i

ii

i

METACOGNITIVE PATTERN IN SOLVING SCIENCE PROBLEMS: A STUDY ON

AN EXCELLENT STUDENT

TAN HUI LI

A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Education (Educational Psychology)

Faculty of Education

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study is finished with the support and contributions provided by many

people. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Narina bte A.

Samah, who helped a lot in completing my thesis, for the useful comments, remarks and

engagement through the learning process of this master thesis.

Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge to an Educational Psychology

Lecturer, Dr Yeo Kee Jiar, who has given me some comments about coding data and

checked the coding data.

Also, I would like to thank the participant in my research, who have willingly

spent precious time in engage in problem solving tasks and the process of interviewing.

Besides this, a special thanks goes to my friends, Chung Jing Wen and Yang

Chee Yun, who help me to do member checking for my thesis. I would like to thank my

loved ones, who have supported me throughout entire process, both by keeping me

harmonious and helping me putting pieces together.

Last but not least, many thanks go to examiners who has given comments in

improving my thesis.

iv

ABSTRACT

This qualitative research examined an excellent student’s metacognitive thinking

and strategies in solving science problems. A case study design was employed, one

which involved the use of interview and observation to obtain information about

metacognitive pattern in solving science problems. Research participant of this study

was an excellent student (age of 11 years old) from a private primary school in Johor

Bahru. The data generated from the observation on and the interview with the research

participant were analyzed using three stages of coding (open coding, axial coding, and

selective coding) to develop themes that explained the research participant’s

metacognitive pattern in solving science problems. The derived themes were confirmed

by two assessors, comprised of an English teacher and an academic with the expertise in

educational psychology. The findings show that the excellent student involved particular

metacognitive elements during each different phases of solving science problems. There

is the interplay among metacognitive awareness and metacognitive regulation in certain

phases. Furthermore, the findings also reveals that teacher gives much influence on the

development of the student’s metacognitive pattern in solving science problems. Based

on the findings, it implies that developing children’s metacognition must be emphasized

in school to improve their ability to solve problems. The present study suggests that

teachers need to design and implement teaching and learning approaches or strategies

that can enhance students’ metacognitive abilities. This facilitates the success of

developing children into higher-order thinkers in order to meet the expectation of

Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) in primary school as inspired by Malaysia

Education Blueprint 2013- 2025.

v

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini dilakukan bertujuan mengkaji pemikiran metakognisi dan strategi

metakognisi seorang murid cemerlang dalam penyelesaian masalah sains. Reka bentuk

kajian kes digunakan dengan kaedah pemerhatian dan temubual dalam mendapatkan

maklumat mengenai corak metakognisi dalam menyelesaikan masalah sains. Kajian ini

terdiri daripada seorang murid cemerlang yang berumur 11 tahun dan belajar di sebuah

sekolah rendah swasta di Johor Bahru. Murid cemerlang dalam kajian ini bermaksud

murid yang mempunyai pencapaian agak tinggi dalam bidang akademik (termasuknya

subjek sains). Data pemerhatian dan temubual dianalisis menggunakan kaeadah

pengekodan yang melibatkan tiga jenis proses pengekodan, iaitu pengekodan terbuka,

pengekodan axial dan pengekodan terpilih. Kaedah pengekodan ini digunakan bagi

menghasilkan tema-tema corak metacognitive murid cemerlang dalam menyelesaikan

masalah sains. Setelah hasil kajian diperoleh, pengesahan pakar terhadap tema-tema

yang dibina dilakukan. Pengesahan tema ini dilakukan oleh dua penilai yang terdiri

daripada seorang cikgu Bahasa English dan seorang pensyarah psikologi pendidikan.

Hasil daripada kajian menunjukkan bahawa murid cemerlang menggunakan unsur-unsur

metakognisi yang berlainan pada setiap peringkat penyelesaian masalah sains. Interaksi

antara kesedaran metakognitif dan regulasi metakognitif ditunjukkan pada fasa-fasa

yang tertentu. Hasil daripada kajian ini juga menunjukkan bahawa cikgu memberi

banyak pengaruh ke atas perkembangan corak metakognitif murid-murid dalam

menyelesaikan masalah sains. Hasil daripada kajian ini mengimplikasikan

perkembangan metaognisi kanak-kanak perlu dipentingkan di sekolah untuk

mempertingkatkan kemampuan kanak-kanak dalam menyelesaikan masalah sains.

