Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.

Permission is given for

a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and
private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without
the permission of the Author.
 LEARNING STRATEGIES

IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

A THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF PhD IN

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

AT MASSEY UNIVERSITY

GLENDA Joy ANTHONY

1994
 Abstract

Interest in learning strategies is particularly relevant to current curriculum reforms in

mathematics education. The body of literature concerning the constructivist perspective

of learning characterises the learner as being cognitively, metacognitively and affectively

active in the learning process. The learner must appropriately control his or her learning

processes by selecting and organising relevant information and building connections from

existing knowledge.

In order to assist students in becoming more active, and self-regulated, it is timely that

we learnt more about learning strategies, and their relation to knowledge construction

and effective performance. This ethnographic study examines sixth form students' use

and awareness of learning strategies. Data was obtained from observations,

questionnaires, and stimulated recall interviews. Case studies of four students provided

descriptive learning profiles of strategic behaviours in context.

Learning strategies are classified according to cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and

resource management goals. Examples of students' specific use of learning strategies

indicates that a wide range of strategies are employed. However, the use of learning

strategies per se is not inherently indicative of purposive, intentional learning behaviour.

There is a strong indication that the appropriaten�ss and effectiveness of strategies relate

to the learning goal and the task demands.

Learning behaviours that contribute to successful learning include rehearsal, elaboration,

organisation, planning, monitoring and, self-evaluation. In addition, more successful

students modify their learning tasks, know when it is appropriate to seek help, and are

able to adapt their physical and social learning environment to optirnise their learning

opportunities.

11
Contributing factors of low achievement include: lack of relevant prior knowledge; lack

of orientation towards mastery learning and an associated confusion about task goals;

and inappropriate use of learning strategies related to monitoring understanding. Less

successful students provide infrequent reports of metacognitive behaviours to control

learning and employ ineffective use of help seeking and resources.

The study provides ample evidence of passive learning behaviours. Students sample

selectively from the flow of instructional stimuli according to their needs and interests,

but seldom take action to adapt the lesson to their individual requirements. Specific

instructional factors which appear to contribute toward passive learning behaviours are

highlighted in this study.

The present study provides evidence to support the proposed Interactive Model of
Learning Mathematics. The influence of presage and product factors on strategic

learning behaviours is clearly demonstrated in reports of the students' clas sroom and

home learning environments.

Success of new curriculum developments in mathematics is critically linked to creating a

suitable learning environment. To promote higher-order thinking in the mathematics class

we may require a less instrumental approach - one that transfers some of �he burden for

teaching and learning from the teacher to the student, creating greater student autonomy

and independence in the learning process.

111
 Acknowledgments

I wish to express my appreciation for the guidance and support provided by Associate

Professor Gordon Knight and Dr Alison St George. Their ongoing support,

encouragement, and helpful suggestions have been a great motivation to complete this

research.

I acknowledge with gratitude the teacher who so willingly agreed for the research to

take place in her mathematics classroom. My ongoing presence in her class, the video­

taping of lessons, and withdrawing of students from study periods were cheerfully

integrated into the classroom routine.

Grateful thanks are due to all the students who took the time to complete questionnaires

and discuss their learning behaviours. They graciously accepted my intrusion into their

classroom lives and openly shared their learning experiences - thank you all very much.

I wish to acknowledge and thank Nick Broornfield for his expertise m the video

productions and his patience in adapting to the wet lunch-hour timetables!

I would also like to express my appreciation to colleagues Mary, Gillian and Jo - their

support, interest and encouragement along the way helped smooth over the 'rough

patches'.

Lastly, but not least - my family can now breath a sigh of relief - thanks very much for

your love and understanding.

lV
 Contents

Acknowledgments ........................................................................... (iv)

Table of Contents ............................................................................. (v)

List of Figures and Tables .. ... .. ............. . ......... ................... .. .

. . . . . . . .. . . (iix)

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Backgroun d ........................ ............. . . . . ........ . ............. . . ..

. ... ............... 1
1 .2 Learning Strategies ..... . ..................................... ................. . .............. 3
1 .3 The Specific Problem ........... ............................................. ............... 6
1 .4 The Research Objective ...................................... ................... .... ........ 8

1 .5 Summary .......................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2 Towards a Model of Learning Mathematics 11

:I
2. 1 Introduction . . . .... . .......... ..................................... .
............................. 11
2.2 Domain Knowledge versus Strategic Knowledge ..... . ..... . ..... ....... . ..... 12
2.3 Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics. .. . .... ...
...... .......... .
........ ..23
-

2.4 Summary ...... . ........ ..

...... ........ . .
.. .... . . ... . . ....... .. . . .............................. .. . 33

Chapter 3 Learning Strategies in Mathematics 35

3.1 Introduction. . . .
.. ...... .. .... .... . ... ... . .. .. .....
... .. . ....... ....... . . .. . . . .. .
... . .... .... . . . 35

3.2 The Nature of Learning Strategies . .. .... . .

... ....... . ..... . ...... . ..... ...... ....... 36
3.3 The Classification of Learning Strategies ...... .. ..... ... ...... .. . ............ ... .40 .

3.4 Learning Strategy Research in Mathematics Education .. .................. .48

3.5 Factors Affecting Strategic Learning .. .... ........ ... ...... .... . . . . .. ... . . .. . . ..5 9
....

3.6 Summary . . . ......... .. ...

. .... . . . . . . .. ......... . ... . .-...........................7 1
... ... .. .. . ... . . .
Chapter 4 The Present Position 73

4. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.2 The Present Focus o f Learning strategies i n Mathematics Education.74

4.3 Active Learning and Constructivism ....... .. ..

. ........... . ......... . ... ..
. .... . ..... 80

4.4 The Classroom Settin g .......... . ... . .... ................ ......................... . ... . . . 85
.. .

4.5 The Research Obj ectives .................................... . ... . .

... .................... . 88.

4.6 Summary .......................................................................................... 89

Chapter 5 Research Method 90

5. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5.2 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.3 The Research Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.4 Data Collection Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.5 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 04

5.6 Validity oflnterpretations ................... . ..... .. . .

. .. .. ..... . .. . ..
. . .. ... ... ....... . 1 08

Chapter 6 Learning Strategies: Classification and Distribution

6. 1 Classification of Learning S trategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0

6.2 Discussion of the Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5

6.3 Quantitative Analysis of S trategy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 20

6.4 LAS SI-HS Questionn aire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 24

6.5 Summary . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27

Chapter 7 The Role of Learning Strategies 128

7.1 Cognitive S trategies . . . . . .. .. . ... . .

. ............... . ....... .. . .. . . .
. . ... .. .. .... .. . .. . . 1 28
. . . ...

7 .2 Metacognitive Behaviour . .. . . . ..... . . .. . . . . . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . 1 4 0

. . .. . . ... . .. .. .

7.3 Affective S trategies . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . .... . .. ... ..... . ...

. ... . ...
.. ..... . . .
.. ... .... . . l54
... .

7.4 Resource Management S trategies . . . . .. . .. .......... . ... . . . ..

.. .. ................ . . l56
. ..

7.5 Summary . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 64
Chapter 8 Case Studies 166

8.1 Introduction .............................. . .................... . ....... ... ... . .

. ..... .
........... 1 66
8.2 Case Study 1 : Gareth . ... .. . .......................................................... . ..... 1 68
8.3 Case Study 2 Karen ........... . . ...... ............................................ . . . . . .... 1 80
8 .4 Case Study 3 J ane . . ............. . . . . ..... ............................................. . . . . . 191
.

8.5 Case Study 4 Adam ......................... .................... ..................... ....... 204

8.6 Passive versus Active Leaming .......................... . ..................... . ....... . . 218

Chapter 9 Factors Affecting Learning Strategy Use 223

9. 1 Person Factors . .. ...... ............ .............................................................. 223

9.2 Instructional Factors . . .................. ..................................... . .............. . 23 1
.

9.3 Contextual Factors .... .

........................ . .............................................. 246
9.4 Summary ................... ........................................................................ 258

Chapter 10 Conclusions 260

1 0. 1 What Learning Strategies are Important i n Mathematics? ............. . .... 260

1 0. 2 When Students Fail to Use Learning Strategies ................................. 267
1 0.3 Methodological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
1 0.4 Implications for Classroom Instruction .... ... ....................................... 276
1 0.5 Additional Research .................... . ..................................................... 278
1 0.6 Summary: Major Outcomes . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ........ ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Appendices 283

A. 1 Student Information Letter. ........................................ . ..................... 283

A.2 Student Consent Form . . .......... .
.................. . ....... . .
... .......... .. .
. ... . ........ 284
A.3 Questionnaires . . .. .... . .. ..
. . .. . . .. . .... :. . . ... . . .. . . .. . . ................................ ..... . . 285
A.4 Homework Diary . . .. .. .......... . . ..
. .. .......... .. . ....... . .... .. ............................ 286
A.5 Orientation Survey ................................................ ... .. ..... .. .... .
. ... . . . .... 287
A.6 Learning Behaviours :Jane... . .. ................. . ........ . .. ..
.. . . . ...... . . .
... .. ........ 288
A.7 Seatwork B ehaviours: Karen .............. .. . ... .... .. . . .
.. ... .. ........................ 292
A.8 Homework Behaviours: Adam .................... . . ... . . . .
.. . . .. .. ... ......... . ........ 294
A.9 Test Revision Behaviours: Gareth ..... . . ..
. ........................ . .......... .. . . 296
.. . .

Bibliography 297
 List of Figures

Figure 1 A Model of Cognitive Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ....... . . ..... 29

Figure 2 Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3 Framework Episodes Classified by Predominate Cognitive Level. . .. . .41

Figure 4 Distribution of Students ' Scores from LASSI-HS Questionnaire . . . . . . l25

Figure 5 Metacognitive Knowledge (Karen) ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .......... l52

Figure 6 Strategic learning B ehaviours ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . ....... . . . . . . . . ......... 266

List of Tables

Table 1 Student Participants i n the Study . . .. . . .. . . . . . ...... . . .. . . ..... .. . . . . ........ . . . . ....... 95

Table 2 Triangulation of Time and Data Source (Gareth) . . ..... .... . . ...... . . . . . . . 107
...

Table 3 Percentage Frequency of Reported Strategy Use . . . .. . . . . . . ........ . ........ . 120

.

Table 4 Karen' s Reported Strategy Range from a S i ngle Lesson . . . ................ 123
.
Table 5 Affective Responses . ............................ . ....... . .. . . . .. . . . ....... ............ . .. . . . 1 54

Table 6 Frequency of Reported Learni ng Strategies ......... . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . ......... 167

 Chapter 1

Introduction

We know less about the ways learners approach their individual acts of learning
than we do about how we, as teachers, would like them to approach learning.
(Galloway & Labarca, 1 990: 1 27)

1.1 B ackground

For many years learning was viewed as something that happened to the individual: a

process of absorbing knowledge transmitted by the teacher. In the recent past, when the

accepted learning theory was a behaviourist one, emphasis in the mathematics classroom

was placed more on the teacher 'covering' a well-defined set of content topics than on

the processes needed to ensure that students learnt the presented material. Recent

researchers agree that "it is crystal clear that the former does not guarantee the latter"

(Shuell, 1 98 8 : 276).

Increasingly, classroom research (Marland & ,Edwards, 1 986; Marx & Walsh, 1 98 8 ;

Peterson, S wing, Stark, & Waas, 1 984 ; Winne & Marx, 1 982), focusing on the

mediating role of the learner, has acknowledged that the student plays a crucial role in

determin i ng what and how much is learnt. The use of learning strategies has emerged

as a critical variable in the learning process (Nolen, 1 988; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg,

1 993). Learning strategies are behaviours and thoughts affecting the learners' motivation

or affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires, organises and

integrates new knowledge (Weinstein & Mayer, 1 986).

1
Three predominant factors signify the importance of learning strategy research in

mathematics education. Firstly, given the present drive for educational excellence and the

consequent targeting of high-level learning, thinking and problem-solving skills in the

Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1 992), there is a

desire to identify learning strategies in order to help students acquire the required

knowledge and skills. Specific learning strategies are seen as one way to Improve

learning outcomes. "Strategies to enhance vocabulary learning, readi ng, comprehension,

and mathematical problem solving have potential for directly improving students '

achievement in reading and mathematics" (Peterson & Swing, 1 983:283).

Secondly, in an ever increasing technological society, in which one may be expected to

have many j obs in a life time and constantly adapt to an increasing knowledge base,

educationalists are looking for learning environments that foster the development of life­

long learning skills. In view of the explosion of mathematical knowledge, and its

importance for future education and employment, competence in the flexible handling of

this knowledge is essential.

In an increasingly technological age, the need for innovation, and problem­

solving and decision-making skills, has been stressed in many reports on the
necessary outcomes for education in New Zealand. Mathematics education
provides the opportunity for students to develop these skills, and encourages them
to become innovative and flexible problem solvers. (Ministry of Education,
1 992:7)

Thirdly, from a constructivist learning perspective, learners are seen as responsible for

attending to instruction and engaging in strategic learning behaviours. What learners do

to select, organise and relate new i nformation to what they already know is an important

determinant of whether the information will be learned and remembered (Weinstein &

Mayer, 1 986).

2
· Learning strategy research in varied domains, such as reading (Palincsar & B rown,

1984), mathematical problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1 985) and languages (White, 1 993)

has shown that the ability to select and use appropriate learning strategies and the ability

to monitor and control the learning process are characteristics of successful students. In

contrast, less able students have been characterised as either not having effective

strategies in their repertoire, or not employing them at appropriate times.

A key question in the study of strategic learning is what aspects of strategic behaviour

are most relevant for academic work, and how can these be taught to students who

might benefit from them? (Ames & Archer, 1 98 8 ; Corno, 1 98 9 ; Wang et al., 1 993). The

present research study focuses on mathematics students' use and awareness of learning

strategies i n the classroom environment. Additionally, an examination of contextual

factors affecting strategy development and deployment will go some way to providing

answers to these concerns.

Before outlining the more specific problem to be addressed by this study the central

concept of ' learning strategy' and terms associated with the classification of strategic
I
learning behaviours related to mathematics learning are briefly introduced. I

I
I

1.2 Learning S trategies

I

The term strategy was originally a military term that referred to procedures for

implementing the plan of a large-scale military operation . The more specific steps in

implementation of the plan were called tactics. It has since been applied to non­

adversarial situations where it h as come to refer to "the implementation of a set of

procedures (tactics) for accomplishing something" (Schmeck, 1 98 8 :5). The logical

consequence of this definition is that learning strategies are a sequence of procedures for

accomplishing learning.

3
Researchers have referred to learning strategies in a variety of ways: "thinking skills"

(Swing, S toiber, & Peterson, 1 98 8 ) ; "strategic behaviour" (B achor, 1 99 1 ); "higher-order

thinking processes" (Res nick, 1 987); "self-regulated behaviour" (Pressley, B orkowski, &

S chneider, 1 987); cognitive and metacognitive skills (Coll ins, B rown, & Newman,

1 989); "learning skills" (Levin, 1 986); "learning tactics" (Derry, 1 990b) ; "cognitive

processes" (Peterson et al., 1 984 ) ; "metastrategies" Dansereau ( 1 98 5 ) ; and "mediating

processes" (Marland, Patching, & Putt, 1 992a). With such an array of terms it is not

surprising that a precise definition of learning strategies is l acking. "The concept of

learning strategies appears to be fuzzy, not unlike metacognition" (Mc Keachie, Pintrich,

& Lin 1 98 5 : 1 5 3). B rown, B ransford, Ferrara, and Campione ( 1 98 3 : 85) comment "some

systematic activities that learners use are referred to as strategies, although what is

strategic and what is not has not been made particularly clear i n the literature".

Some researchers limit the concept of learning strategies to "mental processmg

techniques" (Derry & Murphy, 1 986). However, it is clear that most researchers now

include learning behaviours that are u sed to control and regulate the learning process

(Galloway & Labarca, 1 990). Weinstein and Mayer ( 1 98 6 ) provide a more broad

definition of learning strategies to include cognitions or behaviours that the learner

engages in during learning, that are intended to influence the encoding process, and

facilitate acquisition and retrieval of new knowledge.

Learning strategies can be categorised according to their specific goal: Cognitive

strategies, such as elaboration or rehearsal, are related to individual learning tasks ,

operating directly on incoming information, manipulating it i n ways to make cognitive

progress (O'Malley & Chamot, 1 990). Metacognitive strategies, such as planning and

evaluation, are invoked to control and monitor the learning process. Affective

strategies, such as self-talk are employed to enhance one's concentration. Resource

management strategies (Pokay & B lu menfeld, 1 990), such as help seeking or modifying

the task, are employed to operate on the learning environment so as to indirectly enhance

learning performance.

4
Detailed taxonomies of learning strategies m domains of reading (Lorch, Lorch, &

K.lusewitz, 1 993) and foreign language learning (White, 1993 ) have been proposed, as

well as more general learning strategies i nventories (Weinstein & Mayer, 1 98 6 ;

Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1 986), but n o specific taxonomies o f learning strategies

for mathematics learning are widely available.

Pressley ' s ( 1 986: 1 40) description of strategy as a "broad term and, in fact, almost

synonymous with the term 'procedural knowledge' " in which "mathematical algorithms

and problem-solving routines qualify as strategies" alludes to a need to clarify the

distinction between learning and problem-solving strategies in mathematics education.

Problem-solving strategies such as reflection, monitoring understandi ng, and evaluating

processes affect problem-solving performance (Schoenfeld, 1 985; Garofalo & Lester,

1 98 5 ) . Thus the use of these strategies affects the learning performance and are pertinent

to thi s study. But, whether a student employs a specific algorithmic strategy , such as

using the quadratic formula, or factorising when solving a quadratic problem, will not be

a focus in this study. The following example clarifies the distinction between research on

teaching, problem solving, learning and learning strategies:

Suppose the mathematics task is to find 15% of 200. Research on teaching will
focus on the use of exposition, concrete materials, and group discussion; the
emphasis is on activities organised and managed by the teacher. Studies on
problem solving may identify the strategies used by students to solve this task; for
example, direct multiplication, or finding 10% of 200 and than adding its half
-

Research on learning may examine the misconceptions students hold about

percentages. In contrast to these studies, research on strategy will consider what
students do with regards to the teaching approach, how they develop the problem
solving strategies that have been identified, and what cognitive and metacognitive
processes they engage in to develop an understanding of percentages. For
example, a common strategy to monitor one's understanding is to ask oneself
questions such as 'Do I understand this?' (Wong & Herrington, 1 992: 129)

5
The spontaneous employment of learning strategies is not at all automatic, but rather

intentional , deliberate and goal directed (Gamer, 1 990a, 1990b ). Many contextual and

learner factors affect the u se and effectiveness of learning strategies in the classroom and

homework situation. The nature of these factors and the role of learning strategies in

mathematics learning will be discussed fully in the literature review (Chapters 2 and 3).

1.3 The Specific Problem

The foll owing statements from recent curriculum documents all reflect the importance

given to the development of effective learning strategies for students:

• "Learning how to learn is an essential outcome of school programs." (The

Curriculum Review, Department of Education, 1 987 : 1 0);

• "The curriculum should enable students to take increasing responsibility for their

learning. With their teachers they should be involved in setting goals, planning their

activities, organising their studies to gain skills and understanding, and evaluating

their p rogress." (Draft National Curriculum Statement, Department of Education,

1 98 8 :7); and

• "We need a learning environment which enables students to attain high standards and

develop appropriate personal qualities. As we move towards the twenty-first century,

with all the rapid technological change which is taking place, we need a work-force

which is increasingly highly skilled and adaptable." (The New Zealand Curriculum

Framework, Ministry of Education, 1993: 1).

More specifically, Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education,

1 992) acknowledges the importance of complex learning strategies such as planning,

monitoring, checking and reflection. In reference to the mathematics curriculum,

Nightingale (Ministry of Education, 1994: 2) states that changes are necessary in

6
approaches to thinking by teachers and students - "thinking that involves self-regulation

of the thinking process". Collins et al. ( 1 989: 460) go so far as to propose that cognitive

and metacognitive strategies are particularly important in mathematics: mathematics

unlike school subjects such as chemistry or history "rests on relatively sparse conceptual

and factual underpinnings, turning instead on students' robust and efficient execution of

a set of cognitive and metacognitive skills".

The present problem is that students ' knowledge about these strategies rs rarely

considered as an integral curriculum component of school programs, in instructional

planning, or in the monitoring and assessment of student learning progress (Wang &

Peverly, 1986). If one were to ask a student who is having difficulty in the classroom,

what he or she does to learn mathematics, one might hear the response: "I study ."

Likewise if one asked the student what could be done to improve his or her performance

the reply might be: "Study more." A plausible assertion is that many mathematics

students have not developed the ability to identify and use appropriate learning

strategies. Too little attention in the mathematics classroom i s given to the ' how to learn'

- it i s not enough to repeat the same explanation or to offer a different representation of

the concept; teachers and learners need to be more aware of the learning strategies

involved in learning mathematics if effective life-long learning is the goal . The active role

of the student signifies that a significant improvement in student learning depends "on a

fundamental shift from teacher to student in responsibility for, and control of learning"

(Baird, 1 986:263) .

Of further concern is the fact that the demand for autonomous learning behaviours i s o f

increasing importance a s students progress through the academic system. B y the time

students reach tertiary level "students are increasingly called upon to shoulder

responsibility for their own learning and for the management of learning related

resources" (Thomas & Rohwer, 1987:382). The u se of metacognitive strategies,

enabling one to control and monitor the learning process, is seen to be an important

indicator of learning success at tertiary level (Anthony, 199 1). Even at elementary

school, data from studies indicate that American students spend approximately 65-75%

of their time in independent seatwork (Wang & Peverly, 1 986).

7
Although analysis and description of the role of the student i n the learning process have

been the focus of recent research, much of the current information comes from

laboratory related experimental studies. Despite research on learning strategies in many

domains there is a lack of corresponding classroom research (Marland & Edwards, 1 986)

and in particular mathematics classroom research (Briars, 1 98 3 ; Wong & Herrington,

1 992).

1. 4 The Research Objective

To make a real difference in students' alibility to learn and foster self-regulated

autonomous learning we need to further our understand ing of learning processes

engaged in actual classrooms. Teachers and researchers have all observed that students

approach mathematics learning in different ways. For example students' behaviours vary

in such things as questions asking, on-task behaviour, homework completion and setting

out work. These overt learning behaviours are easily observed, but little is known of the

covert learning strategies students employ, such as comprehension of teacher

explanations, self-testing for understanding, evaluation of performance and recognising

the need to revise. Pressley, Woloshyn, Lysynchuk, Martin, Wood, & Willoughby ( 1 990)

recommend that researchers first determine what strategies students use in classroom

environments before implementing various strategy instruction programmes. They argue

that the teaching of strategies can be improved o nly if it is known what students do, and

fail to do, in the absence of instruction. Kardash and Amlund ( 1 99 1 ) support this notion,

suggesting that spontaneous strategy use is especially important at the secondary school

level because of research evidence suggesting that students adopt preferred strategies

(often i neffective) which lessen the likelihood that they will be amenable to strategy

training. A first step is to determine what strategies learners use on their own, how these

strategies relate to one another, and which strategies are related to enhanced learning

outcomes.

8
Thus the principal objective of the present research study is to examine students' use of

learning strategies in an authentic learning situation. The study will provi de a description

of 6th form mathematics students' u se and awareness of learning strategies both during

classroom learning and learning at home. Furthermore, because learning strategies are

not applied in a vacuum, but are influence by a multitude of contextual variables such as

students' prior knowledge, availability of resources, demands of the task, and the

classroom instructional context, analysis of students' use of learning strategies will

provide evidence of factors affecting strategy use.

As will be discussed fu rther in the literature review, the outcome of learning depends on

the learning behaviour that the student engage in. In turn, learning strategies that

students engage in depend on the context in which a learning activity takes place

(Thomas & Rohwer, 1993). A secondary objective of the research is to examine

students' reported or observed learning strategies in relation to learning outcomes .

Documenting students' use of learning strategies i n the natural classroom setting may

provide a possible explanation as to student differences in products of learning given the

same educational instruction.

9
1 .5 Summary

By adopting a constructivist perspective of learning, one accepts that the knowledge and

skills that students bring to the learning situation, and the cognitive activities that they

pursue, are the major determinants of their learning outcome. There is a growing interest

in defining the learni ng process, and encouraging students to take charge of their own

learning. What the student does is more important than what the teacher does in

determining the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process . An important factor of

what the student does is the employment of learning strategies (Shuell, 1 988).

"A maj or direction in current cognitive research is to attempt to formulate explicitly the

strategies and skills underlyi ng expert practice, to make them a legitimate focu s of

teaching in schools and other learning environments" (Collins et al., 1 989: 480) . To

increase our understanding of the learning process in mathematics it is essential that we

have qualitative information of students' employment of learning strategies in authentic

learning environments. Through our understanding of the variation of students'

approaches to learning in the mathematics classroom, instructional intervention can be

designed to directly address and adapt to learners' existing strategic knowledge.

Moreover, knowledge of students' learning processes will put us in a more favourable

position to interpret a student's failure. Such research will hold particular relevance for

increasing the effectiveness of schools in providing improved chances for students with

poor academic prognosis (Le inhardt & Putnam, 1 987).

The following literature review (Chapters 2 and 3) situates the current research study in

terms of existing strategy research. Chapter 2 establishes the importance of strategic

knowledge and behaviours in the constructivist learning paradigm. An Interactive Model

of Learning Mathematics i s proposed as the basis for examining learning strategies i n the

classroom context. C hapter 3 examines the nature of learning strategies as they relate to

mathematics learning. A review of research in mathematics education relating to strategy

u se and instruction provides further support for the interactive nature of learning

mathematics.

10
 Chapter 2

Towards a Model of Learning Mathematics

Leaming is an active, constructive, cumulative, goal-oriented process (See Shuell,

1 986). It is active in that a student must do certain things while processing
incoming information in order to leam the material in a meaningful manner. It is
constructive in that the new information must be elaborated and related to other
infomwtion it order for the student to retain simple information and understand
complex material. It is cumulative in that all new leaming builds upon and/or
utilizes the learner's prior knowledge in ways that determine what and how much
is leamed. It is goal oriented in that leaming is most likely to be successful if the
leamer is aware of the goal (at least in the general sense) towards which he or
she is working ...
(Shuel l , 1 98 8 : 277-8)

2.1 Introduction

Over the course of this century, the view of learning has changed in ways that have

affected educational practice and research. In particular, changing views of the role of

' domain knowledge' and ' strategic knowledge' and the role of the learner in the

construction of knowledge have greatly influenced research on learning strategies.

The early behaviourist views of the learner as a passive being, whose repertoire of

behaviours is determined by rewards and punishment, focused research on learning

outcomes more than processes. Cognitive theories of learning in the 1 950s and 1 960s

emphasised learning as knowledge acqui sition. Information-processing models of the

1 970s and 1 980s recognised learning as a constructive process; that is, learning involves

selecting relevant informatio n and interpreting it through one ' s existing knowledge.

11
In a recent landmark review of variables affecting school learning Wang et al. ( 1 993:

266) proposed that "one of the most significant educational findings of the last decade

has been the documentation of metacognitive processes that serve to guide students

through tasks".

Thi s chapter discusses the importance of these changing perspectives on learning and

learning strategies. In line with current constructivist views of mathematics learning the

role of learni ng strategies, and in particular metacognitive behaviour, is i ncorporated into

an Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics.

2.2 Domain Knowledge versus Strategic Knowledge

Educationalists and psychologists have long asked the question, 'which kind of

knowledge counts most - general strategic knowledge or specific knowledge about a

domain?' Collins et al . ( 1 989: 477) describe strategi c knowledge as:

the usually tacit knowledge that underlies an expert's ability to make use of
concepts, facts, and procedures as necessary to solve problems and carry out
tasks. This kind of expert problem-solving knowledge involves problem-solving
strategies and heuristics, and the strategies that control the problem-solving
process at its various levels of decomposition. Another type of strategic
knowledge, often overlooked, includes the learning strategies that experts have
about how to acquire new concepts, facts, and procedures in their own or another
field.

In contrast, domain knowledge is the conceptual and factual knowledge and procedures

explicitly identified with a particular subject matter; these are generally elucidated in

school textbooks, class discussions, and teacher explanations.

12
Strategic knowledge position

In answer to the question of which kind of knowledge is the most important, the oldest

theory of expertise and intell igence maintained that a student builds up his or her intellect

by m astering formal disciplines. The study of subjects likes mathematics, logic and Greek

was intended to train the mind's forms as opposed to training to i mpart knowledge. It

was assumed that "these subjects build minds as barbells build muscles" (Bruer, 1 993 :

52). Early cognitive research assumed that general skills and reasoning abilities were at

the heart of skilled performance: "True ability resided in the general strategies, with the

database an incidental necessity" (Perkins & Salomon, 198 9 : 1 7). As a co " n sequence of

these assumptions learning research focused on abilities such as memorisation and

problem solving, using tasks upon which the possible effects of pre-existing knowledge

had been carefully control led. Support for the 'general strategies ' perspective came from

Polya's ( 1 957) analysis of mathematical problem solving. Polya argued that problem­

solving success depended on students having knowledge of a repertoi re of heuristics,

such as breaking a problem into sub-problems, solving a simpler problem, usmg a

diagram or examining a special case.

In the 1 950s and 1 960s initial success in Artificial Intelligence research added further

support to the strategic knowledge position . Artificial Intelligence programs

demonstrated the ability to solve simple puzzles and logic problems using such strategies

as ' means-ends analysis' and 'hill-climbing ' . It was argued that Artificial Intelligence

showed that successful performance depended upo� a repertoire of heuristic knowledge

and general mental strategies. Domain knowfedge, although acknow ledged, was not

accorded a central position in the role of expertise.

Domain-based knowledge position

However, by the mid 1 970s gathering evidence from cognitive research suggested that

general domain independent skills could not adequately account for expertise. Firstly,

support for the demise of the 'general strategies' position came from investigations of

expertise in domains such as chess, mathematical problem solving, and physics. Evidence

13
from Chi and B assok ( 1 989) revealed that experts possessed a large knowledge base of

domain-specific patterns that are organised differently to novices. Experts are likely to

organise their knowledge on the basis of concepts, principles and abstractions that reflect

a deep understanding of the domain. This enables rapid recognition of situations where

these patterns apply and reasoning then moves from such recogn ition directly to a

solution.

In contrast "novices tended not to see the relevant patterns, because they did not know

them or lacked rapid recognition-like access to them" (Perkins & Salomon, 1 98 9 : 1 8) .

Novices often based their reasoning on superficial problem content such a s literal objects,

and relationships explicitly mentioned in the problem. Problem solution involved

focussing first on the unknown and seeking equations or rules that bridged back from the

unknown towards the givens (means-ends). Perkins & Salomon ( 1 989: 1 8) noted:

the broad heuristic structure of expert as contrasted to novice problem solving -

the reasoning forward rather than the reasoning backward- seemed attributed not
to any heuristic sophistication on the part of experts, but to the driving influence
of the experts' rich database.

This concurs with Glaser's ( 1 984:99) earlier interpretation that the problem-solving

difficulty of novices "can be attributed largely to the inadequacies of their knowledge

bases and not to limitations in their processing capabilities such as the inability to use

problem-solving heuristics".

Secondly, it was argued that weak-general strategies account for little of the variance in

learning performance and are in fact a derivative of domain knowledge. Chi ( 1 987), a

leading exponent of the 'knowledge position', argued that strategic knowledge, such as

the ability to accurately monitor one's understanding, judge the difficulty of problems

and checking procedures, are a derivative of domain knowledge:

14
 ... younger children's inability to accurately monitor their current state of
knowledge (such as preparedness for recall), as well as their inadequate
allocation of attention, is attributed to an inadequacy in part of their domain
knowledge related to the stimulus items, rather than strictly undeveloped
monitoring processes. (Chi, 1 987: 260)

Chi contends that checking in mathematics is total ly an outcome of the presence of the

relevant domain knowledge in memory and not a meta-strategy that some individuals

have and some do not. Thus it is conjectured that the reason that children may not check

their solutions as readily as adults, reflects not so much deficits in their control or

monitoring process, but rather, the l ack of a relevant schema in the declarative

knowledge base to tell them that the answer was inappropriate.

Further research with Artificial Intelligence found that there were difficulties designing

generic programs to deal with complex problem solving in information rich domains such

as mathematics and physics.

When new to a domain, all a computer or human could do was deploy weak
methods that turned out weak results. Real power in problem solving emerged
over time, as application of weak methods created the opportunity to learn and
store up the ramifications of particular moves in the domain and build the rich
database. This database would become the real power behind good problem
solving, leaving the weak methods behind. (Perkins & Salomon, 1 989: 1 8- 1 9)

As a consequence, researchers successfully turned their atte ntion from programming a

system with powerful· search heuristics to programming a system to possess a large

quantity of organised knowledge.

Further support for the 'knowledge position' came from research in mathematical

problem solv i ng. Schoenfeld ( 1 985, 1 987) found that attempts to teach Polya's heuristics

as an isolated unit met with little success. Students u nderstood the heuristics in broad

terms but didn't seem to understand the mathematics well enough to apply them in the

complex and context sensitive ways required. Domain knowledge, more than general

problem-solving heuristics, appeared to be the major stumbling block to successful

15
performance. Moreover, evidence from Owen and Sweller ( 1985) found that

encouraging lOth grade students to use goal-orientated problem-solving strategies

(means-ends) during work on trigonometry problems retarded schemata acquisition.

They suggested that these findings were possibly because the studen ts were investing

more effort to solving the problems than to becoming familiar with the underlying

schemata.

Using stimulated recall , Peterson, Swi ng, Braverman, and Buss ( 1982) obtained data on

5th and 6th grade students ' self-generated mental strategies during mathematics lessons.

S tudents' achievement scores were found to correlate positively with their use of task­

specific mental strategies, but negatively with the frequency of general, global strategies.

A pattern was noted in which the high-ability students used specific strategies but low­

abi lity students tended to report the use of weak-global strategies.

Thus while it was agreed that generalised thinking and problem-solving skills are of value

where existing knowledge is minimal, the skilful problem solver within a given domain

rapidly moves away from applying generalised mental strategies to develop domain

specific pattern-recognition skills. "These critical encoding skills enable stored

knowledge to be brought to bear on new problems to enable quality solutions to be

reached" (Yates & Chandler, 199 1: 139) .

Thirdly, according t o the 'general strategies ' theories, much o f the knowledge acquired

in a particular domain is inherently general and s�ould lead to transfer to other areas. It

w as assumed that the study of mathematics would improve one's ability to reason and to

solve problems confronted i n the real world. Grube ( 1974: 18) claims for Plato that

"those who are by nature good at calculation are, as one might say, naturally sharp in

every other study, and ... those who are slow at it, if they are educated and exercised in

this study, nevertheless improve and become sharper than they were". B u t increasingly

so, research has shown that training in mathematics has no measurable influence on other

cognitive functions (Stanic and Kilpatrick, 1989). Overall, research on transfer suggests

the same conclusions as the arguments from expertise and weak methods:

16
 Thinking at its most effective depends on specific, context-bound skills and units
of knowledge that have little application to other domains. To the extent that
transfer does take place, it is highly specific and must be cued, primed, and
guided; it seldom occurs spontaneously. The case for generalizable, context­
independent skills and strategies that can be trained in one context and
transferred to other domains has proven to be more a matter of wishful thinking
than hard empirical evidence. (Perkins & Salomon, 1 98 9 : 1 9)

These collective research findings on the pervasive influence of domain based knowledge

convinced many to take the view that it is knowledge, not strategies, that is the central

issue in the development of competence (Chi, 1 987; Glaser, 1 984) . Emphasis in research

and i nstructional development was now directed at the representation of knowledge.

Questions about the knowledge base changed from a consideration of the accumulation

of facts and their reinforcement, to consideration of the organisation and coherence of

information along with the compatibility of new information to prior experience (B rown

et al., 1 98 3 ) .

In mathematics, this focus was reflected i n research o n schemata for solving addition and

subtraction word problems and in the argument that successful problem solving involves

being fluent with a repertoire of representation systems (Putnam, Lampert, & Peterson,

1 990). B lais ( 1 988) discussed the implication of experts being able to recognise the

"essence" as support for the hypothesis that experts construct different mental

representations of problems than do novices. For example, experts perceived the essence

of 217 + 317 as roughly two things plus three things, which are five things. In contrast,

novices p referred to u se n ineteen dots. Similarly, Silver ( 1 979) found that those who

were unsuccessful at solving mathematical word problems were more likely to rely on

surface features when categorising word problems than those who were successful.

17
Synthesis Position

While sti l l acknowledging the centrality of the knowledge base, some theorists advocated

a shift to a "two factor" (Peverly, 1 99 1 ) , or a "synthesis" (Perk ins & S alomon, 1 989;

Prawat, 1 989) knowledge and strategies theory. Support for the synthesis position came

from many researchers (Alexander, 1 992; Alexander and Judy, 1 988 ; Pressley et al. ,

1 987; Resnick, 1 987; Schoenfeld, 1 98 5 ; Sternberg, 1 985 ; Yates & Chandler, 1 99 1 ) .

Intuitively, it would seem that the effective and efficient learning in the classroom
is dependent upon the continual orchestration of one 's content and strategy
knowledge. We might hypothesize, for example, that competent learners weigh
their content knowledge against the demands of the task and then bring the
appropriate form of strategic knowledge to bear on the task. As the learners '
knowledge of the content relative to the task increases, then it is likely that the
need for strategic behaviour decreases. (Alexander & Judy, 1 989: 375)

It was argued that "much of the research used to support the knowledge-based position

is methodologicall y problematic" (Peverly, 1 99 1 :74 ). Most of the research on expertise

had examined experts addressing standard single-level tasks in a domain . These problems

have often been too difficult for the novice who, without a suitable domain knowledge

base, has had to resort to backwards processing. The same problem has been too easy

for the expert, who has retrieved the solution set from schemata and thus not truly solved

a problem. Clements ( 1 982, cited Perkins & Salomon, 1 989) demonstrated that experts

solving atypical physics problems applied general strategies such as analogies, intuitive

mental models, and the construction of a simpler problem. He suggested that a number

of general heuristics , not apparent when experts face typical problems, may play a

prominent role when experts face atypical problems. These general heuristics do not

substitute for domain knowledge, rather they operate in a highly contextualized way,

accessing, and utilising the extensive domain knowledge (Alexander & Judy, 1 988).

