Metacognition & learning process: Using think-aloud protocol (TAP) to understand students and their teacher’s reflection processes during a problem-solving situation

Introduction. Today, the act of teaching has become increasingly intricate. Multiple fields of science now aid in comprehending this complexity, enabling instructors to support learners through-out their educational journey.

Aim. The main aim of this study is to determine cognitive and metacognitive thinking process of students and their teachers during a problem-solving situation.

Research methodology and methods. The authors used think-aloud protocol (TAP) in which students (12 participants at the same level) were asked to verbalise their thoughts during a learning activity (math exercise and written production). Similarly, during a pedagogical intervention, nine participants with varying levels of professional experience were required to articulate their professional practices as educators. It should be noted that our approach is purely qualitative following Ericsson and Simon’s approach, from data collection step to coding system and processing of these data.

Results and scientific novelty. The results showed that half of the students solved well what was asked in the problem-solving situation, contrary to the other participants who found particular difficulties in each type of situation proposed (in math and in written production). For the teachers, their verbalisations tend towards three aspects with a degree of dominance for each teacher. The authors consider hat their research is a first step towards a new approach of evaluation of the teaching-learning act that includes both the teacher and the learners simultaneously.

Practical significance. The results obtained can be used by pedagogical practitioners to better understand how their learners think on the one hand and develop their professional practices on the other.

1. Bugg E. G., Dewey J. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. The American Journal of Psychology. 1934; 46 (3): 528. DOI: 10.2307/1415632

2. Luttenberg J., Berger T. Teacher reflection: The development of a typology. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2008; 14: 543–566.

3. Gun B. Quality self-reflection through reflection training. English Language Learning Journal. 2011; 65 (2): 126–135.

4. Dickinson D. K., Smith M. W. Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-in-come children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 1994; 29 (2): 104. DOI: 10.2307/747807

5. Kontos S. Preschool teachers’ talk, roles, and activity settings during free play. Early Child Research Quarterly. 1999; 14 (3): 363–382.

6. Siagian S. W., Katemba C. V. Comparative study between Think aloud and visual imagery in enhancing students reading comprehension. JELPEDLIC. 2016; 1: 36–51.

7. Vacca P., Vitale C., Montaldo E., et al. CD34+ hematopoietic precursors are present in human decidua and differentiate into natural killer cells upon interaction with stromal cells. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America U.S.A. 2011; 108 (6): 2402–2407. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1016257108

8. Haidar A. H., Al Naqabi A. K. Emiratii high school students’ understandings of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2008; 26 (2): 215–237. DOI: 10.1080/02635140802037393

9. Leon-Guerrero A. Self-regulation strategies used by student musicians during music practice. Music Education Research. 2008; 10 (1): 91–106. DOI: 10.1080/14613800701871439

10. Cohen A. D. The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Melissa A. Bowles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2011; 33 (3): 466–467. DOI: 10.1017/s0272263111000076

11. Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. The MIT Press; 1993. 500 p.

12. Flower L., Hayes J. R. The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication. 1980; 31 (1) : 21–32.

13. Flavell J. H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist. 1979; 34 (10): 906–911. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906

14. Cross D. R., Paris S. G. Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988; 80 (2): 131–142. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131

15. Hennessey M. G. Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association For Science Teaching. Boston, MA; 1999. 31 p.

16. Kuhn D., Dean D. Jr. Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice. 2004; 43 (4): 268–273. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4

17. Martinez M. E. What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan. 2006; 87 (9): 696–699. DOI: 10.1177/003172170608700916

18. Wellman H. The child’s theory of mind: The development of conscious cognition. In: Yussen S. R. (Ed.). The growth of reflection in children. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1985. p. 169–206.

19. Georghiades P. From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education. 2004; 26 (3): 365–383.

20. Son L. K., Schwartz B. L. The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control. In: Perfect T. J., Schwartz B. L. (Eds.) Applied metacognition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 2002. p. 15–38.