Kajian ini mencadangkan cikgu-cikgu perlu merancang dan menggunakan kaedah-

kaedah pengajaran dan pembelajaran yang dapat meningkatkan kemampuan metakognisi

murid-murid. Inilah memudahkan pembentukan kanak-kanak menjadi pemikir tahap

vi

tinggi untuk memenuhi jangkaan Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) di

sekolah rendah seperti yang diilhamkan oleh Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia

2013-2025.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

1

TITLE

DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Background

1.3 Statement of problem

1.4 Research objective

1.5 Research question

1.6 Theoretical framework

1.7 Conceptual framework

1.8 Significance of study

1.9 The scope of the study

1.10 Limitations of the study

1.11 Definition of terms

PAGE

ii

iii

iv

v

vii

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

1

1

3

9

10

10

11

14

16

17

18

19

viii

2

3

1.11.1 Excellent student

1.11.2 Metacognitive pattern

1.11.3 Science problem solving

1.12 Summary

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Metacognition

2.2.1 Theoretical Background: Piaget’s theory

and Vygotsky’s theory

2.2.1.1 Piaget’s theory

2.2.1.2 Vygotsky’s theory

2.2.2 The component of metacognition

2.2.2.1 Metacognitive knowledge

2.2.2.2 Metacognitive regulation

2.2.2.3 Metacognitive experience

2.2.3 Metacognitive development in childhood

2.2.4 The role of metacognition in science

problem solving

2.2.5 The assessment of metacognition

2.2.6 The implication of metacognition in

science education

2.3 Past studies in the aspect of metacognition

2.4 Summary

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Research design

3.3 Research participant

3.4 Data collection procedure

3.4.1 Science problems

20

20

21

22

24

24

26

28

29

30

32

33

35

37

37

41

43

45

47

49

52

52

53

54

55

57

ix

4

5

3.4.2 Participant observation

3.4.3 Interview

3.5 Data analysis procedure

3.5.1 Theoretical sensitivity

3.5.2 Coding data

3.5.2.1 Open coding

3.5.2.2 Axial coding

3.5.2.3 Selective coding

3.5.2.4 Coding challenges

3.6 Ethical issues

3.7 Ensuring quality of qualitative data

3.8 Summary

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Analysis of data

4.2.1 Analyzing data set 1: observation session

4.2.2 Analyzing data set 2: interview session

4.3 Findings

4.3.1 The components of metacognition

4.3.1.1 Metacognitive awareness

4.3.1.2 Metacognitive regulation

4.3.1.3 Metacognitive evaluation

4.4 Explaining and analyzing the excellent student’s

metacognitive pattern in science problem solving

4.5 Summary

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Summary of findings

5.3 Implications

58

64

67

68

68

69

70

74

74

75

78

80

83

83

84

85

87

90

90

91

94

96

98

103

105

105

106

107

x

REFERENCES 116

Appendice A-E 133- 142

5.3.1 Implication for research methodology

5.3.2 Implication for theory

5.3.3 Implication for practice

5.4 Conclusion

108

110

111

114

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

3.1 Example of cognitive-metacognitive problem solving

behaviours in performance checklist 59

3.2 Metacognitive action card statement 66

3.3 Wilson and Clarke’s definition of metacognitive

thinking codes 70

4.1 The findings from observation session 85

4.2 The findings from interview session 87

4.3 Excerpts of expressing metacognitive awareness 91

4.4 Excerpts of expressing metacognitive regulation 94

4.5 Excerpts of expressing metacognitive evaluation 96

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Conceptual framework 15

2.1 Metacognitive monitoring and control 36

2.2 Taxonomy of metacognition components 39

3.1 The content of methodology in chapter 3 80

4.1 The flow chart about the metacognitive patterns involving

in science problem solving 98

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

KSSR - Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah

MA - Metacognitive Awareness

ME - Metacognitive Evaluation

MR - Metacognitive Regulation

UPSR - Primary Schooling Achievement Tests

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Metacognitive action card statement 133

B Consent to participate in research (parental consent) 134

C Science problems 136

D Research participant’s work 137

E Transcript 140

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

In October 2011, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia decided to review the

existing education system in Malaysia. The aim is to develop a new Malaysia Education

Blueprint for 2013-2025 in order to fulfill the needs of the 21st century. The blueprint

states that “every child will learn how to continue acquiring knowledge throughout their

lives, to be able to connect different pieces of knowledge, and to create new knowledge.

Every child will master a range of important cognitive skills, including critical thinking,

reasoning, creative thinking, and innovation” (p. E-10). To elevate the student’s

potential to be aware of their capabilities to solve and be mindful of the problem faced in

the future. One of the elements of higher order thinking skills is metacognition.

Metacognition was first mentioned by John Flavell in 1976, he explains that

people themselves have the ability to be aware of their learning, monitor their learning

progression and evaluate the outcomes (Flavell, 1976). The concept of metacognition

based on his theory can be used in explaining why certain students spend much time in

studying but still receive poor results in their examination as compared with their peers.

When pupils have higher metacognition, they are able to select and use suitable

2

metacognitive strategies according to their needs or demonstrate metacognitive patterns

in their learning behavior to get better performance than the pupils who have lower

metacognition (Topcu & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2009).