These results challenged the picture of expert performance as driven solely by a rich

knowledge base of h ighly context-specific schemata.

18
Moreover, researchers of expert performance "noticed that there were intelligent

novices: people who learned new fields and solved novel problems more expertly than

most, regardless of how much domain-specific knowledge they possessed" (Bruer,

1 993). Intelligent novices controlled and monitored their thought processes and made

use of general domain-independent strategies and skills w here appropriate. Peverly

( 1 99 1 : 7 5) suggested that "strategies i ndependent of the knowledge base (especially

metacognitive strategies) are important to memory and development". S tudents without

a rich repertoire of strategic knowledge upon which to draw are l ikely to accumulate

inert knowledge (Bransford, S herwood, Vye, & Rieser, 1 986; Collins et al., 1 989), that

is, knowledge accessed only in constrained routine contexts.

Cognitive researchers now looked to the role of learning strategies and higher-order

thinking processes in expert performance. Prawat ( 1 989: 22) suggested that "the expert

has available a more general, flexible set of strategies than the novice, whose skills are

much more welded to particular contexts". For example, Gavelek & Raphael ( 1 98 5 )

found that experts are better a t asking and answering questions, i ndependent o f

background knowledge. Thomas & Rohwer ( 1 993) also note that successful students are

distinguished by the extent to which strategies of selective allocation, generative

processing and monitoring are employed.

In mathematics (Garofalo & Lester, 1 985; Lawson & Chinnappan, 1 994; Peterson, 1 98 8 ;

Schoenfeld, 1 987 ; Swing et al. , 1 98 8 ) the research focus shifted t o h igher-order learning

and problem solving. Swing et al. ( 1 98 8) worked with fou rth-grade teachers to enable

them to instruct students in the use of certain problem-solving strategies in mathematics,

including the pictorial representation of problem solving. This intervention was

particularly effective for low-ability students, apparently because they do not

spontaneously engage in processes like this during problem solving. Schoenfeld ( 1 987)

also noted that the use of strategic modes of processing combined with active

manipulation of information, was characteristic of the superior problem-solving

performance of experts.

19
However, the failure of many initial training studies to effect maJor changes in the

intelligent u se of strategies promoted further studies investigating the role of strategic

learning and metacognition in domain-based contexts. For example, Palincsar and

B rown's ( 1 984) reciprocal teaching indicated the effectiveness of strategy training in the

reading context. Similarly, Schoenfeld ( 1 98 5 , 1 987) emphasised that success in

mathematical problem-solving instruction requires teaching heuristics in a contextualized

way, so as to make good contact with students' domain knowledge base. For example, a

counter example i n mathematics requires different criteria to a counter example in a legal

claim; checking a mathematical solution by substitution is different to checking a science

experiment by repetition. As an alternative to teaching the general heuristics suggested

by Polya ( 1 957), Schoenfeld ' s instruction focused on specifying the strategies at a level

of detail that included more of the mathematics knowledge involved. These studies

demonstrated that certain learning strategies improve learning performance, and

advocated the teaching of these strategies as a routine component of content-based

instruction.

Increasingly, research recognised the importance of metacognitive knowledge and beliefs

about the domain of study (examples in mathematics research include: Cardel le-Elawar,

1 992; Garofalo & Lester, 1 98 5 ; Herrington , 1 992; Schoenfeld, 1 985). "If children are to

learn how t o take charge of their own problem solving, it is important to give direct

attention in i nstruction at every level to metacognitive aspects of the learning of

mathematical ideas" (Lester, 1 98 8 : 1 1 9). This aspect of students' metacognitive

behaviours will be further discussed in section 2.3 and Chapter 3 .

I n further support of the "synthesis" position Borkowski, Schneider, and Pressley ( 1 989)

and Peverly ( 1 99 1 ) argued that domain-specific knowledge and strategies, and domain­

general knowledge and strategies, interact to produce competent problem-solving

performance. For example, the possession and activation of relevant prior knowledge

enables a learner to encode new experiences with a high level of efficiency. This is

immediately apparent w ith respect to chunking, elaboration, and monitoring strategies.

20
But, on the more subtle level, prior knowledge and familiarity allow a learner to free up

necessary resources for the selection, execution, and coordination of strategic

processing. Additionally, in the classroom context, prior knowledge may serve to render

a student less dependent for success upon available instruction, and more able to cope

with independent learning.

Knowledge can also directly prompt a learner to become strategic in an almost automatic

or stimulus-driven manner. For example, much of early education in language, reading,

and mathematics is aimed at making the child's mental operations more automatic, less

onerous, and more enjoyable (Y ates & Chandler, 1 99 1 ) In the initial stages of skill
.

acquisition, a high level of practice is used to build up procedural knowledge to the point

where attention processes become available in the service of higher mental goals. If for

example, children can quickly access the basic facts used in more complex computation,

their attentional resources can be devoted to remembering and performing more complex

procedures, or working out new problem solutions (Resnick, 1 98 9a).

Thus research from varied disciplines has found that differences in student success

cannot be attributed solely to differences in domain content knowledge. In particular,

bel iefs and intuitions, strategic knowledge, self-awareness and self-regulation were found

to be important determinants of mathematical behaviour. "Knowing a lot of mathematics

may n ot do the students much good if their beliefs keep them from using it. Moreover,

students who lack good self-regulation skills still may go off on wild goose chases and

never have the opportunity to exploit what they have Jearned" (Schoenfeld, 1 987: 1 98).

21
Summary

Early advocacy of general cognitive skills overlooked the i mportance of a rich

knowledge base, assuming that general heuristics would make ready contact with a

person ' s knowledge base, and that transfer would happen more or less spontaneously.

Developments in the psychology of expertise, and Artificial Intelligence systems,

highlighted the role of a well structured domain knowledge base as a dominant factor in

development. However, more recent expert/novice research has demonstrated that the

amount of knowledge is not the sole determinant or predictor of learning performance.

Successful students seem to differ from less successful students on the basis of the

number and nature of the strategies they bring to bear on a task and on the basis of their

facility at selecting and monitoring strategies in task appropriate ways (Thomas &

Rohwer, 1 99 3 ) .

Strategic knowledge, including domain-specific strategies and domain-general strategies,

combined with metacognitive behaviours to regulate and control learning, play a major

role in the learning process . It is apparent from the review of research that the

development of competence involves the interaction of domain with strategic knowledge

rather than the predominance of knowledge or strategies alone.

In the next section these research findings supporting the ' synthesis position ' are related

to componential models of learning. As well as incorporating the interactive role of

domain and strategic knowledge, the influence of contextual variables is also an

indispensable feature of the proposed model for 1eaming mathematics.

22
2.3 Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics

The purpose of this section is to develop a suitable model of mathematics learning in

which the role of strategic knowledge, and related learning strategies and metacogn itive

behaviours, are related to other variables affecting learning performance.

To s ituate the model in the cognitive psychology research over the last decade one needs

to review the changing beliefs abou t learning in general, and mathematics learning in

particular. Currently many educational theorists conceive of learners as ' architects

building their own knowledge structures' (Wang et al. , 1 993) . The view of the learner

has changed from that of a recipient of knowledge to that of a constructor of knowledge

with metacognitive skills for controlling his or her cogniti ve processes (Candy, 1 989;

Confrey, 1 990; Fennema, 1 989).

Three important assumptions (B iggs, 1 989; Resnick, 1 989b; Shuell, 1 986) related to this

view have a direct impact on the role of learning strategies and the development of our

model of learning. Firstly, learning is a process of knowledge construction, not of

knowledge recording or absorption. Secondly, learning is knowledge-dependent; people

use current knowledge to construct new knowledge. Thirdly, the learner is aware of the

processes of cognition and can control and regulate them; thi s self awareness, or

metacognition (Flavell, 1 976) significantly influences the course of learning.

Constructivism

The above assumptions are important tenets of the widely accepted theory of knowledge

construction - 'constructivism ' . Constructivism is concerned with the constant dialectical

interplay between construing and constructing: how learners construe (or interpret)

events and ideas, and how they construct (build or assemble) structures of meaning

(Candy, 1 989). Wheatley ( 1 99 1 : 1 0) states the two main principles underlying

constructivism as fol lows:

1. "knowledge is not passively received, but IS actively bui lt up by the cognizing

subject"; and

23
2. " . . . the function of cognition IS adaptive and serves the organization of the

experiential work, not the discovery of ontological reality . . . "

These principles (especially the first) have been w idely embraced in mathematics

education (Leder & Gunstone, 1 990; Putnam et al., 1 990; Schoenfeld, 1 992). The most

important implication of the constructivist learning theory is that learning is an

idiosyncratic, active and evolving process: each of u s make sense of our world by

synthesising new experiences into what we previously have come to understand.

Rather than passively receiving and recording information, the learner actively
interprets and imposes meaning through the lenses of his or her existing
knowledge structures, working to make sense of the world. At the same time,
learning or development takes place, not by the simple reception of information
from the environment, but through the modification and building up of the
individual 's knowledge structures. (Putnam et al. , 1 990: 87 -8)

Central to constructivisrn is the role of existing knowledge: prior domain knowledge

influences what information is selected and attended to, and what meaning is given to

that information.

Students ' prior conceptual knowledge influences all aspects of students '
processing of information from their perception of the cues in the environment, to
their selective attention to these cues, to their encoding and levels of processing of
the information, to their search for retrieval of information and comprehension,
to their thinking and problem solving. (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1 993 : 1 67).

Not only does the amount of prior knowledge i nfluence current learning, but also the

way that knowledge is structured. "Prior knowledge that is well u nderstood influences

learning differently than prior knowledge that is less understood" (Hiebert & Carpenter,

1 992: 80). Additionally, Alexander & Judy ( 1 988) stress the importance of domain­

specific knowledge for the efficient and effective utilisation of strategic knowledge. For

example, a student is unable to check an algebraic solution for a simultaneous equation

by sketching a graph if he or she has limited knowledge of graphing procedures.

24
However, as discussed in section 2 . 2 , metacognitive knowledge and beliefs also impact

on the learning process. "Constructivism not only emphasizes the essential role of the

constructive processes, it also allows one to emphasize that we are at least partially able

to be aware of those constructions and then to modify them through our conscious

reflection on that constructive process" (Confrey, 1 990: 1 09). In this sense metacognition

is seen as the key to developing autonomous learning behaviours necessary for

constructive learning activity.

In addition to endorsing the importance of learning strategies to effect meaningful

learning, constructivism acknowledges that the social context, particularly the teacher,

contribute to the construction of meaning. Learning is influenced by the "social and

cultural context in which learning takes place, including the physical structure, the

purpose of the activity, the existence of collaborative partners and the soci al milieu in

which the problem i s embedded" (Hennessy, 1 998: 1 ). Social interactions, whether they

be self-dialogue or discussion with peers or teacher, in which students attempt to explain

their interpretation and listen to others' understanding are important features of the

knowledge constru ction process (Garrison, 1 993).

Metacognition

The term metacognition was introduced by two developmental psychologists, John

Flavell and Ann B rown, in the mid 1 970s, to describe the understanding individuals have

of their thinking and learning activities. Metacognition, which literally means

'transcending knowledge' , was defined by Flav�l l ( 1 976: 232) as:

knowledge concerning one 's own cognitive processes and products or anything
related to them, e.g., the learning-relevant properties of information or
data. . . Metacognition refers, among other things, to the active monitoring and
consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the
cognitive objects on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal
or objective.

25
I n l ater literature Flavell ( 1 98 7 : 2 1 ) suggested the concept of . metacognition be

"broadened to include anything psychological, rather than just anything cognitive . . . Any

kind of monitoring might also be considered a form of metacognition". This

interpretation of metacognition was expanded into more functional categories :

1. the regulation and control of cognition ;

2. knowledge and beliefs about cognition; and

3. metacognitive experiences and their effects on performance.

The regulation and control of cognition: Early metacognitive research in mathematics

(Garofalo & Lester, 1 98 5 ; Silver, 1 985) concentrated primarily on the regu latory and

control aspects of metacognition in problem solving. To monitor and control one ' s

learning; metacognitive strategies o f planning, self-questioning, assessing progress, and

evalu ating learning are employed. Specific research findings regarding the use and role of

metacognitive strategies in mathematics learning will be further discussed in Chapter 3 . It

is sufficient for the purpose of developing our model of mathematics learning to note that

the employment of metacognitive strategies was seen as an important determinant of

students' learning (Schoenfeld, 1 985, 1 987).

Metacognitive knowledge: Metacognitive knowledge is concerned with what a person

knows about cognitive abilities, processes, and resources in rel ation to the performance

of specific cognitive tasks; knowledge in this context also includes beliefs. Researchers

(Brown et al. , 1 98 3 ; Garner, 1 990b) regard metacognitive knowledge as stable, thus it is

retrievable for use with learning tasks, and can be reflected upon and u sed as the topic of

discussion with others. However, metacognitive knowledge may be fallible, so that what

one believes about one' s cognitive processes may be inaccurate, such as the belief that

simple rote repetition is the key that underlies all learning.

Students u se metacognitive knowledge to generate self-appraisals and personal

reflections about their knowledge strategies and abilities (Paris & Winograd, 1 990).

Metacognitions of this sort can answer such questions as, "Do I know how to factorise

this expression? Can I do this calculation without a calculator? Can I derive the formula
·
to fin d the volume of a sphere? In Flavell's terms ( 1 987), these questions are judgements

26
about one ' s cognitive abilities, task factors, or strategies that may impede or facilitate

performance.

Flavell categorises metacognitive knowledge into three c ategories : person; task; and

strategy knowledge, which usually interact in any learning situation. In mathematics,

person knowledge includes self-assessment of one's own c apabilities and limitation with

respect to mathematics in general and also with respect to a particular mathematical topic

or task . Also included are one' s beliefs concerning the n ature of mathematical ability and

the effects of affective variables such as motivation, anxiety and perseverance (Garofalo

& Lester, 1 985). Gamer ( 1 992) suggests that learners ' beliefs about their ability to

perform a task are more poten t than personal skills in determining their willingness to

attack, and persevere at, that task. If they have learned that they are unlikely to succeed

or if they think success comes only with ability (in which they presume themselves to be

deficient) rather than effort, then not pursuing an activity is an adaptive response.

Task knowledge includes knowledge about the scope and requirements of the task as

well as knowledge about the factors and conditions that make some tasks more difficult

than others. One ' s beliefs about the n ature of mathematical tasks and mathematical

thinking is extremely influential. Schoenfeld ( 1 985) and Silver ( 1 985) have each outlined

issues related to the role that beliefs might play in mathematical problem solving. For

example, the commonly observed phenomena that students tend to think that problems

should be solved rapidly, that solutions should depend on recently taught techniques, and

that every problem should conform to some model they have been taught, all represent

potentiall y serious impediments to successful mathematics learning.

Strategy knowledge is knowledge of general and specific strategies along with awareness

of their potential usefulness. Each strategy in a students' repertoire is qualified by

detailed information about appropriate goals and objects, appropriate tasks, range of

applicabi lity, expected performance gains, effort required and enjoyment value (Pal mer &

Goetz, 1 98 8 ) . In mathematics strategy knowledge includes knowledge of algorithms and

heuristics , but also includes a student' s awareness of strategies to aid in comprehending

27
problems, orgamsmg information, planning solution attempts, executing plans, and

checking results - that is knowledge of how to effectively learn mathematics.

With regard to strategy knowledge, Garner ( 1 992: 238) warns that "it is important to

n ote that knowledge is not use. A learner can know all the components of an effective

strategy but stil l not use any of them in real-world situations where employing the

routine would assist learning". Paris, Lipson, & Wixson ( 1 98 3 ) introduced the term

"conditional knowledge" to capture the dimension of knowing when to apply various

strategies. They proposed that skilled learners should know when and where each

strategy may be useful (conditional knowledge), as well as the cost associ ated with each

strategy, such as the amount of cognitive effort it requires.

Metacognitive experiences and the role of affect: Flavell ( 1 987) defines metacognitive

experiences as "conscious experiences" that are both cognitive and affective. Examples

of metacognitive experiences would be if one suddenly has an anxious feeling that one is

not understanding something, or that something is hard to solve or remember, or

conversely, that one feels one has just about u nderstood something or that the material is

getting easier to comprehend. Suddenly noticing that a problem is similar to another

considered recently, for which a certain strategy was relevant, is a common

metacognitive experience in mathematics learning. Metacognitive experiences play an

important role in the learning process in that they may redirect cogniti ve actions or

reaffirm cognitive actions as appropriate, or contribute to the development of

metacognitive knowledge to enhance learning.

Metacognitive experiences are related to individuals' goals, prior knowledge and affects.

For example, tolerance for feelings of failure to understand or remember is related to

students' expectations or goals of learning. "Sometimes we are aware that we are not

' getting it' but we do not care enough to expend extra energy to remedy the situ ation.

Sometimes we are aware of cognitive confusion, but our metacognitive knowledge base

i s not rich enough to provide us with appropriate remedial strategies" (Gamer, 1 992:

242). In other instances students may Het 9€ not possess adequate prior knowledge to be

aware of cognitive failure.

28
 The interactive nature of these components of metacognition are captured in Flavell ' s

( 1 98 1 ) model of cognitive monitoring - Figure 1 . The model learner i s assumed t o select

cognitive actions (e.g., repeating a formula aloud) in pursuit of certain learning goals

(e.g., memorising a formula), which lead to metacognitive experiences (e. g . , "I didn ' t

learn this very well"), that i n turn refine the stu dent's metacognitive knowledge about

learning (e.g., "Rehearsal isn ' t as good as practicing with problem exercises for this type

of task").

Cognitive Metacognitive
goal s expenences

Metacogn itive Cognitive

knowledge actions

Figure 1. A Model of Cognitive Monitoring

In summary, the metacognitive knowledge that students construct interacts with .

metacognitive experiences to achieve the cognitive goal of learning. Consistent with

constructivist accounts of learning, metacognition promotes positive self-perceptions,

affects, and motivations among students. When learners ask questions, reread difficult

material, or select le�ing activities appropriate to a given task, they are active
_
participants in their own performance and learning rather than passive recipients of

instruction and i mposed experiences.

29
Model of Learning Mathematics

As we can see from the above discussion, current learning theories recognise learning to

be a multifaceted complex phenomenon, involving the dynamic interaction of domain­

specific knowledge and strategic knowledge, supported by appropriate metacognitive

and affective variables. Generic models of learning such as the Tetrahedral Model,

(Brown et al. , 1 98 3 ) ; the Self-Instructive Processes Model, (Wang & Peverly, 1 986); the

Good Information Processing Model (Pressley, Borkowski & Schneider, 1 989) ; and the

3 P Model (B iggs, 1 99 1 , 1 993) are all based on a common i nteractive component base of

student variables, contextual variables, learning process variables and learner outcomes.

Concurrent factors included in all models are the "entering characteristics of students, the

cognitive and self-management activities that students engage in while studying, the

proximate aspects of the study task, including materials and directions, and the more

distal aspects of setting, including the nature of the criteria and other features of the

course of instruction" (Thomas & Rohwer, 1 993:2).

Recent models of learning mathematics are more likely to i ncorporate strategic

knowledge and beliefs. For example, Fennema's Model of Autonomous Learning

(Fennema, 1 989; Fennema & Peterson, 1 985) acknowledges the role of autonomous

learning behaviours in mathematics. Also, Wong and Herrington ( 1 992) provide a

comprehensive interactive model of learning which incorporates strategic knowledge,

and the interactive nature of learning strategies, beliefs and mathematical outcomes.

In view of the importance of metacognitive behaviours in the constructivist theory of

learning mathematics, it is proposed here to i ncorporate Flavell ' s ( 1 98 1 ) interaction of

metacognitive components and Biggs' ( 1 993) 3P ( 'Presage' , ' Process ' , ' Product' ) model

of learni ng to develop an Interactive Model ofLearning Mathematics as shown in Figure

2 . The crucial feature of thi s model is that the learning process involves the ability to

access knowledge, skills and strategies, and to evaluate and regulate these relative to the

learning task. Students' availability, selection and employment of learning strategies are

perceived as central to the learning process and metacognition is the key variable in

monitoring and regulating the learning process. Task processing illustrates the i nteraction

30
of learning strategies with the cognitive goal o f the learning task and metacognitive

experiences and metacognitive behaviours as proposed by Flavell ( 1 98 1 ) .

Presage factors are important i n a constructivist based model a s they result in

qualitatively different ways of experiencing the learning situation which are unique to

individual learners. A common assumption adopted in studies of learning in the

educational context, is that different learners read the same text, solve the same

problems, listen to the same class discussion and then - as they are equipped differently -

do different things with the text, problem, discussion they have somehow internalised.

Marton and Neuman ( 1 992 : 1 ) argue that this assumption is invalid:

The conclusion we arrived at was that learners do not really read the same text,
solve that same problems or listen to the same lecture... We found that regardless
of what situation or phenomenon people encounter, a limited number of
qualitatively different ways of experiencing or understanding that situation or
phenomenon can be identified.

The proposed model incorporates the multiple factors influencing the use of learning

strategies. The presage factors of student variables, including preferred learning styles,

perceptions of mathematics, prior knowledge and experiences, age and motivation, will

affect the range of learning strategies available and the tendency to employ them at

appropriate times. Contextual factors, including the nature and difficulty of the task,

course assessment, nature of instruction, and climate of the classroom, will also affect

students' use of learning strategies and consequ � nt learning outcomes.

The model indicates the two-way interactive n ature of learning: learni ng outcomes

provide feedback (dotted lines) to the student and teacher. For example, success in a test

may supply valuable information concerning learning strategies which may be added to

the student' s metacognitive knowledge base , or student failure may result in changes in

the teacher' s instructional method.

31
 PRESAGE PRO CESS PRO D U CT

LEARNER VARIABLES (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
• Prior knowledge

�
• Abilities
• Pre ferre d ways of l e arnin g
• Age/gender
' .-----
• M o t i vat i o n '
TAS K PROCES S I N G
/"-
I

Learning s trate gi es
• co g n i t i v e
(-------)
Cognitive
• mctacog n i t i v e LEA R N I N G OUTCO!'v! ES
Goals
• affective • conceptual u nderstanding
� - - - - -
• resource man agement • problem s o l v i ng

affect

I
•

(j,)
N

Mctacogni ti vc M c t ac og n i t i ve
Expe r ie n c es Knowledge

CONTEXT VARIABLES
•

•
Curriculum
Assessment
Instruction
/
1:..''
/

( J
• Classroom climate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -

Figure 2: AN INTERACTIVE MODEL OF MATHEMATICS LEARNING

2.4 Summary

The constructivist perspective has had a profound influence on the way mathematics

educators think about understanding and learning (Leder & Gunstone, 1 990) . The

learner is no longer conceived as a passive information storage system, but as a self­

determining agent who actively selects information from the perceived environment, and

who constructs new knowledge in the light of what the individual already knows (Shuell,

1 986).

The proposed Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics explicitly acknowledges the

role of prior knowledge and experiences both of the domain and metacognitive nature.

Central to the model is the use of learning strategies directed and controlled by the

student: "by using various learning strategies, people can intentionally influence the form

and quality of the knowledge they do acqu ire" (Derry, 1 990b:348).

The increased attention gtven to learning strategies IS supportive of the current

constructivist learning perspective prevalent in mathematics education. Effective learners

are characterised in the research literature as being cognitively, metacognitively and

affectively active in the learning process. "The self-regulated learner must appropriately

control his or her learning processes by selecting and organizing relevant information and

building connections from relevant existing knowledge" (Mayer, 1 992 :409). They are

capable of learning independently and deliberately through identification, formulation and

restructuring of goals ; use of planning, development and execution of plans; and

engagement of self monitoring.

Accordingly, a primary goal of education is to help students develop expertise in how to

learn and to u se that expertise to construct useful knowledge. Many researchers

(Alexander & Judy, 1 989; Ames & Archer, 1 988; Garner, 1 990a) urge for further

research concerning the interaction of domain and strategic knowledge and the role of

contextual factors affecting the students use of learning strategies in the classroom

situ ation.

33
 To make real differences in students ' skill, we need both to understand the nature
of expert practice and to devise methods appropriate to learning that practice. To
do this, we must first recognize that cognitive and metacognitive strategies and
processes are more central than either low-level subskills or abstract conceptual
and factual knowledge. They are the organizing principles of expertise,
particularly in such domains as reading, writing, and mathematics. (Collins et al. ,
1 989: 455)

The following chapter will discuss the nature of learning strategies, identifying those

which are of particular importance to mathematics learning. The interactive nature of the

learning model will be further explored in a discussion of research liteniture related to

factors affecting strategy use in the mathematics classroom.

34
 Chapter 3

Learning Strategies in Mathematics

Knowledge construct generation involves the child in a senes of cognitive

processes: obtaining information, creating associative links, elaborating the
content, evaluating the truth and consistency of information, and developing
metacognitive awareness.
(Alton-Lee, Nuthall , & Patrick, 1 993 : 6 1 )

3.1 Introduction

Students acquire knowledge by generating specific knowledge constructs as they engage

in the process of making meaning out of the curriculum content. This process of making

meaning involves the use of learning strategies. When children learn mathematics they

often engage i n activities to enhance their understanding, and to help remember the rules

and procedures . When reading a mathematical example, one might stop to inquire, "Do I

u nderstand where this line comes from?" If not, one might reread the information in the

text, or try to rework the example on paper. The student may try to think how the

example relates to an earlier example or ask, "What if this value was negative instead of

positive?" Also students may engage in activities to facilitate performance of a task. For

example, when asked to add 5 and 3 , young children may use their fingers. All of these

activities represent examples of strategi c behaviour - the children are engaging in

processes aimed at learning mathematics.

In sections 3.2 and 3 . 3 the nature and classification of these learning strategies is
examined. In section 3 .4 recent research is reviewed to identify w h at is known about
students' u se of learning strategies in mathematics. The Interactive Model of Learning
Mathematics (section 2.3) emphasised the numerous factors affectin g strategic learning
behaviours. Findings from current research, related to factors influencing strategy use
and development in the mathematics classroom, are examined in section 3.5.

35
3.2 The N ature of Learning Strategies

An examination of the nature of learning strategies needs first to establish what

characteristics define cognitions or behaviours as being strategic. Gamer ( 1 990b)

proposes four defining characteristics of effective strategies: goal orientation;

intentionality; effortfulness; and performance enhancement.

Learning strategies have learning facilitation as a goal. The goal of a learning strategy is

to "affect the l earner' s motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner

selects, acquires, organises, or integrates new knowledge" (Weinstein & Mayer, 1 986:

3 1 5) . For example, question answering, paraphrasing, summarising and imagery all

increase elaborative encoding and improve recall and transfer. When revising for a test, a

learner may use positive self-talk to reduce feelings of anxiety and thus effect changes in

his or her affective state.

In contrast to the internally oriented cognitive and metacognitive strategies, external

strategies are used to manage the environment and available resources. Pressley,

Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans ( 1 989) discuss "setting the environment" as a

strategy goal. For example, good strategy u sers find a quiet setting for study, arrange the

lighting so that their eyes do not tire easily, and timetable their study so that they have

the time to accompl ish tasks. They make choices about which tasks to do first and what

resources to use, and whether to work alone or with others.

Because strategies are goal oriented, the n ature and demands of the learning task will

influence the choice and effectiveness of strategies. The cognitive demands of the task

will determine whether a student needs to recall specific procedures elicited by cues,

recall specific knowledge, apply conceptual knowledge to a problem-solving task, or use

higher-order procedures involving interpretation, transfer of rules or unfamiliar

materials. Doyle ( 1 98 8 ) argues that as much of school mathematics appears to consist of

memorisation and practice of routine task s (through the appl ication of formulae and the

matching of salient aspects of exercises with known procedures) commonly used

learning strategies may be incongruent with those needed for higher-order learning.

36
Res nick ( 1 98 7 :49) proposes that reorienting basic instruction in mathematics to "focus

on intentional, self-managed learning and strategies for meaning construction, rather than

on routinized performances", will provide a strong base for h igher-order skill

development.

Garner ( 1 990b) argues that strategy use is intentional . Pressley and colleagues

(Pressley, 1 986; Pressley et al. , 1 987) qualify the intentionality aspect of strategy

deployment. They claim that strategies, although not always conscious, are almost

always potentially controllable behaviours that could be deployed deliberately.

Intentional activity implies selection: from a repertoire of possible activities one selects

those strategies that seem most l ikely to enhance performance (Paris et al. , 1 98 3 ) . For

example, if a proficient learner meets a new situation that is n ot so obviously congruous

with prior knowledge, he or she will:

analyze the situation and select specific strategies for it on the basis of matches
between problem attributes and the attributes coded in specific strategy
knowledge that define when particular strategies are called for. If the strategy
requires some world knowledge, assessment of the situation includes whether the
learner has relevant non strategic knowledge stored away. (Pressley, 1 986: 1 44)

Bisanz and Lefevre ( 1 990) further qualify the concept of intentionality with the

suggestion that the student's behaviour must involve flexible selection from alternative

strategies. That is, a student who has only one way of memorising a set formula is not

acting strategically when he employs that method.

Strategies require effort by the student and the effort required may be a determinant in

its selection. Paris et al. ( 1 983) suggest that students may weigh the value of a strategy

in terms of its utility and efficiency against the effort required. Moreover, Garner

( 1 990b : 248) argues that, "given the frenetic pace of most classrooms, students are

unlikely to slow down their activity flow to incorporate u npractised cognitive and

metacognitive strategies". For example, when asked to summarise a reading, some

students may feel that it is quicker for them to copy some sentences and delete others,

than to work at a reduced, coherent summary that integrates i mportant ideas.

37
Furthermore, effort is rarely expended o n activities that are perceived as meaningless,

futile or unrewarding. Strategies that are not yet routinised to some degree, nor actively

promoted as achieving desired learning goals, are likely to be abandoned in the

classroom. This poses questions as to which strategies are more efficient for classroom

tasks, and whether these strategies are helpful in promoting knowledge construction,

understanding and autonomous learning behaviours?

Effortfulness is also critical for successful studying outside the classroom. Homework

and self-instigated study are frequently performed in situations where alternative

activities are somewhat more alluring (Thomas & Rohwer, 1 986). Moreover, learning at

home is often i solated and unrewarding. In the absence of external direction or incentives

students require volition, the disposition to exert effort, to persist, and most importantly

they must supply their own feedback about their success - a metacognitive activity.

Gamer' s last criterion is that learning strategies may enhance learning performance in

some instances and not in others. Researchers offer varied definitions of effective

strategies as follows: Dansereau ( 1 985 :2 1 0) defines an effective learning strategy as a

"set of processes or steps that can facilitate the acquisition, storage, and/or utilization of

information". Pressley ' s ( 1 986: 1 40) definition includes the notion of efficiency as well as

effectiveness: "Good strategies are composed of the sufficient and necessary processes

for accomplishing their intended goal, consuming as few intellectual resources as are

necessary to do so." Paris et al. ( 1 983: 296) incorporate the i nfluence of contextual

appropriateness: "(success) depends on the c qntextual appropriateness of the action,

intentions and capabilities of the agent, available alternatives, and the 'costs' to the

individual...thus learners can vary greatly in their perception of useful actions and their

applications of the actions to different s ituations."

38
Paris et al. ' s definition indicates that using strategies does not always result in enhanced

performance. In particular, ill informed or unintelligent use of strategies can be

detrimental to learning (Alexander & Judy, 1 988). For example, students are often

impeded in their development by the existence of serviceable, well used, inferior

strategies that result in partial success. An example of these "primitive routines that get

the job done" (Garner 1 990a: 5 1 9) was noted in research on the u se of worked examples

(Anthony, 1 99 1 ; Chi & B assok, 1 989). It was found that weak students' learning was

characterised by a lack of elaborations ; they learnt only the sequence of actions, thus

acquiring an algorithmic procedure which was not readily transferable to a problem

application. Because students meet with initial success, it is difficult to get them to u se

more complex strategies directed at understanding worked examples and structuring

them according to conceptual schemata rather than individual instances.

Due to variation of resources, task demands and learner factors, strategies that may be

u seful in some instances, may not always be particularly usefu l in other instances. For

example, if a mathematics text has no worked solutions, a stu dent may initially find it

more profitable to spend time working through the text worked examples rather than

try i ng to do exercises. Domain knowledge can also be important in making a strategy

appropriate, or not, in a particular context. For example, if a student already knows a

great deal about a topic, then strategies are likely to play a maj or role in determining the

quality of understanding and recall performance (Pressley et al. , 1 987). In other

instances, know ledge of certain facts may render strategic processing u nnecessary. For

example, the child who has memorised basic number facts does not need to employ a

strategy to sol ve the problem 5 + x = 9 . On the other hand, there are many strategies that

simply cannot be executed without a well developed knowledge base (Garner, 1 990a).

In this review of the characteristics of learning strategies it is evident that strategy

knowledge is not sufficient to ensure that students use them in appropriate situations.

The deployment of effective learning strategies is related to learner, i nstructional, and

context v ariables. The following section considers the classification of specific learning

strategies and their role in the learning process.

39
3.3 The Classification of Learning Strategies

Introduction

The examination of mathematics learning strategies requires classification of specific

strategies. However, Weinstein ( 1 98 8 ) comments that given the relatively young and

somewhat disorgani sed nature of the field, there is not yet one organisational scheme

that is generally accepted as a way of classifying learning strategies . More recently,

Nunan ( 1 99 1 : 1 68) reported that the major problem for learning strategy theorists was

"the development of a coherent taxonomy of learning strategy types".

Several approaches to classification have been u sed. Strategies may be classified

according to their goal as cognitive, metacognitive and affective strategies (Wei nstein &

M ayer, 1 986; O'Malley & Chamot, 1 990). Alternatively, strategies may be classified

according to their relationship with the learning task. Dansereau ( 1 98 5 : 209) uses the

latter in his discussion of an interactive learning strategy system: "This system is

composed of both primary strategies, which are u sed to operate on the text material

directly (e.g., comprehension and memory strategies) and support strategies, which are

used to maintain a suitable state of mind for learning." S upport strategies of planning and

scheduling, concentration management, and monitoring have an indirect i mpact by

generally improving the level of the learner' s cognitive functioning. Oxford ( 1 990)

classifies language learning strategies as "direct and indirect". Direct strategies involve

direct learning and use of the subject matter (memory and cognitive strategies) . Indirect

strategies, including metacognitive, affective and social strategies, contribute indirectly

but powerfully to the learning. Other researchers have defined more specific

classifications for behaviours which afford students the opportun ity to learn and

indirectly contribute to the learning goal. Pokay and Blumenfeld, ( 1 990:42) for example,

define "resource management strategies" as those behaviours related to effort, time use,

help seeking and the establishment of a study environment. A 'social strategy '

classification is also proposed by Galloway and Labarc a ( 1 990) t o represent strategies

i nvolving i nteraction w ith other persons to assist learning.

40
While there exists no widely used taxonomy of learning strategies for mathematics

learning in general, several researchers have identified and coded strategy use in

problem-solving episodes. An example of a categorisation developed by Artzt and

Armour-Thomas ( 1 992) of strategies employed during students' problem-solving

episodes i s presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Framework Episodes Classified by Predominant Cognitive Level

Epi sode Predominant Cognitive Level

Read Cognitive
Understand Metacognitive
Analyze Cognitive
Explore Cognitive and Metacognitive
Plan Metacogniti ve
Implement Cognitive and Metacognitive
Verify Cognitive and Metacognitive
Watch and listen Level not assigned

For the purposes of this study the finer classifications of cognitive, metacognitive,

affective and resource management strategies are preferred. However, it is noted that

although conceptually one can distinguish between strategy types, operationally the

distinction is o ften blurred. The possible separability of metacognition and cognition

does not preclude their constant interaction. For example, "cognition is implicit in any

metacognitive activity, and metacognition may be present during a cognitive act,

although perhaps not apparent" (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1 992: 1 4 1 ). The need for

strategies to be referenced to learning episodes to assist in identification will be further

discussed i n Chapters 5 and 6.

Cognitive strategies

Cogn itive strategies are necessary to encode new concepts and make them

u nderstandable. They relate to individual learning tasks by operating directly on

incoming information and manipulating it in ways to enhance learning (O'Malley &

Chamot, 1 990). Galloway and Labarca's ( 1 990: 1 45) definition of cognitive strategies

41
encapsulates the characteristics of learning strategies discussed previously in section 3 . 2 .

Cognitive strategies are characterised by:

1. the active mental engagement of the learner in the purposeful establishment

of new functional knowledge through contextualized practice, and
2. the formation of stable and meaningful connections between prior knowledge
and new information.

Weinstein and Mayer ( 1 98 6) suggest that cognitive strategies can be subsumed under

three broad groups : rehearsal, elaboration and organi sation. Dansereau ' s ( 1 98 5 : 2 1 9)

primary strategies, which include "strategies for acquiring and storing information

(comprehension/retention strategies), and strategies for subsequently retrieving and

using thi s stored information (retrieval/util ization strategies)" are of similar n ature to the

cognitive strategies proposed by Weinstein and M ayer ( 1 986).

Rehearsal strategies help students to store and retrieve information and include basic

learning tasks such as repetition and practice. In mathematics imitation and practice of

exercises is seen as a major learning activity - it i s necessary for both pattern-recognition

and action-sequence productions (Derry, 1 990a). While rehearsal strategies are regarded

as both necessary and important Weinstein and Mayer ( 1 986) suggest that there is little

evidence that reliance on these strategies will help learners to construct internal

connections, or integrate the information with prior knowledge. Rather, Weinstein

( 1 988) notes that rehearsal strategies are effective when they provide further

opportunities for more meaningful processing to take place via elaboration, organisation,

or comprehension monitoring. Likewise, both Thomas and Rohwer ( 1 986) and Gage and

Berliner ( 1 992) point out that repetition and over-learning may be necessary for real

understanding of complex material and for learning how to solve problems.