21. Prytula M. P. Teacher metacognition within the professional learning community. International Education Studies. 2012; 5 (4). DOI: 10.5539/ies.v5n4p112

22. Hartman H. J. Metacognition in learning and instruction. Springer: Dordrecht; Netherlands; 2001. 316 p.

23. Manning B. H., Payne B. D. Self-talk for teachers and students: Metacognitive strategies for personal and classroom use. US: Allyn & Bacon; 1996. 256 p.

24. Graham J. R., Harvey C. R., Rajgopal S. The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 2005; 40 (1–3): 3–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2005.01.002

25. Escorcia D., Fenouillet F. Quel rôle de la métacognition dans les performances en écriture? Analyse de la situation d’étudiants en sciences humaines et sociales. Canadian Journal of Education. 2011; 34 (2): 53–76. (In French)

26. Bachu E., Bernard M. A. Visualizing problem solving in a strategy game for teaching programming. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS). The Steering Committee of the World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp); 2015. p. 1.

27. Şahin F. M. The effect of using metacognitive strategies for solving geometry problems on students’ achievement and attitude. Educational Research Review. 2013; 8: 1777–1792.

28. Alzahrani M. M., Aljraiwi S. S. Effectiveness of using blackboard collaborate tools in promoting practical skills among students of the foundation year in e-learning course. British Journal of Education. 2017; 5: 19–53.

29. Venkatesan M., Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Journal of Marketing Research. 1986; 23 (3): 306. DOI: 10.2307/3151491

30. Wundt W. Selbstbeobachtung und innere Wahrnehmung. Philosophische Studien. 1888; 4: 292–309. (In German)

31. Chenoweth N. A., Hayes J. R. Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication. 2001; 18 (1): 80–98.

32. Wendell K. B., Wright C. G., Paugh P. Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design: Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ design. Journal of Engineering Education. 2017; 106 (3): 356–397. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20173

33. Vermersch P. Entretien d’explicitation. In: Ch. Delory-Momberger (Ed.). Vocabulaire Des Histoires de Vie et de La Recherche Biographique Érès. Toulouse: Erès; 2019. p. 340–342. (In French)

34. Préfontaine C., Fortier G. Utilisation de La Verbalisation Dans Des Situations de Recherche Sur La Production Écrite. In: Dans J.-Y., Boyer L. (Eds.). Didactique Du Français. Méthodes de Recherche. Montréal: Éditions Logiques; 1997. p. 219–228. (In French)

35. Durrett G., Berg-Kirkpatrick T., Klein D. Learning-based single-document summarization with compression and anaphoricity constraints. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vol. 1: Long Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics: Stroudsburg, PA, USA; 2016. p. 1998–2008.

36. Block C. C., Israel S. E. The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. Reading Teacher. 2004; 58 (2): 154–167.

37. Burla L., Knierim B., Barth J., et al. From text to codings: Intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing Research. 2008; 57 (2): 113–117. DOI: 10.1097/01.nnr.0000313482.33917.7d

38. Bransford J. D., Stein B. S. The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. Worth Publishers; 1993. 28 p.

39. Zwozdiak-Myers P. The teacher’s reflective practice handbook. Abingdon: Oxon; 2012. 224 p.

40. Guess T. M., Thiagarajan G., Kia M., et al. A subject specific multibody model of the knee with menisci. Medical Engineering & Physics. 2010; 32 (5): 505–515.

41. Otani T. “SCAT” a qualitative data analysis method by four-step coding: Easy startable and small-scale data-applicable process of theorization. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education. 2008; 54: 27–44.

42. Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G., Pilotta J. J. Naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Intercultural Relations. 1985; 9 (4): 438–439. DOI: 10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

43. Dietrich A. The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2004; 11 (6): 1011–1026. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196731

44. Song G. W., He W. G., Kong W. Influence of problem representation and working memory span on pupils’ mathematical problem solving. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2011; 43 (11): 1283–1292.

45. Ashcraft M. H., Kirk E. P. The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2001; 130 (2): 224–237. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.224

46. Wiley J., Jarosz A. F. Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2012; 21 (4): 258–262. DOI: 10.1177/0963721412447622

47. Ashcraft M. H., Krause J. A. Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2007; 14 (2): 243–248.

48. Eysenck M. W., Derakshan N. New perspectives in attentional control theory. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011; 50 (7): 955–960.