During the journey to find answers and achieve the final goal, students need to

apply their higher thinking consciously or unconsciously using their metacognition.

Therefore, metacognition plays a significant role in problem solving. Gerace (2001)

points out that a novice problem solver will use almost all available mental capacities to

solve a problem but expert problem solver is able to think about problem solving while

problem solving. It means the experts are able to identify the key elements and select

using the effective strategies to solve the problem. It relates to the problem solver’s

metacognitive ability which involves planning and regulating. It also explains why

excellent students could solve the problem correctly in shorter time if compared to weak

students.

Under the Malaysia Education Blueprint, problem solving is incorporated in

learning science subject. When working on problem solving tasks, students are required

to understand what is being asked in the problem, extract important information, plan the

method to solve and evaluate the effectiveness of methods that are used in solving

science problems. All the requisite processes lead students in achieving their final goal

which is able to find out the answer accurately.

Before finding out the effective way to help students in learning problem solving

strategies, we must have a good understanding of students’ thinking and explore a

child’s metacognitive pattern which is used in solving problems. Just like the doctors

who cure diseases, they need to find out the characteristics of their patients’ condition in

order to be able to identify the disease, and then prescribe the effective and exact

medicine. This study aims at exploring excellent child’s metacognitive patterns in

3

solving science problems because the results can benefits educators, especially primary

school teacher by taking it into consideration while guiding their students in problem

solving.

1.2 Background of Problem

Malaysia is a developing country where the demand of manpower is high in most

industries, especially in high technology and biochemistry industries. However, a

portion of employees who freshly graduated from university is less competent in their

work. The company employers often complain that their new subordinates lack of

problem-solving ability, critical and creative thinking in handling a situation even

though they have a higher academic qualification (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-

2025). This phenomenon also exists at the tertiary level; most of the lecturers have found

that their tertiary students lack critical and creative thinking in their academic

performance. They are incapable of thinking deeply and producing assignments with

good quality (The Star newspaper article, 4 March 2012).

Shaping a child to prepare for the challenges of 21st century is the fundamental

objective in Malaysia education. Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025 reveals that

acquiring content knowledge is not enough for ensuring the success in individual’s life,

but the person has to have capability to apply the knowledge and skills in solving any

problems they face in the journey of their life. As we know, applying them involves the

implementation of pupil’s higher-order thinking. Therefore, the development of pupils’

higher-order thinking is emphasized in the Malaysia Education Blueprint.

4

In Malaysia, before enrolling in college or university course, the person needs to

have completed at least five years of secondary school and six years of primary

education. The primary education is compulsory requirement for every child aged 7 to

12 as stated in the Education Act (1996). During the critical age of 6 to 11, children

learn best if they are active in their learning because at this stage, they have natural

curiosity and they also have the desire to understand more about everything in the world

(Whitener et al., 1998). Therefore, their minds during this stage are open and prepare to

receive new and varied ideas surrounding them. Furthermore, their behaviors are easier

to be influenced and shaped. Hence, metacognitive strategies should be introduced to

students aged of 6 to 11 and teachers should help them to form certain metacognitive

behaviours which are suitable for them in solving problems.

In this technology era, the knowledge of science and scientific skills are

necessary to be acquired for everyone. Therefore, science subject is vital in children’s

learning and it is one of the core subjects they have to learn in primary school.

Elementary Science Education Curriculum states that one of the aims of primary school

science curriculum is to provide a strong foundation in science and technology in order

to give students’ preparation for the learning of science in secondary school (Malaysia

Integrated Science Curriculum for Primary Schools, 2003). In science subject, not only

science knowledge is taught, but mathematical knowledge is also included in science

syllabus for Malaysian elementary science education curriculum. Therefore, there are

many types of information or knowledge exposed to Malaysia elementary school pupils.

Starting from primary school, students have a lot to learn yet it is the crucial

moments in enhancing people’s fundamental knowledge. These fundamental knowledge

are useful to guide them in learning more specific and professional knowledge or skills

in future. As a primary school teacher, a phenomenon is observed in primary school.

There is a difference between primary year 3 and year 4 syllabus (9 years old and 10

years old). Starting from primary year 4 class, students have to learn various skills and

5

knowledge for purpose of preparing for Primary Schooling Achievement Tests (UPSR)

in year 6. There is a change of student’s learning attitude between year 3and year 4: they

felt bored and tired of their learning; a portion of the students felt stress due to the failure

of adapting themselves when they stepped into year 4. They started to realize that the

amount of homework is much more than before and it keeps increasing.

