Analyzing rate of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in learners with respect to interactive effect of learning environments(University and guidanceschool)andlocation (urban and rural)
Koorosh Parviz, MA
Psychology Group, PayameNoorUniversity (PNU), Iran
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-WattUniversity, Edinburgh, 3-6 September 2008
Abstract
This researchis going to study who learners use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and how location (rural and urban) and environment education interactively affect on these strategies.The total number of participants in this study was 241 rural and urban female students in Slamabadegharb, Iran. A total of cases are divided to 4 subgroups so that 1- urban guidance school students, 2- rural guidance school students, 3- urban students of university, and 4- ruralstudentsof university. The results show cognitive and metacognitive strategiesof urban guidance school students is more than ruralguidance school students but between urban and ruralstudents of university there is not any significance different. Also The result show metacognitive strategies of urban guidance school students are more than urban students of university but in others comparing different cannot be observed. Finallythis research show there is a significance relationship between average of gradeswith cognitive and metacognitive strategies just in urban guidance school students but in other group there is no. overall outcome of this study is location (urban and rural) cannot affect on rate of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in students of university despite itseffect on the strategies in guidance school students.
Author Keyword: cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, average of grades, guidance school students, students of university, urban, rural
1.Introduction
Learning strategies refer to those techniques, procedure or processes that students apply in learning situations to help acquire, store or express information more effectively. In a sense, strategies empower students by arming them with techniques that facilitate learning. For example, reading strategies such as paraphrasing and summarizing help studentsacquire important information from written word; listening strategies such as note taking help students enhance their abilities to glean important information from lectures; memory strategies first-letter mnemonics help students learn and retain facts (Deshler and Schumaker, 1986).
However, as Palincsar (1986) points out, knowing strategiesalong is not enough to ensuretheir effective and appropriate use. Something is required, and that something is metacognation. As defined by Baker and Brown (1984), metacognation is an awareness of the skill, strategies, and resource that are needed to perform a task and the ability to use self-regulatory mechanisms to successfully complete the task. As the above definition indicates, metacognation generally thought to have two components. The first related to individual abilities to assess the demands of the task at hand and also to understand his or her own strengths and weaknesses in relationship to the task (Reeve and Brown, 1985).The second component of metacognation is concerned with regulating the performance a task. In learning situations, this form of metacognationinvolves applying a variety of processes that, in information processing parlance, are often referred to as “exclusive” function; they include planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning processes (Baker & Brown, 1984).
Weinstein and Meyer (1991, P.17) state ‘A cognitive learning strategies is a plan for orchestrating cognitive resources, such as attention and long-term memory to help reach a learninggoal’. They indicate that there are several characteristics of cognitive learning strategies, including that they are goal-directed, intentionally invoked, effortful and are not universally applicable, but situation specific.Metacognitive strategies appear to share most of these characteristics, with the exception of the last one, since they involve more universal application throughfocus upon planning for implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Schraw, 1998).
The result of the research of Corenford (2005) implies that it is in post-compulsory education that the teaching and fostering of these specific skills is likely to be the most fruitful.Effective learners routinely and often unconsciously use there metacognitive capacity as they select cognitive strategies [that] they think will work in a learning situation, apply the strategies, monitor their use, evaluate their effectiveness, and make adjustment as necessary. For effectiveness learning cognitive and metacognitive strategies need be used in concert (Schied, 1989).The importance cognitive and metacognitive skills in effective learning and performance havebeen recognized for some time (Weinstein & Meyer, 1986, Sternberg, 1998). Indeed the metacognitive skills of planning, monitoring and evaluation constitute the essence of skilled professional performance in the adult world of work. But there is still little evidence that cognitive and metacognitive skills per se are being taught widely or effectively at all levels of schooling or beyond in tertiary education, at either university or college levels (Wallis, 2004). Although Parviz (2005) in his research high school students take part in it, showed between educational success and cognitive/metacognitive strategies there is a positive relationship and also urban use these strategies more than Rural.