The goal of elaboration strategies includes " integration of presented information with

prior k nowledge - i .e., transferring knowledge from long-term memory into working

memory and integrating the incoming information with this knowledge" (Weinstein &

Mayer, 1 986:320). Appropriate and specific elaborations, such as paraphrasing,

summarising, imagery, linking with prior knowledge, use of metaphor and answering

questions, form helpful connections to i deas in the existing schema. Hiebert and

42
Carpenter ( 1 992) hypothesi se that this well-connected information is better remembered,

and more easily retrieved, for two reasons. Firstly, a network of knowledge is less likely

to deteriorate than an i solated piece of information, and secondly, retrieval of

information is enhanced if i t is connected to a larger network.

The significance of the use of elaboration in the constructivist paradigm is rel ated to the

active generation of meaning which is personally relevant to the individual student' s

prior knowledge and experiences (Weinstein, 1 988). Elaborations occur when the

student thinks about new ideas and prior knowledge together so that this thinking

stimulates the generation of additional ideas about how new information and prior

knowledge are related. Moreover, it is proposed that elaborative i nformation enhances

learning even when information is not actually present in the network. By providing

more information for logical reasoning processes to use, elaborative information may

help students construct appropriate responses (Derry, 1 990b ).

Research also indicates that we need to be concerned with the quality and

appropriateness of elaborations as well as the frequency. Bereiter ( 1 992) proposes that

learners elaborate information in qualitatively different ways. Active or intentional

learners, are likely to link new information with a highly elaborated structure of

"persisting problems of understanding". Less skilled learners, who have no persisting

problems in memory to attach new information to, attach new information to "referents".

The result will be "referent centred knowledge", which may be recalled on the

appropriate cue, but which has no function in making sense of the world. The nature of

students' self-explanations, especially while pr.ocessing worked examples or complex

material, have been found to differentiate successfu l learners from less successful

learners (Anthony, 1 99 1 ; Chi, B assok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1 989). In accord with

Bereiter' s characterisation of active, intentional learners, Chi and her colleagues refer to

self-expl anations as the "students' contribution to learning".

43
The development of schemata requires the learner to combine, i ntegrate, and synthesise

discrepant information from a variety of sources. Organisational strategies will assist in

organising information in a form unique to the individual' s requirements: the focus is on

translation of information into another form that makes it easier to u nderstand.

Summarising, grouping, and highlighting the material are examples of organisational

strategies that assist in the integration and retrieval process by separating salient

information from non-salient information . Organisational strategies, like elaborative

strategies, require a more active role from the learner than do rehearsal strategies.

Metacognitive strategies

Regul ation of learning, as distinguished from knowledge about learning, uses

metacognitive strategies (sometimes referred to as higher-order or executive strategies) .

Metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process, planning for

learning, monitoring comprehension or production while it i s taking place, and self­

evaluation after the learning activity has been completed.

The use of metacognitive strategies is often seen as a major factor distinguishing active

or intentional learners from passive learners (Anthony, 1 99 1 ; B iggs, 1 987; Galloway &

Labarca, 1 990; White, 1 993). Students who have not yet learned how to plan, direct and

assess their learning, often equate learning with 'being taught' ; they are content to do

what the teacher and teaching materials say to do. In contrast, students who use

metacognitive strategies effectively are able to self-regulate thei r learning by diagnosing

their learning needs, formulate goals, identify resources. necessary for learning, choose

and implement appropriate learning strategies, and evaluate learni ng outcomes.

Planning activities include goal setting, prev1ewmg problems or a text, generating

questions before readi ng a text, and doing a task analysis of the problem (Pintrich &

Schrauben, 1 992). For example, before doing seatwork exerci ses the student might write

a formula at the top of the page. Planning activities help the learner plan their use of

cognitive strategies and also activate relevant aspects of prior knowledge, making the

organisation and comprehension of material much easier (Pressley, 1 986). It is of

44
concern that although planning is identified as optimal by educational theorists ; it is

perceived as being the least helpful by younger students. (Rohrkemper & Corno, 1 988)

Cognitive monitoring requires the student to "establish learning goals for an instructional

unit or activity, to assess the degree to which these goals are being met, and, if

necessary, to modify the strategies being used to meet the goals" (Weinstein & Mayer,

1 986: 323). For monitoring to be effective students must be able to detect when their

behaviour is not sufficient to meet task demands so that they can make appropriate

adj ustments. Van Haneghan and B aker ( 1 989 : 2 1 6) describe students' cognitive

monitoring in mathematics as "attempts to determine whether they have given a correct

answer, chosen a correct strategy for solving a problem, or u nderstood a problem or

concept". If monitoring strategies are effective they should lead to either diagnosis or

directly to remedial actions (Collins et al., 1 989).

Effective monitoring is largely dependent on access to relevant prior domain knowledge

(Garner, 1 990a). Furthermore, monitoring is unlikely when a task is viewed as

unimportant, or if a learner is not devoting conscious attention to it. In research with

d istance-education mathematics students, Anthony ( 1 99 1 ) observed that surface learners

may ignore information in worked examples that they do not u nderstand by treating it as

irrelevant to the problem solution, or study only those examples and problems that they

can manage.

In addition to monitoring understanding, monitoring of strategy effectiveness enables

students to form accurate metacognitive strategy knowledge; knowledge that forms the

basis for successful strategy maintenance and transfer. Evaluating and reflecting on one's

learning processes and progress are also very important metacognitive strategies.

Recognisi ng that performance does not always go as well as planned and that failure can

be a signal to change strategies, is necessary for good information processing (Pressley

et al. , 1 9 89). Feedback that results from assessment of previously studied materials also

adds to strategy efficacy: "Items associated with effective s trategies are typically

remembered much better than items associated with ineffective strategies, and students

come to realise this" (Levin, 1 98 8 : 1 97).

45
Affective strategies

Affective factors play a central role in mathematics learning. A major source of affect is

from metacognitive experiences when solving problems or trying to comprehend new

information . Since interruptions and blockages are an inevitable part of learning

mathematics students will experience both positive and negative emotions. These

metacognitive experiences are more noticeable when the tasks are novel (McLeod,

1 99 1 ). Additionally, students will develop positive and negative attitudes towards

different topics in mathematics, as they move through the secondary school . The purpose

of affective strategies is to change or control the students' attitudes and orientation

towards learning. They can be used to motivate, encourage and reward the learning, t o

reduce o r counter anxiety, frustration and fatigue, to focus attention and maintain

concentration, and to manage time effectively. For example, the exercise of 'self-talk' , o r

the redirecting of negative thoughts about one's capability t o perform a task with

assurances that the task performance i s within reach, will reduce anxiety about a task.

Resource management strategies

Resource management strategies are those which students use to promote learning

indirectly, such as task management and controlling the learning environment (Pokay &

Blumenfeld, 1 990). Rohrkemper and Corno ( 1 988) argue strongly that resource

management strategies are particularly i mportant elements of "adaptive learning". To

perform tasks efficiently students need to see b9th the approach they take, and the task

itself, as malleable. For example, to reduce excessive task demands a learner may

simplify o r streamline a task, seek assistance from a book, or remove distractions from

the environment.

Social interactions with other people (e.g. , cooperative learning, asking questions for

clarification from the teacher or peer, or eliciting additional explanation) are important

resource management strategies. Traditionally, help-seeking was "viewed as a

manifestation of dependence, immaturity, and even incompetence" (Newman &

46
Schwager, 1 992: 1 23 ). More recently, help-seeking has been considered as a

characteristic of self-regulated learning and high achievement (Zimmerman & Martinez­

Pons, 1 986). However, like many of the other strategies, not all help-seeking activities

are desirable. Newman ( 1 99 1 ) contrasts desirable adaptive help-seeking behaviours,

strategic posing of direct questions for the purpose of acquiring information for learning

or mastering a task, with dependency-based help-seeking behaviours .

Summary

It is evident that the learning process involves the coordination of strategies. As Slife,

Weiss, & Bell ( 1 985 :438) noted, "metacognition requ ires something to plan, monitor

and regulate, and cognition requires control processes to guide its functioning". The

'Good Strategy User' model, developed by Pressley and his colleagues (Pressley , 1 986;

Pressley et al. , 1 987; 1 989), states that the competent learner analyses task situations to

determi ne the appropriate strategies. A plan is then formed for executing the strategies,

and progress during strategy execution is monitored. In the face of difficulties,

ineffective strategies are abandoned in favour of more appropriate ones. In con trast low

achievers are likely to react affectively to problems, viewing them as confirmation of

failure expectation, rather than as cues to appropriate strategic activity.

Additionally, it is important to remember that strategic behaviour involves an awareness

of oneself as a learner - of one' s patterns, needs, approaches, and goals - as well as some

personal philosophy of what mathematics is, how it w orks, and how it is learned. These

implicit beliefs influence both the variety of strategies a learner uses, and his or her

ability to use them flexibly.

The following section reviews the research on students' use of strategies m the

mathematics classroom, including intervention studies to assess the effectiveness of

specific strategies and strategy instruction.

47
3.4 Learning S trategy Research in Mathematics Education

While there has been a large amount of learning strategy research in the domains of

reading and language learning, research related specifically to strategies associ ated with

the learning of mathematics is relatively scarce (Wong & Herrington , 1 992). There is,

however, a large amount of related research about problem solving in mathematics

education. Problem-solving research studies provide valuable insights into students'

metacognitive beh aviours and beliefs, which are central factors in strategic learning (see

Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics, section 2.3). Research studies will be

reviewed in the fol lowing groups:

1 . studies to define and classify strategies;

2. classroom research studies to determine strategy use and effectiveness;

3. studies to validate the influence of strategic processing on learning through either

correlational or experimental work on the effecti veness of strategy training; and

4. studies related to problem solving.

Studies to define and classify strategies

Unlike the domains of reading and language, where research has provided

comprehensive taxonornies of learning strategies, no widely accepted learning strategy

classification has been l ocated for mathematics learning. In the past, most of the

instruments available for assessing learning strategies focused on study skills with little

emphasis on 'active' learning processes (Weinstein, Zimmerman & Palmer, 1 98 8 ) . The

Learning and Study Strategy Inventory-High School (LASSI-HS) developed by

Weinstein and Palmer ( 1 990a) is an example of a more recent question naire designed to

find out how students learn and study. LASSI-HS places increased emphasi s on the use

of cognitive and metacognitive strategies for knowledge acquisition, but like most

commercial ly available questionnaires, it is not specific to particular a domain of

learning.

48
H owever, there are several recent studies in mathematics education designed to elicit

students' self reports of learning strategies. Wong ( 1 990) developed a questionnaire

'Study Behaviours in Mathematics' which covers aspects of organisation, u se of notes,

problem solving, memorisation, reading and preparation for tests. The Likert-type

questionnaire was administered to a large sample of both Australian and Singapore

secondary students. Memorisation was reported as a very frequent study activity, but

Australian students were more likely to use notes rather than rely on their memory for

doing homework. Most students believed that they memorised through practice, rather

than mental imagery, mnemonics, reciting the formula orally, or writing something down

several times. Other commonly reported study behaviours included paying attention in

class, attending to hints about tests, handing homework i n on time and learning from

mistakes. On the negative side, Wong ( 1 990: 570) reported :

45% (of students) did not read the relevant section of the text book after lessons

and 60% did not redo the examples from class in their own way. 60% did not
revise their work or read ahead before coming to class. Surprisingly, 87% did not
borrow any mathematics books from the school library. Obviously, the students

need to pay more attention to what they ought to do before and after each lesson.

In Herrington' s ( 1 990) study involving primary-grade children, Grade 7 students

reported that mathematics learning involved rehearsing rules by practice, asking others

to quiz you, self-testing and using mnemonics. Grade 6 students perceived practice and

copying from the blackboard as prime strategies for learning mathematics. Another

recen t Australian study by South well and Kharnis ( 1 99 1 ), u sing questionnaires, found

that primary and secondary students reported that learning mathematics consists mostly

of memorising facts and procedures.

These studies all reinforce the Second lEA Study of Mathematics (Robitaille & Garden ,
1 989) finding that memorising rules and formulae was considered a very important
learning activity by about 85% of the students and 80% of the teachers. While it appears
that rehearsal methods for learning mathematics are common to students across all age
groups, it should be noted that the lEA reports by students and teachers did not endorse
the idea that learning mathematics involves mostly memorising . ·

49
Classroom Research Studies

Early research examining students' use of learning strategies was conducted mainly in

laboratory settings w ith learning outcome measures that were narrowly defined and

related directly to the learning task. A shift to educational research studies investigating

students' cognitive processes as mediators between teacher behaviour and student

achievement in the early I 980s was reflected in the mathematics educational research of

Peterson and colleagues (Peterson et al. , 1 98 2 , I 984 ).

Peterson et al.'s ( 1 9 82) research u sed students' reports of cognitive processes from

stimulated-recall of a mathematics lesson, and a questionnaire to investigate strategy use

in the c l assroom. Interview responses were coded into five categories: attending;

understanding; reasons for not understanding; cognitive strategies ; and teaching

processes. Students' reported cognitive processes were rel ated to mathematics ability

and achievement. When compared to lower ability students, higher ability students were

more likely to report:

• attending to the lesson ;

• understanding the lesson;

• either employi ng a variety of specific cognitive strategies or engagmg m these

processes more frequently;

• engaging i n processes that involved problem-solving steps or showed insights into the

material ; and

• using the specific strategy of relating new i n formation to prior knowledge.

These findings suggest cognitive processes that define ability and produce student

achievement. In particular, students' ability to diagnose and monitor their own

u nderstanding was seen as an important predictor of mathematics achievement.

Furthermore, analysis of on-task behaviour indicated that students' attention to the task

might not be as important as the thought processes that students report engaging in

while attending the lesson.

In a related c lassroom study, Peterson et al. ( 1 984) again found that observations of

student engagement in mathematics was unrelated to mathematics achievement.

However student abi lity and achievement were significantly related to reports of active

50
cognitive engagement. Additionally, this study foreshadowed the interaction of students'

affective thoughts and beliefs with strategic learning behaviours. Results suggested that

the s tudents' reported affect, as wel l as cognitions, mediated the relationship between

instructional stimuli and student achievement and attitudes.

Thomas & Rohwer ( 1 987) reported similar findings from large scale research studies,

across domain and grade levels, of students' study activities.

Neither the total time spent doing routine studying nor the time reportedly spent
preparing for tests was related to achievement at any grade level. . . the present
results cast doubt on the currently popular proposition that academic
achievement can be elevated simply and directly by increasing the time students
a re required to spend on homework. Instead it appears that achievement depends
on the kinds of study activities students deploy during this time and the
congruence between these activities and the instructional demands and supports
of their courses. (p. 384-5)

Although these studies showed a relationship between cognitive processes and

achievement, Swing et al. ( 1 988: 1 24) reflected that "we consistently found that the

elementary school students do not spontaneously u se the sophisticated kinds of

strategies that have been identified by instructional psychology as effective" - for

example, defining and describing, comparing, thinking o f reasons and summarisation.

A study by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons ( 1986) adds to the discussion concerning the
relationship between strategies and mathematics achievement. Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons administered a 'self-regulated' learning strategies interview to Grade 1 0
students of both high and low achievement. Interviews u sed open-ended questions about
'methods for preparing' that focused on: classroom situations; completing mathematics
assignments outside class; preparing for and taking tests; and times when poorly
motivated. They found that 93% of the students could be correctly classified into their
appropriate achievement group through knowledge of their self-regulation practices.
High achieving students reported using significantly more leatning strategies in :�11
contexts, and a heavier reliance on social sources of assistance than lower achievers.

51
An example of experimental based studies aimed at identifying strategy use and possible

instruction al effects is Van Haneghan and Baker's ( 1 989) research on cognitive

monitoring by mathematics students . They gave 3 rd and 5th grade students word

problems to check. Whenever students identified an error they were asked to explain

what was wrong with the problem; this step was taken to determine whether they

actually n oticed the intended errors. To determine whether giving students specific

i nformation about the kinds of errors that they were likely to find would have an effect,

one group was told that some of the answers to the problems were wrong and that some

of the stories did not make sense. A second group was told specifically about the nature

of the errors they were to find, and were given examples of each. It was found that the

n ature of the errors affected detection probability; calculational errors were most likely

to be found and unanswerable problems were least likely.

These stud ies highlight individual differences in strategy use and assist in identifying

which strategies are used more frequently by high achievers. The suggestion that 'what

the student does when attending' may be a more significant indicator of achievement

than 'attending itself - leads naturally to intervention studies designed to promote

students ' strategic behaviour.

Intervention Studies

Some researchers (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1 992; Leinhardt, 1 988) argue that
mathematical understanding involves making meaningful connections among the
multiple types of knowledge, such as symbols, quantities, concrete representations,
concept terms and procedures. Thus when information is interconnected and relations
among the information are specified, memory of the information should be enhanced. To
test the effectiveness of such elaborative procedures Swing and Peterson ( 1 98 8 )
designed a n intervention study that involved students completing mathematics seatwork
that required them to engage in elaborative and integrative processing. The seatwork
problems of the intervention group of Grade 5 students included 'pre-questions' that
required them to analyse, compare and define problem information before answering a
computational or conceptual exercise o r story problem. These questions were designed
to faci litate interconnection of the measurement knowledge being learned. Results from

evidence for the usefulness of elaborative and integrative processing.

52
The i mportance of elaborative processing is noted by other researchers. Anthony ( 1 994)

found that when adult mathematics students learned from textual material the more

successful students elaborated steps in the worked examples. In order to optimise

learning from worked examples the student must actively construct an interpretation of

each action in the example, in the context of the principles introduced in the text. Chi

and Bassok ( 1 989) refer to these elaborations as self-explanations and hypothesised that

differences in problem-solving success, from students with similar declarative

knowledge, may result from differences in how students studied examples.

In a more extensive intervention study, Swing et al. ( 1 98 8 ) instructed elementary school

teachers on how to teach students to use thinki ng skills in their mathematics learning.

Their aim was to improve students' mathematical understanding and problem solving by

teaching students to use strategies of defining and describing (operationalised as analysis,

conceptual and pictorial representation, and generation of alternative representation),

comparing, thinking of reasons (justifying an answer or procedure), and summarising.

With the exception of summarising, the included skills had been associ ated with

i mproved performance in earlier studies (Swing & Peterson, 1 988). As hypothesised,

student performance on achievement tests and reported use of strategic processes

increased, although differential effects were noted for individual students. The effects of

mathematical ability on students' achievement was decreased when both lower and

higher ability students gained i ncreased proficiency in using instructed strategies. By

including a parallel ' time-on-task' intervention study, Swing et al. ( 1 988) concluded that

it is unrealistic to expect students of lower abiliry to make progress by simply i ncreasi ng

time-on-task, without providing cognitive strategy instruction to remediate for low

ability.

Lester ( 1 98 8 ) reports an intervention study which incorporates aspects of Palincsar &

B rown's ( 1 9 84) reciprocal teaching method. The teaching approach h ad three

components: (a) teacher as an external monitor; (b) teacher as a facilitator of students'

development of metacognitive awareness; and (c) teacher as a model of a

metacognitively-aware problem solver. An interesting method of encouraging students

to reflect on their own thought processes and analyse their own performance was t o

53
have students view a videotape of someone else solving a problem and to discuss with

them the good and not so good behaviours they see. Lester concludes that this teaching

method provided growth in students' problem-solving abilities with respect to

comprehension, planning and execution strategies.

In a more recent intervention study Herrington ( 1 992) designed an i nstructional

program, involving concept mapping, Think Board, self-questioning and writing; to

teach elaboration, organisational and metacognitive strategies. The program's

concurre nt focus on developing appropriate beliefs about learning mathematics reflected

the i nteractive nature of strategy deployment and metacognitive knowledge. Herrington

reported a positive, if only sl ight, improvement in students' attitudes and achievements.

There have also been several recent classroom intervention studies by teachers . Gray

( 1 99 1 ) observed changes in her students as a result of increased emphasis on

metacognitive instructional and learning activities. Learning activities included paired

problem solving, writing out descriptive explanations of solution steps, class discussions

of problem-solving attempts, writing assignments, and self marking and error diagnosis.

Qualitative changes in student behaviours included i ncreased motivation, willingness to

attempt more challenging problems, increased awareness and flexible use of strategies,

improved commun ication of thinking and strategies, and increased planning.

Cardelle-Elawar ( 1 992) also used a metacognitive i nstructional intervention w ith low­

ability sixth-grade students. Treatment combined components of metacognitive

instruction, problem-solving instruction, and diagnostic feedback of i ndividual student's

performance. As a result of the instructional i ntervention low mathematics ability

students progressed as problem solvers.

Toumasis ( 1 993) describes a 3 year teaching experiment at senior high school level in

which the focus i s on developing students' ability to take more responsibility for learning

from resources. Prepared reading organiser worksheets, group work, critical reading

tuition, and vocabularj instruction resulted in significant improvements in students'

attitudes towards mathematics learning.

54
Many other studies (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1 992; King, 1 99 1 ; Schoenfeld, 1 985)

have found that encouragement of metacognitive activities such as planning,

metacognitive questioning and monitoring were associated with the i ncreased use of

problem-solving heuristics and improved levels of performance. All of these teacher­

researchers noted qualitative improvements in student learning behaviours and attitudes

when instruction focused on strategic processing and metacognition. In agreement with

Swing et al. ( 1 98 8 ) their studies suggest that teachers need to focus, not on labelling

students (e.g. , low performers), but on student learning behaviours and on the

encouragement of active student involvement in the learning process.

Research on Strategic Behaviours during Problem Solving

Problem solving o ften involves constructing an appropriate sequence of cognitive

activities. Thus, process-oriented aspects of metacognition, such as strategy selection,

monitoring, and evaluation of progress, planning ahead, efficiently apportioning

cognitive resources and time, are seen as major determinants of success (Artzt &

Armour-Thomas, 1 99 2 ; B riars, 1 98 3 ; Schoenfeld, 1 987). Examples of students

monitoring and directing their own learning are the asking of questions such as, "Is it

getting me anywhere", " What else could I be doing instead?", or drawing a sketch to

test one's understanding of a problem statement. In recent years, problem solving has

received considerable research attention, both in laboratory situations (Garofalo &

Lester, 1 98 5 ; Swanson, 1 990) and classrooms (Schoenfeld, 1 98 5 ; Siemon, 1 992b) .

Like the classroom research studies, research findings related to problem solving

revealed limited use of elaborative and metacognitive strategies that have been identified

as most i nstrumental in producing meaningful learning (Swing et al., 1 98 8 ). For

example, research by Res nick ( 1 988) involving collaborative problem solving by

elementary school children, found that only a small number of the utterances made while

working on a problem were coded as arguments or elaborations.

55
Strategy deficits have also been noted in the problem-solving efforts of older students.

Schoenfeld ( 1 987), in comparing problem-solving performance on non-routine problems,

of college mathematics students and mathematicians, found that college students had

very poor managerial strategies. Students rarely, if ever, assessed the potential utility of

a plan of action, they gave inadequate consideration to the utility of potential alternative

methods, and in general did not monitor or assess their progress, so had little way to end

an unproductive line of reasoning. In contrast, the mathematicians initially concentrated

on analysing the problem, devoted attention to planning and monitoring efforts

throughout the process, and were successful at reaching a correct solution. S i nce, in

Schoenfeld ' s study, the students had recently studied the requisite information, while the

mathematicians had not, he concluded that the planning and self-monitoring behaviours

employed by the mathematicians contributed to successful problem solving.

More recently, Evans ( 1 99 1 a) conducted think-aloud interviews with secondary

students. After students worked an exercise they reflected on what they had done by

saying what the question meant, and how they had gone about working it out. Like

Schoenfeld ( 1 987), Evans found that monitoring strategies of checking interpretation,

checking the appropriateness of procedures, and checking the consistency or plausibility

of results were often omitted. Students frequently claimed that, in tackling an exercise,

they were mainly concerned to follow the procedure they had been taught. Tasks similar

to those set in school appeared to be accomplished by a majority of the students in an

'associative' rather than 'constructive' way. Novel tasks requiring minimal

reconstruction of known procedures proved very difficult.

As well as strategy deficits further research studies indicated qualitative differences in

strategy application between high and low achieving students. Anthony ( 1 99 1 ) n oted

differences in tertiary mathematics students' monitoring behaviours when reviewing

worked examples. The realisation of comprehension failure triggered episodes of self­

explanations from high achieving students. In contrast, low achieving students , either

chose to ignore information that was difficult to understand by treatin g it as irrelevant to

the problem solution, or reread the example, or attended only those examples and

problems that they 'found easy' .

56
Lawson and Chinnappan ( 1 994) compared high and low achieving secondary students

during solution of geometry problems using a think-aloud procedure. Analysis indicated

that high-achieving students n ot only accessed a greater body of geometric knowledge

but also used that knowledge more effectively. In particular, on the more difficult

problems, high-achieving students "showed a greater tendency to notice errors and to

engage in some form of management following identification of an error. This increased

the likel ihood that errors would be corrected more frequently by those students" (p. 86).

Swanson ( 1 990) asked 4th and 5th grade students to solve pendulum and combinatorial

problems after first completing a self-report interview designed to measure

metacognitive knowledge. Swanson demonstrated that high metacognitive students

outperformed lower metacognitive students in problem solving regardless of their overall

aptitude level. He concluded that high metacognitive skills can compensate for overall

abi l ity by providing a certain knowledge about cognition.

A study (Siemon , 1 992a) of primary school children' s problem-solving performance

clearly i llustrates the relationship between cognitive goals and monitoring. Siemon' s

interview data suggests that differences i n approach to problem solving are related to

differences in the way and extent to which cognitive goals and cognitive actions are

generated, retrieved and monitored. Individual children appear to attend to, and value,

qualitatively different aspects of the problem-solving experience, in rel ation to their

knowledge and beliefs about learning mathematics. Some children were more likely to

monitor the implementation and accuracy of their cognitive actions, but not the

relevance of these actions to the problem condition. They seemed concerned with

procedures and algorithms (procedural knowledge of a cognitive and metacognitive

kind). Their cogni tive goals appeared to be concerned with producing an answer, in

what was perceived to be a socially acceptable and locally valued way, rather than

whether or not the actions made any sense in terms of the original problem. Other

children were more likely to monitor their cognitive goals (what they decided was

needed in relation to the problem conditions) and their cognitive and metacognitive

knowledge. They were more concerned with understanding and representing the

probiem meaning (conceptual knowledge of a cognitive and metacognitive kind).

57
S iemon's ( 1 992a, 1 992b) research into children's problem solving in mathematics

concluded that there was a complex i nteraction between the knowledge and control

aspects of metacognition, and between metacognition and cognition. The metacognitive

knowledge that the child brought to the problem solving situation, appeared to be

extremely robust and resistant to change. For example, the belief that school

mathematics was about " doing sums to get answers" , usually in the shortest possible

time with a minimal amount of thought, seemed to play a much more important role in

determining a child's problem-solving performance than the managerial, control decisions

that many researchers have concentrated on. Siemon ( 1 992b:2) noted that while such

executive actions are both necessary and important, "it is the solver's store of

metacognitive knowledge which primarily determines the formation, access and

operation of these actions". These findings reinforce Schoenfeld' s ( 1 985) earlier findings

related to teaching problem-solving heuristics to college students in which the student' s

belief system, including beliefs about oneself, about the world and about mathematics

was found to be a critical factor for problem solving success.

The reviewed studies in this chapter all suggest that the learners' actions appear to be

largely determined by their beliefs about the nature and purpose of school mathematics.

The central role accredited to metacognitive knowledge and its impact upon one's

cognitive goals and subsequent cognitive actions adds support to the view of

metacognition proposed by Flavell ( 1 98 1 ) and the proposed Interactive Model of

Learning Mathematics (section 2 . 3 ) .

Additionally the research has clearly demonstrated differential strategic behaviours .

between low and high achieving students. Analysis of on-task behaviour indicated that

students' attention to the task might n ot be as important as the thought processes that

students report engaging in while attending the lesson. Metacognitive behaviour,

including problem diagnosis and c omprehension monitoring, was seen as an important

predictor of mathematics achievement. However, in a recent review of research related

to problem solving and metacognition in mathematics education, Schoenfeld ( 1 992)

stated that we need more knowledge of control mechanisms and their relationship to the

domain and more knowledge of the interaction of the cognitive and affective factors in

mathematics learning.

58
3.5 Factors Affecting Strategic Learning

Strategy use is embedded in the context in which it is used. When the context varies, the

n ature of strategic activity often varies as well (Ames & Archer, 1 98 8 ; B iggs, 1 99 1 ;

Dweck, 1 986; Garner, 1 990a; McLeod, 1 99 1 ; Ramsden, 1 98 8 ; Zimmerman & Martinez­

Pons, 1 988).

One need not look outside the school or classroom for evidence that social and

cultural conditions play an important role in what is learned. It is clear that the
sorts of interactions students have among themselves and with their teachers, as
well as the beliefs, values, and expectations that are nurtured in school contexts,
shape not only what mathematics is learned, but also how it is learned. (Lester,

Garofalo, & Krol l , 1 989:78)

A feature of the Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics (section 2.3) is the

numerous factors which interact with strategy development, strategy deployment, and

strategy effectiveness. Chapter 2 discussed the interactive role of prior domain and

strategic knowledge in the learning process. This section examines factors relating to the

classroom context and affective issues, such as metacognitive knowledge, beliefs, and

motivation.

FACTORS RELATING TO THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT

Social Factors

The social setting of the classroom provides occasions for modelling effective thinking

and learning strategies. Verbalisation and modelling of appropriate strategies by both the

teacher and other students seems to be helpful to students' efficacy and development of

higher-order thinking and learning (Gavelek & Raphael, 1 98 5 ; Resnick, 1 987).

59
Constructivists vtew mathematical learning as an interactive as well as constructive

activity (Cobb, Wood & Yackel, 1 990). Social interactions are essential to the ongoing

process of negotiation of mathematical understandings (Voigt, 1 994 ). In communicating

with others about the problems that they engage in, students develop the power to

reflect on, evaluate, and clarify their own thinking.

In addition to providing support for learning ( 'scaffolding'), social i nteraction may also

generate cogni tive conflict which, in turn, can promote learning. By expressing ideas

publicly, by defending them, and by questioning the ideas of others, students are forced

to deal with incongruities and are encouraged to elaborate, clarify, and reorganise their

own thinking. Hiebert ( 1 992) and Gabrys, Weiner and Lesgold ( 1 993) all suggest that

peers may be especially effective in social i nteraction roles because the differences in

thinking, and the ideas expressed, are l ikely to be within a range that will generate real

conflict. Peer advice is most likely to have shared meanings or lead to negotiated

meamngs.

In a classroom study of younger children, Alton-Lee ( 1 984) found that behaviours which

involved opportun ity to attend to peer activity, verbal and non verbal , appeared to be

highly related to student learning. In fact, direct individual contact with peers appeared

to be more consistently related to student learning than individual contact with the

teacher. However, while social interactions are generally thought to encourage strategic

behaviour, research by Fennema and Peterson ( 1 985) found that girls' engagement in

social activities, one-to-one interaction with the teacher, and receiving help from the

teacher, were negatively related to high-level achievement. Their study showed that 4th

grade girls depended more on the teacher and peers for assistance on high-level

mathematics problems, and that such assistance tended to be provided at this grade in

lieu of a press for autonomous work. Thus, Fennema and Peterson suggest that these

social classroom processes reflect a dependence on others and may in fact be

counterproductive for developing autonomous learning behaviours.

60
Instructional Factors

Classroom instruction will affect the acquisition and maintenance of task-related

strategies. Teachers ' statements about the purpose of learning influence the student ' s

goal and learning behaviours. However, according t o Campione, B rown, & Connell

( 1 989) much of the instruction the students receive in school is "blind instruction" in

which students are rarely told about why they practice the activities they do. As a

consequence, there is a resulting lack of transfer of strategies to related problems. If

flexible use of instructed strategies is the goal , students need to be informed of the

purpose of the skills they are taught, and given instruction in the monitoring and

regulation of those resources.

Because teachers have the final say on students' academic success, students seek

information and form opinions about ' what the teacher wants' and tailor their strategies

to suit. Teachers who state clearly and early what they expect of students in their course,

not only provide their students with information about what, how, and how much to

study, but they "tend to reduce the amount of flounderi ng and defensiveness that can

occur w hen students do not know what to expect" (Thomas, 1 988 :269). However, there
needs to be a balance, as many tasks are so directive as to provide limited opportunities

for students to alter their approaches to the task itself (Rohrkemper & Corno, 1 988).
When students are given responsibility for the management of their own learning they

are more likely to use strategic behaviours.

Although mathematics curricula emphasise the importance of higher-order cognitive

processes, mathematics teachers often neglect interpretive analysis and strategic

decisions when presenting lessons o r structuring tasks. For example, a model answer

may suppress all evidence of mathematical thinking and present only the abstract

appl ication of algebraic tools (Burton, 1 984). Instruction that emphasises the acquisition

of essential mathematical facts and algorithmic skills in isolation from problem-solving

situ ations is detrimental to the development of appropriate of h igh-level metacognitive

beh aviours. Campione et al. ( 1 989) note that this practice i s more common with lower

ability students who i n fact need more explicit i nstruction of high � level s kills.

61
 Teachers' desire to enhance and recogmse students' success may be expressed in

instructional strategies that inhibit rather than enable the development of adaptive

strategic learning behaviours. Cul l en ( 1 985) argues that many everyday teaching

practices provide a learning situation that encourage passivity or non strategic responses,

inhibiting the use of self-directed strategies to cope with failure experiences. Of

particular relevance to the mathematic s classes are such counterproductive practices as:

• Erase example: Children are permitted to erase incorrect work and recommence

without checking or identifying the error.

. • Teacher response failure: the teacher fails to follow up incorrect written or verbal

responses .

• Presentation of work: there is an over-emphasis on appearance of the work, to the

detriment of content mastery.

• Attitude to errors: the practice of marking examples at the end of the mathematics

lesson, when little time is available for practic ing correction ski l ls.

Demands of the Task

Directly related to instruction are the task demands. According to Thomas and Rohwer

( 1 993: 1 2) demands should "prompt students to engage in demand-responsive

autonomous learning activities". However, B u rton ( 1 992: 348) suggests that present

c lassrooms are particularly prone to rushing through content without allowing or

expecting students to actively question their understanding and reflect on their learning:

"expectations of finding answers in the absence of personal questions has, for a long

time, been i ntegral to many mathematics classrooms operating on a model of ' delivery ' ."

In classrooms where the focus is on computational procedures and accuracy, and

students in general know in advance which c omputational procedures are needed to

solve problems, the criteria! tasks are unlikely to be sufficiently challenging to prompt

students to engage in strategic learning.

Doyle ( 1 988: 1 77) contends that "by providing a large amount of prompting to keep

production rates high, [mathematics] teachers limit students' opportunities to develop

autonomous learning capabilities and reinforce their dependency on the teacher for task

accompl ishment". These 'compensatory' teacher behaviours decrease the cognitive

62
demands of a task (Rohwer & Thomas, 1 989). For example, teachers may compensate

for problem-solving demands by providing a ' rule of thumb' for dealing with a problem ­

such as a keyword strategy. The student may complete the problem, but without

understanding what the problem describes, without modell ing the problem

mathematically, and without acquiring the intended procedural knowledge.

Additionally, Bereiter ( 1 992) claims that the demands of problem-solving tasks in many

mathematics classes limits the development of problem-centred knowledge and the

consequent need for active or intentional leaming. Bereiter reasons that the development

of problem-centred knowledge depends on problems that persist so that they become

organising points for knowledge .

Problem solving as it typically appears in mathematics and science curricula is

the antithesis of the kind of activity that could be expected to lead to p roblem­
centred knowledge of high-level concepts. It consists of strings of problems that
are forgotten as soon as the assignment is completed. The recurrent elements,
which therefore become the organizing points for knowledge, are of a low-level
procedural kind often quite unrelated to the mathematical or scientific concepts
supposedly being taught. (Bereiter, 1 992: 346-7)

Use of Resources

Another important requirement for strategic learning behaviour is the use of resources

such as summaries and textbooks. A study by Shap iro (cited in Corno, 1 989) examined

the use of mathematics textbooks as an aid to enhancing strategic learning. Using a

specially prepared algebra text, Shapiro produced supportive results to demonstrate that

strategy use in mathematics can be learned through textbook instruction alone.

However, Confrey ( 1 992) suggests that American mathematics textbook publishers

typically present the material with as low a reading level as can be tolerated, providing

step-by-step examples as models that allow students to complete the exercises by

imitation, and avoid the need for verbal discussion. In general, many text-presented

problems can be solved without thinking about the underlying mathematics, and by

63
blindly applying the procedures that have been studied in the current lesson . Thus,

"workbook mathematics gives students little reason to connect ideas of "today' s" lesson

with those of past lessons or with the real world" (Romberg, 1 992:48).

Nature o f the Learning Goal

Goals are cognitive representations of the different purposes students may adopt in

different achievement situations. Pintrich et al. ( 1 993) state that from the variety of

conceptualisations of academic achievement goals there are two distinct orientations -

intrinsic, mastery and task orientation; and an extrinsic, performance and ego-invol ved

orientation. Students who adopt a mastery orientation focus on the process of learning,

understanding, and mastering the task; while those who adopt a pe1formance orientation

focu s on obtaining a good grade and outperforming others.

There have been a number of studies which show that students exhibiting differing goal

orientations exhibit different patterns of cognitive engagements (Ames & .AmtS, 1 988;
Pintrich & De Groot, 1 990; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1 992). For example, Pintrich and De

Groot ( 1 990) showed that college students, who adopted a mastery goal focussed on

understanding, were more l i kely to report using deep processing strategies (Biggs, 1 99 1 )
such as elaboration, in addition to metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies. Nolen

( 1 988), in a laboratory study of text comprehension, found that junior high-school

students who adopted a mastery orientation were more likely to use both deep and

surface processing strategies, while those with a performance orientation were more

likely to use surface processing strategies.