Due to information overload, not all the children are able to adapt themselves to

gain the information successfully. The children who failed to adapt themselves might

feel depressed and lose their way in learning. All the negative emotion could diminish

their interest of learning. Therefore, students need some skills to control over their

learning in order to acquire the information successfully. For this reason, metacognition

plays a crucial role in determining whether the children are able to learn and apply the

knowledge in every circumstance (Coutinho, 2007). Children who activate their

metacognition are able to monitor their learning progress and select suitable strategies in

managing various types of information in their mind. Fortunately, in Lai’s (2011)

research report, it mentioned that metacognition is teachable and trainable among

children. It has supports by many researchers like Dignath et al. (2008), Kramarski and

Mevarech (2003). Hence, guidance in recognizing metacognitive patterns and practice in

applying metacognitive strategies are necessary to be implemented among primary

students because it helps students effectively gain their knowledge, and apply the

knowledge not only in their academic area, but also in their daily life.

Occasionally, teachers complain that students failed to answer the questions

correctly although they have been taught and done a lot of similar exercises. They also

complained that their student did the same mistake again and again although they were

reminded for many times. As mentioned in Piaget’s theory, children’s constructions of

meaning are not same as those of adults (Woolfolk, 2010). That means adult’s way of

thinking is different from children’s. The teaching skills that were assumed to be useful

towards students’ learning actually are not accepted completely by the students. So that,

6

students failed to remember, understand or apply what teacher taught in class. It explains

why the students kept doing mistakes although being reminded again and again. Viewed

from another perspective, introducing excellent student’s thinking pattern is easier to be

accepted by the weaker students. Teachers can use it to scaffold their student in learning

science better (Hartman, 2001). Hence, it is worthwhile to explore and understand

excellent student’s metacognitive patterns in solving several science problems.

When mentioning the words “problem solving” in the context of primary school

education, science and mathematics comes to mind. Many researchers, such as Magiera

(2008), and Eric and Noraini (2007), have explored and investigated students’

metacognitive behaviours elicited in the context of small-group mathematical problem

solving. These studies show evidence that providing problem-solving context

encourages students pose many types of cognitive and metacognitive behaviours

explicitly towards problem resolution. Problem solving is one of the effective methods

that enable one to investigate and understand students’ metacognitive pattern in depth.

Science subject also involves problem solving too so the issues of metacognition in

problems solving in science are worthwhile to be explored.

In addition, learning is a constructive process where the learner constructs

meaning for himself through competencies employed for this purpose (Slabbert, 1993).

The aim of Malaysia science curriculum in primary school corresponds to what Slabbert

says. “Malaysia science curriculum aims at producing active learners through observing,

asking questions, formulating and testing hypotheses, analyzing, interpreting data,

reporting and evaluating findings.”(Malaysia Integrated Science Curriculum for Primary

Schools, 2003). All of them are the components of metacognition. Hence, to become

active learners, students must have better metacognition.

7

According to UPSR analysis report (Abd. Ghafar, 2011), the total number of

pupils who sat for year 2010 science exam is 481964 while the total number of pupils

who sat for year 2011 science exam is 484844. In this report, it states that for the past

two years, almost 80 percentages of total numbers of pupils have passed their science

subject in UPSR. In other words, more than 10% of the total number of pupils in each

year still failed in their science subject. This phenomenon points that more than 4000

elementary pupils in Malaysia still do not have a very strong grasp of the knowledge and

information which are delivered in science subject although they have learned the

science context for six years in primary school. It contrasts with the aim of primary

school science curriculum which “is to provide a strong foundation in science and

technology in order to give pupils’ preparation for the learning of science in secondary

school” (Malaysia Integrated Science Curriculum for Primary Schools, 2003).

To improve the results, difficulties faced by low achieving students in science

should be taken into consideration. In Malaysia primary school, the subject of science is

taught based on prescribed syllabus which must be completed in a certain time frame. In

order to consolidate their science knowledge, drilling is one of the methods to be used

by teachers. They normally give students many UPSR format science exercise to provide

opportunities to get used to the UPSR examination. Learning with time constraint and

drilling causes a student will be exposed certain large amount of science knowledge and

science exercise within the time. Too much input without considering students’ affective

in learning interfere with the effectiveness of learning. It affects students losing their

interest and becoming passive in learning science. It is supported by Costley (2013) who

found that homework can lead to boredom if homework becomes overly repetitive.

There is a scenario that commonly happens in primary school: some students are passive

in their learning and they failed to solve the science problems when teacher modifies the

structure of original science problems that they can solve it successfully at first. One of

the possible reasons for explaining this scenario is a lack of ability to regulate and

monitor their learning. They just tried to memorize all the methods or knowledge which

were taught by their teacher but do not understand why the methods are used or what

8

science concepts are involved in the questions. In this case, their metacognition is

important because it enables the students really understand the science knowledge and

the application of the knowledge into different circumstances.