Fromabove result, united statement about effect of learning strategies on learning in variety situationscannot be deduced. Therefore with respect to different environment, it is not clearhowits changes are. In this research researcher focuses on environment and its relationship with learning strategies. Since other variables of this research are learning environments (guidance school and university) and location (Urban and Rural). Author intends to analyze interactive effect of both variables with learning strategiesbased on theory of constructivism.
Constructivism
The theory of constructivism has been one of the major conceptual frameworks which guide and shop contemporary educational reforms and practice (Fosnot, 1996; Wilson, 1996). Constructivism means that learning is an active process in which learner construct new ideas or concepts passed on current and past knowledge. To constructivist, the concept of knowledge is based on the developmental theories of Piaget (1972) and Vygotsky (1978). Both believed that learners construct knowledge by interacting with their environment(Wadsworth, 1996). Althoughthere may be many forms of constructivism, the constructivism generally assert that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals, and social interaction whit others also play an important role in construction process (Perkins, 1999; Tsai 1998, 2000). Numerous studies have suggested that learners` perceptions of the learning environment will guide attitudes, behaviors, knowledge construction in that environment (Dart et al., 1999; Fraser, 1998). In this research is tried to focus on roll of learning environment and location so in constructivism theory is noticed (only interactively) and not downright.
2.Method
Participates
The total number of participants in this study was 241 rural and urban female students in Slamabadegharb, Iran.The subjects were divided into two groups based on their learning environment (guidance school and university). The first group consisted of 120 urban and rural guidance school students (60 rural and 60 urban). The second group consisted of 119 urban and rural students of PayameNoorUniversity (59 rural and 60 urban). In this research it was be wanted that for making maximum of variance between level of learning environments,lowest level and highest level compared but the instrument used in the research was more difficult than elementary student can understand it. Since guidance school chose.
Instrumentation
For accessing of learning strategies (cognitive and metacognitive),Karami`s learning and study questionnaire in Persian is used. Thequestionnaire consisted of three parts.The first section elicited respondents` demographic information as location (urban and rural), learning environments (high school and university) and grade point average. The second part included 49 items representing three subcategories of cognitive strategies namely: repetition and revision, organization and semantic elaboration. The third part included 37 items representing two subcategories of metacognitive as knowledge and controlling of self and knowledge and controlling of process. Stability of this questionnaire is assessed by retest method. A relationship quotient between first and second administration for all strategies is 0.98 and for subscales is ranged from 0.85 to 0.91.For assessing reliability of this questionnaire it was presented to 30 faculties and student of PHD. From 26 come bag questionnaire all of the experts confirmed all questions but they have some reforms that have to be were corrected. Internal quotient for per scale was accounted that ranged from 0.69 to 0.88(Karami, 2002).
Analysis
To analyze group differences (urban/rural and studentsof guidance school/university)one way ANOVAthat is followed by post-hoc test(LSD) to detect the significant differencesand independent samples testare used. Also to analyze relationships (grades point average and cognitive/metacognitive strategies) Pearsonproduct moment correlation is used (SPSS version 11.5).
3.Results
Descriptive data: with respect to grades point average, the average of studentsof guidance school (urban and rural) is more than studentsof guidance school and university (urban and rural). In cognitive and metacognitive strategies rural students of guidance school are the least whereas urban students of guidance school are the most. Detailed information is receivable in table 1.
With respect to cognitive strategies, independent samples testshows there is significance difference between urban and rural students of guidance school (t =2.006, sig=0.048). Whereas there is not any significance difference in other comparisons (table 2).