Volet and Lawrence's ( 1 989) research i llustrates how mathematics learning can be

influenced by individual goals. They interviewed u ndergraduate statistics students to

determ ine relationships between their goals and their academic achievement, background

knowledge, and age. Mature aged students reported using more adaptive and

independent learning strategies than did recent school leavers. These strategies were

fou nd to be more closely related to the students' goal and their age than to their entering

know ledge. Similar findings with adult d istance education mathematics students were

found by Anthony ( 1 99 1 ).

64
Bereiter and Scardamalia ( 1 989) describe the goal component of learning as "intentional

learni ng". For example, when children in mathematics manipulate blocks to solve an

arithmetic problem, some children appear to put effort into, not only solving the

problem, but also to understandin g the underlying mathematical concept. The learning

that results is not an incidental con sequence of solving mathematics problems, but rather

a goal to which the children' s problem solving efforts were directed. This intentional

learning is influenced by the:

• availability and use of appropriate learning strategies;

• the student' s conceptions or theories of learning and knowledge; and

• the instructional situation as it relates to students efforts to learn.

How do c l assroom contexts affect the nature of the learning goals? In the classroom

students' learning is guided by an understanding of what they ought to be able to do

when their studying is completed. Proficient learners are conscious of, and will seek out,

cues concerning what is most important in a course. They use information about the

criterion to select processing strategies and review strategies that are most appropriate

for this criterion performance (Thomas, 1 988). However, many students in mathematics

classes misunderstand the goal of e arly mathematics education; they come to believe that

mathematics consists only of runn i ng off well practiced routines that have been supplied

by the teacher. Neyland ( 1 994a:3) provides the following scenario of a junior

mathematics classroom learning environment:

· Debbie likes addition; she knows lots of different ways to combine numbers and
starts to explore some new ideas. But the teacher says, no Debbie, I want you to
do it this way. So Debbie learns to add the teacher 's way. The next day the new
teacher comes again and Debbie waits, this time, to be told how she is to do
things. Debbie is learning to be passive, to accept that the teacher 's way is better
than her own, and that rule following is more important than inventing.

Furthermore, research studies report that for many mathematics students the goal of

problem-solving exercises is to complete the problem; that is, to get the same answer as

the back of the book. For example, Peterson ( 1 988 :7) reported that elementary students

65
"tend not to focus on the meaning of the content to be learned. Rather, they report that

their goal is to get the task finished or completed". Ames ( 1 992) contends that the

mathematics student' s focus is highly product orientated and that the high visibility of

these products is likely to orientate the student away from the task of learning. Ames

suggests that performance orientation may be the more adaptive approach for a student

to adopt, given the common organisation of mathematics i nstruction and students'

perception that learning mathematic s is a reproduction of seemingly unrelated facts and

rules.

A concern of the present study is that to aid task completion, low-achieving students

may develop and use strategies such as frequent help-seeking, copying from peers,

checkin g answers with book rather than self-checking, and copying procedures from

worked examples. Learning may occur, but it would be an incidental by-product of task

completion rather than an intentional goal . The variance in ' intentional learning' by

individual students may go some way to explain some students' failure to succeed in

mathematics learning, despite the in vestment of long hours of studying.

The single most significant influence on students' perceptio n of learning is their

perception of assessment (Ramsden, 1 988). Ames ( 1 992) argues that a product

orientation may shift to a performance orientation when correc tness, absence of errors

and normative success are emphasised through assessment. Performance orientated or

competitively orientated environments encourage an ability focus that does not support

the use of strategies that require sustained effort over time.

In a discussion of assessment practices in New Zealand mathematics education, Ritchie

and Carr ( 1 992: 1 97) argue that i nstead of encouraging mastery orientation, current

mastery assessment practices "may make pupils over-concerned with grades and marks,

reduce thei r level of risk taking, and be ineffective at developing pupils' own knowledge

of their understanding (metacognition)". In accord with Pressley et al.' s ( 1 987) ' Good

S trategy User' framework, Prawat ( 1 989) notes that while both performance and

mastery dispositions have their place; it is important for studen ts to be able to access

either one when appropriate.

66
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS

As strategic behaviour involves the deliberate application of skills and knowledge in a

goal oriented context, "motivation is thus a necessary component of strategic behaviour

and a precursor of strategy u se" (McCombs, 1 98 8 : 1 53 ) . Strategies are differentially

effective according to the students' motivational pattern. How a student is motivated

will determine: what strategies the student selects and how effectively the student utilises

these strategies.

B iggs ( 1 99 1 ) found that more effective learners are better able to align their strategic

thinking with their motivational orientation; the strategies they select are more consistent

with what it is they are trying to accomplish. The surface learner who is extrinsically

motivated, uses predominantly rote learning strategies, perceives learning mathematics

as a rule-based discipline, and lacks metacognitive skills and knowledge. Anthony ( 1 99 1 )

noted that those distance education mathematics students who used surface-learning

processes, perceived homework assignments in terms of content coverage rather than

content mastery. They used strategies that contributed to task c ompletion, but which did

not necessarily contribute to the mastery of the content, or to the acquisition or

maintenance of adaptive ' learning to learn' skills. In contrast, deep-learning approach

students were intrinsically motivated, u sed assignments to extend their learning of the

topic, had well organised study methods, and used metacognitive knowledge and

strategies to monitor their learn ing.

Metacognition i nfluences stu dents' orientations to learning tasks and their beliefs in their
.
personal abilities. "Students' motivational investment flows from these personal beliefs

about learning. That i s precisely why metacognition is essential for the development of

self regulated learning" (Paris & Winograd, 1990:26). Good strategy users are motivated
to be strategic, believing performance can be enhanced by procedures well matched to

learning challenges. They do not believe achievement i s due to effort alone or to factors

outside their control, such as luck, i nnate ability or task difficulty (Pressley et al., 1 989).

67
Metacognitive Knowledge

Metacognitive knowledge: an awareness of the nature and process of learning, personal

learning styles and deficiencies, is critical for the students' development of self-control .

S tudents make judgements about (a) the personal significance of the goals within a task,

(b) the perceived utility, value, and efficiency of alternative actions and (c) the self­

management of effort, time and knowledge. These decisions, made during learning tasks,

are based on learners' values and beliefs and can promote or deter continued motivation

and learning (Paris et al. , 1 983). Proficient learners will have a repertoire of strategies

for maintaining concentration, getting themselves started on learning tasks, and a good

sense of the time needed for completing learning tasks.

However, Blumenfeld and Meece' s ( 1 988) research findings suggest that metacognitive

knowledge leads to spontaneous strategy use only when combined with an interest in

understanding (i.e., intentional learn ing). Hidi 's ( 1 990) summary of the research on

interest concludes that both personal interest and situational interest have a profound

effect on cognitive functioning and the facilitation of learning. Hidi notes that interest

may not necessarily result in more time spent processing information, rather the

differences lies in the quality of the processing, not the quantity of the processing, or

time spent on task. Similarly, Schiefele ( 1 99 1 ) has shown i nterest to be positively related

to college students' self-reported use of elaborating strategies, the seeking of

information, and their engagement in reflective thinking, and negatively related to the use

of rehearsal strategies.

While some researchers focus on ' interest' , most mathematics researchers have focused

on beliefs. Beliefs are vital because they "energise strategic behaviour" (McCombs,

1 98 8 ) . Beliefs about mathematics and mathematical problem solving, including the

nature of mathematics, its difficulties, and its usefu lness, can influence how one

organises content knowledge in memory, and what one determines is important. Lampert

( 1 990: 32) provides the fol lowing summary of mathematics students' beliefs:

Commonly, mathematics is associated with certainty: knowing it, with being able
to get the right answers, quickly. . . These cultural assumptions are shaped by

68
 school experience, in which doing mathematics means following the rules laid
down by the teacher; knowing mathematics means remembering and applying the

correct rule when the teacher asks a question; and mathematical truth is

determined when the answer is ratified by the teacher.

These beliefs clearly will shape mathematical learning behaviours "in ways that have

extraordinarily powerful (and often negative) consequences" (Schoenfeld, 1 992: 359).

A second category of beliefs deals with students' bel iefs about themselves and their

relationship to mathematics (metacognitive person knowledge). This category has a

strong affective c omponent, and includes beliefs related to self-confidence, self-concept

and causal attribution of success and failure. Beliefs about competency for particular

tasks (e.g., I am good at maths), or about ability in general (e.g., I am a capable learner),

will affect the learner's motivation to perform strategically and to acquire new

procedures. For i nstance, a student may come to believe that effort is a determinant of

success and will conti nue to apply effort in a learning situation. A strategic learner may

believe that success on task X depends on the use of a strategy appropriate to X , and

attribute failure to i nappropriate strategy selection.

Pintrich and De Groot ( 1 990) found that junior high school students' use of cognitive

and metacognitive strategies was positively correlated with self-efficacy judgements.

More specifically, research on self-concept in learning mathematics (McLeod, 1 99 1 )

i ndicates that there are substantial differences between males and females o n this

dimension. In general males tend to be more confident than females - even when females

may have had better reason , based on their performances, to feel confident. S tudents

having a low sense of self-efficacy may avoid studying. They may put in less than the

amount of study time actuall y needed, or they may decline to invest the quality of mental

effort required to c onstruct, select, and employ effective strategies.

Attributions of success or failure appear to have a significant influence on metacognitive

processes. Negative views of themselves as learners can inhibit the development of

strategic thinking in some students (Rohrkemper & Corno, 1 988). Moreover, when

69
students meet some cognitive failure, those who attribute failure to s trategic effort are

more likely to ask " What must I do differently to succeed?", thereby i nducing strategic

behaviour. Those who attribute failure to lac k of ability are more l ikely to 'give up' .

Fennema' s ( 1 989) research on gender-related attributions shows that males are more

likely, than females, to attribute their success i n mathematics to ability. Females are more

l ikely, than males, to attribute their failure to lack of abi lity. Additionally, females tend to

attribute their success to extra effort, more than males do, and males tend to attribute

their failures to lack of effort, more than females do. The resu lting male attributions are

hypothesi sed to have a more positive influence on achievement.

Cullen ( 1 985) notes that there are problems with attributing performance success to

effort alone. There is a danger that continued exhortation to try harder may serve to

increase helplessness, rather than the desired strategic behaviour, if the student does not

possess the personal resources for coping with the task. These concerns are also

reflected in Swing et al. ' s ( 1 988) findings (section 3 .4) . Effort attribution may need to be

associated with either past successes or with specific strategies for coping with the task

(Ames & Archer, 1 98 8 ; McCombs, 1 988).

As well as attributions for success, students i n mathematics classes need to cope with

'getting problems wrong' and failure to achieve in what i � traditionally a competitive

climate. Negative affect associated with failure may impede both students' metacognitive

development and their efficient use of available metacognitive strategies. Cullen ( 1 985)

suggests that anxiety may interfere with the effective use of existing metacognitive

strategies, in particular cognitive monitoring. High levels of anxiety could be manifest in

under-achievement, thereby reducing the possibility of failure by lowering aspirations, or

by adopting an overcautious style of learning. S tudents, who are labelled as i ndifferent to

learning, lazy or u nmotivated may well be engaging in self-protective behaviours that

emerge because of their feeling of failure in competitive settings (Dweck, 1 986).

Cullen's research with primary school children' s ability to cope with failure concluded

that effective achievement behaviours are facilitated by the availability of a range of both

metacognitive and affective strategies for coping with ambiguity and error.

70
It is clear that all the discussed factors interact m numerous ways: for example,

contextual factors directly influence the formation of beliefs, as well as the e xtent to

which a student is willing or able to engage in regulatory learning behaviours. It is

apparent that the outcome of learning depends on the kind of learning in which students

engage. In turn , the kind of learning students engage in depends on features of the

contexts in which their learning activity takes place. Many educational researchers

(Collins et al., 1 989; Mitchell, 1 992b; Thomas & Rohwer, 1 993) argue that contexts

must provide and require autonomous learning behaviours, and must value strategic

learning, if students are to engage in forms of learning that result in productive

knowledge construction.

3.6 Summary

It is clear that the effective u se of learning strategies enhances learning outcomes and

performance. For learning to be effective students' learn ing behaviours should include:

• strategies for selectively attending to the most informative aspects of instructional

stimulus;

• strategies for effective encoding of new material so that it can be easily retrieved;

• knowledge of the conditions under which a given strategy is effective; and

• monitoring of the effectiveness of one' s strategies.

S trategy research in mathematics education has_ found that students report engag i ng in a

w ide range of cognitive processes and strategies during mathematics instructio n . These

strategies may be simple or complex, appropriate or i nappropriate, i ntelligent or unwise.

In a review of learning strategy research in mathematics education Peterson ( 1 98 8 : 1 4)

notes that:

71
 (T)hose processes and strategies that students report most often were not those
that are frequently proposed and researched by educational psychologists as
facilitative of learning and achievement. For example, students seldom reported
spontaneously using sophisticated kinds of learning strategies such as memory
strategies, strategies for relating new information to prior knowledge, for
discriminating, and for comparing information. To the extent that students '

reports maybe viewed as evidence of what elementary students do naturally to

help themselves learn during mathematics, students ' reports may be viewed as
indicative of their knowledge about the learning process .. .//, however, students '
reports are viewed as indicating how little they know about cognitive processes
and strategies that facilitate learning, then such lack of knowledge of cognitive

strategies and metacognitive processes may, in fact, be limiting their potential for
mathematics learning, and particularly for higher-order mathematics learning.

Students ' use of learning strategies will vary according to preference, perception of

mathematics learning, teacher demands, nature and difficulty of the task, prior

knowledge and experience, stages of learning, perceived purpose, and degree of self­

investment. Recent research studies have stressed the importance of students'

idiosyncratic metacogn itive knowledge as the basis for selecting and activating learning

strategies. There is ample evidence (Campione et al. , 1 98 8 ; Collins et al. , 1 989;

Schoenfeld, 1 985, 1 987) that students who know more than enough subject matter often

fail to solve problems because they do not use thei r knowledge appropriately.

Additionally, researchers argue that although students of all abilities u se learning

strategies, many students are low achievers simply because they rely on infrequent or

inappropriate use of a narrow, limited repertoire of strategies such as keyword, rote

memorisation, and matching problem procedures with worked examples. Rohwer &

Thomas ( 1 989: 1 1 5) in reviewing a range of domains, including mathematics, note that

"few demands are made for the kinds of knowledge structures and procedures that

research has shown to be characteristic of expert problem solving". Strategies often

promoted by certain i nstructional approaches, to surmount short-term obstacles such as

a test, may not lead to more long-term knowledge construction:

72
 Chapter 4

The Present Position

Before we decide that students do not have the interest or intellectual ability to
learn something, we need to be sure that students know how to learn what it is we
are trying to teach them.
(Gage & Berliner, 1 992: 30 1 )

4.1 Introduction

There have been significant influences since the 1 980s that have caused mathematics

educators to be greatly concerned with learning strategies and related research findings.

International studies in the 1 980s highlighted students' Jack of mathematical

performance in basic skills and problem solving. Additionally, research findings (section

3 .4) indicated students' lack of appropriate strategic learning behaviours, and the

different use of learning strategies by high achievers when compared with low achievers.

Of particular concern is students' limi ted use of metacognitive strategies to direct and

control their learning and the implication of inhibiting instructional factors . Together,

these factors prompted mathematics educators and researchers to look for i nstructional
_
remedies and instigate curriculum reforms.

To counteract student and instructional deficiencies in strategic learning, both cognitive

theory and empirical research studies have provided evidence for the possible benefits of

specific classroom-based i nstruction in learning strategies (Herrington, 1 992;

S choenfeld, 1 98 5 ; Swing et al., 1 988). However, i t is argued here that there is still much

to learn from further research involving mathematics students' present use and

development of existing learning strategies in the c lassroom environment. In the light of

73
recent mathematic s curriculum developments, both in New Zealand and overseas, which

promote a constructivist learning environment, there is a need to focu s on students' use

and development of strategies that will enable them to actively construct their own

knowledge and self-regulate their learning.

4.2 The Present Focus of Learning Strategies in Mathematics

Education

Findings from learning strategy research studies have prompted a number of

mathematics educators to promote the teaching of specific strategic behaviours

(Kil patrick, 1 98 5 ; Herrington, Wong & Kershaw, 1 992) . Peterson ( 1 988) suggests that

strategy i nstruction is indeed a challenge for the 1 990s. She argues for that there is a

need for an i ncreased instructional focus on teaching higher-level skills in mathematics to

all students. "Such an i ncreased focus might be particularly important for lower­

achieving students, who have more difficulty than their peers i n learning these higher­

order skills on their own" (p.2). In addition to traditional concerns with content,

mathematics instruction should place a greater focus on the teaching of strategic

methods that contribute to capable thinking, with students taking a more active role in

managing their learning (Cobb, 1 988; Pressley, 1 986; Pressley et al. , 1 989; Schoenfeld,

1 98 8) .

From research studies Peterson ( 1 98 8 ) identifies specific strategies related t o

mathematics learning a s follows: checking answers, reworking problems, rereading

directions or problems, relating new information to prior information, asking for help,

using aids, using memory strategies, dec ision-making, trying to u nderstand the lesson,

and doing a mathematics problem using a specific operation.

74
Other educators focus on a smaller group of strategies which are promoted as necessary

for constructivist learning, autonomous learning, or development of problem-solving

ski lls. An overriding metacognitive behaviour that is repeatedly emphasised in

mathematics education is reflection. "In mathematics the reflective process, wherein a

construct becomes the object of scrutiny itself, is essential" (Confrey, 1 990: 1 09) . In a

discussion on the constructivist learning paradigm, Ritchie & Carr ( 1 992: 1 98) claim that:

When a learner, actively involved in making sense of new information, is

encouraged to reflect upon what has been learned, then in this process critical
modes of thinking are brought into play. . .

Hiebert ( 1 992:442) provides three reasons t o support arguments that encourage

reflection for learning mathematics. Firstly, "reflection yields products of value.

Reflecting on mathematical experiences, activities, and procedures transforms them into

mathematical objects . . . that can be manipulated on mentally". A second reason is that

reflection "provides a way of gaining control over one ' s thoughts". Planning and

monitoring are critical control processes that involve reflection. The third reason is that

"reflection engenders an appropriate frame of mind": an orientation to the subject that is

essential for thi nking mathematically and doing mathematics.

Rather than perceiving mathematics as a practice of recalling and executing

memorised rules, mathematics becomes a subject in which the most natural
experience is to mull a problem over in one 's mind, to think about it from
different perspectives, to search for relationships to other things. Reflection
influences what one thinks mathematics is. (Hiebert, 1 992:443)

Hiebert's second reason explicitly acknowledges the metacognitive aspect of reflection.

Kilpatrick ( 1 98 5 ) also c laims that reflection is a metacognitive process that induces an

awareness of one's cognitive processes which u ltimately leads to their regul ation. The

self-regul atory aspect of reflection is further expanded upon by McLeod ( 1 9 8 9) who

s uggests that reflection should enable students to bring to consciousness an awareness of

75
their emotional reaction. An increased awareness of these emotional influences should

give students greater control over their cognitive processes.

Wheatley ( 1 992) also argues that reflection plays a critical role in mathematics learning:

j ust completing a mathematical task is insufficient It is one thing to solve a problem; it is

quite another to take one's own action as an object of reflection. Stu dents who reflect

have greater control over their thinking so that in the midst of a lesson students can be

reminded or informed of alternative ways of responding to the situation. They can decide

which of several paths to take, rather than simply following a given procedure.

In rel ation to problem solving, Polya ( 1 957) stressed the importance of reflection and

evaluation of the process and solution. Gabrys et al. , ( 1 993) suggested that successful

learning by problem solving depends largely on intentional learning strategies such as

hypothesis testing, reflection, and planning. Similarly, the process of reflection during

problem solving is endorsed in Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry

of Education, 1 992) .

Communication is another strategy which is widely promoted as a means of developing

mathematical understanding (Begg, 1 993a; Hiebert, 1 992; Neyland, 1 994b) . Begg

( 1 993a: 2 1 6) suggests that "communication is emphasised not only because it is part of

what mathematicians do but also because, from a constructivist perspective, it enhances

learning". Communication can promote and guide reflection and reflection can enrich

what is shared through communication.

Learning to communicate about and through mathematics is part of learning to

become a mathematical problem solver and learning to think mathematically.
Critical reflection may be developed by encouraging students to share ideas, to
use their own words to explain their ideas, and to record their thinking in a
variety of ways, for example, through words, symbols, diagrams, and models.
(Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum, Ministry of Education, 1 992: 1 1 )

76
However, while communication and reflection, "seem to capture the cognitive heart of

the reform" in mathematics education, they are not the only i mportant strategies

(Hiebert, 1 992: 440).

Conjecture, operationalised as hypothesising and questioning, is important in learning

mathematics. "The process of sorting out ideas, whether initiated by a text or by

working on a question, involves making conjectures . . . mathematical thinking i s best

supported by adopting a conjecturing attitude" (Mason, 1 988:8). Similarly, Romberg

( 1 992) supports the central role of conjecture i n the mathematics learning process.

As long as students are making conjectures, their mathematical knowledge will

always be structured, consciously or unconsciously, because conjecture cannot be
created from nothing. Clearly, the work of students in such an environment is no
longer a matter of acting within somebody else 's structure, answering somebody
else 's questions, and waiting for the teacher to check the response. In the creation
of knowledge, there is only that which fits the structure of mathematical
knowledge already created by the student and that which does not and should,
therefore, prompt conjecture. (p. 48)

Visualisation, the process of forming images (mentally, or with pencil and paper, or with

the aid of technology), is promoted by mathematics educators as a means of effecting

mathematical discovery and understanding (see Zimmerman & Cunningham, 1 99 1 ).

While visual isation usually refers to graphic or pictorial images, metaphoric images and

analogies are also important elaborative processes. Knight ( 1 992) proposes that a more

deliberate exploitation of metaphor in mathematics education might aid the development

of metacognitive or thinking skills, aid memory, and change attitudes to mathematics.

Generalisation, more typically associated with problem solving, is also important in the

learning process. The recognition of pattern or regularity appear to be "the building

blocks used by learners to c reate order and meaning out of an overwhelming quantity of

sense data" (Burton, 1 984:38).

77
An important, but rarely referenced, learning strategy for senior mathematics students is

the ability to use the text as a source of information. Reading from a mathematics text is

not an easy task for students:

They must make mental connections between concepts, symbols, pictures,

examples and diagrams, that require a high level of mental activity. . . We do not
assume that students learn to read prose by 'picking it up along the way ', and we
cannot assume that they will learn to read symbolic material that way either. It is
one of the most significant teacher 's duties to get the students more directly

involved in their learning and teach them how to read a mathematics textbook by
themselves. (Toumasis, 1 993:558)

Curriculum initiatives are typically a response to educational research (and political

whims). Many of the sentiments expressed above are reflected in recent mathematics

curriculum developments of several countries. The following aims are included m

Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1 992: 9- 1 0):

• to develop the abi lity to reflect critically on the methods they have chosen ;

• to develop the skills of critical appraisal of a mathematical argument or calculation,

u se mathematics to explore and conjecture, and learn from mistakes as well as

successes;

• to develop the ability to estimate and to make approximation, and to be alert to the

reasonableness of results and measurements;

• to express ideas, and to listen and respond to the ideas of others;

• to develop the knowledge and skills to interpret written presentations of mathematics;

and

• to recognise pattern s and relationships in mathematics and the real world, and be able

to generalise from these.

78
The National Statement on Mathematics for Australian Schools states that all students

shoul d "conti nue to learn mathematics independently and collaboratively" (Australian

Education Council, 1 99 1 : LS). S imilarly, in America, metacognition as a component of

mathematics instruction is also emphasised in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards

for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1 989).

Metacognitive objectives include: the ability to "reflect upon and clarify (their) thinking

about mathematical relationships" (p. 40); "the inclination to monitor and reflect on
(thei r) thinking and performance" (p. 233); the ability to "judge the relative merits of

alternative procedures" (p. 232); and the ability to "give reasons for the steps in the

procedures" (p. 2 3 2) .

In summary, a wide range of learning strategies are actively promoted by mathematics

educators and curriculum documents. Cognitive strategies of elaboration, including

summarising, questioning, and imagery, are seen as key strategies for encoding

information. Communication, whether it be an inner dialogue (self-regulatory), self­

explanation of the text, peer interaction, or involvement in classroom discussion, is

regarded as an essential processes in negotiation of meaning. The process of reflection,

incorporating metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring, and evaluating, is seen as

especially important for enhancing problem-solving performance and learning. These

strategies are not promoted in isolation. The i nteractive nature of cognitive and

metacognitive strategies is acknowledged, as is the role of social and cultural aspects of

the classroom learning environment.

Many of these strategies are backed by research findings from classroom-intervention

studies. However, evidence of improved performance is usually related to problem­

solving performance rather than to the development of mathematical understanding and

mathematical learning processes. While mathematic educators and curriculum documents

may suggest which strategies are regarded as essential to classroom learning, this in itself

does not ensure that these strategies are presently valued and used by students in the

classroom learning environment. In order to realise the possibilities that a constructivist

pedagogy offers we need to take a closer, and more respectful look, at the learner.

79
4.3 A ctive Learning and Constructivism

Although helping students to become life-long learners has been an accepted l ong-term

goal of education, the short-term goal of obtaining basic academic skills is often

transl ated into actual schooling practice. Currently, instruction in many mathematics

classes is oriented towards helping students become proficient at computation,

algorithmic skills and practicing symbol manipulation rules. Cognitive skills tend to be

driven out altogether by a demand for teaching even larger bodies of knowledge, with

the idea that their application to reasoning and problem solving can be delayed (Resnick,

1 987). Reform documents however, both overseas and in New Zealand (Mathematics in

the New Zealand Curriculum, Ministry of Education, 1 992) , call for radical changes in
emphasis from computational practices to problem-solving experiences (Hiebert, 1 992).

Students need frequent opportunities to work with open-ended problems. . . Closed

p roblems, which follow a well-known pattem of solution, develop only a limited

range of skills, They encourage memorisation of routine methods rather than
consideration and experimentation. (Ministry of Education, 1 992: 1 1 )

As discussed in Chapter 1 , part of this change is a result of changing views o n what

constitutes mathematics competency in our ever changing technological society. As

technology is increasingly available to execute symbol manipulation procedures and

algorithms, so the nature of the skills which are viewed as desirable outcomes of

education are changing.

Change in the emphases, found in new curriculum documents, signals an equally

dramatic change in how mathematics is learnt (Neyland, 1 994b, Ritchie & Carr, 1 992).

Hiebert ( 1 992) argues that there are significant changes in the cognitive processes that

should be engaged during mathematics classes: "the purpose of studying procedures and

algorithms shifts from proficient execution to reflective analysis of mathematical patterns

and relationships"(p. 448). Moreover, in the future students will be faced more often

with the problem of managin g resources and using them effectively to solve problems.

80
For many mathematics educators constructivism captures the essence of the p roposed

learning changes (Leder & Gunstone, 1 990). Constructivism, as promoted in recent

curriculum documents suggests that the automation of skills and passive learning should

be replaced by active learning processes. Learning i s understood as a self-regulated

process of resolving inner conflicts that often become apparent thorough concrete

experience, collaborative discourse and reflection: "As new experiences cause students

to refine their existing knowledge and ideas, so they construct new knowledge"

(Ministry of Education, 1 992: 1 2) .

While constructivism is essentially a theory of learning, rather than teaching, it does

i mply a new set of goals for the classroom. "Teaching mathematics should be understood

as providing students with the opportunity and the stimulation to construct powerful

mathematical ideas for themselves and come to know their own power as mathematical

thinkers and learners" (Begg, 1 993b: 1 8) . It is however, a concern of the researcher that

emphasis focused on creating a suitable learning envi ronment will be of little value if

students are unaware of, or unwilling to employ, learning strategies to enable them to

cope with the learn ing demands of such a constructiv ist approach.

While active learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms is now widely

advocated, there is concern that some teachers may be lulled into a false sense of

security by providing students with numerous investigations, open-ended problem­

solving experiences, and hands on activities w ith the expectation that students are

successfully constructing knowledge from these experiences.

The major problem facing the marked increase . in the use of active learning
activities in secondary schools is the tendency by some teachers to believe that
active learning activities always promotes active mental experiences. (Kyriacou &
Marshall , 1 989: 4)

I n exarrumng this issue further, Kyriacou and Marshall ( 1 989) make an i mportant

distinction between the two major u ses of the term ' active learning' . The first u s age i s to

regard active learning as denoting learning activities in which students are given

81
considerable autonomy and control of the direction of the learning activities. Learning

activities commonly identified in this manner in the Mathematics in the New Zealand

Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1 992) include investigational work, problem

solving, small group work, collaborative learning and experiential learning. In contrast,

'passive learning' activities, in which the students are passive receivers of i nformation,

include listening to the teacher' s exposition, being asked a series of closed questions and

practice and application of information already presented.

Kyriacou and Marshall argue that a second usage of the term 'active learning' is equally

i mportant. In this instance, ' active learning' denotes "a quality of the pupils ' mental

experience in which there is active intellectual i nvolvement in the learning experience

characterised by increased insight" (p. 2). It is an attitude of active intellectual i nquiry.

This concept of 'active learning' encompasses the notions of mental effort o r i ntentional

learning (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1 989), meaningful learning, and metacognitive

learning strategies. As with the first definition this form of 'active learning' may be

contrasted with 'passive learning' which is characterised by an emphasis on assimi lating

new knowledge through memorisation and practice.

Kyriacou and Marshal! 's contention that these two dimension of 'active learning' are

relatively independent of each other is in accord with Noddings' ( 1 990) suggestion that

all mental activity is constructive, but that some acts involve "weak constructions" rather

than "strong constructions". As such, an active learning activity can foster either an

active mental experience or a passive mental experience, just as a passive learning

activity can foster either an active mental experience or a passive mental experience. The

crucial point in terms of the present study is that strategic learning behaviours need to be

aligned with 'active' mental experiences, which result in strong acts of construction if

students are to learn the desired mathematical understandings (Herrington, 1 990).

If constructivist learning is conceived as a self-regulated process of resolving inner

conflicts, students need to be equipped with the learning strategies to cope with these

demands. Perkins ( 1 99 1 ) however, raises concerns about the high level of demands

82
placed on the learner in a constructivist learning environment. Perkins suggests that high

demands are a result of the fol lowing three factors:

• The 'conflict faced' path of constructivist instruction has a very high cognitive

demand;

• Learners are asked to play more of a task management role than in conventional

instruction ; and

• Learners need to have an appropriate attitude to learning m a constructivist

classroom.

A concern of the present study is to determine whether, in fact, students are aware of a

range of learning strategies and whether they utilise learning behaviours appropriate for

the development of the "strong acts of construction" (Noddings, 1 990) . Prior experience

with secondary school students in the PEEL project (Baird & Northfield, 1 992) found

that attempts to reflect on one' s understanding, or to resolve discrepancies between

what a student thinks some input means and their existing understanding, is not a

common student behaviour. "It requires students to expose themselves as uncertain, to

challenge the teacher, to use tentative language, to waste time, as the teacher is likely to

say . . . students are i nclined not to bother" (Mitchell , 1 992c).

Bereiter ( 1 992 : 354) is concerned that "one of the ironies of the present age of cognitive

enlightenment is that the constructivist view of learning, although widely shared by

educators, is kept hidden from the students". In support, Hennessy ( 1 993) argues that

few of today' s classrooms encourage pupils to perceive what they are doing as the

construction of knowledge. The literature review suggests that the present instructional

demands and practices may do little to promote and encourage the development of

appropriate learning behaviours (Peterson, 1 988). There is also evidence that some

students cope with school tasks by using strategies that actually have the effect of

subverting learning. For example, copying methods step-by-step from worked examples

may meet the short-term goal of completing an assignment but may fai l to address the

long-term goal of constructing knowledge.

83
To develop the ideal learning environment Collins et al., ( 1 989) suggest we need to pay

due attention to students' development of:

a) domain knowledge;

b) problem strategies and heuristics;

c) control strategies with monitoring, diagnostic and remedial components for managing

problem solving and learning (i .e. metacognitive strategies);

d) learning strategies; and

·
e) belief systems appropriate to learning (ie. metacognitive knowledge ) .

They argue that at present, most mathematical instruction focuses almost exclusively on

domain knowledge, although recent emphasis on problem solving is evident in many

c lassrooms, and certainly in Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of

Education, 1 992). Collins and col leagues suggest that the former instruction leaves

metacognitive issues unaddressed, raising the likelihood of students developing

maladaptive strategies and/or misunderstandings in categories (c), (d), and (e). In such

an environment passive learning behaviours are common: most secondary school

teachers are unaware of, or underestimate, the extent of the passive learning behaviours

i n their classrooms (Mitchell, 1 992b).

Noddings ( 1 99 3 : 3 8 ) warns that "turning students loose "to construct" will not in itself

ensure progress toward genuinely mathematical results." Until we further understand the

extent and nature of students' passive learning behaviours we cannot expect students to

c ope with the cognitive demands of constructivist teaching goals, nor can we expect

active learning activities to automatically result in 'strong acts of construction ' .

Questions concerning learner behaviours that contribute to knowledge construction and

teacher expectations of the learner are of great i mportance. A "crucial aspect missing

from this current discussion on constructivism is [information about] the strategies used

by students in constructing their own meanings" (Wong & Herrington, 1 992: 1 30).

84
4.4 The Classroom Setting

The literature review (Chapters 2 and 3) emphasised the i mportance of contextual

factors in examining strategic learning behaviour. The Interactive Model of Learning

Mathematics (section 2.3) suggests that learning behaviours can only be properly
understood in the context of the learner variables, the learn i ng task, and the learning

environment. While the opportun ity to learn in class is potentially similar for each

student the presage factors and the learning behaviours (especially metacognition)

interact and influence the effectiveness of the opportunity for each student.

Although some of the research studies discussed in the literature review have u sed the

classroom setting, researchers (Evans, 1 99 1 a; Pressley, 1 98 6; Peterson, 1 988; Wong &

Herrington, 1 992) have identified a need to further examine strategic learning behaviour

as it relates directly to the mathematics student's learning environment. Bachor

( 1 99 1 : 1 45) reports that:

In nearly every study reviewed in which executive or content-specific strategies,

that are used spontaneously by learners have been examined, the research was
conducted within the context of a single subject area and incorporated a limited
set of experimenter-provided stimulus materials. Moreover, in these studies,
students ' strategic learning behaviours typically have been sampled in only a
single task or instructional sequence. Typically a single instrument or method for
collecting data on students ' cognitive processing has been incorporated into such
studies, which limits the confidence that - can be placed in the validity and
reliability of their findings.

Further support comes from Marland and Edward ( 1 98 6) who argue that at this early

stage of research into students' cognitive processes during classroom i nstruction there is

considerable justification for pursuing purely descriptive studies in classroom settings:

85
 Such studies should ensure that hypotheses and questions posed in subsequent
correlational and experimental research, having been fram ed with an extensive
and clear knowledge of the nature of covert learning in the classroom in mind,
are relevant and sensible; that constructs and variables used in research have

ecological validity; and that research designs take account of naturally occurring
phenomena and other aspects of classroom life. (p.76)

Garner ( 1 990a: 523) also contends learning strategies are not fruitfully studied without

consideration of the setting

Given the apparently potent effect of context on learning in general and on

strategy use in particular, it is discouraging to note that in most strategy research
studies, context is treated as a footnote or, worse, as a nuisance.

Garner provides the fol lowing summary of contextual factors related to strategy use in

the setting:

• strategies need to be applied conditionally by learner knowledge base and by domain

appropriateness;
• certain situations are more likely to elicit cognitive monitoring than others;
• uninstructed strategies are often disguised by learners when they use them m

i nstructional settings;
• meagre knowledge about task demands in a particular setting can inhibit appl ication

of strategies;
• students report using more strategies when they perceive that effortful activity is

valued in the classroom setting; and

• some strategies are welded to the settings in which they were acquired.

86
A further aspect of learning strategies that makes them particularly context dependent is

that they are goal driven. Thomas and Row her ( 1 986) offer four ways in which the use

of learning strategies for studying in classroom contexts differs from the research context

of the laboratory:

I. the clarity of the information students have about the criteria to be met;

2. the degree of congruence between the content learned and the content tested;

3. the amount of support provided for attaining the performance criteria; and

4. the conditions affecting spontaneous strategy use and mai ntenance.

These setting influences again support the need for the present research to be conducted

in the classroom environment.

In summary, because learning depends on both situational and intrinsic factors it is

necessary to focus on: (a) the opportunities provided by the learning environment; (b)

students' actual use of learning strategies in the learning environment; (c) as well as the

nature of the students' knowledge of learning strategies. Therefore to improve the

theoretical arguments that influence reform recommendations we need to increase our

understanding of relationships between students' learning and classroom learning that

involves strategic activities, and increase our knowledge of the way in which strategic

learning behaviours facilitate mathematical understanding.

87
4.5 The Research Objectives

The preceding analysis of the literature, current research, and curriculum reforms

suggest that there is a need to further understand relationships between students'

learning and classroom instruction . Research suggests that discrepancies exist between

strategies students use and those that they should, or are expected to, use. In the event

that learning strategies displayed by students in this study are limited, or defective, it

would be helpful to gain more understanding about the learners' introspective

knowledge of their strategic processes and beliefs about learning mathematics. Increased

knowledge of the way in which learning strategies facilitate mathematical understanding

and knowledge construction may be helpful in suggesting instructional remedies.

From these broad areas of need, more specific research objectives were framed.

The present study aims to:

• Examine and classify the present usage of learning strategies by students of a 6th form

class.
• Explore the factors in the student ' s learning environment (both at home and at

school) which either encourage or dissuade the development and appropriate use of

learning strategies.