When people failed in knowing their thinking and the ways to promote their

thinking, they have difficulties to think deeply. They are less able to take into all

possible consideration in multiple dimensions when they solve a problem. It seems like

they are losing their way in a maze. Without high metacognition, they do not have the

capability to find out and apply the best solution in solving problems. Thus, it shows a

clear picture about the importance of metacognition in our daily life. Educators are

encouraged to enhance inquiry learning approach into their students. Inquiry learning

approach is different with traditional teaching approach. Inquiry learning approach

emphasizes active learning with using various metacognitive skills. Practice makes

perfect. Once metacognitive strategies start to be learned and adopted by young children,

they are able to practice and gain more experience in adopting different types of

metacognitive strategies into particular situations. It stimulates the children’s

metacognition and further their ability of solving any problems in future.

Besides this, children’s metacognition is considered as vital motivator in their

learning. The children will have the capability to cope with problems in their learning

once they have highly metacognitive thinking. Hence, their interest in learning will be

strengthened too. It leads them to enjoy learning and be willing to explore the

knowledge by themselves, not by being forced. Once they have such strong intrinsic

motivation, it helps them become independent learners or self-regulated learners. A

study by Coutinho (2007) was attempted to explore the relationship between

metacognition and academic performance or the interrelationship between

metacognition and other several external factors, such as self-esteem and self-regulated

learning. Moreover, most of the previous studies like Muhammad Sarwar et al. (2009)

and McCabe (2011), especially the studies in the aspect of one’s metacognition,

9

preferred be carried out for the population of undergraduate students. It is given the

reason that adult adolescent’s metacognition is more mature and obvious. Undeniably, it

is true but older children’s metacognition is considered as enough obvious to be

observed. In addition, metacognition is also assumed as important element in improving

elementary school students’ academic performance in every subject, especially in the

subject of science and mathematics.

Before finding out the suitable and effective ways in strengthening their

metacognition, the first thing is to explore the metacognition which exists in their mind.

Metacognition is mind-like. It is hard to be seen and observed. Therefore, it becomes an

obstacle in exploring and understanding one’s metacognition. In order to discover one’s

metacognition, observing his or her metacognitive-type behaviours might be one of the

suitable ways because thinking affects behaviour and behaviour is observable. Through

observing someone’s behaviour in solving problems, we can know her or his

metacognition as well. Hence, the objective of this study was to explore child’s

metacognive patterns in solving science problems.

1.3 Statement of Problem

The world of science encompasses a wide range of knowledge in our daily. Due

to a lot of science knowledge and concepts, students need some strategies to manage

themselves and control of their learning. Metacognition is cognition about cognition and

it is important in human’s thinking, especially in learning. It helps students to be able to

regulate and monitor their own learning. It includes their awareness in learning,

regulating strategies and making evaluation. To discover more knowledge, students’

metacognition needs to be activated to achieve the best impact of learning. Fortunately,

10

metacognition is trainable and needs time to do more practice. Hence, this study aims to

explore an excellent student’s metacognitive pattern in solving science problems. By

exploring this particular phenomenon, the information might be useful to generate

insights on further understand the higher achiever’s metacognitive patterns in solving

science problems. At the same time, it could be used as a guideline in improving and

strengthening the lower-achiever’s learning in science, especially in the area of problem

solving.

1.4 Research Objective

The main purpose of this research is to explore and identify an excellent

student’s metacognitive pattern in solving science problems.

1.5 Research Question:

In line of the research objective, this study seeks to answer the following

question: what is the metacognitive pattern of an excellent student in solving science

problems?

11

1.6 Theoretical Framework

“Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own

cognitive processes and products or anything related to them, e.g., the learning- relevant properties of information or data. For example, I am engaging in metacognition if I notice that I am having more trouble learning A than B; [or] if it strikes me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact.”(Flavell, 1976, p. 232)

John Flavell (born August 9, 1928) is the first person who has mentioned the

word of “metacognition”. Metacognition is thinking about thinking. In Flavell’s theory,

metacognition contains three components: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive

regulation and metacognitive experiences. In Flavell’s concept of metacognition,

metacognitive knowledge includes strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive

tasks, and self-knowledge. Strategic knowledge refers to the knowledge of general

strategies for learning, thinking, and problem solving. This type of metacognitive

knowledge enables students to know various strategies to memorize information,

organize information and also extract meaning from information. It also includes the

knowledge of how to comprehend what they hear in classroom or what they read in any

reading materials. Knowledge about cognitive tasks is second type of metacognitive

knowledge which was mentioned by Flavell. Pintrich (2002) has mentioned that

knowledge about cognitive tasks includes knowledge that different tasks can be more or

less difficult and may require different cognitive strategies. By gaining knowledge about

cognitive tasks, the students have some knowledge of the different conditions and tasks

where the different strategies are used most appropriately. Therefore, they are able to

choose appropriate strategies in solving particular situation. In addition, Flavell also

proposed that self- knowledge is the vital component of metacognitive knowledge. This

is because these types of knowledge enables students know one’s strengths and

weaknesses. It helps students to use learning strategies which are suitable for them.