Table 1: Descriptive statistics
Metcognitive strategies / Cognitive strategies / Grades point averageStandard deviation / Mean / Frequency / Standard deviation / Mean / Frequency / Standard deviation / Mean / Frequency
11.6 / 75.9 / 60 / 12.4 / 71.7 / 60 / 1.9 / 16.4 / 60 / Urban guidance school students
18.1 / 68.4 / 60 / 13.9 / 66.4 / 60 / 2.05 / 16.05 / 60 / Rural guidance school students
12.2 / 68.8 / 60 / 12.0 / 69.4 / 60 / 2.01 / 16.9 / 60 / Urban students of university
11.8 / 69.5 / 60 / 11.6 / 69.8 / 60 / 1.6 / 14.4 / 59 / Rural students of university
14.01 / 70.7 / 240 / 12.6 / 69.3 / 240 / 2.1 / 15.6 / 239 / Total
Table 2: independent samples test for analyzing cognitive strategies
df / sig / t / Source98 / 0.048 / 2.006 / Urban guidance school students
Rural guidance school students
98 / 0.898 / -.129 / Urban students of university
Rural students of university
98 / 0.338 / .963 / Urban guidance schoolstudents
Urban students of university
98 / .235 / -1.197 / Rural guidance school students
Rural students of university
With respect to metacognitive strategies there is significance difference between groups (F=3.25, sig=0.02)(table 3). Post hoc test(LSD) show that in guidance school students, the urban use moremetacognitive strategies than rural (sig=0.007) and in urban, guidance school students use more meatcogiive strategies than students of university but in rural is not obtained any significance difference (table 4).
Table 3: One way ANOVA test for analyzing metcognitive strategies
Source / Sum of square / Mean square / df / F / sigBetween groups
Within group
total / 1854.146
35489.894
37344.043 / 618.049
189.786 / 3
187
190 / 3.256 / 0.023
Table 4: Post hoc test (LSD) for analyzing metcognitive strategies
sig / Mean difference / Source0.007 / 7.5 / Urban guidance school students
Rural guidance school students
2.90 / -.77 / Urban students of university
Rural students of university
0.011 / 7.11 / Urban guidance school students
Urban students of university
0.68 / -1.16 / Rural guidance school students
Rural students of university
Finally results indicate in urban guidance school students there is a significance correlation between grades point average and cognitive strategies (sig=0.001) and between grades point average and metacognitive strategies (sig=0.02). In rural students of guidance school there is a significance correlation between grades point average and metacognitive strategies (sig=0.032). Results show that in urban and rural students of university there is not any significance correlation between grades point average and learning strategies (table 5).
Table 5: Pearson product moment correlation
Source / correlation / sigUrban guidance school students / Grades point average
Cognitive strategies / 0.5 / 0.001
Grades point average
Metacognitive strategies / 0.34 / 0.02
Rural guidance school students / Grades point average
Cognitive strategies / 0.2 / 0.164
Grades point average
Metacognitive strategies / 0.3 / 0.032
Urban students of university / Grades point average
Cognitive strategies / -.045 / 0.8
Grades point average
Metacognitive strategies / -.020 / 0.9
Rural students of university / Grades point average
Cognitive strategies / 0.012 / 0.94
Grades point average
Metacognitive strategies / 0.095 / 0.6
4.Discussion
This study profiled learning strategies of urban and rural studentsof guidance school and university. The results showthat in guidance school students the urban use more the cognitive and metacognitive strategies than the rural. This result is in line with Parviz (2005) and is comparable withPiaget (1972), Vygotsky (1978)and Dart et al. (1999), Fraser (1998)furthermore just in the metacognitive strategiesthe urban guidance school student is higher than the urban student of university.Itmeans that effect of urbanism on learning strategies in metacognitve is more than cognitive strategies. But result show thatthere is no difference between learning strategiesof urban and rural students of university. These results imply location (urban and rural) affect on learning strategies of students but this effect is depended to the type of strategies (cognitive and metacognitive) and learning environment (guidance school and university). Abraham and Vann (1979) state the use of learning strategies (for vocabulary retention) varies among learners. Learners adopt strategies that are in line with their previous learning experience and consistence with their beliefs about vocabulary and vocabulary learning (cited in Gu and Johnson (1996). These findings show that previous experience and beliefs of learner about learning and what should be learned, are the factor that verify learner with respect to use of learning strategies. In developing country like Iran,rural environments arepoorer than urban environment based on the most factors of welfare and facilities of schooling.Alsorural and urban have cultural and social environments that can compose different beliefs about objects as learning strategies. Since we can expect rural and urban students differently use of learning strategies, so that urban apply more this strategies than rural. This different in higher level of education and university is not apparent because university as a reach environment can remedy dysfunctions of rural environment.