The interpretati ve study of learning strategies seeks not to establish decontextualised

generalisations but to produce qual itative description of individual student' s learning that

will lead to a better understanding of the rol� of strategic behaviours in mathematics

education. An implication of this ethnographic study is that a clearer understanding of

mathematics students' u se of learning strategies will contribute to the following areas:

• explaining i ndividual differences in mathematical achievement;

• explaining contributing factors in failures to learn mathematics and help to remedy

those failures;

• highlight i nstructional factors which contribute to, or impair strategy deployment and

development; and

• increase our understanding of the role of learning strategies i n mathematics learning.

88
4.6 Summary

A learning environment in which the teacher simply solves problems and the students

simply watch is inadequate to provide an effective model for learning, particularly in

mathematics, where many of the relevant processes and inferences are hidden (B urton,

1 984; Collins et al., 1 989). As teachers we often expose students to a very narrow set of

strategies; often taking for granted their effectiveness without analysing how and if they

are working with students.

Mathematics curriculum reforms suggest that students need a learning environment

which provides relevant experiences to enable students to construct meaningful

interpretations and assimilate new understandings. While constructivism emphasises

learner activity and the use of activities which relate personal experiences and prior

knowledge "it is not useful for teachers to create tasks that increase the opportunities for

cognitive conflict and then leave students entirely to their own devices to resolve the

conflict" (Pintrich et al., 1 99 3 : 1 87).

We must give students "tools to think with " - and these are not merely formulas
and algorithms. They include concepts and powerful metaphors and heuristic
procedures and understanding, including even a determination to acquire an even
deeper understanding of oneself and one 's own mode of leaming and thinking
(Davis, Maher, & Noddings, 1 990: 1 88).

In o rder to assist students to become mo're active, self-regulated learners, and to design

and implement instructional interventions, it is timely that we further our knowledge of

learning strategies, and their relation to effective performance and knowledge

construction. In addition to knowing about students' p rior knowledge and experiences,

and the nature of the mathematical task, teachers need to know more about their

students' own strategic learning behaviours.

89
 Chapter 5

Research Method

Qualitative data are sexy. They attract eager researchers who want to sniff the
richness of the real world, see things in their contexts, track complex processes
over time, and explain linkages among processes and their associated outcomes.

(Miles, 1 990:37)

5.1 Introduction

Because of the exploratory nature of the research, specific hypotheses regarding

strategic learning behaviours were not formulated prior to the study. The complexity of

the Interactive Model of Learning Mathematics (section 2.2) implies that students'

learning behaviours are so influenced by context and individual factors, that general

principles will be wPll hidden, if they exist at all. Ethnographic research is "the process of

providing scientific descriptions of educational systems, processes, and phenomena

w ithin their specific contexts" (Wiersma, 1 99 1 :2 1 8). Therefore the use of the natural

c lassroom setting as a direct source of data is an appropriate forum in which to examine

stu dents' u se of learning strategies. Additionally, the use of learning strategies in out-of­

school contexts has also been built into the research design.

In terms of the methodology, no particular techniques are associated exclusively with

ethnographic research, although several methodologies such as classroom observation,

student c ase studies, and interviews support ethnographic data collection. Large scale

use of quantitative approaches, such as multi-option format questionnaires and frequency

counts of observed behaviours, are seen as inappropriate. They fai l to recognise the

importance of the appropriateness of a learning strategy to the learning task, individual

90
students' prior experiences, and specific learning contexts. In this respect data collection

strategies have to be sympathetic to a qualitative, phenomenological approach, focusing

on the respondents' view of their individual learning behaviours i n the natural context.

Researchers should, as far as possible, seek to elicit from respondents, and to

represent as faithfully as possible, the views of self-directed learners themselves
about their interests, attitudes, intentions and understandings. Moreover, since
these factors are likely to be situationally variable, a constructivist approach
demands field-based enquires as far as possible. (Candy, 1 98 9 : 1 0 1 )

Because different types of data collection procedures may lead to different conclusions,

multiple data collection strategies (triangulation) are essential . Triangulation provides a

partial solution to understanding the complex reality. "Every method of data collection is

only an approximation to knowledge. Each provides a different and usually valid glimpse

of reality, and all are limited when used alone" (Warwick, 1 973 : 1 90). The "reality"

comes to be seen as located in the different perspectives and suppositions of the

individual students (Denzin, 1 988). However, Peshkin ( 1 993:28) quite rightly reminds us

that " 'reality,' a slippery notion at best, does not become clarified by any one person ' s

construction o r approach to inquiry".

While the students' perspective is central, a key research instrument in any ethnographic

study is the researcher, who must ultimately reinterpret any data. Prior experience of

teaching at the 6th form level ensured that the researcher had realistic expectations of the

c lassroom organisation, management of stud�nts, and expected learning outcomes.

While this experience facilitated informed interpretations of the data, it also meant that

the researcher had some prior assumptions and expectations of students' learning

behaviours - namely, the assumption that many mathematics students are passive

learners, with relatively negative or neutral affective reactions towards learning

mathematics.

91
Because of the naturalistic nature of the study the findings are context-bound

generalisations, and it must be remembered that the learning behaviours of every student

are unique. Thus, the ensuing interpretations that result are to some extent imperfect

generalisations: simplifications of a more complex reality. Their purpose is to extend our

understanding of students' strategic learning behaviours by providing detailed

descriptions that enable the reader to u nderstand similar situations. However, the

findings can be extended in subsequent research, either with additional case studies, or

with more structured designs.

Ethical Considerations

For the present study permission was obtained from the School B oard of Trustees, Head

of Mathematics, and class teacher. An information letter detailing the nature and

objectives of the research was sent to the parents of the class members (Appendix 1 ). In

addition the researcher conducted a preliminary information-sharing session with the

selected class, in which the objectives of the study and the nature of student involvement

were explained.

Students were invited to query any concerns about their expected level of involvement in

the study. All students were asked to voluntarily complete written questionnaires related

to study behaviours and participate in short interviews concerning specific learning

i ssues. Four target students were asked to complete a maximum of three stimul ated

recall interviews during thei r study periods. At the end of term one there was another

opportun ity for class discussion about the prqgress of the research study. The video

procedures (to be used in term two) and the timing and length of stimulated recall

interviews were explained. Target students completed consent forms (Appendix 2).

Observational data was recorded in the form of field notes and interviews were taped

and transcribed by the researcher. S ecurity and confidentiality of records was maintained

at all stages of the study. S tudents were assured of anonymity in any written research

reports. Additionally it w as emphasised that all interviews with the researcher were

confidential and videos were only to be viewed by the researcher and student.

92
5.2 Pilot Study

A pilot research study was completed in the preceding academic year. The study,

conducted over a four week period, involved students from a sixth form mathematics

class at a local secondary school. The first week was spent observing students' strategic

learning behaviours, peer interactions, and the class instructional methods related to

strategy u se. In the remai ning weeks potential data collection strategies were trialled.

Episodes from several lessons were video-taped by the researcher, and target students

were withdrawn from class to complete a short stimulated recall interview related to

their learning behaviours. These interviews provided evidence of a range of reported

learning strategies, but also revealed that some students had difficulty discussing their

learning behaviours. The decision to use two cameras and a split screen image in the

present study was an attempt to check the veridical ity of student reports.

Students were requested to complete homework diaries over several nights. The

usefulness, in terms of data, varied between respondents . Some students provided

information about their learning processes, thoughts and beliefs, whereas other students

provided a summary of the exercises completed. This may have been a consequence of

the instrument itself, but may have also reflected the nature of the individual student ' s

learning goal.

Questionnaires on revision strategies were trialed prior to an assessment test. While

written responses were limited, students were keen to elaborate on w ritten comments in

an interview situation. Interviews provided evidence of a range of rehearsal, help­

seeking, and reading strategies.

The pilot study raised issues related to the fol lowing areas:

• some students appeared to be on-task all lesson but made l ittle progress;

• peer cooperation was successfu l ly used by some of students, but not at all by others;

• some students rel ied greatly on the teacher for assistance i n class;
• the availabil ity of resources and help from home varied;

93
• students in the same learning environment behaved in uniquely individual ways; and

• classroom instruction related to content and task completion.

Methodological issues uncovered the need to improve video procedures to assist

students' recall, the limited response from written questionnaires, and the necessity to

use multiple data col lection strategies to achieve more val id findings.

5.3 The Research Setting

S etting

The research is conducted in the natural learning environment thus preservmg the

'ecological validity' . The selected. school was a coeducational secondary school in a

l arge provincial city. Teachers in the mathematics department were experienced and well

informed of current curriculum developments. The Head of the M athematics Department

assigned a sixth form mathematics class to the research study . The selected class teacher

was an experienced teacher, personally known by the researcher. The teacher' s previous

educational research experience meant that she was likely to be sympathetic and tolerant

of any intrus ive effects the research process might have. The teacher was aware of the

overall objectives of the research study as outlined in the letter to the Board of Trustees.

The researcher' s requirements concerning access to class lessons and student availability

for interviews was discussed and agreed upon.

Subjects

Initially there were sixteen students in the class - this number dropped to twelve students

by the end of the year. Only reports relating to the twelve remaining students have been

included in this study. Because of the subject option choices, students in this class

represented a cross section of interests, motivation, achievement levels, gender and

ethnicity. It soon became apparent that although the class size was small there were

twelve different learning approaches being used, that is, given the same i nstructional

material, each student was perceiving, interpreting and learning in a uniquely individual

manner.

94
 Table 1 provides a list of the students' names (pseudonyms), gender, and teacher rated
achievement (as at the completion of the study).

GENDER ACHIEVEMENT
,A;B E�irf'·· M D
:

;' �l;l�; :i; ;t ;.i;··i'•·•·..

. . .. '.-->=--.-:- ... .

.. M .•i •&<;iP i i'· l A

- �CJlA!G
��;!. . · M
M
D
c
BEKN_', · ' M I c
\F . .
.;�,�://(.�-�/''- .
F I , •
A
�G'ARETH
... • "<···

M I YES E

' ���(­ M D

)���;: F YES c
. KfREN
· <:>:. ,; .
F YES B
: :;;.·... ···

K.ANE M B
tucv F B

Table 1 : S tudent Participants i n the Study

Case Studies

In the first term four students were identified as target students for case studies. They

were selected after classroom observations and trial i nterviews so as to represent a

cross-section of the class in terms of achievement and gender. The purpose of the case

studies was to provide a more detailed description of how learning strategies are u sed in

the learning context and to examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of each of the

target students' strategic learning behaviours. The target students participated in

stimulated recall interviews during term two, completed all student interviews, and

became the object of more intensive classroom observations as the study progressed.

95
The lesson context

The class followed a pre-determined sixth form syllabus and assessment structure. Only

scheduled lessons were used, and the teacher was asked not to consciously vary her

regular or planned approach. Lessons typically began with homework review, fol lowed

by whole class instruction through teacher exposition and teacher-student interaction.

Discussion and questions were controlled by, and channelled through, the teacher. In all

lessons, students were assigned exercises from a textbook. During seatwork the teacher

moved about the classroom encouraging individual students and checking whether they

had any difficulties. Most students worked independently, although in some groupings

there was considerable peer interaction .

5.4 Data Collection Strategies

Methodologies such as classroom observation, student case studies, and interviews

support ethnographic data collection. These data col lection strategies aim to elicit the

students' viewpoints, perceptions, and belief systems - the constructed realities of the

student.

Timetable:

The research study was completed within an academic school year, begi nning late in

March and ending in October. The following is a timetable of data collection

implementation.

Term One

• Discussion with teacher and students concerning the nature and purpose of

research

• Classroom observations

• Trial videos and interviews

• General i nterviews

• Questionnaires concerning learning mathematics, homework, and test revision

96
 • Discussion with teacher and students concerning the video procedures for

stimulated recall interviews

Term Two

• Classroom observation

• Ten video lessons plus stimulated recall i nterviews

• Homework diaries

• Motivation survey

Term Three

• LASSI-HS survey

• Classroom observations
• Homework interviews

• Revision interviews
• Use of summaries and resources i nterviews

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS

During each teaching week several lessons were observed (52 l essons in total). In some

weeks all lessons ( 4) were observed, in others it was two or three depending on the

researcher' s teaching commitments. Class tests were not observed.

Because of the small class size the researcher was able to sit at different places in the

class and observe different groups or individuals throughout the study. Students were

generally happy with this arrangement, as long as peer groupings were maintained. When

sitting next to students the researcher w as able to discuss aspects of the student' s work

such as note-taking, checking answers, possible links with topics, willingness to ask

questions, or to capture the feelings of those being observed. However, one needed to

avoid •bothering' students and risk jeopardising the goodwill established between

researcher and students.

97
Field notes were taken of all observed lessons. The focus of observations varied in

response to research questions and data from interviews. For example, the focus may

have been on peer cooperation, an individual student, use of questions or teacher cuing.

Flexible observation schedules allowed for the recordi ng of any relevant observations

during the lesson. The field notes included observer reactions, and queries for later

corroboration. S tudent work was occasionally photocopied. However students were

generally reluctant to allow this as the location of the photocopier meant that students

were w ithout their books for some time.

Despite observations providing a richness of data there are inherent difficulties that need

to be acknowledged in this methodology. Any observed strategic behavi our is only a

sample of what might have been used. For this reason, observations were not i ntended to

stand alone, rather they were both a precursor to interview questions and the means to

corroborate student reports.

QUESTIONNAIRES AND STUDENT DIARIES

• Questionnaires: In the first term students completed open-ended questionnaires,

rel ated to test revision and learning mathematics (Appendix 3 ) . They were u sed to

provide some preliminary data for later i nterviews.

• Homework Diaries: Homework diaries were used to obtain data on learning

behaviours at home. Students were given a record form to complete which requi red

details of homework activities and the associated learning behaviours (Appendix 4)

The format was discussed with the students and the emphasis was on description of

factors related to p lanning, monitoring, help seeking and general work h abi ts .

• LASSI-HS Survey: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory-High School Version

(Weinstein & Palmer, 1 990a) is an assessment tool designed to measure students' use

of learning strategies and study methods. The focus is on both covert and overt

thoughts and behaviours that relate to s uccessful learning. The Likert-type

98
 questionnaire was designed for high school students to provide a diagnostic measure

to identify areas in which students could benefit from educational interventions.

After completing the questionnaire, students were able to self mark and compare their

own scores within provided percentile placements. Time was allowed for a brief

discussion of some of the implications of high or low scores on each of the LAS SI­

HS scales. A copy of the students' questionnaire was taken and reviewed for any

inconsistencies against the data collected from students' self reports.

Motivation S u rve y : A survey (Appendix 5 ) adapted from High School Science

(Nolen, 1 988; Nolen & Haladyna, 1 990) was administered in the second term to

assess the students ' perception of classroom orientation (mastery or performance).

INTERVIEWS

Overt strategies such as note-taking and help-seeking are relatively easy to observe, but

the mental processes underlying these overt strategies may or may not entail such

strategic modes of processing as self-monitoring and elaboration. Paris et al. ( 1 983) and

Garner ( 1 988) contend that because strategies are consciously invoked they are available

for introspection and or conscious report. Verbal-report data from both general

interviews or stimulated recall interviews are particularly useful in that they provide a

glimpse of the covert strategic activity that is not accessible except as described by

strategy user.

Kardash and Amlund ( 1 99 1 ) found that students' reports of covert strategies (rather

than overt strategies), used to process information from an expository text, are

associated with enhanced learning outcomes. This finding reinforces the conclusions of

Peterson and colleagues ( 1 982; 1 984) : that students' reports of strategic behaviours

were a more reliable and valid indication of classroom learning than observations.

Additionally, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons ( 1 986) concluded that interview

procedures provided reliable evidence concerning students' self-regulation reports. Their

findings were validated by a further study (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1 988).

99
General Interviews

Semi-structured i nterviews were conducted in an attempt to discover what students were

experiencing, how students interpreted their experiences, and how they structured and

adapted their learning environment to enhance the learning process. Questions were

rel ated to a theme (e.g., homework behaviour, use of the textbook), but students were

also encouraged to respond at length; and answers took unanticipated directions, such as

discussion of instruction from previous years in relation to note-taking. These

expansions on the topic were encouraged.

First term interviews focussed on students' perception of the learning processes for

mathematics:

• how does one learn mathematics,

• what are their learning goals,

• what is the role of the teacher in the learning process; and

• what are the effects of classroom assessment on learning processes.

In the second term interview time was spent with stimulated recall interviews. During the

third term interviews focussed more particularly on possible interpretations and

verification of emergent findings. Specific contexts such as homework, test revision,

summary writing and the use of textbook and other resources were explored so as to

corroborate previous observations or responses.

Stimulated Recall Interviews

S timulated recall interviews involve the recording of a lesson and subsequent repl aying

of the video to stimulate student recall of learning behaviours and thought processes.

S timulated recall procedures have previously been used to study the thinking of teachers

and students during instruction (Marland & Edwards, 1 986; Winne & Marx, 1 982), and

problem solving in mathematics (Peterson & Swing, 1 982; Peterson, 1 988).

1 00
The reliability of student-reported learning behaviours was verified by the use of

stimulated recall interviews. In particular, stimulated recall i nterviews i ncrease the

l ikelihood of access to students' thoughts and covert learning behaviours. Although the

stimulated recall interview procedure is not as l ikely to produce complete and accurate

data as concurrent methods (e.g., think-aloud protocols) stimulated recall interviews do

provide an important alternative when it is not possible to h ave students think aloud in

the classroom. Additionally, the stimulated recal l procedure avoids some of the problems

associated with traditional interview techniques, in that it provides "non directive

retrieval cues that serve to enhance the veridicality of the reports" (Peterson et al., 1 982:

546). Although verbal facility remains a potential confounding factor, memory failure,

hypothetical questions and over-cuing are diminished i n impact.

During term one several lessons were video-taped and students interviewed. These

activities familiarised students and teacher to working with a camera in the classroom,

watching lesson replays, and seeing oneself on video. In term two each of the four target

students completed two or three stimulated recall interviews. Each week, for a total of

ten weeks, lessons were recorded using two video cameras. One camera was focused on

the teacher and the other on the target student creating a split-screen image of teacher

and student on a single tape.

It is not necessary to have a split-screen image for stimulated recall interviews, but it was

felt that the dual image of student and teacher enhanced the visual image of the

classroom situation and thus the ability of the student to recall learning behaviours. For

example, one was able to relate the puzzled look on a student's face to the content of the

blackboard, or relate the willingness of a students to ask a question to the location of the

teacher in the room. However, a disadvantage of the split-screen image is the need for a

number of recording devices (some of a specialised nature), and a technician. In this

study, the small class size meant it was possible for the equipment to be placed to one

side of the room not normally occupied by students. Despite retaining, as far as possible,

the natural class setting, on occasions the students' normal seating arrangements were

disrupted, resulting in a different pattern of peer interaction.

101
On two occasions the videoing of two target students, sitting next to each other, was to

be attempted, so as to increase the number of student interviews. On both occasions one

of the target pupils was absent. As the cameras need to be positioned and focussed with

a horizontal split before the commencement of the lesson, this resulted in a v ideo of one

student plus an empty chair!

After each lesson the researcher reviewed the videotape and selected a variety of

teaching/learning episodes. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted the fol lowing

day during the students' study period. Each student was requested to view the lesson

segments and relive , as fully as possible, the classroom situation. The interview fol lowed

guidelines to facilitate full disclosure of class learning behaviour and thoughts, as

suggested by M arland and Edwards ( 1 986:77). Principal guidelines include:

• create a relaxed, infonnal setting for the interview;

• encourage students to initiate self-reporting as much as possible;
• listen attentively to, and show interest in and respect for, the student;
• respond to student self-reporting with encouragement and invitation for
further disclosure;
• request clarification or confinnation where necessary;
• avoid leading questions, making evaluative comments, sounding critical;
• initiate student self-reporting if and where necessary by asking, " W. ere you
thinking anything there ? " or "What were you thinking there ? "

Student responses included thoughts that they had at the time o f the lesson, as well as

those they experienced as they watched the lesson. For example, a studen t discussed

reasons for not having done her homework while she watched the c lass homework

review session on video. Additionally, the researcher was able to further explore issues

such as students' l ack of help-seeking questions, in relation to specific episodes on the

video. Stimulated recall interviews provided a rich source of data relatin g to student

reports of strategi es in use, their metacognitive knowledge and their perceptions of

learning mathematics.

1 02
All stimulated recall interviews were audio-taped. The tapes were transcribed and then a

second transcript was prepared incorporating descriptions of the lesson content, relevant

teacher comments, and other students' comments and actions. This provided a more

detailed record of contextual factors, and was available for later analysis.

Students' response to assurances of confidentiality and anonymity was evidenced in their

willingness to openly discuss feelings about classroom instruction and peer i nteractions.

Positive motivation was also established by instructing the students that their responses

would not be evaluated for correctness (i.e., against criterion), and by encouraging them

to respond as completely and honestly as possible.

However there are limitations for the use of stimulated recall reports to i nvestigate

learning strategies . Galloway and Labarca ( 1 990) suggest that there is a need to be

aware that:

• much of the learning may be unconscrous and, therefore, inaccessible to mental

probes;

• learners may forget their distinct combination of strategies once their learning goal or

task is complete;

• learners may misclaim strategies, or describe what they think the interviewer wants to

hear; and

• it is difficult to ascertain from self-reports which strategies contribute significantly to

learning and which have only a marginal effect.

1 03
5.5 Data Analysis

The qual itative research approach assumes that nothing in the natural setting is trivial,

that everything has the potential of being a clue that might unlock a more comprehensive

understanding of what is being studied. Data are the constructions offered by the

students and data analysis leads to a reconstruction of these constructions (Lincoln &

Guba, 1 985).

According to McMil lan and Schumacher ( 1 993) qualitative data analysis entails several

cyclical phases:

• continuous discovery, especially in the field, but also throughout the entire study, so

as to identify tentative patterns;

• categorising the data;

• qualitatively assessing the trustworthiness of the data, so as to refine one ' s

understanding o f the patterns;

• writing an abstract synthesis of the themes.

Data Preparation

The process of data analysis in an ethnographic study necessari ly begins as the

researcher mentally processes the numerous ideas and facts while collecting data. This

analysis enables the focus of the study to be changed as new questions arise. To keep

track of thoughts the researcher added memos to field notes; and specific impressions,

questions, and incidents were recorded with respect to each of the target students at the

end of observations and interviews. These notes marked the beginnings of the initial

working conceptualisations and descriptions.

Broad classificatory schemes of cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies (including

affective and resource management), as identified in the research literature (Weinstein &

May er, 1 986; White, 1 993 ), were used to group strategic learning behaviours from the

data. While this enabled an overview and the formation of tentative findings, in order to

categorise the existing strategies used by students, a more rigorous inductive approach

to forming a classification scheme was needed.

1 04
Data Reduction

A major objective of the research study was to report and analyse learning strategies in

use rather than report on strategies that one thinks are or should be in use. To ensure

that the learning strategy classifications were firmly grounded in the research, a data

reduction process was necessary. Data reduction has been described by Miles and

Huberman ( 1 984: 2 1 -2) as:

. . . the process of selecting, focussing, simplifying, abstracting and transforming

the 'raw ' data that appear in written up field notes. As data collection proceeds,
there are further episodes of data reduction (doing summaries, coding, teasing
out themes) . . . And the data reduction/transforming process continues after
fieldwork, until a final report is complete.

The first stage of the data analysis was to reduce all data from observations and

interviews to a manageable list of learning behaviours. The data was coded into simple

descriptions of learning behaviours such as:

• answers the teacher's question;

• mumbles answer to herself;

• skims the chapter; and

• copies worked examples from the board.

This resulted in a very large list of learning behaviours. Samples of the initial coding of

learning behaviours are provided in the fol lowing Appendices:

• Appendix 6 is lane's reported and observed learning behaviours from a single lesson

(Source: stimulated recall i nterview 1 ).

• Appendix 7 provides examples of Karen's learning behaviours during seatwork

(Source: observations during the year, stimulated recall interviews).

• Appendix 8 provides a list of Adam' s learning behaviours relating to homework

(Source: interview, diary and questionnaire).

• Appendix 9 provides a list of learning behaviours related to Gareth' s test preparation
(Source: i nterviews, questionnaires) .

1 05
Overall Data analysis

The implication for data analysis is that it will be inductive, rather than deductive. Data

w as analysed in two phases. Firstly, data was analysed according to strategy types and a

c lassificatory scheme established. These classifications, do not in themselves provide

meaning to the learning process, rather they provide suitable descriptions to enable a

discussion of the role of learning strategies in mathematics. Because this is a significant

p art of the research objective the classification of strategies is discussed separately in the

fol lowing chapter (Chapter 6). The role of each of the learning strategies identified by

the classification scheme is discussed in Chapter 7.

To present a more holistic view o f the student's learning process in t h e classroom

environment data was then analysed by considering strategy u se in specific learning

episodes such as homework review, class discussion and seatwork. Analysis focussed on

learning strategies used by each of the target students. Findings from this analysis are

discussed in case studies of the target students (Chapter 8). Specific data relating to

learning outside of the classroom obtained from questionnaires, diaries, and general

interviews is discussed in Chapter 9.

At all levels of analysis data was obtained from the multiple data collection strategies.

Stimulated recall interview data provided the major part of the data for the more detailed

s trategy profiles of the target students. The following data sample from multiple data

sources (Table 2) illustrates how triangulation of time and data sources assists in

providing an analysis of Gareth ' s participation in questioning during class discussions.

The starting point for understanding Gareth' s behaviour was of course the observations

of the actions of the teacher and Gareth as they inte racted in the discussion s . However,

these initial observations did n ot immediately lead to u nderstanding, rather they raised

questions to be answered and explored in further i nterviews and observations.

106
 Table 2: Triangulation of time and data source
relating to Gareth 's answering of questions in class
Source Method Information :Added . Interpretation
IA Observation G answers many questions . '·>· G is active participant and keen.

L5 Observation G active, 3 out of 6 answers are G appears to have some knowledge of

correct the content.
Test result G scores 1 5% Achievement well below average.

L6 Observation G fails to answer questions Appears to choose which questions to

directed to him by teacher. cal l answers out for.
Interview re Sees learning maths as hard Rote learning, reliance on worked
maths learning work involving a lot of memory. examples means that he can call out
the answers i n class but not recall
' correct procedures in test.
L7 Observation Response to teacher directed Although working, G ' s fixation with
question: "I'm n ot on the right wanting to complete all the calculation
page." means he is often out-of-step with the
teacher.
Ll5 Observation Uses keyword strategy to Memory l earning
answer question.
Ll6 Observation Answers low level questions Corresponding question i n exam
requiring one word answers. incorrectly answered.
Ll7 Observation Answers calculation questions. Selectively attends to calculations.

L24 Observation Uses text to help answer Uses text to compensate for prior
question. knowledge.
L25 S-R interview Muffles answer Answers some questions to himself.

Reports answering question i n Doesn ' t answer more complex

his head. questions publicly.
Answers calcul a tion question Attends to calculation rather than
< correctly. conceptual material .
General "When you ' re discussing in Answers question to aid recall of
Interview class you sort of remember the lesson.
lesson more."
"If you get an answer wrong she Answers questions as a form of help-
(teacher) usually goes into the seeking.
example i n more detail."
. . < "I answer lots· of questions
.
; Seeks teacher' s approval for
because it comt?s into a good assessment purposes.
�� . ;
., report at the end"oHhe ye'ar."
No help availa�le at home , Importance of seeking help in class .

- L34 ,. S-R interview .Tries to answer:Other students' Monitoring production

<"':( . ·: �v questioris. ,_;j.,;d,i;;;, L.< ·· · .· · : .

;t�k :�, }· .
A nswers Je<�:�Mf,qu_estion then G can answer what to do next in a
P.i?iilpt��1!or' iha lt:··>. . 'Hf::
·
·.
'' when procedure but not how or why .
: ,; " "'• '>

. �X.:P l �llg?Il <?! .PL<?E�� s �;��a�le

-� / .

to respond . . .
' •: 1 ' � "'"'""'' ' •l.v··· ·· ·

���-
· ·

Te�cher u•· q�estiq� Gareth not given time to finish - needs

to answer straightaway if wanting to
· .<'.:. participate. Teacher only expects
,,.· .· f . ·
Gareth to answer the easy part of the
. ' ,, ·2·�;:it:;,;t
n{:
·· question.

.
·

, ., b . ·
·
{:�? :· ;i�·, · }·
·
.

·.i ·;,;;_ ' . .

•.

1 07
5.6 Validity of Interpretations

There are four maJor factors in the research design proposed to ensure the

"trustworthiness" (Glesne & Peshkin, 1 992) of the research i nterpretations: time at the

research s ite; triangulated findings; video and audio recordings; and low inference

descriptions.

Data provides an estimate of what a person did, not what he or she might have done on

a different occasion. In this research, the shift to obtain data over an extended period of

time ensured that there were sufficient occasions for observations and interviews, so as

to reflect the students' continuum of strengths and weaknesses in awareness, and use of

strategies. Additionally, the length of the study enabled the researcher to build sound

relationships with the students and teacher. The class fel t comfortable with the

researcher; their discussions, both in interviews and in class, appeared uninhibited to the

extent that they revealed their likes and dislikes about specific teaching approaches and

classroom organisation. There was also time for students to become familiar with the

video equipment in the classroom, thus increasing the val idity of the recorded lessons.

The video and audio recordings were referred to by the researcher on several occasions

during the data analysis stage to assist in recall of an incident, to clarify some notes, or

to corroborate student reports, or fin dings from observations.

Muralidhar ( 1 99 3 : 445) argues that "the need to interrelate arid i ntegrate data is inherent

in studies i nvolving fieldwork because field study is not a single method or a single

techn ique seeking a single kind of information". The triangulation of data collection

strategies used in this study is advantageous in two respects. Firstly, triangulation

enables the researcher to cross check results initially obtained from one source by

another source within the data collection phase. For example, rather than simply

recording that a certain behaviour has occurred, the researcher attempted to understand

what the behaviour meant to the learner by discussing the behaviour in an i nterview or

by questioning the student directly (member checking).

1 08
Secondly, in the analysis phase, triangulation of observation, interview, students' work

and questionnaire data provides corroborated evidence of researcher inference. The key

aspect is not just the combination of data from different collection strategies but the

attempt by the researcher to make sense of the phenomenon under study and to

counteract the possible threat to validity. In doing this one needs to be aware that

triangu lation will not always result in a totally consistent picture - the value is in the

interpretation of understandings of when and why data presents i nconsistent findings

(Mathison, 1 988).

Limitations
In demonstrating the trustworthiness of data one needs to realise the limitations of the

study (Glesne and Peshkin, 1 992). The very nature of naturalistic classroom research
brings certain limitations to the research process. Research dealing with respondents in

their natural setting needs to balance the desire for ecological validity with the needs to

create a setting suitable for data collection.

In general, the students were cooperative and a good relationship with the researcher

w as established. The length of the study enabled the researcher to be regarded as 'part of

the setting' , but it did have a limiting effect. Towards the end of the study some students

got 'sick' of being interviewed. If students showed reluctance to be interviewed, either

because of other work commitments, or negative feelings, it was usually possible to

negotiate a more suitable time w ith the student.

To set up the video equipment the classroom had to be unoccupied before the lesson:

This happened only on Wednesdays, where the lesson directly followed the lunch break.

On occasions when the lesson was rescheduled because of sports trips, or the teacher

w as sick, the video lesson was cancelled. This reduced the planned number of video

lessons available for data analysis. In retrospect, although v ideo-taping took place only

once a week, the continuation throughout term two was quite demanding of the class

and teacher. While the number of interviews for each target students appears small, there

is some doubt as to whether students would have been able to sustain interest in any

more stimulated recall interviews.

1 09
 Chapter 6

Learning Strategies :
Classification and Distribution

Man looks at this world through transparent patterns or templets, which he

creates and then attempts to fit over the realities of which the world is composed.
The fit is not a lways very good. Yet, without such patterns the world appears to be
such an undifferentiated homogeneity that man is unable to make any sense out of
it. Even a poor fit is more helpful to him than nothing at all.
(Kelly, 1 955: 9- 1 0)

6.1 Classification Of Learning S trategies

For the purposes of classification, behaviours were first coded according to their goal

(Gamer, 1 990b) as either cognitive, metacognitive, affective (Weinstein & Mayer, 1 986)

or resource management (Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1 990). See Data Analysis (section 5.5)

and of codings of learning behaviours (Appendices 6-9) . Learni ng behaviours, in each of

these four broad classifications, were then grouped into representative learning

behaviours identified by the proposed strategy classifications.

Although the clas sifications arrived at here are grounded in research data, they are also

consistent with descriptions commonly used in the literature (see Christopoulos,

Rohwer, & Thomas, 1 987; Como, 1 989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1 990; Pokay &

Blumenfeld, 1 990; Swing et al., 1 98 8 ; Weinstein & Mayer, 1 986; White, 1 993 ;

Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1 986; and also section 3.3 for a fuller review of existing

classification systems).

1 10
COGNITIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Chamot and O' Mal ley ( 1 987 : 242) state that while using cognitive strategies the learner:

interacts with the material to be learned by manipulating it mentally (as in

making mental images or relating new information to previously acquired
concepts or skills) or physically (as in grouping items to be learned in meaningful
categories, or taking notes on or making summaries of, important information to
be remembered).

Cognitive learning strategies are classified under the broad classifications suggested by

Weinstein and Mayer ( 1 986) of rehearsal, elaboration and organ isation . Rehearsal

strategies are used to enhance encoding and information retrieval; elaboration strategies

add detail , explanation, or examples and other information from prior knowledge to

present knowledge; and organisational strategies organise information in a form unique

to the individual learner' s requirements.

Rehearsal Strategies

• Problem practice (Cl). Applying a new procedure with problems/exercises in class

or for homework.

• Writing out formulae or notes (C2). Repetitive writing of material to aid

memorisation.

• Rereading (C3). Reading or repeating aloud notes or formulae.

• Revision practice (C4). Doing problems of s imilar type for revision or consolidation

of procedures.

Elaboration Strategies

• Linking (El). Linking new information w ith prior academic or personal knowledge.

• Imagery elaboration (E2). Using mental pictures or diagrams to represent

i nformation.

• Comparing (E3). Comparing or contrastin g one ' s own work with that from another

source (worked example, another student ' s answer). Recognising similar patterns in

problems concepts and operations (generalising, specialising and discriminating).

111
• Questioning (E4). Generating or answenng questions related to the concept or

problem process.

• Self-questions or self-explanations (ES). Explanations given to the self to clarify

meaning. Specific statements concerning reasoning, or wondering why particular

actions are (or are not) appropriate.

• General (G 1). Unspecific statements concermng attempts to comprehend the

information (e.g., "I was trying to follow what the teacher was doing ").

• Other (G2). Attending, watching the teacher, listening, following teacher' s

i nstruction.

Organisational Strategies

• Summarising (01). Purposeful recording of information selected on the criteria of

difficulty or relevance . .

• Note-taking (02). Keeping a record of given information, problems attempted,

corrected solutions and teacher given summaries.

• Layout (03). Recording information in different formats (highlighting, underlining,

colour coding, and formatting). Organisation of workbook sections (date, page

numbers, notes, exercises).

META COGNITIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Metacogn ition includes knowledge of one 's own cognitive processes, along with

monitoring, evaluating, and regulating them, and beliefs about factors that affect

cognitive activ ities. Metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring and evaluation

imply a measure of self-determination, or autonomy in learning and problem solving.

Whereas cognition refers to the 'what ' of learning, metacognztzon refers to

controlling the 'how ' and the 'when, where and why ' or in other words, the
procedural and conditional knowledge of learning. Such knowledge is
particularly important in carrying out cognitive activities. (Biggs & Moore, 1 993 :
307)

1 12
• Previewing (Ml). Reading or scannmg ahead m the anticipated learning task,

previewing homework in class, text i nspection.

• Planning (M2). Consciously planning the timing or content of study to facilitate

learning.

• Predicting (M3). Attempts to predict the results of the teacher' s or one ' s own

action.

• Problem Identification (M4). Trying to diag nose the cause of task failure or identify

the central point needing resolution i n a task.

• Reflection (MS). Self initiated reflection on a mathematics concept/problem over an

extended period of time; evaluation of the teacher' s methods, or alternative methods

against an external criteria (e.g., efficiency).

• Selective Attention (M6). Evaluation of worthi ness of an activity. Selectively

attending to important information. Cue seeki ng about test content.

• Self Monitoring (M7). Checking or verifying one ' s comprehension or performance

in the course of a learning task. Answering or asking questions for verification of

understanding or performance. Also evidenced by changing strategies (e.g., rereading

question, looking up answer during problem solving or seeking help).

• Production evaluation (MS). Checking specific task performance against internal

criteria (e.g. "I thought the answer was right because I could do them easily") or

external criteria (e.g. "I thought they were right because I did them the same way as

the other problems " or textbook answers) ;

• Self-evaluation (M9). Evaluating one ' s overall learning progress by test results, or

by time factor, or quantity or quality of work done in comparison with others .

Evaluating one' s strategy use or abi lity to perform the task.

• Revision (MlO). Being aware of the need to review aspects of the task to aid

learning. Using classroom and tutorial opportunities to review.

• Metacognitive knowledge (MK). Students' reports of knowledge about themselves

as learners, the n ature of the task, and their learning strategies.

• Metacognitive experience (ME). Feelings related to cognitive activity (e.g. ,

anxiousness, difficulty i n remembering, feeling that something 'clicked' , or that the

work seemed difficult or hard).

1 13
AFFECTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Affective strategies are used to help the learner relax, gain confidence or maintain effort

so that more profitable learning can take place.

• Effort control (Al). Acknowledging the need to attend (e. g ., a student reports

special effort towards understanding a lesson or completing a problem) .

• Self encouragement (A2). Using mental redirection of thinking to assure oneself that

a learning activity will be successful or to reduce anxiety about the task.