Pintrich (2002) has demonstrated the importance of students being made aware of their

metacognitive activity, and then using this knowledge to appropriately adapt the ways in

12

which they think and operate. Metacognitive regulation is the second process of

metacognition (Brown, 1978). It facilitates people do the evaluation and control of their

learning process. Their metacognitive regulation leads them to do planning and select

suitable strategies, rather than trying to use all the cognition capacities they had.

Metacognitive experiences are the cognitive and affective experiences the people have

when they engaged in any cognitive task in the past. Efklides (2001) states that

metacognitive experiences are influenced by task factors (task complexity, performance,

and previous experiences with the same or related task), personal factors (cognitive

ability, personality, and self-concept), and metacognitive factors (metacognitive

knowledge).

Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experience which were mentioned

in Flavell’s concept of metacognition are quite similar and interrelated. People should

experience particular task or situation and then they will gain the metacognitive

experience and at the same time, their metacognitive knowledge will be increased, too.

Overall, Flavell’s metacognition concept is influenced by Piaget’s work which

emphasized on the social aspect in developing one’s learning.

Besides this, Ann Brown (1943-1999) has proposed ideas about the concept of

metacognition in 1987. Ann Brown was an educational psychologist. This educational

psychologist has stated that “metacognition refers to understanding of knowledge, an

understanding that can be reflected in either effective use or overt description of the

knowledge in question” (p.65). Brown categorized the elements of metacognition only

into two groups: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Brown

differentiated between knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. In aspect of

knowledge of cognition, Brown explained that people have their own cognitive

processes. In the processes, the people will use the knowledge of cognition to do

reflection and look back to their cognitive thinking. While, regulation of cognition,

which is mentioned by Brown, refers to the action of monitoring learning. For example,

13

people plan and monitor their own learning and will check the outcomes. Brown has

introduced the concept of “autopilot state” to explain why learners sometimes are not

aware of their metacognitive strategies and metacognitive knowledge although they have

these strategies and knowledge. It emphasizes that all the processes become automatic

when they involved themselves in the cognitive task. Metacognition could happen

unconsciously (Brown, 1987).

Following Flavell’s and Brown’s theory of metacognition, Sigmund Tobias and

Howard T. Everson (2002) also gave ideas on metacognition by suggesting hierarchical

model of metacognition. In the hierarchical model, planning, selecting strategies,

evaluating learning and knowledge monitoring are organized. These contain three

components: knowledge of cognition, monitoring of one’s cognitive and learning

processes, and control of those processes. Wilson and Clarke (2004) define them

respectively as metacognitive awareness, metacognitive evaluation and metacognitive

regulation. Tobias and Everson (2002) have revealed that students with effective

knowledge monitoring processes tend to manage their time effectively but students who

have less effective knowledge monitoring processes have difficulties in mastering new

knowledge because they tend to spend time in studying what they have already known,

rather than new area of knowledge (Tobias et al., 1999).

Combining these three theories, the main concepts of metacognition are

metacognitive knowledge about tasks, person and strategy, the action of regulating and

monitoring. The metacognitive experience is generated from metacognitive knowledge

and metacognitive regulation and also, it intermingles with one’s metacognitive

awareness, metacognitive regulation and metacognitive evaluation. All of these are

needed in solving problems. Figure 1.1 shows the interrelationship among metacognitive

awareness, metacognitive experience, metacognitive regulation and metacognitive

evaluation.

14

1.7 Conceptual Framework

The focus of this study is to explore primary school pupils’ metacognitive

patterns in solving science problems. Several theories about metacognition were

discussed briefly in the section of theoretical framework. The theorists indicate the

useful function and role of metacognition in human’s thinking, especially engage in

cognitive task. Based on the relative theories elaborated above, a conceptual framework

of this study is developed for attempting to understand the concept about the relationship

between one’s metacognition and problem solving task.

In completing a problem solving task, students have to go through several main

steps: (1) recognize or identify the problem, (2) define it mentally, (3) develop a solution,

(4) monitor the progress and (5) evaluate the solution. All the steps need the application

of their metacognitive components (metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation,

and metacognitive evaluation) in order to solve a problem successfully. Taken the step

“recognize or identify the problem” as an example. Students need to identify and define

the problem before starting to solve it. In identifying and defining a problem, students

are supposed to apply their metacognitive awareness in order to know the task specific

knowledge and how to define it. At the same time, the students also need to activate

their metacognitive evaluation in order to assess the difficulty of problem and their

understanding. Without these metacognitive thinking, the students are easy to encode the

problem incorrectly or incompletely and they do not realize this happening. Once it

happens, they have a high chance to face failure in solving a problem.