49. Neri C., Retelsdorf J. Do students with specific learning disorders with impairments in reading benefit from linguistic simplification of test items in science? Exceptional Children. 2022; 89 (1): 23–41.

50. Zhong B., Xia L. A systematic review on exploring the potential of educational robotics in mathematics education. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2020; 18 (1): 79–101. DOI: 10.1007/s10763-018-09939-y

51. Brown B. B., Bakken J. P., Ameringer S. W., et al. A comprehensive conceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence. In: Prinstein M. J. A., Ed K. (Eds.). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. New-York: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 17–44.

52. Moundy K., Chafiq N., Talbi M. A model for scripting and designing a digital textbook. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2022; 17 (21): 296–311. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v17i21.34603

53. Holmes J., Adams J. W. Working memory and children’s mathematical skills: Implications for mathematical development and mathematics curricula. Educational Psychology. 2006; 26 (3): 339–366. DOI: 10.1080/01443410500341056

54. Hayes L. R. Identifying the organization of writing processes. In: Gregg L. W., Steinberg E. R. (Eds.). Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ; 1980. p. 3–30.

55. Zimmerman B., Kitsantas A. Reliability and validity of self-efficacy for learning form (SELF) scores of college students. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie. Journal of Psychology. 2007; 215 (3): 157–163.

56. Schmitt D. Book review: Vocabulary myths: applying second language research to classroom teaching. Language Teaching Research. 2006; 10 (4): 457–459. DOI: 10.1191/1362168806lr207xx

57. Graham S., Harris K. R. Self-regulation and strategy instruction for students who find writing and learning challenging. In: Levy C. M. (Ed.). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1996. p. 347–360.

58. Rietdijk S., van Weijen D., Janssen T., et al. Teaching writing in primary education: Classroom practice, time, teachers’ beliefs and skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 110 (5): 640–663. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000237

59. Colognesi O., Maes C. Une recherche collaborative visant à interroger un dispositif de coévaluation des stages en formation à l’enseignement. Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation. 2021; 43 (1): 7–31. (In French)

60. Ramadhanti D., Ghazali A. S., Hasanah M., et al. The use of reflective journal as a tool for monitoring of metacognition growth in writing. International Journal Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2020; 15 (11): 162. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v15i11.11939

61. Mcguire L., Lay K., Peters J. Pedagogy of reflective writing in professional education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2009; 9 (1): 93–107.

62. Castillo-Cuesta L. M., Quinonez-Beltran A., Cabrera-Solano P., et al. Using digital storytelling as a strategy for enhancing EFL writing skills. International Journal of Emerging Technologies Learning. 2021; 16 (13): 142. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v16i13.22187

63. Yamaç A., Ulusoy M. The effect of digital storytelling in improving the third graders’ writing skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2016; 9: 59–86.

64. Wolff C. E., Van Den N., Bogert H., et al. Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education. 2015; 66 (1): 68–85.

65. Dietrich B. K., Brassard M. R. Teachers’ conflict management styles: The role of attachment styles and classroom management efficacy. Journal of School Psychology. 2006; 44 (2): 105–121.

66. Blömeke S., Buchholtz N., Suhl U., et al. Resolving the chicken-or-egg causality dilemma: The longitudinal interplay of teacher knowledge and teacher beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2014; 37: 130–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.10.007

67. Muijs D., Day C., Harris A., et al. Evaluating CPD: An Overview. In: Day C. (Ed.). International hand-book of the continuing professional development of teachers. Open University Press; 2004. p. 291–310.

68. Anderson D., Ackerman Anderson L. A. Beyond change management. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 2001. 272 p.

69. Naylor B. Reporting violence in the British print media: Gendered stories. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2001; 40 (2): 180–194. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2311.00200

70. Lotfi S., Zerdani I., Elouafi L. Learning from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. New Science of Learning. BRILL; 2023. p. 101–126.

71. Sabaoui I., Lotfi S., Talbi M. Analytical study of the impact of age chronotype and time preferences on the academic performance of secondary school students from a modest social background. Retos Digital. 2022; 46: 631–640. DOI: 10.47197/retos.v46.91415