• Self consequences (A3). Arrangement or imagination of a reward at the completion

of a learning task.
• Attention Control (A4). Vary routine, time out to reduce boredom or fatigue.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LEARNING STRATEGIES

Resource management strategies help students adapt to their environment as well as

change the environment to fit their learning goals and needs. Tasks and environmental

management strategies afford students the opportunity to learn, and indirectly contribute

to the learning goal of the student.

• Task management (Rl). Modifying the task so as to make it easier (e.g., skipping
questions so as to keep up w ith the class), harder or more challenging (e.g., adding a
time constraint). Selecting alternative or additional problems . .

• Determining the progress of the lesson (R2). Students may attempt t o speed u p
the pace o f the lesson b y answering teacher questions, or may attempt t o slow down
the pace by reporting difficulties or engaging in off-task behaviour.

• Monitoring the teacher's movements and comments (R3). Students attend to

where the teacher is in the class in relation to the blackboard and other stude nts.
Learners seek to derive interaction opportunities with teacher.

• Listening to comments between other students or between teacher and another

student (R4).

• Seeking help from peers, teacher or adults (RS).

1 14
• Seeking help from resources (R6). Use of text glossaries, index, worked examples,
summaries, explanations or checking alternative texts.

• Cooperation with peers (R7). Working w ith peers to solve a problem, pool
information, check notes, or exchange feedback. Getting another student to seek
help.

• Environmental control (R8). Student-initiated efforts to select or arrange the

physical setting on order to affect learning. For example, sitting in a particular group
or sitting next to a particular student, c learing desk, arranging books or shutting
windows.

6.2 Discussion of the Classification System

This classification system is not designed to be an exemplary, definitive classification for

mathematics learning. It is important to re-emphasise that the learning strategy

classifications represent only those learning behaviours that were evident in this research

study. Because of the strong contextual i nfluence it is quite conceivable that different

students in a different class, of a different age, would have produced a different range of

learning behaviours and consequent classification system. If the purpose was to prepare

a typology of learning strategies for a questionnaire one could conceivably break these

classifications into finer classification (see White, 1 993), or employ different terms to

represent classifications.

To e nsure that the classifications are representative of the data, i nstances where there

were only a few examples of learning behaviours have been grouped together under

broader classifications. For example, 'evaluation of strategy in use' or 'evaluation of

ability' have been grouped under 'self-evaluation' . Checking of answers, which was a

common activity, i n both the classroom and at home, could also be included as 'self

evaluation' but because of the importance and frequency of this behaviour a separate

classification was devised - 'production evaluation' .

1 15
In much of the research literature the term 'reflection' often encompasses a wide range

of metacognitive behaviours (B iggs & Moore, 1 993) related to problem diagnosis,

monitoring, evaluating, mulling over a problem or concept and a general awareness of

one ' s learning. However, the classification of the metacognitive strategy 'reflection' in

the present study refers only to students' reflection about aspects of a mathematical

procedure or concept. Although rarely reported, it is thought to be a distinctive and

important learning behaviour illustrative of active learning, thus it was given a separate

classification. The act of reflecting on a given method in terms of evaluating the

efficiency or usefulness of the method is evidence of a student thinking about the nature

of the task, rather than solely trying to complete the task. However if students merely

commented that the given method "seemed okay" or "easy " this behaviour was included

under 'production evaluation ' .

'Summarising ' i s included as an organisational strategy i n that it relates to forming

networks of ideas and outlining as referenced by Weinstein and Mayer ( 1 986). However

it could have been categorised u nder elaborative strategies as the act of summarising

requires students to actively paraphrase information ; or under rehearsal, as active student

input, "might help the learner remember mathematics information by highlighting

important points and by requiring the learner to rehearse the mathematics information"

(Swing et al. , 1 988 : 1 29) ; or even as a metacognitive strategy, as making summaries

provides a general test of one ' s comprehension.

' Reviewing' is also a strategy which is sometimes considered a cognitive strategy m

some research studies, and in others a metacognitive strategy. In this study reviewing is

classified as a metacognitive strategy that refers principally to students' awareness and

plans for revision: the learner shows evidence of a conscious decision to engage in the

learning process. With this deci sion there is also an element of goal setting, whether it be

a specific goal of learning some particular formula or procedure, or a more global goal

of wanting to do well in a test.

1 16
Problems with coding learning behaviours

There were several problems in coding the learning behaviours into a classificatory

learning strategy scheme. There are difficulties deciding what behaviours are cognitive

and what behaviours are metacognitive. Artzt and Armour-Thomas ( 1 992) argue that

although a conceptual distinction is possible, operationally the distinction is often

blurred: cognition is implicit in any metacognitive activity and metacognition may be

present during a cognitive act, although perhaps not apparent. For example the potential

for confusion occurs when coding such behaviours as revision (a metacognitive learning

strategy) which itself involves a number of cognitive strategies such as rehearsal and

elaboration. Slife et al. ( 1 985 :442) make the valid point that "theoretically, some

educators may cut the metacognition/cognition 'pie' in different portions".

Moreover, dividing behaviours into appropriate learning strategy classification is highly

sensitive to interpretation within the learning context. For example, a student may make

a copy of a worked example to provide a record of important information for test

revision (summarising), or as result of teacher instruction (note-taking), or for practice

of a problem type (practice) . Behaviours while copying the worked example may include

self-questioning to enhance understanding, colour coding to signify i mportance, and

linking or comparing with previous examples to strengthen schema formation. Similarly

a student may ask a question to seek help with a problem (resource management), or to

verify an answer (evaluation), or to check his o r her understanding (monitoring), o r to a

express a link with prior knowledge (elaboration).

Metacognitive strategies by their very nature involve the control and regulation of

cognitive strategies thus there is considerable overlap with cognitive strategy

classification (Weinstein, 1988). Additionally, there is considerable overlap between

metacognitive control strategies and affective and resource management strategies.

Thus, a single description given by the learner frequently represents the concurrent use

of several strategies. For example, when students reported doing revision there was

usually a critical interplay of cognitive, metacognitive, affective and resource

1 17
 management learning strategies. The fol lowing examples demonstrate the

interdependency between the strategy types during revision.

Katy: "I worry if I know I 'm going to fail it ( test) and if I know it's going to be a
hard test then I will do a lot of study. " (affective I metacognitive I cogniti ve)

lane: "We 've got a list in our course outline of things that I go by when I study."
(resource management I metacognitive)
From these examples one can see that the categorical scheme is not meant to imply

orthogonality among the classes of strategies; rather, an interaction is more the norm.

The coding of learning behaviours also included metacognitive knowledge and

· experiences. According to the Interactive Model of Leaming Mathematics (section 2.3)

metacognitive knowledge and experiences are closely related to students' metacognitive

strategies. To the extent that students' metacognitive knowledge or metacognitive

experience statements reflect previous self evaluations they are evidence of strategic

learning behaviours. There is evidence of the i nteraction of metacognitive knowledge

categories and metacognitive strategies definitions in several research studies. For

example, O' Malley and Chamot's ( 1 990: 1 37) definition of 'self-management' strategy

in language learning clearly i ncludes task and strategy metacognitive knowledge:

Understanding the conditions that help one successfully accomplish language

tasks and arranging for the presence of those conditions; controlling one 's
language performance to maximize use of what is already known.

Coping strategies are an i mportant p art of some students' behaviour (Corno, 1 989).

While there was evidence of such behaviours as copying answers, letting attention fade

in and out, covering up for not understanding, or avoiding answering questions, it i s not

appropriate to classify these behaviours as learning strategies. S uch behaviours which

intentionally subvert the learning goal will be discussed later in relation to the use of

specific learning strategies, especi ally resource management strategies.

1 18
Reliability of coding learning strategies

Learning episodes were coded with the purpose of verifying the proposed classificatory

scheme and obtaining an indication of strategy distributions among stu dents. The

reliability of the coding process was checked by a research assistant by providing an

i nterrater coding check. The research assistant and the writer jointly coded a stimulated

recall interview script. Disagreements were discussed and, after negotiation, appropriate

codings were agreed upon. The research assistant then independently coded three further

stimulated recall interviews . Interrater reliability was assessed by dividing the identical

categorical j udgements of both coders by the total number of strategies initially

identified. Over the three interviews reliability rating ranged from 86% to 95%. Total

reliability over 234 items was 90% . Nearly all of the disagreements were within the

categories of cognitive and metacognitive, rather than between categories. It is noted

that the resource management classifications of 'determination of the progress of the

lesson' (R2), and 'environmental control ' (R8), were not reported in the stimulated

recall i nterviews . In light of the research objectives the interrater reliability was

considered sufficient.

Frequency counts and the distribution of occurrences of the various learning strategies

provide only limited information: the goal is not to quantify the various strategies, nor to

determine statistical relationships among the classifications. However, the fol lowing

section will discuss the implications of trends indicated by the coding distributions of

students' reported strategy use in stimulated recall interviews.

1 19
6.3 Quantitative A nalysis of Strategy Use

For each of the stimulated recall interviews reported learning strategies can be counted

and compared. However the value of such an exercise is limited in that each interview

was based on a different lesson content, and interviews were selective in that students

responded to selected episodes of the lesson. However, despite these limitations one can

see from the Percentage Frequency of Reported Strategy Use (Table 3) some similarities

in the distribution of strategy types seen between students.

Strategy ' Gareth · ;Jane Karen Adam

·' .· ,:·>
..

Cognitive Strategies
Rehearsal

Elaboration 38% 29% 34% 35%

Organisation

Metacognitive Strategies
Control 1 4% 9% 1 4% 1 8%
(M 1 , M2, M3, M4, MS,
M6)
Awareness 27% 36% 26% 21%
(M7, MS, M9, M 1 0) .
Metacognitive knowledge and experiences
Metacogn i ti ve knowledge 1 0% 1 9% 1 6% 1 0%
and experiences
Affective Strategies
A I , A2, A3, A4 0% 1% 2% 3%

Resource Management Strategies

Task and environmental 1% 2% 3% 7%
management
(R 1 , R2, R8, R9)
Social (R3 , R4, R5, R6, R7) 1 0% 4% 5% 6%

Table 3: Percentage Frequency of Reported Strategy Use

1 20
The differences in the interview scenarios, combined with the problematic nature of the

data coding, suggests that this data _should only be used to highlight the following broad

trends:

• For all students - reports of metacognitive learning strategies was considerably higher

than cognitive learning strategies.

• For all students - the proportion of metacognitive learning behaviours related to

awareness (metacognitive strategies M7 - M l O and metacognitive knowledge and

experiences) w as considerably higher than metacognitive learning strategies related to

control and regulation of learning behaviours (M 1 -M6). That is, students reported

mainly on their mental states in very general terms, and less frequently reported

efforts to control or direct their thinking.

• Individual students reported differing use of resource management strategies.

I will address the first trend in this section. The high proportion of reported use of

metacognitive strategies, when compared with cognitive strategies, is in direct contrast

to studies involving students in areas of reading textual material ; such as reported by

B iggs ( 1 987) and Marland et al. ( 1 992a) .

There are two possible contributing factors which would account for this result. Firstly

the nature and timing of the stimulated recall experience would stimulate reports of overt

learning strategies such as help seeking, asking questions, and checking, as well as

strategies related to strong affective feelings (metacognitive experiences). Learning

episodes that elicited the highest student response involved teacher explanation and

review. Although it is hoped that students engage in elaborati ve strategies of self­

explanations, imaging and self-questioning during these epi sodes, such strategies are

more likely to be under estimated by student reports than the metacognitive strategies of

production evaluation and self-monitoring. In particular, those learning episodes which

involved difficulties, and thus i nvoked a range of metacogni tive experiences and

strategies, are more likely to be easily recalled than those involving cognitive strategies

minus metacognitive experiences.

121
A second possibility is that the nature of mathematics learning and assessment

requirements requires greater use of metacogn itive learning strategies than is required in

textual learning areas. Anthony ( 1 99 1 ) found that mathematics distance education

students reported greater use of metacognitive behaviours than did students in other

areas of the social sciences. Certainly, in the present classroom context, there was a

strong visible link between student accountabi lity and comprehension monitoring. The

nature of instruction actively encouraged students to constantly monitor their

understanding or production with such comments as "Does everyone follow that?" and

"Are there any problems with that?" Additionally, the problem-solving nature of
seatwork demands that students pay a good deal of attention to metacognitive aspects

such as production monitoring, monitoring u nderstanding and goal attainment.

The high use of metacognitive strategies could be viewed as positive except for the fact

that the proportion of metacognitive learning strategies related to control and regulation

of learning behaviours was considerably lower than metacognitive learning strategies

related to awareness. In many instances students seemed unwilling or unable to take

strategic action as a result of their monitoring behaviours. A full discussion of the

implications of this, as well as an examination of student's differential use of learning

strategies, will be discussed in the foll owing chapters (Chapters 7 and 8).

As well as frequency counts, one can also examine the range of reported strategies. All

target students reported a similar wide range of strategies. To illustrate, the range Table

4 lists the learning strategies reported by Karen during a stimulated recall interview of a
single lesson.

1 22
 •d}u;f· ���r�Uij�;�. �����¥Y • i ;
. .. .. . .....
.
;;t./. .·· 4 . :·:· \.(cri ''.·
......
,
.
. .....••. . •.•.
.
F���g!�� t;:,·; �z.ai11.!P'g<��hayl,8�.�··· ;,;; :·: !, ;.i�tf•; . •.. .>, j ··
Cognitive Strategies

Problem practice Trying problems from text.

Revision practice Does some more problems to help understanding.
Linking Thinking back to previous knowledge of quadratics from
an earlier unit.
Imagery Seeing a picture of the graph in her mind.
Comparing Compares own problem with the one on the board.
Self question/explanation Negotiates understanding through dialogue with self.
General Thinking what it means.
Others Attending to the teacher' s board work.
Note taking Copies down notes from the board.
Layout Writes headings in different colours.

Metacognitive Strategies

Previewing Reading through question in homework project.

Planning Thinking about how long the project will take.
Predicting Anticipates lesson direction.
Problem identification Trying to diagnose the specific area of confusion .
Selective attention Concentrates on tyring to find out about a specific
concern.
Self monitoring Monitors understanding of teacher' s explanation.
Production evaluation Marks problem from answers in text.
Self evaluation Evaluates teacher' s answer to a student ' s question.
Revision Writes note in her logbook to study quadratics at home.
Affective Stratef(ies
Effort control Concentrating extra hard
Self encouragement Assures herself she can still do the task in the allowed
time.
Resource Management Stratef(ies
Task management Selects only some of the notes to take down to make it
easier.
Help from resources Looks up a word in the glossary.
Monitoring the teacher Monitors the teacher' s movements around the class.
Listening to teacher's Listens in on a teacher's explanation w ith another
comments to others student.

Table 4: Karen's Reported Strategy Range from a Single Lesson

1 23
Although all target students reported a similar wide range of strategies there were a few

notable differences which differentiated between students:

• Gareth reported no affective strategies (A 1 - A4) and l imited reports of 'self­

questions or self explanations' (E5) .

• Adam was the only student t o report 'reflection ' (M5) i n all three stimulated recall

interviews.

• The reported ratio of metacognitive control strategies to metacognitive awareness

reports is greatest for Adam.

• No target students reported 'rereading' (C3), or 'determining the progress of the

lesson' (R2), in stimulated recall interviews.

• Adam reported the largest number of task modification strategies.

6.4 LASSI-HS Questionnaire

The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory - High School Version (LASSI-HS)

questionnaire (Weinstein & Palmer, 1 990a) is an assessment tool designed to measure

students ' use of learning and study strategies at the secondary school level . Scores

across ten learning and thought behaviours (Attitude, Motivation, Time management,

Anxiety, Concentration, Information processing, Selecting main ideas, Study aids, Self­

testing, and Test strategies) provide another form of student self-report data. However,

the limitations of this quantified data are also significant. The test was designed to

measure learning and study strategies across disciplines in an American context.

However, the norms developed in research by Weinstein and Palmer ( 1 99Gb) relate to a

similar age group of grade 1 1 students.

Stu dents' scores for each of the ten learning behaviours were converted to percentile

scores from the provided percentile distributions. Box plots representing the class

distribution for each of the ten learning behaviours are shown in Figure 4. The results

suggest that the majority of students in this class reported limited use of appropriate

learning strategies and study behaviours. In particular, low scoring categories are

1 24
Attitude, Time management, S elf-testing, Selecting mam ideas, and Information

processing. It is of concern that all of these behaviours are directly related to

autonomous learning behaviours valued by constructivist learning/teaching, and i ndeed,

necessary for continuing mathematics study in tertiary education.

Percentiles

1 00

80

*
60

40

20

ATT MOT TMT ANX CON I NP SMI STA SFT TST

Figure 4 : Distribution o f Students' Scores from LASSI-HS Questionnaire

1 25
Diag nostic interpretations provided by Weinstein and Pal mer ( 1 990b) suggest that

students who score low on attitudinal measure do not see school as relevant to life goals,

and lack the necessary motivation t o take responsibility for their own · learning. Low

scores on time management reflect a lack of ability to deal with distractions, competing

goals and planning. Information processing scores relate to students' use and awareness

of the cognitive strategies of elaboration and organisation. A students who does not have

a repertoire of these strategies will find it difficult to incorporate new knowledge and

understanding in such a way that acquisition and recall will be effective, often despite the

large amount of time spent studying.

The variables of sel f-testing and selecting main ideas relate to metacognitive strategies.

These low scores are very consistent with findings related to stimulated recall i nterviews.

Only Adam reported being aware of actively self-testing his knowledge during class.

During revision most students' self-testing was applied in a sporadic rather than

control led manner (see section 7. 1 and 7.2).

On an individual level, Adam (an A grade student) was the only student to score in the

50th percentile, or better, for all ten categories. Even so, Adam also gained relatively

low scores on information processing, self-testing, and selecting the main ideas

categories. Possibly, Adam' s low scores, along with the rest of the class, is a direct

reflection of the learning demands of the mathematics instruction. It is argued in this

thesis that a learning environment in which students are rarely expected to read for

information, to provide their own summaries, to hypothesis, to plan for revision, to

·
direct their own learning, and to reflect on their learning processes, does little to

encourage and support the appropriate and effective use of learning strategies.

Moreover, the fol lowing chapters (Chapters 7 and 8) will demonstrate that the low

scores on almost all of the behaviours of the LASSI-HS are consistent with the observed

passive learning behaviours of most of the students in the class. Chapter 9 discusses

factors related to instructional, student and context variables that appear to support and

promote students' passive learning behaviours.

1 26
6.5 Summary

The fol lowing caution from Oxford ( 1 990: 1 6-7), with regard to language learning

strategy research, also appears timely for mathematics education research.

It is important to remember that any current understanding of language learning

strategies is necessarily in ir s infancy, and any existing system of strategies is
only a p roposal to be tested through practical classroom use and through
research. At this stage in the short history of language learning strategy research,
there is no complete agreement on exactly what strategies are; how many
strategies exist; how they should be defined, demarcated, and categorized; and
whether it is - or ever will be - possible to create a real, scientifically validated
hierarchy of strategies.

With this caution m mind the strategy classification appears to be sufficient for

identifying those learning strategies reported by students of mathematics. While an

examination of learning strategy frequency distributions indicates that students use a

wide range of learning strategy, it also suggests that further investigation of issues

regarding the nature of the metacognitive behaviours and the differential use cognitive,

affective, and resource management strategies by individual students is needed.

Furthermore, the results of the LASSI-HS questionnaire (Weinstein & Palmer, 1 990a)

i ndicate an underlying tendency for students to report passive learning behaviours.

S trategies such as elaboration, self-testing and information processing, which are

necessary for the development of autonomous learning behaviours, appear limited in

their use. The following chapters will examine the strategic learning behaviours in the

classroom and home learning context, and discuss contextual factors influencing the

development and use of strategic learning behaviours.

1 27
 Chapter 7

The Role of Learning Strategies

Strategies are undoubtedly important in that they empower students to pursue

cognitive goals of their own and thus be less dependent on school work
procedures . . A crucial issue is what goals the strategies are harnessed to.
.

(Bereiter & Scardamal ia, 1 989: 385-6)

The purpose of the learning strategy classification system is to provide a list of learning

strategies as evidenced by the research data. This section reports examples of learning

behaviours (strategies in use) from the classroom and home context that illustrate these

cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and resource management strategies.

7.1 COGNITIVE STRATEGIES

Cognitive learning strategies concern behaviours that the student may use to acquire,

retain, and retrieve information. Their purpose is to help students learn, remember, and

understand the material.

Rehearsal

In mathematics the most common rehearsal strategies are i mitation and practice. Practice

is . an important strategy for learning procedural knowledge; it aids both pattern

recognition and action-sequence productions (Derry, 1 990a). While class lessons

provided limited opportunities for practice of procedures during seatwork, most students

reported that homework gave them an opportunity to practice and consolidate class

work.

1 28
Dean: "I think it 's (homework) important for the reconciliation (sic) of the work
that you 've done in class. Like if you don 't do your homework you sort of
forget what you 've done for the next day. "

Craig: "I think homework helps you to remember how to do the problems. It 's good
for practice. "

Kane: "Homework is very important. Like when you do it in class you sort of
understand it there, but when you try and do it the next day without doing
homework it 's really hard. But when I do homework afterwards and sort of
study the stuff I 've learnt in class it sort of sticks in my mind better. "

Int: "What sort of homework is most useful for you ? "

Kane: "Set exercises, just repetitively doing what you 've learnt for practice."

Adam, reports that he consciously uses class discussion time to enhance his learni ng via
rehearsal of the content, and also to self-evaluate mastery .

Adam: "I'm working through, finding the relationship. I'm sort of refreshing because
I thought about it the night before the lesson, thinking it through again. "

In another lesson Adam reported :

Adam: "I've finished all the questions so I'm just looking at things on the
blackboard. I'm thinking, trying out the answers again even though I know
the answers. "

However, not all students appreciated the importance of practice as part of the learning

process.

Abe: "I don 't think homework is essential. I think I could get 6th form certificate
without doing homework. "

Gareth: "I'll only do homework if it 's hard. If it 's easy I 'll just whiz through the first
line. "

1 29
In mathematics, concept learning, understanding, and problem solving require the learner

to recall mathematics information (Swing et al. , 1 988). The ability to memorise

procedures and concepts enables the learner to use newly introduced p rocedures o r

concepts i n both familiar and new situations. For this reason memory strategies,

combined with practice, are particularly important for test revision. Most students

reported reading their notes and trying some problems for revision. However, as the

fol lowing report from Faye illustrates, some students relied solely on these rehearsal

strategies with little thought to their effectiveness.

lnt: " What did you do for revision for your test? "

Faye: "I just wrote out the notes - that 's it. I just rewrote my notes. "

lnt: " Why do you think that helped? "

Faye: "I don 't know. I just wrote them down as they were. "

The value of rehearsal strategies is limited if they only involve duplicative processing or

recycling the given information (Thomas, 1 988). Without efforts to accompany rehearsal

strategies with elaboration, organi sation and monitoring, the students' knowledge is

likely to be only useful for solving similar problems.

Despite the importance of memory strategies, and student reports that learning

mathematics involves a lot of memory work, there were no specific reports of using

mnemonics, check lists and diagrams for memorising formulae and rules. Most of the

students appeared unable to discuss any further specific strategies for i mproving their

revision sessions other than reciting formula, writing out formula, and rereading notes.

Gareth: "If I have to memorise the formula that they won 't give me or a graph I just
write it out a few hundred times. "

Jake: " Well I just revise over the notes, just go over the notes you 've done and the
ones in the book, just read them really I suppose. "

Gareth also reports relying on specific memory strategies to assist during tests.

Gareth: " When I got stuck I wrote out some of the notes and stuff to help clear my
mind. . ! think I get the work into my mind but it's hard to bring it out on
.

paper. "

1 30
Furthermore, Gareth indicates that he equates practice principally with memorising; any

learning that results from practice is incidental rather than intentional.

Gareth: "As I work through it I might learn how to do it once and keep going with the
same sort of ideas sort of thing. "

To summarise, many students appear to undervalue or be unaware of the benefits of a

range of rehearsal strategies. Although rereadi ng and repetitive writing were commonly

employed, students reported little monitoring of the effectiveness of these strategies.

Limited reports of memory strategies involving elaboration and organisation may mean

that students do not use these memory strategies at this level, unless prompted by the

teacher, or alternatively these strategies are automated, and students are u naware of their

use. Additionally, student reports of memory strategies may be under represented

because much of the research data relates to reports of classroom learning rather than

home learning.

Adam was the only student to be aware of the value of repetition and over-learning.

Perhaps an emphasis on the desirability to learn by understanding has created a

dichotomy in student's minds: many students were more inclined to report that if they

felt that they understood, or could do, problems they no longer needed to practice the

exercises.

Elaboration Strategies

A basic tenet of constructivism is that, in order to learn new information students need

to activate and utilise their prior knowledge, integrating it with new information in a

coherent and logical manner. Elaboration strategies all involve making sense of the

incoming information by adding details, explanations, examples and mental images that

relate the information at hand to prior knowledge.

131
During the introduction of new concepts it was common for students to link new

information to prior knowledge. However, most reported links were prompted by

teacher directed comments. For example, in answer to the teacher's request Karen was

prompted to recall her prior knowledge.

Mrs H : "Let's brainstorm everything w e know about quadratics. "

Karen: "/ was thinking like double bracket. I knew you had four operations. "

Forming mental images, and creating analogies and metaphors, are examples of

metaphorical thinking which assist in integration and recall of new information (Marland

et al., 1 992b ). The teacher used metaphoric illustrations on several occasi ons. These

included reference to mnemonics such as FOIL (First, Outside, Inside, Last) to aid recall

of algebraic procedures and metaphoric images in graphing situations to aid recall of

correct equation formats. For example, the outcome of the second derivative test was

related to a positive © or negative ® srniley face, which was then related to the

corresponding minimum or maximum turning points on the curve . Another metaphor

involved cubic graphs: the orientation of the cubic graph was related to the orientation

of a snake (a positive coefficient meant that the snake' s head was pointing upwards), and
3 3 3
the shape of the 2x graph was contrasted with the x graph: "This one (2x ) is older so

it 's taller and thinner. " Students were observed using these metaphors to aid recall on

several occasions both i n class discussion and during seatwork.

Int: "In your test you had to know expansions like (a + b/ - how did you learn
these ? "

Gareth : "Well ! just used FOIL or a smiley face like Mrs H showed us. "

Another elaboration strategy, the keyword strategy, was promoted by the teacher and

reported by several students.

Mrs H: " When you hear 'gradient' or 'tangent', what should you thinking about ?

1 32
This strategy, like mnemonics and metaphors, enhances linking and recall of information,

but it s use has inherent dangers, in that students may actively seek the keyword without

reference to the meaning of the problem. Some students' elaborations involved imagery,

but reports of these were uncommon.

Karen: "I was thinking back to functions and I was saying 'g raph it', and I saw a
picture in my m ind of a function with a vertical line. "

While these elaboration strategies can facilitate learning it is important to note that the

elaboration process, so critical for effective learning, was being performed by the teacher

rather than the student. At no time was there any evidence that students invented or used

any of their own metaphors. It is possible that students' acceptance of these strategies

reflects the need to memorise complex procedures for mathematics tests.

Mrs H/Jane: "Can you give me a key memory thing for this ? "

Jane: "FOIL. "

There was some indication that the quality and frequency of student elaborations were

related to the mood of the student. For example, Jane's report of a lesson on cubic

graphs, which built on previous graph work, did not include any specific elaborative

statements:

Jane: I m just looking, not really thinking about anything. "

" '

However, in a lesson on normal distribution, Jane appeared more interested and awake !

She reported several examples of self initiated linking between parts of the lesson

knowledge which resulted directly in learning:

Jane: "I didn 't realise that - you know how you find out . 98 something. I didn 't
realise that it was a percentage and when she (teacher) said percentage and
98% I learnt something. "

1 33
There was also evidence of students attempting to make links w ith prior knowledge only

to find that they couldn't remember, or didn't have the prior knowledge needed. This

often resulted in frustration. Gareth attempted to compensate for his lack of prior

knowledge by using resource management strategies such as skimming through the text

book, and using the glossary and index to locate the current topics under discussion.

Reports of linking academic knowledge with personal knowledge were rare. In a lesson

invol ving discrete and continuous variables, Karen reported:

Karen: "I thought of the size of somebody 's shirt but then someone else said that and
I was looking at the light switch and I thought of light switches in
classrooms. "

On another occasion Faye linked radians with work from another discipline.

Mrs H: " What does radians remind you of? "

Faye: "One radius. "

Mrs H : "How many radiuses in a circumference ? "

Faye: (very excited) "Six - we did it in design drawing. "

Comparing or contrasting problem types and methods was a frequently used strategy.

This was reinforced by the fact that students' initial seatwork problems usually related to

examples on the board enabling students to match their working, either during or after

problem solving, with the 'model' problem on the board. When problems were not on

the board, students referred to the text worked examples. Additionally, when the teacher

reviewed seatwork problems, or homework problems students reported comparing

solution steps with their own, even when they knew that their answer was correct.

Karen: "There are no more problems to do so I 'm seeing if her explanation is sort
of the same as what I get. "

Gareth: " I checked to see if/ 'd done it - I counted the numbers like she did. "

1 34
S ome students also reported noticing when seatwork problems were of a different type:

this process of classifying problem types is important for effective problem-solving

schema formation.

Gareth : " I m taking in that these are different sort of questions. "
'

However, more often than not, problems in a seatwork episode were of a similar

structure providing l ittle opportunity for students to discriminate between problem types.

Self-explanations are a large part of learning and engagmg with mathematical

information. Despite their importance, there were limited reports of self-explanations;

possibly because of their covert nature they were more difficult to recall during

stimulated recall interviews.

Karen: " When she (teacher) did 'two to the what power' I wondered why these
problems were in base two when all the rest were in base ten. "

Adam: "I 'm working through finding the relationship. I was thinking what is she
(teacher) doing. I was thinking she 's having problems drawing the graph. I
was thinking about how to draw it, about how else to do it. "

Related to self-explanations are student attempts to ask and answer questions. Students

query information, and form and test links between prior knowledge and new

information in order to comprehend and extend their knowledge. This asking and

answering of one's own question is perhaps the most powerful indicator of meaningful,

active learning. However, the tendency to ask questions during the class discussion

appeared to be more strongly related to the student, rather than the content. For

example, Dean, Jake, Faye, and Lucy frequently queried the teacher about procedural

steps in worked examples, and Dean and Gareth in particular, frequently tested their new

knowledge by answering questions. Other students expressed concern about asking

public questions but still reported private self-questions.

Karen: "/ don 't really ask questions but if someone else in the class asks a question
I ' ll listen. "

Abe suggested that the motive for participating in answering and asking questions was

not always what it seemed:

1 35
Abe: "I think a lot of it isn 't genuine - um - most of the time they 're (students) just
hassling the teacher. I call out the answers to keep the discussion going. "

Overall , the quality of student elaborations was limited i n forming strong conceptual

l inks. While Adam gave several examples of more complex elaborative statements,

researcher questioning during seatwork revealed instances when appropriate

elaborations were not included. For example, when Adam completes a set of calculus

problems involving the calculation of the gradients of tangents at specified points on the

curve, he did not associate his answers with any visual images of the graphs involved.

During class discussion there was evidence of conceptual questions, especially by Jake,

but these were often mumbled self-questions, or asked in a rhetorical manner which

implied that a superficial answer w as acceptable. Usually simplified answers were given,

and students rarely challenged the teacher for further information.

There was a disturbing tendency for low-achieving students ' elaborations to rely on

recalling having done a similar problem rather than recall appropriate conceptual or

procedural i nformation.

Gareth : "I can remember that we did it in term one. I can remember that it was quite
hard. "

On occasions these were prompted by teacher comments such as: " Think back to Form

Three " and "Look back to Question 7 and do it the same way " or "Remember how we
did it yesterday ".

In summary, the academic elaborations required to form associ ative networks were

generally very simple. Reported elaborations mostly involved only two discrete elements

such as discrete procedural steps of a worked example or between parts of a problem,

rather than between problem types or the overall conceptual issues of a topic. This

simplistic elaboration attests to the view that students' thinking appeared focussed on

detail , or pieces of discrete knowledge, rather than on i nterconnections between content.

1 36
O rganisational Strategies

Making summaries and 'taking' notes has always been regarded as an important part of

the mathematics lesson. It is common for many mathematics secondary school students

to have a ' note-book' in addition to their practice book, and most student reported that

reading their notes was a priority for test revision.

All students, regardless of mood (e. g . , students may have been tired and not inclined to

be very productive) or achievement, regularly took notes of worked examples, and

copied teacher summaries from the board. All students copied notes that were explicitly

provided by the teacher: some students automatically copied down any information from

the board, and some checked with the teacher as to whether they should copy it down,

especially on occasions when the teacher had not specifically cued note-taking (e.g . ,

"Take a new heading 'Logarithms ' ").

On one occasion when the teacher suggested that students should read through the notes

first and then ask questions, most students immediately proceeded to copy the notes

down; no student asked questions. Abe was heard to remark: "Notes are like a get-out­

of-jail card free. "

A few students reported making their own notes. These notes tended to be modified

summaries of the teacher' s notes, rather than self-generated summaries, or extra worked

examples from board work resulting from class discussions. A comment from Jane

illustrates selective note-taking:

Jane: "I 'm not writing these examples down because I understand it, but if she 's
(teacher) doing something and I understand it, but I know I won 't remember
it, I write it down. If it 's something that I just don 't understand altogether I
won 't write it down. "

Janes' cognitive learning strategy behaviour is affected as result of metacognitive

monitoring combined with metacognitive knowledge. Jane's dec ision not to take notes if

she does not understand the content may be unhelpful i f no further action is taken.

1 37
In general however, students were reluctant to make notes or summanes unless

prompted and directly assisted by the teacher. Early in the year Faye (an above average

student) reported that she preferred the teaching style of the l ast year' s teacher who

handed out notes at the beginning of each new topic so that you didn 't have to bother

making your own notes. On one occasion during the third term I asked the teacher to set

homework that required students to make a summary of a trigonometry section. The

majority of these summaries consisted of a copied formula and sometimes a worked

example from the text. Few pupils seemed able to determine what were the main

concepts to be noted.

Occasionall y the teacher annotated a worked example with a hierarchical task list, but on

no occasion was any pupil observed to do this for themselves. The inability and

reluctance to use strategies of paraphrasi ng and summarising are possibly linked with

experiences in learning from the text. The texts used by the class were 'Form 6

Mathematics: Revision ' (B arrett, 1 990) and 'Sixth Form Mathematics ' (McLaughlin,
1 985). B oth texts provided minimal explanatory material followed by a few worked

examples and the content was divided i nto short discrete units of work. Texts presented

in this manner provide little opportunity for students to construct outlines or reorganise

the presented material. It is probable that the nature of the students' texts combined with

teacher-provided summaries, not only this year but in previous years, directly influences

students' ability and willingness to provide their own summaries.

A second possibility alluded to in Marland et al. ( 1 992b:9 1 ), when discussing students'

n on-use of organisational learning strategies while studying from textual material, is the

fact that students' "goals, i n-text activities and assessment task, may have had an

analytic rather than synthetic emphasis": thus reducing the need for students to employ

organisational strategies. Thi s is a strong possibility given the high level of specificity of

learning objectives and the nature of assessment activities in mathematics. These factors

will be discussed more fully in Chapter 9.

138
A third possibility is that the more complex organisational strategies like networking and

concept mapping are not part of these students' repertoire of learning strategies.

Although students valued the information from summaries, they appeared unwilling to

participate in teacher prompts to jointly form concept maps and summaries. Stu dents are

apparently u naware, or undervalue, the potential learning value of these activities.

In a good summary, the learner extracts the key points that might serve as a
conceptual framework or scaffold on which the learner can 'hang ' details. Main
ideas are easier to remember and, once recalled might be used by the learner to

cue specifics. (Swing et al. , 1 98 8 : 1 29)

In interviews with all the students concerning note-taking, Lucy was the only student to

comment on the benefit of making one ' s own notes:

Lucy: " Writing your own notes makes you think more, you know, step-by-step sort
of thing. When you write your own notes you tend to write more easier words
and stuff but not maybe the proper terms, But when she (teacher) writes notes
sometimes you don 't really take any notice of them. "

In considering Lucy' s enlightening view, it is a great pity that students were not afforded

more encouragemen t to prepare their own summaries. It appears that most students view

note-taking and summary writing merely as a way to organise notes needed for test

revision, rather than as a means of aiding comprehension. This inability of senior

students to work independently to formulate summaries would be a major deficiency in

learni ng skills necessary for tertiary study .

On a more positive note, all students had developed an effective organisational system

for their work: notes were kept separate from their exerc ises and many students used

headings and colour coding for emphasis, and coding signs for 'attention getters' .

Karen : "If there 's something I really don 't understand I 'll put a big red box around
it and 'study this '. "

Gareth: "When I have to really know something, like an equation I have to know, I
write it down in big letters or numbers. "

1 39
7.2 Metacognitive Behaviour

Metacognition refers to students' awareness and knowledge of their individual learning

process, as well as the ability and tendency to control this process during learning. Many

recent studies have found that metacognitive behaviour has proved a vital component of

expert mathematical performance and learning (Campione et al. , 1 988; Swanson, 1 990) .

Important metacogniti ve strategies for mathematics learning and performance are:

planning for learning; reflection, or thinking about the learning process (Hiebert, 1 992;

Wheatley, 1 992) ; monitoring the learning task (Anthony, 1 99 1 ; S iemon, 1 992a); and

evaluating how well one has learned.

Planning and Previewing

Planning is directly related to one ' s goals. The influence of students' overall learning

goals will be discussed more fully in Chapter 9; at this point only specific instances of,

goal setting will be discussed. On one occasion, when a maj or statistics assignment was

given out, students sought clarification as to the nature of the task, and expressed

concerns about the time allowed. The teacher listened and allayed concerns, thereby

assisting students to negotiate a goal - an agreed contract w as established between the

student and the teacher as to expectations of the task. However, it is important to note

that the establishment of the goal centred on task completion: students asked for

clarification of time and length of the task. The teacher provided information regarding

procedures for storing the data-tape and conferring with other students. There was little

discussion as to the learning outcomes of the project - are they assumed to be

incidental to the task completion?