Another illustration comes from solution evaluation. As students work on a

problem, they must keep track of what they have already done, what they are currently

doing, and what still needs to be done (Flavell, 1981). It needs students’ metacognitive

awareness, metacognitive regulation and metacognitive evaluation. By evaluating their

15

solution, students know to try other strategies or methods to solve problems if they are

failed to solve the problems or find out some wrongs in the process of solving problems.

If their metacognitive thinking is not developed well, they will stop to complete the

problem solving task when they meet failure.

These examples demonstrated how metacognition is important in solving science

problem. They also illustrated the subtle interplay among metacognitive awareness,

metacognitive regulation and metacognitive evaluation in problem solving and Figure

1.2 shows the conceptual framework of this study.

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework

16

1.8 Significance of study

This study provides an insight for better understanding of an excellent student’s

metacognitive patterns in solving science problems. Excellent students involve their

metacognitive awareness, metacognitive regulation and metacognitive evaluation in the

process of solving problems and also in their learning. It explains why certain students

can learn more and learn faster than other students.

As mentioned above, not all the teachers know distinctly the concept of

metacognition and the important role of metacognition in their students’ learning. Some

problems exist in understanding the concept of inquiry learning or how their students

think. These issues become an obstacle in planning the effective teaching activities that

can enhance children’s learning. Through finding and understanding the students’

metacognitive pattern in their learning, teacher is able to identify what their strengths are

and what their weaknesses are in their thinking. Also, teachers can find out what

metacognitive pattern is suitable to their students in maximizing the effectiveness of

learning. Therefore, teacher can implement the effective teaching strategies and know

how to improve the delivery of instruction in order to stimulate their students’

metacognitive thinking successfully.

Educators are extremely concerned about the issues of metacognition in students’

learning. The findings in this study can be used as a reference for teachers in planning

their lessons in order to guide their students think metacognitively and also, enhance

their students’ learning effectively. For example, teachers can improve their weaker

students’ problem solving skills by encouraging them mimicking the excellent student’s

metacognitive patterns used in problem solving. Besides this, they can carry out some

relevant activities to practice their students’ metacognitive strategies in order to help to

strengthen their ability of learning science and improve their science academic

17

performance. With enhancing their metacognition, primary school students are able to

realize the useful methods of gaining and applying the science knowledge and skills in a

particular situation.

1.9 The Scope of the study

In this part, the scope or the boundary of the research is explained. Generally,

there are four types of research boundary that need to be discussed namely coverage,

data, analytical method and applicability of output.

With respect to the coverage of the study, it concerns with the metacognitive

patterns of an excellent student with aged of 11 years because Year 5 or 6 students have

stayed longer at primary school if compared to other year students. Therefore, their

metacognition is theoretically stronger than younger children in elementary school. The

participant in this study is a Year 5 student (eleven years old) who are above high-

average achievers in her science exam.

As for data in this study, a Year 5 student assessed her metacognitive behaviours

while engaging the process of solving a science problem. To gain more information, the

student was interviewed about the justification of her behaviours when she was solving

the science problem. In addition, some data from journal papers of official reports were

gathered and used as a reference in this study. Thus, the data collected in this study is

supported by the reports.

18

The scope of method explains the type of analytical method adopted. This study

is a qualitative case study. The researcher used theoretical sensitivity and the method of

data reduction to code the data in order to identify the student’s metacognitive patterns

in solving science problems.

Lastly, scope of applicability of output refers to how good of the output when it

applied in the real world. Identifying student’s metacognitive behaviors in science

academic performance is powerful information because it enables teachers realize the

weaknesses and strengths of student’s thinking way in science learning. Hence, they will

be capable to organize more teaching activities which are able to strengthen pupils’

metacognition in their science teaching.

1.10 Limitations of the Study

Several limitations are found in this study. The first limitation is the sample of

students. In this study, the sample is purposive sample and in particular selected to

include pupils who highly achieve in their previous science exams. Strictly speaking,

this study aims at only one excellent student as the research participant. Therefore, the

source is not representative enough of all the elementary school students in Malaysia and

it is not appropriate to generalize the findings from the study. In total, it is not a major

limitation in this study which aims to explore children’s metacognitive patterns in

solving science problems.

The assessment of metacognition is also considered as a limitation. The students’

metacognition is assessed by using observation and interview. During that time,

19

researcher might miss coding certain students’ metacognitive behaviors in solving the

problems. In addition, the students might have problems in expressing her thoughts

accurately. She also may tend to give her opinion or explanation based on what opinion

the researcher desires to gain. These affect the findings of this study.