The results also indicate that in guidance school students there is significance positive correlation between grades point average and cognitive and metacognitive strategies. This result is in line with Parviz (2005).Although in students of university, there is not significance correlation between average and learning strategies. These findingsare comparable with Wallis (2004) that hesitates about effectiveness of learning strategies in all levels of schooling, Weinstein and Meyer (1986) and Sternberg (1998)that believe learning strategies are importance in effective learningfor some time.Research show that in high level of education effect of some ability likes intelligence on educational success go to reducing because different between people related to these abilities go to decreasing. The learning strategies are abilities like intelligence that in great deal is influenced by environments. Different in environment is followed by different in abilities such as intelligence and learning strategies. Since that is rational in university level there is no relationship between grades point averageand learning strategies.
Finally all of explanations that have stated above are adapted with theory of constructivism. This research was a local study since performing it in national level can be useful. Also in this research the questionnaire cannot be used for elementary level.It will be good, if in next researcha questionnaire that can be used for elementary level isapplied. With respect to results it was found that effect of learning environment on learning strategies in lower level is more than higher level especiallyin rural students so it was recommendedto focus on training these strategies in lower level and it is necessary guidance school in villages is improved and enriched.
5.Reference
Baker, L., Brown, A.L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J.Flood (Ed.), Understanding Reading in comprehension (PP.21-44).Newark, E: International Reading Association.
Cornford, I.R. (2005). Cognitive and metacognitive strategies as bases for effective lifelong learning: Who far have we progressed? International Journal of Lifelong Education.
Dart, B., Burnett, P., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., smith, p., & Maccrindle, A. (1999).Classroom learning environments and student`s approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 2, 137-156.
Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1986). Learning strategies: an instructional alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52, 583-590.
Fraser, B.J. (1998).Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learning Environment Research, 1, 7-33.
Fosnot, C.T., (1996). Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice. New York: TeacherCollegePress.
Gu, Y. Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language training outcome. Language Learning, 64 (4). 643-679.
Karami, A. (2002).Devising of assessinginstrument of learning and study strategies andanalyzing of relationship betweenthese strategies witheducational success.Unpublished PH.Ds` thesis ofpsychology. AllametabatabaeiUniversity, Tehran.
Palincsar, A.S. (1986b). Metcognitive strategiesinstructional method for teaching comprehension and comprehension monitoring strategies. Presentation in ICSEMM instructional methods forum.Washington, DC.
Parviz, K. (2005). Analyzing of therelationship betweencognitive and metacognitive strategies with educational success in urban and rural high school students, Iran. Unpublished Masters` thesis of Psychology. ShahidbeheshtiUniversity, Tehran.
Perkins, D.N. (1999).Themany faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13, 31-52.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Relationship between students`scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivistlearning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193-205.
Piaget, J (1972).To understand is to invent. Viking Press, New York.
Schied, K. (1989). Cognitive and metacognitive learning strategy instruction: It’s relevance for media and material design. InformationCenterfor Special Education Media and Materials. LINC Resources, INC., Columbus, Ohio.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
Sternberg, R. (1998).Metacognaton, abilities and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instruction Science, 26, 127-140.
Reeve, R., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, PP.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wadsworth, B.J., (1996). Piaget`s theory of cognitive and affective development. Longman Plans, NY, USA.