To be fully effective in planning and controlling their own learning, students must be

aware of their learning style, abi lities, the strategies, and the nature of the learning

task. With the exception of Adam, students' conscious use and reports of planning

strategies were limited. Adam, concerned with identifying what ought to be learnt, often

reported e ither having read ahead the n ight before, or in class. Although other students

reported previewing the chapter at the beginning of a unit, they were more concerned to

see if i t l ooked hard, or i nteresting, or long.

1 40
In class students often flipped through the seatwork exercises in order to gauge the

anticipated difficulty or length of the work. Also, most of the students previewed the

homework during class time. As a result of this quick preview, combined with an

evaluation of their understanding of the lesson and their consequent ability to complete

the homework, several students reported making a decision on whether to take the

homework home.

Because test and exam revision is in part self-initiated, evidence of planning would be

expected. Homework sessions involved some limited planning by a few students -

however, the basis for planning was usually related to time rather than any specific

learning goal. Several students reported using their 6th form Course Outline to help plan

and check topics for revision, but other students were unaware of the existence of the

6th Fonn Course Outline, relying on the teacher to suggest topics for revision or using
notes as a guide.

Gareth : "I didn 't need to think about the kind of questions- Mrs H gave us a list of
things to learn and I knew there would be something on expanding. "

Those students who planned revision were more inclined to use strategies involving

comprehension monitoring, rehearsal, elaboration and self-evaluation. In contrast,

students who failed to plan tended to rely more on rehearsal strategies. Their study

sessions, confined to the night before revision, involved re-reading of notes, writing out

notes, and practice with a few examples. Time constraints, rather than evaluation of

performance against a goal, determined the length of study time. The following extract

from an interview with Jane illustrates the consequences of l ack of planing.

Int: "How do you decide what exercises to do for revision ? "

Jane: "I don 't know, just pick some of them I suppose. "

Int: "How do you decide when to finish revising . ? "

Jane: "I don 't know, just when I get sick of it, when I 've finished doing the stuff I
need to. "

141
Predicting

Students reported anticipating the teacher' s answers, other students' answers, or

predicting the teacher' s next example or lesson segment. As a direct consequence of

Adam' s predilection to preview content, Adam was often able to predict the direction of

the lesson .

Adam: "I'm thinking about the normal distribution. I know she 's (teacher) going to
talk about that because what we are doing she told us is about the normal
distribution. I've looked ahead in my book to see what was coming. "

It was common for some students to race the teacher and try and work out the answers -

this acts to monitor their understanding, and ensures that student are actively involved in

the lesson. Students who are actively involved with the teacher's explanation are in a

better position to el aborate. When answers do not match their own anticipated answers,

they should receive sufficient stimulus to sel f-question or seek help. This contrasts with

those students who reported a more passive approach: "/ 'm just watching and waiting to

see what she (teacher) does. " However, there appears to be fine balance between
anticipating the teacher's answer and reflecting on the present process or explanation.

For example, Gareth seems concerned with concentrating on the arithmetic calculations

involved in a worked example, and his efforts to race the teacher meant that little time

was spent reflecting on the overall conceptual structure of the worked example.

Selective attention

In a normal class environment there is a large amount of peripheral information in each

lesson, whether it be mathematical, disciplinary, social or administrative in nature .

Lei nhardt and Putnam ( 1 987:570) contrast the classroom setting t o learning i n an

apprenticeship mode, for:

Unlike a person learning in an apprenticeship setting, a student in a classroom

must be able to anticipate and respond to critical points in the lesson because
they may only be repeated a few times. . . important concepts in a mathematics
lesson may be mentioned only once or twice.

1 42
The features of the learning task most likely to capture a student ' s attention are

determined to a large extent by the student' s expectations about the learning task and

prior knowledge. If these expectations and/or prior knowledge are i nconsistent with the

desired learning then the student may focus on the wrong characteristic of the task .

Failure t o select and focus o n the critical procedures may lead t o 'buggy' procedures

(Leinhardt & Putnam, 1 987).

The following learning episode illustrates the necessity of selective attention to focus on

the important ideas of a lesson. In a lesson on rational ising surds the teacher

demonstrates rationalising -12 1 /.,)2 :

Mrs H : " What would I have to do to get rid of .,J2 ? What would I do to the .,)2 - and
I have to do it to the top and bottom ? "

Faye: "Square it. "

Mrs H: "If I square it I get .,)2 1 x -/2 on the top and -/2 x -/2 on the bottom equals

.,;42/2."

Unfortunately the instruction to "square it" was an incomplete description of the

process which in fact did not explain clearly that one needed to multiply the numerator

and denominator by .,)2! Gareth focused on the squaring instruction and did not

elaborate this instruction with the .,)2 1 x -/2 - thus a 'buggy' algorithm resulted.

Confident that he had the correct method, Gareth completed several exercises w ithout

checking the answers.

Gareth: "It was making sense not having surds on the bottom because it wouldn 't go
into any other number ! think they are all right so far. I 'm just following
. . .

what 's on the board. "

Gareth proceeded to solve the likes of 21.,)7 = 417.

Constructivist learning theory suggests that students need to constantly compare and l ink

new information with prior knowledge: selective attention is necessary if students are t o

challenge existing ideas by attending to discrepant information (Perkins, 1 99 1 ; Pintrich et

al. , 1993 ) .

1 43
The following extract, from a stimulated recall interview with Karen, illustrates her

efforts to attend to and discriminate important conceptual information. The teacher

introduces an example application of logarithms. Returni ng to a problem introduced in

the previous lesson , the number of bacteria (n) is given by, n = 1 000 x 1 0 (t/2)

Mrs H: " Yesterday we did how many days until we had 10 million bacteria
(n= 1 0000000) and in that case it was quite easy. We found that if you put it

all in and divided through it was 8 days ? " (raised intonation). At this point
the teacher counted the digits from right to left in 1 0000000.

Karen: (Reported thinking) "1 thought back to yesterday. I knew it was 8 days. I

didn 't know quite why it was 8 - she was counting the zeros. I counted
through and realised it was 8 numbers and she had done that yesterday. It 's
probably something to do with base 1 0. "

Unfortunately Karen' s focus on the counting of digits has drawn her attention away from

the focus on 1 0 000 = 1 0 (t/2) which would enable her to deduce that t = 8 . However,

Karen is still feeling rather uneasy about her reasoning (metacognitive experience).

When the teacher does another example, the anticipated counting is not used, and Karen

is able to resolve the conflict and correctly focus her attention on the algebraic

procedure.

When processing information in a c l assroom, students reported ignoring sizeable blocks

of time, or data, either because there was an initial signal that the teacher is 'going off on

a tangent' , or because at some point the information seems i rrelevant.

Jane: "She 's (teacher) on about all these z 's and x 's and all that stuff and it 's hard
to understand what she 's going on about.

Int: "Did you make any effort to understand?

Jane: "Not after a while, I couldn 't understand what's she 's (teacher) going on
about. She was saying that we didn 't have to use it, it 's off the topic, not
really worth listening to. "

144
Cue-seeking behaviour is another form of selective attention. Before a test students must

determine what it is that they need to be able to do as a result of studying. Some

students are sensitive to teacher provided cues (both implicit and explicit) , and some

may seek out criterion information before a test. Teacher cues include verbal emphasis,

reiteration of a point, teacher provided summaries, and practice test questions and hints.

Mrs H: "Make sure you put it in your log book as something important you will have
to learn. "

Mrs H: "Read Chapter 4 1 - it 's not long and it 's extremely important, and it will be
in the test. "

S tudent reports indicated that the extent to which students were aware of and/or used

c ues varied considerably. Some students, like Dean and Faye, were active cue-seekers,

but other students, like Gareth, were either unaware, or ignored such cues.

Dean: "We haven 't done these - is it going to be in the test? "

A report from B rent illustrates the interactive n ature of metacognitive behaviours

affecting selective attention . Brent' s awareness of the need to revise is tempered by

planning decisions to selectively attend to only those aspects of the content that he feels

able to cope with, and which he feels are 'going to be worth' learning, in terms of

al located test marks.

B rent: "I won 't bother revising the things that I think I won 't be able to have a
chance at really. I concentrate on some things, like if something that 's quite
hard is only worth a few marks it 's not a big deal. "

Reflection

As noted in the discussion of strategy classifications (section 6.2) this c ategory is

confined to behaviours related to students' reflections about the mathematical task,

procedure and solution. Reports related to the reflection on one ' s learning process and

progress are reported under self-evaluation.

1 45
A few students reported thinking about the nature of a procedure or problem, rather

than concentrating solely on problem completion or 'seeing how a problem is done ' . For

example, A dam, J ane, and Karen all reported several instances of reflection on an

approach/method presented by the teacher or a student. They used criteria of ' ease of

computation ' , 'understanding versus rule following' or 'efficiency' to make judgements

about the suitability of methods.

Adam: "I was thinking about a quicker way - now I see hers (teacher) I think
through it and see if it really works - I check through to see if it works, and if
it 's really faster, and it seems okay. "

Karen reported thinking about a blackboard example, mulling it o ver in her mind, rather

than rushing to copy it down - her report is rich in metacognitive activities of planning,

anticipation, reflection and metacognitive knowledge.

Int: "You waited until she (teacher) got all the graph finished before you started
to copy down the notes ? "

Karen: "Yeah, I was wondering what she was going to put on it, because this is what
she did earlier. I 'm still thinking about what it means - I think this helps my
learning. "

However, when completing seatwork problems the emphasis was on completion and

most students relied on peer or teacher assistance when stuck rather than self-reflection.

Int: "Do you ever try checking by another method ? "

Dean: "No, I just let the answers do that. "

B oth Adam and Karen reported thinking about mathematics problems for extended

periods of time both in class and out of class.

Adam: "Sometimes I think for a very long time, probably half an hour, an hour, or a
whole day thinking and sometimes just come up with the thing"( answer).

Karen: "Sometimes I think about my maths for a wh�le after I 've finished my
homework - I still consciously think about it and sometimes when I go to
sleep at night I think about maths. "

1 46
Monitoring

The ability to correctly monitor one ' s understanding and performance has a direct

bearing on students' subsequent cognitive actions (Peterson et al., 1 984). Firstly,

monitoring strategies should lead either to diagnosis, or directly to remedial action, and

secondly, monitoring provides new metacognitive knowledge about the effectiveness of

one' s problem-solving procedures and learning strategies.

Reported data reveals two main types of monitoring behaviour significant in the learning

process : monitoring one's understanding of teacher presented concepts and worked

examples, and monitoring one' s performance when completing exercises. In both

situations students monitored and controlled their learning processes in individual ways.

All students reported numerous monitoring statements related to thei r understanding of

the lesson content. A count of the monitoring of understanding statements in lane's two

lessons found th at approximately two-thirds were related to not understanding, or trying

to understand: "/ didn 't know what she (teacher) was on about"; and one-third related to

understanding: " This time when she goes over it again, I understood it. " As a result of

this monitoring Jane makes decisions about the nature and seriousness of her difficulties,

and whether or not to take some remedial action .

In contrast, Gareth more often reported u nderstanding the teacher explanations. His

monitoring statements, "/ was a bit confused until she put the numbers in " and "/ was

understanding why she put the numbers over there " relate to calculations o r procedures
rather than concepts. However, when Gareth attempted problems he demonstrated an

i ncomplete knowledge of the concept of standard deviation and related procedures.

Gareth' s inaccurate monitoring is likely to have serious consequences: if he does not

n otice that he is not understanding, then he is unlikely to engage in remedial strategic

processing (Anthony, 1 99 1 ). Gareth's inability to monitor understanding is further

hindered by his attempts to provide reliable self-evaluations of performance.

1 47
When completing seatwork all students reported the influence of monitoring individual

performance on their checking behaviour. Monitoring had a direct influence on the

frequency, or need, to check work: if they felt they were getting the answers correct they

would do several before marking; if they were stuck, or not sure, they would mark each

problem on completion.

Dean: ". . . if you know what you 're doing you usually know it it 's right, but if you
don 't know what method you 're using; if I don 't know what I 'm doing I go
straight to the answers and see if I can work back through the work. "

Evaluation

There are several components of students' self-evaluation: students may evaluate their

performance on a task (production evaluation), or they may evaluate their learning

process (overall progress in a lesson, or strategy evaluation), or their overal l ability to

cope with the learning task.

Checking one's work is the most common form of performance evaluation exhibited in

the classroom. However, while most students reported checking calculations, few

evaluated their work with respect to the operational choice or semantic sensibility. The

criteria for evaluating the correctness of answers varies from student to student, as

illustrated by the following two reports :

Int: "Do you think you got that problem correct? "

Jane: " Yes, because I got the one before it correct."

Int: "Do you think this answer is right? "

Adam: "Yes, because I have done the steps correctly. "

Adam reports by far the most effective checking strategies. His combination of

metacognitive knowledge of appropriate checking strategies, and his accurate

monitoring, ensure effective and efficient checking procedures are used. The following is

an example of a checking procedure invoked by a metacognitive experience:

148
Adam: "I'm unsure of the answer so I'm thinking if its right or wrong. I hww I 'll get
it right if I've put the correct things in my calculator - so I'm just checking
that. "

None of the other students reported any self-checking of problems preferring to rely

solely on the text, or on teacher verification.

All students reported evaluating other student's answers to class directed questions, but

usually these evaluations were not accompanied by the explanations or justifications

which one would expect with deep processing of the content. Criteria for judging the

correctness of the answer was often based on knowledge of the person answering,

teacher response, or a matching of the answer with student's own, rather than any critical

examination of the content of the answer. For example, Gareth reported, "/ was thinking

yes, he 's right, his answer is the same as mine and if two people get the same answer it
must be right ". The fact that the teacher went on to negate the answer did not register

with Gareth . This practice of evaluating answers by match is constantly reinforced by

students' checking problem answers with textbook answers, or comments from the

teacher such as, "Did anyone else get 7. 5 - fine, it will be right". The criteria for
reasonableness of an answer, or appropriateness of method, was seldom modelled by the

teacher.

There is also evidence of contrast between students in their evaluation of their overall

performance or mastery. Gareth decides he u nderstands and will be able to retain

important information simply because he has done an exercise or ' understood' the

teacher doing it:

Gareth: "As I work through I might learn how to do it once and keep going with the
same ideas sort of thing. "

Despite not being able to get any of the seatwork correct during a lesson on standard

deviation, Gareth reported favourably about his progress:

1 49
Gareth: "It was a good lesson. I learnt how to do the standard deviation. I learnt to
keep drawing up the table. At the start it was difficult because I didn 't know
how to do standard deviation and plus that frequency column, but later on it
got really easy. I'm good with standard deviation problems. "

In contrast, Adam makes a decision on understanding only after he tests himself (via

problem completion), or otherwise generating feelings and information about his actual

state of mastery:

Adam: "The work on standard error is new. I take down the notes. I was wondering
what standard error is. I thought I might ask my brother or father. I don 't
really understand why we do find the standard error that way. She (teacher)
didn 't really explain where it comes from. "

Lucy reported evaluating her learning progress at the end of each lesson, either as she

packs up her work or waits for dismissal. A negative evaluation of understanding and

progress results in a decision to ' follow up' with some further work at home.

Lucy : "I sort of worry if I don 't understand. I 'll have a go through the work again,
read my notes over. "

Revision

Duri ng stimulated recall lessons all students indicated that they were aware of the need

to revise material . Karen made a note in her logbook; Jane added question marks against

problems to be reviewed; Adam mentally noted to seek further help from family

members; and Gareth noted details of exam revision tutorials and inquired about extra

review work.

Adam made use of class time to revise. His intention was to check his u nderstanding,

over-learn, and manage idle time.

Adam: "I just revise all these things in my head again, tried to remember them
better. "

1 50
Metacognitive knowledge

An additional and critical component of metacogn itive learning behaviour is

metacognitive knowledge. Learners need a sound metacognitive knowledge base for

effectively controlling and regulating their learning (Weinstein, 1 98 8 ) . Firstly , learners

need to know something about themselves as learners - self-knowledge about one's

skil ls, strengths and weaknesses. This helps learners to know how to schedule their study

acti vities, and the kinds of resources or assistance they will need to perform efficiently

and effectively. For example, Abe acknowledges that he is prone to make errors under

test conditions and modifies his checking behaviour:

Abe: "I get confused easily, like I 'd have to check an answer about four times. In
an exam / ' ll work out the answer and then / 'd have to go back over and
check it and often it 's diffe rent so I 'd have to go back over and check it
again until I get the same answer twice. "

Secondly, learners need task knowledge - knowledge about the way in which the nature

of the task influences performance and the anticipated or desired outcomes. For

example, students need to know what is required when one revises for an open book test

as opposed to a closed book test.

Karen : "In an open book test you can go through the text and learn the formulas or
find out from the text book how to solve it. So you don 't have to do as much
revision 'cause everything is in the text book. "

B rent: "You don 't need to learn all the formula and stufffor an open book test, but
it seems harder 'cause the questions are not always the same as in the
book. "

Unfortunately, the teacher's comment, "Because you haven 't had much time for revision

this test will be open book " does little to support formation of metacognitive knowledge
about appropriate learning strategies for open book tests.

Thirdly, students need strategy knowledge - knowledge regarding the differential value

of alternative strategies for enhancing performance. This knowledge needs to include

actually being able to use these strategies, and knowing when it is appropriate to use

certain strategies. However, as discussed earlier, many students appear relatively

151
u naware of their learning process. Moreover, they are unaware of alternative strategies

and have little or no knowledge of how other students go about learning mathematics:

Adam: "Revision time in class has reduced my nervousness .. .! don 't know about
other students, I don 't know how other students prepare for tests. "

During interviews, and also during class lessons, students made statements about

themselves as learners of mathematics, and expressed their feelings and attitudes about

the content and learning, thereby reveal ing much of thei r metacognitive knowledge

about mathematics learning. Figure 5 lists metacognitive knowledge statements from

Karen's interview from a lesson on polynomials.

Karen's reported metacognitive knowledge during a single lesson

Self-knowledge
• I cringed, I hate algebra.
• I ' m a slow writer.

Task knowledge
• I immediately thought quadratics - I can ' t do quadratics easily.
• 4x 2 those are the ones I hate . . .! can ' t do these problems.
• The other one (text) does n ' t get taken out of my locker. I don ' t like the way it' s
arranged.
• I knew that we had done these things before and that there are basic ones and h arder
type ones.

Strategy knowledge
• I don't tend to c all out, I just sit there and l isten.
• I prefer to work by myself at home if I don' t get it.
• I don' t spend at lot of time reading them ( notes) at home. I think it's a better i dea to
try and read it now and try and understand it.
• I' m still thinking about what it means, I think this helps my learning.

Figure 5 : Metacognitive Knowledge (Karen)

1 52
Metacognitive knowledge is not always clearly categorisable: often examples can be

placed in more than one category, or involve the interaction of strategies. For example,

Jane's metacognitive task and strategy knowledge were used to assist her in the

following example in which Jane attempted an exercise not set by the teacher:

Jane: "I wanted to do a whole question, not just finish off the one the teacher had
started. I chose No. 8, because it looked big. I read it first and thought I
could do - understand it. At the end of it I got stuck so I went back to No. 6. I
thought it would be easier since it was back further, because they get harder
at the end. "

I n this case the strategy proved ineffective: the fact that Jane was consciOus of her

strategy selection indicated that the experience would then add to further metacognitive

knowledge.

In summary, metacognitive activity usually occurred when students encountered

difficulties with understanding a concept, fol lowing a procedure or completing an

exercise. Although all students reported numerous instances of metacognitive behaviour,

qualitative differences in their application of strategies were noted. Some students

reported simply an awareness or knowledge of their thinking in general terms, such as;

concentrating or not concentrating, thinking or not thinking, or 'easy' or 'hard.

Although aware of their mental states, there was a disappointing lack of student attempts

to analyse, evaluate, or direct thinking.

There was little evidence that low achieving students sought to explore alternative ways

of resolving their problems in understanding. For example, apart from the knowledge

that they were not understanding, or were stuck, several of the low achievers had little

reco urse but to depend upon the teacher 'going over' the material again . Of particul ar

concern is students' limited use of those metacognitive strategies directly related to

controlling learning, such as planning, previewing, reflection, selective attention and

problem diagnosis. Without developing and using these strategies students are confined

to ' passive' learning behaviours and are l imited in their ability to behave autonomously.

1 53
7.3 Affective Strategies

Affective strategies result from affective responses or metacognitive experiences. Their

purpose is to change learner attitudes and orientations towards learning. Stimulated

recall interviews, general interviews, and observations revealed a high number of

affective responses. Examples of affective statements in Table 5 illustrate the range of

affective responses provided.

Pleasure "I like the look of No. 8 - it looks bigger. " (Jane)
"I · r when Gareth asked that
An I 'll see how it 's done. "
Relief "It was wrong .. .! was glad I didn 't say any thing. " (Karen)
" Oh choice, I thought we were going to do graphs and

Annoyance "There was no one around me . . ! couldn 't talk to Karen or

.

anyone - so Ijust had to sit there. " (Jane)

"You r tricked us. "
B oredom "I don 't do anything. I feel bored. I look at my book but for
nothing in particular. " (Jane)
"I was getting bored so I thought I would do the next example. "

D a little bit. "

Frustration "I asked her (teacher) but I still don 't understand. " (Jake)
"Can you show me how to use this stupid calculator? " ( Karen)
"Give us a chance. How long have you (teacher) been doing this

Table 5: Affective Responses

1 54
Specific reports of affective strategies were limited. Adam reported an i ncident involving

a puzzle type question used to i ntroduce a lesson about sequences. When faced with

difficulty he maintained his persistence and motivation by a positive self-talk dialogue: "I

just try to solve it, still solve, solve it. I think, sure I can solve it, and things like that. "

On other occasiOns students reported a boost of confidence and motivation when

marking - evidenced by such comments as : "Oh good it 's right! " and " I knew that one,
I felt really good about that. "

Metacognitive experiences such as the 'aha' - ' I see it now' type or feelings of confusion

are also related strongly to an affective component of learning (Flavell, 1 98 1 ).

Karen: " When she put 13 - I just realised that you had to add 13 and change the
equation. "

In the fol lowing example we can see how Karen' s feeling of confusion with the teacher' s

demonstration of factorising forced her to confront her own conflicting knowledge and

seek a resolution.

Karen: "Now I was confused: you know how you 've got to add to get to one and
multiply to get to the other. I had it round the other way. "

In another instance Karen' s feeling of confusion and uncertainty again led to extra effort:

Karen: "I 'd never heard . of polynomials before, I was thinking it was probably
something to do with one number. I was not sure what it had to do with
quadratics, so I was concentrating extra hard, trying to find out what she
(teacher) was talking about. "

At times some students (Karen, Jane and Adam) found the c lassroom routine and work

boring - no such reports from Gareth. Each of these three students had individual and

varied responses to boredom. For example, Adam reported thinking about science (his

favourite subject) or 'filling in' the time with independent work (exercises or revision).

Karen also reports that doing something is better than being bored:

Karen: "I was getting so bored so I thought I would do the next example. "

1 55
Karen: "I don 't really revise unless I 'm really bored and then I just read through
my notes. "

For both Karen and Adam boredom was likely to be the result of ' knowing the work ' .

When boredom is a result of not being able t o follow the lesson i t was more likely to

result i n off-task behaviour.

Jane: "I just didn 't understand anything she (teacher) was talking about. I 'm
feeling bored. I don 't bother to try for that one 'cause I don 't understand
graphs at all, so I wouldn 't know what she 's going on about. "

7.4 Resource Management Strategies

Resource management strategies are those activities learners engage in which afford the

opportunity to learn : task control ; setting control ; and actively seeking help from

resources, teacher, peers and other adults.

Modification of the task

Generally, teacher directed tasks were prescriptive, providing little opportun ity for

students to alter their approach to the task , or the task itself. Often the teacher set

guidelines as to the expected time available to complete a task: "By 9. 50 I want you to

be at Question Ja. " When the teacher set exercises to be completed in class, Adam
skimmed through the exercises and evaluated the level of difficulty and time needed. He

modified the task by adding a performance criteria of a time limit to complete seatwork,

thus adding a challenge to a fairly routine task.

However, not all task management was beneficial to learning. For example, occasionally

when Adam could find nothing better to do, he slowed down: "I'm working slowly to fill

in the time." Gareth reduced the number of homework exercises when he felt that the
homework was either too long or too easy.

Gareth: "If it 's easy, I 'll just whiz through the first line. "

Int: "What about trying some problems at the end of the exercise ? "

1 56
Gareth: "No, I only do them if they are hard, because if I can work out how to do
them, I just need to practice, to cruise through. If they are easy I 'll just do
like I a, 2a, 3a. "

Despite knowing that "they get harder at the end" Gareth is satisfied that he only needs

to do the first one of each exercise.

Only a few students reported occasionally looking, reading or attempting extra o r

alternative exercises when completing homework: most did not see it as their role t o

determine which exercises t o attempt o r explore.

Determining the progress of the lesson

By providing feedback to the teacher, students were able, or attempted, to change the

pace of the lesson - and their consequent learning requi rements and outcomes. For

example, students sometimes attempted to slow down the lesson when they were

experiencing difficulties by calling out comments such as :

Karen: "We don 't understand it ifyou go too fast. "

However, often complaints of going too fast were a way of covering for off-task

behaviour. For example, Brent who had spent the seatwork time talking about weekend

activities and had not attempted any work called out, "You (teacher) don 't give us

enough time - then you do it on the board and we don 't get to do anything. "

On other occasiOns students attempted to speed up the lesson by answenng other

students' questions, or by anticipating answers, or even answering two questions at

once. In one instance Faye responded to the teacher' s comment that the lesson was

rushed by saying "No, it 's good ". Faye also felt that homework review sessions were a

"waste of time" and that her participation was largely to speed up the lesson :

Faye: "It was a waste of time - I just sit there and talk or answer the questions if
she wants some answers and no one else knows them. "

1 57
Monitoring the teacher

Moni toring the teacher was a very common student activity. S tudents were often able to

split attention between what they were doing and teacher's questions or movement to

the blackboard.

Karen: "I'm reading the example. I'm sort of listening and reading a t the same time. "

During seatwork, Karen and Jane were conscious of the teacher's movements around the

class. They would 'save' a question until the teacher approached them or 'listen in' to a

teacher explanation with another student. They used this strategy to gain help and to

monitor their progress against other students.

Help seeking

Help seeking has recently been acknowledged by a number of researchers as

representing an important aspect of school learning.

An independence-based view of help-seeking characterizes the help-seeker as

acting maturely and purposely, alleviating a "real " difficulty, learning and
mastering the task at hand, and in the end achieving autonomy (Newman &
Schwager, 1 992: 1 25).

Nisbet and Shucksmith ( 1 986) suggest that although learning is largely intuitive, the

learner should be able to move from the intuitive to the deliberate when some difficulty

i ntervenes, stopping to consider the source of difficulty and selecting a strategy to deal

with it. Students who know when (as a result of monitoring), how (strategy knowledge),

and from whom to seek help, should be more successful than those students who do not

seek help appropriately (Newman, 1 99 1 ).

When having difficulty with a problem students reported a range of behaviours, some of

which were effective and others ineffective. For example, Gareth reported that his

keenness to answer questiof6 was a form of help seeking:

Gareth: "If I get a question wrong she 'll (teacher) probably answer it in a more
easier way to understand so I 'll get it right. If you get something wrong she
usually goes into the example in more detail. "

1 58
When Jane got a problem wrong she reported:

Jane: "I've written the answer in red. I tried to work it out again, but I didn 't get it,
so I put a question mark next to it and went on to the next question. "

Int: "What is the question markfor? "

Jane: "So that I'll know I didn 't do it "

Int: "Will you come back to it later on ? "

Jane: "I don 't know, if I really wanted to know I could ask someone at home, but I
probably won 't bother. "

This i l lustrates an important facet of learning strategy behaviour: although Jane

demonstrates a knowledge of help-seeking strategies and acknowledges the need to seek

further assistance, strategy knowledge, in itself, is not enough to ensure that Jane will

invoke the appropriate strategic behaviour.

Students gave various reasons for not seeking help. Jane reported a reluctance to seek

help during class discussion as she feels that she is the only one that does not know what

the teacher IS talking about. Her belief is reinforced when other students answer

questions:

Jane: You notice other students answenng. You think maybe you 've missed
something - here 's another bit I didn 't know. "

Similarly, Lucy's metacognitive knowledge of help-seeking strategies IS a result of

. .

previous expenence.

Lucy: "She (teacher) sort of goes - oh no! I feel like it 's a put down - it 's not worth
the hassle - it 's easier to try and work it out yourself "

Gareth, when he was stuck, turned to the textbook answer and tried to work backwards

from the answer to his solution. He seems to believe that problem solving is simply a

matter of trying all the operations and hoping one of them gives the same answer as the

textbook. This belief appears to override any need to truly u nderstand the problem. For

example, when he had used 1t in the formula he divided the given answer by n to see if

1 59
he was out by a factor of n. When he was unable to locate the source of his error he

asked for teacher assistance: "I don 't see how they got 69. 8 for No. 2 ".

More successful learners are likely to have available a network of help-seeking strategies

from which to select appropriate actions related to the task problem. For example, a

more active approach was used by Karen and Jane. They checked the answers for some

prompting, but also referred back to worked examples in the textbook for assistance.

Jane also reported the strategy of trying previous exercises (similar to a look-back

strategy in reading) as a lead up to the more difficult problem. But, as is discussed more

fully in the c ase studies (Chapter 8), Karen and lane' s help-seeking behaviours were not

always adaptive and effective. Adam reports awareness of specific strategies to deal with

a wrong answer:

Adam: "My answer is wrong, I went back and reread the question and then I looked
through my work again to see what I did wrong- I found the problem and
crossed out the incorrect work and wrote it out again. "

Faye' s help-seeking behaviours were highly visible and varied. She worked with a peer

group by talking through the exercises out-loud and listening and responding to others'

comments. Most problems were checked with a neighbour, and when difficulties arose

help was sought and provided almost instantaneously from peers. When the group as a

whole reached an impasse there was an immediate seeking of teacher help. This resulted

i n a very quick task completion rate. In contrast Gareth, a low achiever, spent a lot of

time looking at notes, board work and answers, but made no attempt to communicate

with his neighbour. He completed the exercises at a very slow rate.

Classroom observations provided further examples of help-seeki ng strategies such as

copying a neighbour' s answers; calling out statements indicating difficulty, such as "this

is dumb " and <'how are we meant to do any of this "; making eye contact with the
teacher; frowning; and sitting i n the proximity of a helpful student.

1 60
Cooperation between Peers

Despite the fact that peer interaction was neither required nor explicitly encouraged,

i nteraction with neighbours was very common for some students. Students used peers to

assist in monitoring their progress by checking where their neighbours were 'up to' ;

asked or assisted peers with explanations ; and to ask for teacher assistance (that is, they

jointly negotiated the need for help and agreed who should ask for help, or they both

indicated the need for help thus increasing the likelihood that they would receive teacher

attention) . lane' s comment illustrates the importance attached to supportive peer

interaction:

Jane : "I think the others (Faye, Lucy , and Karen) got higher marks because they
work together - it 's helpful because they support each other. Last year I used
to get help from a friend, but I don 't sit with anyone in this class. Well
sometimes I sit near Brent, but he doesn 't want to talk about maths, usually
we talk about other things. "

Collins et al . s ( 1 989) suggestion that peer help is often more effective than that of the
'

teachers is reflected in some students' preference for peer help. Peers may have recently

had the same or a similar difficulty themselves, and thus are often better able to assist

other students to grasp the rationale of a new concept or ski l l .

Brent: " When I 'm stuck sometimes / ' ll have a think through myself and go to the
back of the book and check the answer and / ' ll try to go through with the
answer. If I can 't get that, then maybe I 'll ask someone next to me, like if
they have it right, they can explain it, but if they don 't know I 'll ask Mrs H. "

Peers check others' progress in an attempt to monitor their own progress. In the

following instance Lucy monitors Faye' s work. The teacher had asked students not to

copy the work from the board as she would make more formal notes l ater. Faye

however, looks up the topic in the text, and with her text on her lap, u nder her desk, she

proceeds to copy the text summary:

Lucy/Faye: "What are you doing, what are you writing down ?"

161
Faye/Lucy: "I 've just copied the notes out from the book. "

Karen, Faye and Lucy often worked c ooperatively, sometimes allowing other students

into their 'grou p ' , but only with their approval. The fol lowing illustrates peer

cooperation between Faye, Lucy and Karen in seeking help from the teacher:

Karen : "I 'm lost " (directed at the teacher who approaches). "Lucy you listen in, you
are just as confused. "

Faye: "! think I 'm right now. "

In another instance Faye and Karen cooperated with help sharing, but it should be noted

that it involved more than just simply one student giving the other the answer:

Karen: "Could you do No. 8 ? "

Faye: (Hands over her book to Karen) "Learn how to do it, don 't just copy it. "

Although Faye, Lucy and Karen ' s cooperative efforts were usually effective in enhancing

the learning process, it was noted that their learning episodes were more often than not

interspersed with off-task talk. Marland and Edwards ( 1 986) suggest that controlled off­

task behaviour may be effective in providing needed breaks from cognitive engagement

(a form of task management). However, in general peer contact appeared most beneficial

when closely associated with relevant task or content.

There was another grouping in the class (Brent, Abe and Dean) that regularly worked

together, but often for social and psychological reasons rather than academic goals.

Much of their cooperative behaviours involved only off-task behaviours. They developed

coping strategies of asking for teacher help as she approached their group , so as to

appear interested and involved, and managed to avoid the teacher scrutinising their lack

of real work.

1 62
When peer cooperation was used to cover up for lack of u nderstanding, or to proyide

answers, or jointly disrupt the lesson, peer interaction did not enhance the learning

process. In many instances peers fel l into a pattern of answering each others ' questions.

Some seemed especially adept at doing this when they knew that the targeted student

had not done the required work. On other occasions students reinforced each others '

comments concerning workload, difficulty, or speed of the lesson, not in a genume

attempt to direct the lesson but rather to cover for student off-task behaviour.

Environmental Control

Classroom learning demands control from the numerous distractions and attentional

stimuli (Como, I 989). Seating arrangements were the most common form of

environmental control exercised by students. For example, Gareth, who liked to answer

teacher questions, and preferred teacher help over peer help, always sat at the front of

the room. Predictably, Brent, Abe, and Dean always sat towards the back of the room.

Several students made conscious decisions as to which students they would sit with . For

example, when beginning a new unit on calculus, Kane, a 7th form student, was asked by

Faye if he was good at calculus (from last year), on replying that he was, he was invited

to sit with the group for that unit.

On other occasions students would ward off personal attention so as to protect their

learning opportunities: "Why 'd you ask me, ask the teacher." Dean indicated an

awareness of the importance of control l i ng peer distractions :

Dean: "I could improve my concentration if I sat separately. I know that I should be
paying fuller concentration but I sort of get easily distracted, After I got
kicked out of class I have been sitting separately for about the last five
lessons. It 's been a good way to concentrate. If I don 't concentrate I can still
comprehend the lesson but it doesn 't stay there. "

However, Dean only occasionally avoided the temptation of personal distractions by

removing himself from his peers.

1 63
7.5 Summary

Do these reported and observed learning strategies promote higher-order thinking,

knowledge construction, and appropriate metacognitive knowledge? The examples of

students' specific use of learning strategies indicates that a wide range of strategies are

employed. In some instances learning strategies appear to enhance the learning process.

In other instances students' use of learning strategies appears to be either ineffective or

inappropriately directed towards the goal of task completion.

Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1 992) suggests

that students should develop the ability to reflect critically on the methods they have

chosen, express ideas, listen and respond to the ideas of others, critically appraise

mathematical arguments, explore and conject, learn from mistakes as well as successes,

set learning goals, and access a broad range of resources . While examples of these

strategic learning behaviours were in evidence, their use was limited.

Rehearsal strategies involved practicing exercises and frequent reports of rereading.

Rereadin g of notes was sometimes accompanied by self-summarising, but often (even

with high achievers) processing appeared to be duplicative rather than generative.

Elaborative strategies involved linking between parts of the problems, limited use of

imagery and no reports of student generated metaphors or analogies. Reports of self­

questioning appeared effective, but use of in-class questions was determined largely by

personal factors.

Although research shows that metacognitive strategies are important (Anthony, 1 99 1 ;

Campione et al., 1 989; Herrington , 1 992), many students in the present study used these
of
strategies with little awareness,.their importance. Metacognitive strategies were reported

more frequently than cognitive strategies, however they were limited in their range and

effectiveness. Numerous monitoring and evaluation strategies were reported but

resulting behaviours were not always appropriate or effective. For example, reports of

not understanding or being stuck did not always lead to appropriate changes in the

learners' behaviour.

1 64
Reports of numerous affective reactions are consistent with a constructivist learning

perspective. However, metacognitive experiences and affective reactions need to be

controlled or harnessed in an appropriate manner. More successful students appeared to

deal with negative affect in a positive manner, whereas less successful students appeared

somewhat unaware or unable to invoke appropriate or effective strategies to alleviate

problems of confusion, boredom or frustration .

Resource management behaviours are particularly necessary in a social learning context.

S tudents who invoked appropriate resource management strategies were able to adapt

themselves and their learning environment to maximise their learning opportunities. The

use of resources and appropriate help seeking was demonstrated as especially important,

and it characterised the more successful students . Students who sought appropriate help

gave evidence of not only monitoring their own cognitive processing, but also of an

attempt to alleviate their difficulties and ensure success. In contrast, those students who

were reluctant to seek help and who sat in class disengaged from the learning process

appeared to have defaulted on their potential self-control. Additionally, behaviours

which involve the opportunity to attend to peer activity, verbal or non verbal, are related

to student learning. In some cases direct facilitative contact with peers appears to be

more consistently related to student learning than direct contact with the teacher.