Lastly, there are lacks of prior research studies which specifically focus on the

topic of elementary school students’ metacognitive behaviors in science academic

performance. Most of the studies either target on secondary school students or

undergraduate students, or aimed to reveal the relationship among many variables in

their academic performance.

1.11 Definition of terms

The ability of understanding and perception towards the meaning of a particular

word are different and distinct among people. It engenders misunderstanding of the

content of this study. For attempting to minimize the occurrence of misunderstanding,

the research used existing literature and specific information to define and explain the

terms “excellent student”, “metacognitive pattern”, and “science problem solving”. It

helps to present the concept of this study clearly and unambiguously.

20

1.11.1 Excellent student

According to Elton (1998), excellence is a normative concept. It means

surpassing, being pre-eminent. It connotes a sense of certain distinguishing features that

those exhibiting excellence stand out from the rest (Little et al.,2007). “Excellent” does

not represent “perfect”. Excellent means outstanding while perfect means absolutely

complete without any missing. In this study, excellent student refers the student who is

above averaged in academic achievement including the subject of science and her result

is ranked within top fifteen in whole Year 5 classes.

1.11.2 Metacognitive pattern

Metacognition is defined as “awareness of one’s own thinking, awareness of the

content of one’s conceptions, an active monitoring of one’s cognitive processes, an

attempt to regulate one’s cognitive processes in relationship in further learning, and an

application of a set of heuristics as an effective device for helping people organize their

methods of attack on problems in general” (Hennessey, 1999, p.3). In this study, the

concept of metacognition is defined as children’s thinking on the selection, monitoring

and control of their thought in solving science problems.

Owing to adopt Wilson and Clarke’s (2004) ideas about metacognitive thinking

in this study, the student’s metacognitive pattern in solving science problems is searched

from three aspects: (1) metacognitive awareness, (2) metacognitive evaluation and (3)

metacognitive regulation. From their view, metacognitive awareness relates to one’s

awareness of the knowledge about particular task and relevant content, one’s awareness

21

about his personal problem-solving strategies, and also one’s awareness of what needs to

be done, what has been done, or what could have been done in the process of solving a

problem. Besides this, they also define metacognitive regulation as the thinking which

can direct one’s thinking through planning strategies, self-correcting, setting goals or

predicting. Lastly, metacognitive evaluation indicates one’s assessment of various

aspects including the effectiveness of thinking, the effectiveness of implemented

strategies, the effectiveness of outcome, the result, problem difficulties, and one’s own

progress, ability and understandings.

“Metacognitive patterns are unconscious thinking or sorting preferences that

influence students’ behaviour at a level above (or ‘meta’ to) conscious awareness.”

(Brown, 2005, p.302). This study used the idea of metacognitive patterns which was

mentioned by Brown (2005) to explain the definition of metacognitive pattern. An

excellent primary student’s metacognitive pattern is defined as the pattern which shows

how the excellent primary student interact with science problems in order to solve the

science problems.

1.11.3 Science problem solving

Lesh and Zawojewski (2007) described problem solving as a task, or goal-

oriented activity becomes a problem when the “problem solver” needs to develop a more

productive way of thinking about the given situation. In this study, science problem

solving refers to a task or goal-oriented activity which its content is related to the topics

in Malaysia Year 4 Primary Science Curriculum and also involves several scientific and

mathematical thinking skills in it. The science problems are taken from the topic of

living things and the topic of measurement in Year 4 Primary Science Curriculum.

22

1.12 Summary

This chapter first introduced the concepts that explain metacognition. The

research used the concept of metacognition to explain the phenomenon that students

spend less time in studying but still receive excellent results in their examination as

compared with their peers. The importance of metacognition in problem solving is

highlighted.

Next, the background of problem is viewed from the issues in the area of career

and university and then is discussed within the context of Malaysia education, especially

primary education system in Malaysia and Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025.

The issues relating to pupils’ metacognition in problem solving were addressed, too.

The research objective and research question were stated clearly in this chapter.

In this study, its objective is to explore an excellent student’s metacognitive pattern in

solving science problem. In line of the research objective, this study seeks to answer the

following question: what is the metacognitive pattern of an excellent student in solving

science problem?

In theoretical framework, this chapter cited theories from Flavell (1976), Brown

(1987), and Tobias and Everson (2002) as its cornerstone to explain the concept of

metacognition. Models from combining the three theories were referred as its

superstructure to this study and the Wilson and Clarke’s ideas about metacognition were

used in collecting and coding data. These include metacognitive awareness,

metacognitive evaluation and metacognitive regulation. The significance of how this

study would benefit the empirical and practical field was demonstrated. Lastly, the scope,

23

limitations, and definition of terms in this study were elaborated at the end of this

chapter.