 92)=9.47, p<0.01), and using didactic materials (M=3.4, 2.5; SD=1.2, 1.1, F (1, 92)=8.97, p<0.01).

Further analysis indicated that the OME group outperformed the FME group on self-regulation: Cognition - using simple strategies (M=3.5, 3.1; SD=0.6, 0.5; F (1, 92)=5.16, p<0.05), and critical thinking (M=3.3, 2.6; SD=1.2, 1.3; F (1, 92)=7.97, p<0.01); Metacognition - procedural knowledge (M=3.7, 3.3; SD=0.5, 0.4; F (1, 92)= 4.89.12, p<0.05), conditional knowledge (M=3.3, 2.8; SD=0.7, 0.6; F (1, 92)=5.17, p<0.05) and Motivation - self-efficacy (M=3.4, 2.8; SD=0.9, 0.8; F (1, 92)= 6.22, p< 0.011).

Moreover, the OME group reflected more easily on their regulation of cognition: Planning (M=2.6, 1.99; SD=0.6, 0.5; F (1, 92)=9.13, p< 0.01), monitoring (M=2.5,1.96; SD=0.5, 0.5; F (1, 92)=7.89, p< 0.01), debugging (M=2.7, 2.1; SD=0.5, 0.5; F (1, 92)=7.17, p< 0.01), and evaluation (M=2.7, 1.7; SD=0.5, 0.4; F (1, 92)= 9.37, p< 0.01).

Discussion and conclusions

Our findings indicated that although both groups (OME, FME) were exposed to the same metacognitive activities, being engaged meta-cognitively on-line might help pre-service teachers more in interacting with the pedagogical content functionality, and regulating their learning, which in turn affects their motivation. Our findings are in line with research conclusions that metacognitive support for junior students in e-learning is a vehicle for being mindfully engaged in learning, and strengthen recommendations for supporting SRL as a powerful instructional technique in preparing pre-service teachers (e.g., NCATE, 2002).

References

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281-310.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 2002. Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: NCATE.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.