To answer the question posed at the beginning of this summary more fully it is necessary

to consider students' individual use of learning strategies. It appears that the use of

learning strategies per se is not inherently indicative of purposive, i ntentional learning

behaviour. The implementation of an appropriate and effective strategy is more

important than knowledge of strategies in general. The following chapter will discuss

these issues with case studies of i ndividual student' s actual use of learning strategies.

1 65
 Chapter 8

Case Studies

What a student learns depends to a great degree on how he or she has learned
it.
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1 989:5)

8.1 Introduction

In comparing students' strategy use one could simply list strategies. Table 6 compares

the average (rounded) frequency of reported strategies per stimu lated recall interview for

each student. Where several categories achieve similar goals they have been grouped

together (See section 6. 1 for the classification system).

One can see that strategy frequencies are relatively similar and little information is gained

about the appropriateness and effectiveness of each strategy application. As already

noted, simply listing reported strategies used does not reveal the value of the strategies

to the learning process. For example, it would be presumptuous to conclude from these

statistics that the large number of elaborations reported by Gareth implies that he was

more active in encoding and linking information than, say Adam. When we take the

presage factors into account, it could be argued that Gareth' s l ack of prior knowledge

meant that there were more conscious attempts (often accompanied by cognitive failure

and metacognitive experiences) to elaborate. Similarly, one could argue that Adam's

superior prior knowledge meant that accessing information w as automatic in many

i nstances , and thus not reported.

An alternative to examining frequency counts is to consider the effectiveness of any

particular strategy in relation to the individual student, the learning goal, the task

demands, and the learning context (Gamer, 1 990a; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1 992). For

1 66
 example, Adam' s large number of task modification strategies may be related to the

purpose which Adam expects the lesson to serve. As will be detailed in section 8 . 5 ,

much o f Adam' s classroom learning i s directed towards identifying what ought to be

learned - he appears to use classroom time for consol idation and rehearsal, and often

needs to employ task management strategies to avoid boredom.

·· strategy Gareth Jane " Karen A dam · /

Cognitive Strategies
Rehearsal 5 5 4 4
Elaboration 22 14 20 I4
Organisation 5 4 7 4
Metacognitive Strategies
I---
Planning (M I , M2, M3) 4 3 8 6
Attention (M4, MS, M6) 8 4 5 7
Monitoring (M7, M 8 , M9) 2I 27 2I I8
Revision (R I 0) 2 0 3 I
Metacognitive knowledge 8 14 IS 6
and experiences (MK, ME)
Affective Strategies
A I , A2, A3, A4 0 1 2 2
Resource Management Strategies
Task management (R I ) I 2 3 5
Pace of lesson(R2) 0 0 0 0
Help (R3, R4, RS , R6) 8 3 5 4
Peer Cooperation (R7) 0 0 I 0
Setting (R8) 0 0 0 0

Table 6: Frequency of Reported Learning Strategies

This chapter discusses strategy use in various classroom learning episodes, including

homework and test revision, for each of the four target students. The case studies

synthesise data fro m all of the data collection strategies to provide a comprehensive and

reliable learning strategy profile for each of the target students. The chapter concludes

with a discussion relating students' prior knowledge, learning goals, and use of learning

strategies to passive and active learning behaviours.

1 67
$ .2 Case Study 1 : GARETH

PROFILE

Gareth is a seventeen year old student who feels he is not very good at mathematics. He

views mathematics as important for his career but finds learning mathematics "pretty

hard as it involves mostly memory work". Despite performing very poorly in assessment

tests Gareth applies himself fully and is ever hopeful of improving his grade:

Gareth: "I work very hard at maths. I have to work my hardest at this subject because
I 've always been bad at maths. "

He reported that "learning maths is done by just looking through the book and reading

your notes and doing problems non-stop". Gareth prefers to do mathematics in class

where he can get 'on-line' help from the teacher.

Gareth ' s interviews and observed behaviour suggest that he strongly believes that doing

a mathematics problem correctly, or having a record of how to do a problem, is what

learning mathematics is all about:

Gareth : "As I work through it (Standard deviation table) I might learn how to do it
once and keep going with the same ideas sort of thing. "

Int: "How will you learn which columns to total up ?

Gareth: " You only total up about three of the columns out of the whole graph (sic).
When I come to revise, if I have to, I 'll just look back in my notes and see
which ones I totalled up. "

LEARNING EPISODES

During class discussion Gareth is always attentive. Gareth' s lack of prior domain

knowledge severely limits his ability to use the necessary elaboration strategies such as

linking, paraphrasing, imagery or self-explanation. Gareth does attempt to recall prior

1 68
knowledge in response to teacher prompts, but does not always achieve the teacher' s

intended outcome. For example, in the fol lowing episode the teacher requests that the

class recall why one would square the ( x - x ) column. Rather than recalling the previous

lesson content, Gareth retrieved his earli er n umbers framework.

Gareth: "I was thinking in my head, how do you, why do you square it and stuff like
that, and I thought of an answer, I wasn 't really sure. I came up with an idea
that you square it so you get a b igger number that's easier to work with. "

Often Gareth tries to compensate for lack of prior knowledge by locating the text

reference when the teacher introduces a new topic. This may enable him to answer the

teacher' s questions based on what he reads in front of him, but Gareth possibly deludes

himself i nto thinking that he understands the topic.

During the discussion time Gareth coptes all the information from the board. When

attending to discussions on worked problems he attends to each procedural step

separately, rather than the links between each step. Because of his focus on individual

calculations he is often able to answer teacher questions such as "What will the mean

be ?" or "Facto ring will give you ? "

Gareth: "I had the answer because I 'd finished it off as she (teacher) was talking about
the grids " (standard deviation tables).

However, in selectively attending to the c alculations, Gareth often ignored the teacher' s

explanation of conceptual material. In the fol lowing example Gareth misinterprets the

teacher' s comment about the "next column" as "nx column", but later dismissed this

concern when he sees how to do it with numbers !

Gareth: "I had the mean right, but not the rest. I was a bit confused when she (teacher)
started talking about nx column and stuff "

lnt: "You were a bit confused when she talked about ? "

Gareth: "The nx, the column, she was going on about some column. I was a bit
confused until I saw how she put the numbers in on the board. "

1 69
Gareth' s focus on procedural knowledge, with few apparent connections between

procedures and concepts, is evident in his handling of algebraic symbols: absent from the

use of algebraic symbols is any link with conceptual concepts . In an episode involving

the calculation of standard deviation Gareth has little idea of what each of the variables f,

fx, and ( x - x ) represent. He sees them merely as headings of the graph (sic) which is
used to organise· the c alculation procedure:

2
Gareth: "/ could see why she put the frequency and the f , fx, thing up because we save
a lot of space in the box. "

Int: "What do you think tlze 10 was in the total? "

Gareth: "The f one- the total of all the frequency data added up. " (Gareth does not
know where the frequency score comes from, thus he doesn't know that the
total 1 0 relates to the total number of data items. )

Int: "What do you think the fx column represents ? "

Gareth: "Um, fx is the frequency plus x; oh no, it 's times x, so it 's just the frequency
times the tally, the data next door to it. In the graph you 've got the x and
you 've got the frequency so you just times f times x. "

I n light of Gareth ' s metacognitive knowledge (beliefs about learning), and focus on

computation, it is not surprising that specific references to understanding such as: "/ was

understanding why she put the numbers in over there " and "/ understand why she put
the 'f ' row (sic) there ", commonly refer to arithmetic or organisational features of an

example.

Compared with the other target students Gareth is active m question answering,

especially answering cued questions. For example, when studying calculus, questions

such as " What do we do first?" always elicited the response "Differentiate " - a fairly

safe answer! However, about 30 percent of his answers are incorrect. Gareth reports

that guessing answers was an appropriate strategy . He reasons that if you are wrong the

teacher will give you the correct answer, and it is good to answer lots of questions as it

will go on your report at the end of the year - "Gareth participates in class discussion

or stuff like that. " Thus it appears that Gareth employs the strategy of answering
.

1 70
questions to gain teacher approval and information, rather than to assist i n monitoring

understanding and elaboration.

As well as answering questions, Gareth evaluates other students' answers. However, the

criterion for evaluating correctness is often based on knowledge of the person

answering, teacher response, or matching of the answer with his own , rather than any

critical examination of the content of the answer.

Gareth : "/ was thinking yes he 's right, his answer is the same as mine, and if two
people get the same answer it must be right. "

Gareth did not notice that the teacher went on to negate the answer. Gareth ' s practice of

evaluating answers by match is constantly reinforced by student' s checking problem

answers with textbook answers, or comments from the teacher such as "Did anyone else

get 7. 5 - fine, it will be right ".

Gareth also reported evaluating teacher given methods, but agai n the criterion was based

on ease of computation rather than understanding.

Mrs H : "This is quite a complicated step. "

Gareth: "It wasn 't really as complicated as she (teacher) said. You just shift the tables
from one column to the next. "

Seatwork

Gareth always works on-task during this period, being one of the first in the class to

begin work, and one of the l ast to finish at the end of the lesson. Gareth usually goes

straight to the first question. However in Video 1 Gareth skipped the assigned reading

and flipped through the set questions to evaluate h i s abi lity to complete them.

Gareth: "I 'm looking at the questions we have to do - it looks quite a lot - it 's all
mainly the same thing, like finding the mean, mode and stuff "

Gareth initially uses examples on the board to gui de hi m through the first few problems.

This strategy is reinforced by the fact that seatwork problems are always strongly related

171
to what the teacher has just done. The following sequence from a lesson on simplifying

surds is typical of Gareth' s approach.

Gareth: "I 'm feeling okay about starting (d), I 'm trying to look up at the board to see
how, follow the steps through. I got .J48 =.J3x 1 6 so I thought there 's no
,

square root of 3 so I swapped that around to .JI 6x3 so I had the same pattern
as on the board. "

On the next problem, of a different format, Gareth has some difficulty. He looks at the

board and raises his hand just as the teacher writes the answer up on the board for the

class. Gareth copies it down and continues onto the next problem reporting:

Gareth : "I was okay about these, all the steps were around and she (teacher) made it
look easy all the time. "

Further into the lesson Gareth asks the teacher "How do you do 14 when there are no
factors ? " Gareth has copied the problem down incorrectly and is concerned that the

answer in the text is 2

The teacher also misreads Gareth' s problem and demonstrates .Jl4 ..J7X2 .J2 .
= =

Int: " Why did the teacher put the square root sign on the I 4 ?"

Gareth : "I didn 't ask because she knows what we are after. "

Int: "How do you solve this type of problem ? "

Gareth: "I don 't know, oh you take the square root of 2 1 or something Like that, she
(teacher) came out with the right answer. "

This episode reveals the difficulty Gareth faces when problems are tackled as copies of

examples. The first problem required Gareth to take out a perfect square factor, a

procedure Gareth seems to have been able to transfer from the teacher's examples, but

the' last problem required cancellation of surd factors, a process which Gareth had no

model exercise on which to base his sol ution. Moreover, Gareth seems unconcerned that

the teacher has changed the problem, implying that the correct solution (although it

wasn't) justifies the means.

1 72
When examples are not on the board Gareth will, where possible, complete seatwork

problems with reference to worked examples in the text. Sometimes he will copy the

worked example before starting a section of exercises. He includes the explanation

statements as supplied by the text. Sometimes Gareth puts these explanations alongside

his own working "to help remember what to do " but he provides no elaborative

statements or self-explanations for the procedural steps during this process. In contrast,

research concerning the use of worked examples (Chi and B assok, 1 989; Anthony,

1 99 1 ) found that good students make frequent self-explanations of the procedural steps

which assist elaborative encoding of the new material .

To complete the problems Gareth copies the step-by-step procedures used in the worked

examples. This strategy can lead to incomplete or incorrect solutions. For example,
2
when completing the exercise: "Find the turning point of the function y = x - 6x+ 1 1 ,

and the values for which the function is increasing or decreasing", Gareth copies the

steps: "differentiate and solve for 0", to successfully find the turning point (3,2), but

continues by following the given steps: "substitute x = -2" and "substitute x = 0". Gareth

i nterpreted these two text explanations as generalised rather than special ised procedures

and applied them literally to his problem ! Gareth' s misuse of the supplied text

explanations reinforces the idiosyncratic, constructivist nature of learning. For a good

student who can generate his or her explanations, the given explanations would be

redundant. However for the weak student who has little understanding, such explanation

may actually confuse rather than clarify, and perhaps limit learning (Anthony, 1 99 1 ) .

Gareth' s reliance on these explanations supports Blais' ( 1 98 8 ) position that providing

students with a maximum of explanation will often serve to perpetuate the "remedial

processing" of novices.

To evaluate his learning Gareth relied on task completion, checking with text answers or

teacher verification. The frequency, or need, to check problems was related to his

monitoring activities; unfortunately he often equated doing a problem with the strong

possibility that it was correct.

1 73
Gareth: "/ was putting a few ticks and crosses - it was some work on quadratic
equations that I did last night. I knew which ones were right. " (not referring to
any answers)

Int: "How did you know which ones were right ? "

Gareth: "Well if I couldn 't do them, urn, they must be wrong and the ones I could do
were right. "

The following epi sode relates to standard deviation problems :

Gareth: "/ felt I was getting them right. If I had felt worried I would have looked up
the answers straight away. When I looked the answers up I found that I got
them all wrong. "

Int: "Why did you get them wrong ? "

Gareth : "/ got them wrong because I didn 't copy down the graph (l ines of the table)
because in the book it said you didn 't have to copy down the graph. "

Again we see the influence of procedures rather than reasonableness of the answer on

Gareth' s self evaluation of difficulties. In this problem tables were not seen as a

procedural tool to organise the data, but rather they were regarded as a major

determinant of the correctness of the solution.

Gareth devotes a lot of attention to peripheral aspects of the task such as ruling u p

pages, writing the date, and rul ing up tables. H e reported using coding strategies to

assist in highlighting important content. However, the coding is to aid recall of the

material rather than assist integration or organisation of new content knowledge.

Gareth: "When I have to really know something, like an equation I have to know, I
write it down in big letters or numbers. "

Help-seeking

Gareth reported, "/ like doing problems in class because in class you can get the

teacher to help you if you have problems. You learn maths when you work one-to-one
with the teacher ". When Gareth asks for help he expects the teacher to show him how
to do the problem:

1 74
Gareth: "It 's easy with a teacher there because if you 've got problems you can go and
see her (teacher) and she 'll tell you the answers and go over the questions. "

This is usually the case; when the teacher did help Gareth she directed Gareth' s work

towards presentation and production at the expense of conceptual validity. Often the

teacher either writes all, or most of, the solution out for him.

Gareth : "I liked her (teacher) writing down the step in my book, it 's something I could
refer to if I got stuck. "

Clearly, getting the teacher to do the problem, or copying step for step from worked

examples, are effective strategies for achieving Gareth' s goal of task completion, but

they offer little chance of any real know ledge being constructed. At best Gareth ' s

learning strategy will result in acquisition of an algorithmic procedure that will not

readily be transferable to related applications.

Gareth also reported help seeking by monitoring the teacher and class activities.

Gareth: "/ keep an ear out on what comments she (teacher) makes to other people so if
I 've got something wrong I might get help. "

However, despite Gareth ' s stated preference for help seeking in class, he does not seek

help often . Usual ly the teacher checks his work, during her walk around the class, and

Gareth may put his hand up, or call out for assistance once during seatwork.

Gareth' s tendency to complete problems incorrectly, without accurate monitoring, or

regular checking, means that Gareth is often blissfully ignorant of the extent of his

difficulties. Bereiter and Scardamalia ( 1 989) suggest that knowledge of what one does

not know is a vital part of intentional learning. Without it, the only kind of learning goal

one can set is to learn more about the topic . When the researcher asked Gareth why he

skipped an assigned reading, and went straight to the exercises the response "I 've done

that reading before " is typical of his focus on the goal of completion rather than
understanding.

1 75
Review of homework or seatwork

Gareth finds homework review sessions provide a useful opportunity to correct work

that he had been unable to do at home. If homework had not been marked he spends a

lot of time putting ticks or crosses on work in class. For example, when reviewing

homework on standard deviation Gareth ticked every data entry that had been correctly

copied into the table.

He is keen to answer teacher questions, but needed to refer to his work to get the

answer on many occasions. If he has a problem incorrect Gareth always copies the

teacher' s example into his book. Additionally, Gareth likes to do any calculations rather

than just copy the teacher' s answer. For example when Gareth is copying down a

standard deviation problem he calcu lated the mean ( 9.2 + 1 .2 + . . 4.6)

. + 1 0, rather than

attending to the teacher' s explanation on checking procedures. Metacogn itive strategies

of selectively attending to arithmetic procedures and monitori ng understanding based on

whether or not he can perform the calculations are both ineffective and i nefficient in

learning the desired content of the review session.

Homework

Gareth always attempts homework, except when deadlines from other subjects create

time pressures. He sees homework as a time to consolidate what you did i n class

Gareth: "The more practice you get the more understanding you 'll have. " and

Gareth: "Homework is heaps important, 'cause you can 't get through everything you
need to need in class, like all the examples she (teacher) might tell you, but
you won 't be able to do that many examples in class. "

However, Gareth does express the view that doing exercises at home is different to

doing them in class:

Gareth : "It 's different learning at home 'cause if your having trouble with something
in class you 've got the teacher there who can come and show you, but at home
you have to do it by yourself- so it 's harder. "

1 76
When homework is assigned during the lesson he previews the exercises and makes

some judgement as to the amount and difficulty. At home, after tidying his study area

and arranging his books, he looks over al l the exercises. He does not read any of the text

explanation or worked examples but goes straight to the exercises.

Gareth : "If I 've got any problem I first go straight to the back of the book and see
their answer and work backwards to the question. If I haven 't got any
problems I just sort of whiz through them . . . I just whiz through the first line of
each section. "

Gareth ' s evaluation is based on metacognitive experiences of whether the material IS

"easy or hard". An "easy" problem is one that can be completed; there appears to be

little concern as to the reasonableness of the answer. Furthermore, Gareth ' s selective

marking of only the hard problems "because I've looked them up to help with working

backward but if they are straightforward I won 't always mark them. " means that
opportunities to learn from errors are li m ited.

As with seatwork, Gareth ' s propensity to marking his work IS sometimes based on

inaccurate monitoring.

lnt: "In the review the teacher asked you the answer to No 13(c) and you gave the
wrong answer. Had you marked it at home ? "

Gareth: "I hadn 't marked it 'cause I thought I had it right. "

In the Video 1 i nterview Gareth does refer to seeking some help from the text, but is

again thwarted by lack of relevant prior knowledge.

Gareth; "I did everything except the standard deviation column and frequency. I
looked through the book to see how they did it but couldn 't find it because it
wasn 't written down in big clear words that it was standard deviation - it was
just under variance. I couldn 't find a worked example the same.

Gareth reported that he didn't know what frequency meant and an examination of the

tex t revealed that thi s was assumed knowledge. The worked example had the frequency

already in the table thus it was impossible for Gareth to i nfer where it had come from in

terms of the give n data.

1 77
Revision for a maths test

Unlike most other students in the class, Gareth plans revi sion both in terms of time and

topics.

Gareth : "We 've got exams coming up so I 've done other chapters; rereading through
chapters and doing some examples from them. "

Most other students reported attending to teacher cues, whereas Gareth appeared

relatively unaware of cues indicating which material would be in the test.

Gareth does several hours of revision in a quiet room, away from interruptions and

distractions, trying some problems, reading notes over and over again , reading over

worked examples in the book, and doing a few problems from last year' s revision book.

He explains that last year when he practiced examples the night before "my brain just

couldn 't handle all the examples, and I kept bumming out, so now I don 't go over the
examples the night before because it doesn 't really help me much, I just lose
concentration. " This is an example of how one's metacognitive knowledge, determined
by past learning experiences, affects strategy selection. When asked how Gareth thought

he could improve his performance he replied, "Go through the examples slower". Gareth

also makes reference to memory strategies such as rehearsal :

Gareth : "If I have to memorise the formula that they won 't give me or a graph, I just
write it our a few hundred times. "

In response to i nterview questions Gareth was the only student who reported usmg

specific motivation strategies at home.

Gareth: "In the weekends I usually do about two hours of maths, and then I can play
on the computer for about half-an-hour, and then I go and do another two
hours. "

1 78
Summary

Regardless of Gareth' s will and effort input, the combination of i neffective learning

strategies and weak domain knowledge precludes successful learning. Much of Gareth ' s

learning is of a "passive" (Mitchell, 1 992a) n ature, dependent o n the teacher o r text t o

tell him what to do and how t o do it. To a large extent his cognitive strategies involve

duplicative processing (Thomas, 1 988), which involve unaltered encoding, or mental

recycling of the given information.

Despite of the fact that Gareth ' s procedural rules are often incorrect they enable him for

the most part to participate in classroom tasks and discussions. However, Gareth' s test

results show evidence of procedures which are combined with other subprocesses in

inappropriate ways, or are only partially remembered. Hiebert and Lefevre ( 1 986)

suggest that procedures that lack connections with conceptual knowledge may

deteriorate quickly and are not reconstructible.

Greatly influenced by his beliefs about learning mathematics, Gareth's monitoring and

help-seeking strategies were directed to task completion rather than understanding.

Gareth appears to overestimate his understanding; possibly he is confusing familiarity or

recognition with understanding. In some cases Gareth ' s problem-solving efforts failed,

not from a lack of monitoring per se, but because of a Jack of relevant prior knowledge,

and a lack of abil ity to apply monitoring strategies to what is known, as opposed to what

is done.

For Gareth doing mathematics problems does n ot guarantee successful learning. Using

learning strategies which have inappropriate learning goals, and which in many cases are

inefficient, does not guarantee successful learni ng outcomes. The knowledge and skills

that Gareth acquires tend to be inert, and available only when clearly marked by context.

1 79
8.3 Case Study 2: KAREN

PROFILE

Karen is a si xteen year old who likes mathematics and is reasonably happy with her

progress in the sixth form : "I 'm getting in the seventies, that result is fine. " Her stated

goal is "just to pass" and she wants to continue with mathematics in the seventh form.

Karen says, "I think maths is reasonably important. I !mow it will be of some use later

on, but I 'm not exactly sure what for. "

She has well defined views about mathematics and mathematics learning :

Karen: "Learning maths involves a lot of memory - you 've got to memorise a lot of
formula and stuff like that, and it 's hard work and logical thinking. You need
to put effort into it. I like working through problems by myself - and I love it
when I can do them. "

LEARNING EPISODES

Introduction of new content via teacher explanation and worked examples

During class discussion of a new topic Karen was attentive and fol lowed the teacher ' s

instructions t o attend to certain pages and review work . S he attempts t o answer the

teacher' s questions, but notably these answers are rarely made public. Apart from

occasional reports of boredom Karen appeared to be very involved in meaningfu l

knowledge construction.

Karen ' s reports of learning can be linked to a number of elaborative strategies. For

example, Karen reported trying to answer the teacher' s questions:

Mrs H: " What other ways can we display data ? "

Karen: "I was actually thinking of a pictograph or a pictogram or something. I wasn 't
sure of the proper name. "

1 80
S imilarly, Karen evaluates other students' answers against her own.

Karen: "I didn 't think Faye 's answer of histogram was right. I think about other
students ' answers but I wait for the teacher to confirm it as well. "

Like Gareth, Karen reported some unusual procedural criteria for judging correctness.

Karen: "I 'm pretty sure Kane 's right because she 's (teacher) writing it on the board ­
I was thinking I 've really bummed out because it was not what I had. "

Karen reported nu merous linking statements in which new knowledge was related to

prior knowledge. However, a noticeable difference from Gareth' s elaborations is Karen's

specific linking to content rather than just to a memory of having done something

similar.

Karen: "I was trying to remember what a histogram was like. "

Karen: "I was thinking back to functions and I was sayzng 'graph it ', and that
functions are when you have a vertical line. "

Karen ' s elaborations involve more personal linking examples and reports of imagery,

than any of the other target students.

Karen : "A t first I wondered what it was and when she said something about length of
feet I almost burst out laughing. I had just pictured who 's feet - Gareths ? "

Karen: "I was thinking back to when we did parabolas at the beginning of the year. I
saw a picture in my mind. "

During the introduction of new material Karen monitors her understanding, and when

faced with confusion makes special efforts to attend and resolve conflicts. The following

is an example in which Karen evaluates another student ' s answer, monitors her

understanding, and then reacts with another self-question and answer.

Karen: "/ was confused. I thought you could use a line graph as well (Faye' s answer
to teacher question), but she (teacher) started s aying you can 't 'cause it 's not
a trend and I 'm saying (to herself) well what 's a trend. ! thought at first, yeah
. .

you can use that - so now I know you can 't. "

181
In another instance the teacher is discussing the meaning of the term 'quadratic ' . Karen

evaluates the teacher' s answer and relates it to her own answer:

Karen: "I thought it would have something to do withfour terms. . . She 's (teacher) sort
of confusing me. I don 't know what she means by the highest power of 2
because when we did it at the beginning of the year I thought we did things
like ax3. It didn 't seem to fit what I thought. I didn 't know why she (teacher)
was talking about squares and squared area. "

By c learly identifying areas of conflict Karen is able to be active in resolving any issues.

In the following example we can see how Karen' s anticipation of the teacher' s answer

momentarily causes conflict which alerts her to a possible resolution.

2
Mrs H: "So ifwe had x - 5x - 7 = (pause) - I 3 "

Karen: "I thought she (teacher) was going to put it equal to zero. When she put -I 3 I
just realised that you had to add I 3 and change the equation. "

Another example, from a different lesson, shows Karen usmg links from a pnor

knowledge framework for solving algebraic equations. Again her explicit anticipation of

the problem direction allows for the algebraic framework to be challenged and extended

to accommodate solving exponential equations. The teacher had got the problem to the

stage 20 000 = I o<t12l by di viding both sides by I 000:

Karen: "I knew she (teacher) would have to simplify it but I wondered what she would
do after that. I thought she would have to get it down to t over two (t/2) on one
side but I wasn 't sure how she was going to do it. "

Further on in the lesson, Karen reports comparing problem types (elaborations between

problems) encountered during the teacher's explanations.

Karen: "/ did not really understand when she said get them back to the same base
whether it was log 2 or something like that. When she said, '2 to what power? '
I wondered why these problems were in base 2 when all the rest were in base
JO . . . I was thinking she might explain it some more - this log 2 bit... "

In another lesson Karen determined that extra effort and selective attention is needed.

1 82
Karen: "I 'd never heard of polynomials before. I was thinking it 's probably
something to do with one number. I was not sure what it had to do with
quadratics so I was concentrating extra hard, trying to find out what she
(teacher) was talking about. "

Seatwork

During seatwork Karen often works cooperatively with a peer group (Faye, Lucy and

Karen) : helping each other; sharing problems and notes; and monitoring progress. For

example, Karen reported that she is quite a slow writer and she can get the notes from

Faye if she gets behind.

Peer interactions heard by the observer duri ng a seatwork episode include:

Karen!Lucy : "Do you understand this work ?"

Faye/Karen : "Get the teacher. "

Karen/Mrs H: "I 'm lost. "

Karen!Lucy : "Lucy, you listen in, you are just as confused. "

Karen!Lucy : "What number are you doing ? "

Lucy/Karen: "Is that the answer?"

Karen!Faye "How do you do that. "

Karen!Lucy: "Have you finished? "

Ocassionally Karen prefers to work seatwork problems alone: this was the c ase in the

videoed lessons, as her peer group did n ot want to be included in the video. When she is

stuck in these situations she sometimes writes a n ote in her log book to do some revision

at home.

Karen: "4x2 - oh these are the ones I hate. I thought - oh God here we go. I can 't do
these problems. I 'm thinking if I sat there and stared at it, it might go away. I
wrote down the numbers but I 'm stuck. I wrote down a note in my log book to
do some at home. I was very confused. "

1 83
During seatwork Karen is aware of the teacher's movements, and comments to other

students:

Karen: "I 'm half listening. I knew she was explaining something to Kane but I wasn 't
sure what she was talking about. "

Karen: "I know she 's talking to Faye. I have a quick listen. I know Faye was quite a
bit ahead; she works quite a bit ahead in class so I didn 't think what she was
saying would be relevant. "

Help seeking

In class Karen is often aware of the need for help and anticipates helpful information.

However, Karen is reluctant to seek help directly from the teacher, She doesn ' t ask o r

answer question (publicly) because:

• "I'm not sure if it 's correct. "

• "I thought she would explain it anyway. "

• 'I didn 't want to say anything in case it 's so far wrong I embarrass myself "

• "I don 't tend to call out; I just sit there and listen. "

• "I sort of half sort it out, I thought I must have been wrong and I 'd go along
with it I suppose. "

• "I don 't really speak out in class; I feel uncomfortable in a class position. "

Her help-seeking approach is relatively passive in that she relies o n other students in the

c l ass to ask questions.

Karen: "/felt happier when Gareth asked that question. "

When Dean says, ''I 'm stuck Miss " Karen reported thinking, " Good so am I; perhaps

she will explain it now. " When she is experiencing difficulty Karen hopes that the
teacher will review the material again and provide further explanations.

Karen: "/ made a note in my book to study quadratics, I was hoping I would find out
what polynomials were in the lesson. I looked it up in the index and it wasn 't
there. "

1 84
Karen : "I looked at page 125 and wondered what exercises we would need to do and
hoped she would explain it some more. "

Although passive on the surface, this anticipatory behaviour has the benefit that Karen

selectively attends and seeks teacher cues as to what information is going to be discussed

next. The following is a reference to a problem which Karen could not solve during

seatwork: rather than seek help directly she anticipates that the teacher will review the

seatwork problems, and is ready to attend to the teacher' s explanation:

Karen: "Well this time I didn 't really understand what I was doing and I was hoping
that she was going to help when she went over it again on the board. "

However, if the teacher does not review Karen's problems or her confusion is

unresolved Karen has back up strategies of self-questioning, review at home, and use of

resources.

Karen: "I was thinking that she (teacher) might explain it some more; this log 2 bit,
and if she didn 't 1 could read through the book at home. "

Karen : "It didn 't really make a lot of sense. I 'd thought she (teacher) would write
notes and we had some notes from the day before. I 'll probably go back and
try a couple of these in the holidays. "

Review of homework or seatwork

Karen reports that most of the homework review is boring: "the teacher uses the same

methods so there is not much new. " When Karen hasn' t done her homework she tries to
work out the answers during the review time. In two of the videoed lessons homework

and seatwork reviews consisted of 'taking a turn around the class' sessions. Although

Karen hadn' t done the questions she read each question and tried to work out the

answers, carefu lly watching the teacher to anticipate when her turn would be.

1 85
Karen: "I was trying to think of an answer before she got to me. I thought of the size
of somebody 's shirt, then Abe said that . . . and I was looking at the light switch
and I thought of 'light switches in classes ' . . . Kane said birthdays as continuous
and I thought that 's wrong. I'm checking the others ' answers over in my
mind. "

Karen is conscious that homework and seatwork review can provide help with problems

that she was unable to complete. She gains help not by asking question but by

anticipati ng and attending to the teacher' s comments.

Homework

Karen reports that she thinks homework is a good thing to do. She usually does

homework, especially if she has not understood the class work particularly well. The

following example demonstrates Karen' s sound criteria for assessing her need to do

homework:

Karen: "I do homework if I don 't get what I 've done in class. If don 't understand
what we 've done in class I definitely do the homework. It sort of helps me
understand it. / ' ll go through the book and read the notes if I don 't get it. If
e verything 's okay I don 't usually do it. If I've got every single question right I
don 't worry about the homework. "

Furthermore, her approach to homework demonstrates that learning via self-instruction,

as well as task completion, is indeed the goal :

Karen: "I read through it all (homework) and decide which question is easiest and I
do that one first. Then I go through it and as I finish each one I 'd check the
answer and if I got it wrong I 'd go back to the chapter, read the notes on how
to do that problem and try to do it again. I would see if I can work out where I
went wrong. "

Karen reported modifying the homework task as a result of monitoring her progress:

Karen: "I start off saying, "I'm going to do all of it " but if I go through and I 've got
everything wrong /' ll just give up totally (and hope the teacher goes over i t the
next day?). If I 'm getting about four or five out of e very ten wrong I 'll
probably do it all, and if I get everything right I 'll just think it 's a bit pointless

1 86
 doing it. If I know how to do it /' ll do the first two questions and the last two
questions. "

Additionally, Karen reports doing extra revision work during homework times. This is

directly related to her awareness to review difficult or unclear work from the class

lesson.

Karen: "/ was going to read through the whole chapter on algebra and do some
problems if I didn 't understand it. If I haven 't got a lot of homework I 'll just
go over some of my own work. I prefer to work by myself if I don 't get it. "

Also Karen reports previewing some of the current chapter and trying additional

problems:

Karen : "Sometimes, if I haven 't got a lot of homework I 'll just have a go at a few
extra problems further on - on a scrap of paper and check the answer. If I get
them right I usually think I'm pretty smart. Sometimes if it looks interesting
/ ' ll look through the rest of the chapter. "

Karen was one of two students (Adam) who reported reflecting on mathematics at a

time other than during homework:

Karen : "/ sometimes think about my maths for a while after I 've just finished my
homework - I still consciously think about it and sometimes when I go to sleep
at night I think about maths. "

There is a strong affective element in Karen' s comments about learning at home.

Learning at home contrasts the class situation in which she is not always comfortable

about speaking out and keeping up with the pace of the lesson.

Karen: "/ like working at home; it adds to what you 've done in class. I find it easier
to learn working on my own. It 's not hard learning in class but it 's easier
when I'm on my own - yor,be not on a time limit and you can work through it at
a steady pace. "

1 87
Revision for a maths test

Like most of the students, Karen reports reading through class notes. Karen has strong

organisational strategies to assist revision. She was observed, organising notes and

corrections to aid later revision .

Karen: "I write my headings in red and my marking in red and my corrections if I
want them to stand out. If there 's something I really don 't understand I 'll put
a big red box around it - and 'study this ' .. .If I've got an exam coming up I 'll
go through my book and see what I've got circled and read it. "

She also reports making extra notes "if I think she 's (teacher) missed an important

poin t ".

Most of her revision is done as a normal part of the learning process during homework

sessions. She is not a big fan of last minute revision. In response to questions about

proposed revision for a test the following day Karen reported:

Kare n : "I might do some, I sort of think for tests that if I know it I know it, and if I
don 't I 'm not really going to leam it at the last minute. I 'm not worried about
this test too much 'cause it 's an open book test - but I think I 'm going to have
to go through it and have a look at it tonight. "

Karen did not report any specific planning of topics to study, but did indicate an

awareness of teacher cues about probable questions:

Karen: "I 'm not too worried about what 's in the test. I was hoping somebody was
going to tell me what was in it. I know graphs would be in the test; Mrs H said
so. I have sort of got a basic knowledge of all the things she 's gone through in
class - I can do most of them - that 's good enough."

Near the end of the year one can see the effect of Karen' s metacognitive knowledge and

self attributions on revision strategies.

Karen: "I 'm too lazy to do much revision for tests. I can usually fluke tests, I 'd like to
pass this test, but it doesn 't really matter 'cause my average is quite high. "

1 88
Although Karen was able to state the things she should be doing for test preparation she

reported feeling too tired and fed up with tests to bother any more - this seemed an

u nderstatement considering that she had five assessment tests that week ! One of the

questions in the up-coming test (cued by the teacher) was to be the cosine proof. Karen

reported that, "/ can 't remember proofs. I 'm not even going to try and remember it. "

When I asked Karen what she would need to do if she was going to learn the proof for

the test her proposed strategy was as follows :

Karen: " / would read it over and over and over again until I 've got it drilled in. I 'd
write it out, but / 'd read it for about half and hour over and over. "

It was probably a sensible strategy that Karen decided against learning the proof for the

test as this sounds indeed a most unpleasant task !

1 89
Summary

Again we see a unique learning strategy profile emerging. Karen employs a wide range

of elaborative strategies which, for the most part, are effective and appropriate for

knowledge construction. In particular, her linking with prior knowledge involved

reorganisation and accommodation of existing frameworks rather than vague

recol lections of 'having done that before ' . Organisational strategies were used to

advantage in reviewing material. Karen was however reluctant to become to involved in

writing her own summaries, preferring to rely mainly on teacher-given summaries.

Karen values practice, and is sometimes encouraged by her own efforts to try problems

other than those set by the teacher. There is, however, an element of 'she ' s good

enough' in Karen' s overall goal which constrains the amount of practice and subsequent

performance outcome.

Karen exhibits advanced metacognitive behaviour in that she accurately monitors her

understanding; there were numerous reports of confusion, of not quite understanding

well enough, and feelings of "I've sort of got it". Often, but not always, this awareness

resulted in some positive action : Karen anticipated and attended to teacher explanations;

used resources for help; or used peers to assist. What was lacking was Karen' s direct

seeking of help from the teacher; she preferred to rely on other students to seek

clarification, or simply hope that the teacher would review the material. It is difficult to

speculate, but it would not be unreasonable to suggest that had Karen been more direct

in seeking help she may have enjoyed the learning process more, she may have made

more efficient use of the valued resource - time, and she may have been better able to

resolve learning conflicts.

1 90
8.4 Case Study 3 : JANE

PROFILE

Jane, a sixteen year old student, likes mathematics: "It 's good compared to English, you

don 't have to write a lot of stuff - its just a right or wrong answer sort of thing. I think
it's harder than say English 'cause you 've got more stuff to remember, there 's heaps of
stuff you can get confused with. " Jane is achieving at a C- B grade and reports that she

is "middle, but I would prefer to be at the top but I can 't do anything about it this

yea r " . This comment refers to her concern about a decrease in achievement (compared
to Form five) which she relates to lack of peer support, a change in teaching style, and

her present lack of understanding.

Jane: "I really enjoyed it last year so I thought it might be the same this year but
it 's a lot harder. I got higher marks last year and I thought I would get about
the same. I suppose it 's lower because I don 't understand half of the work -
everyone else seems to do alright - so it must be me. I think it would be helpful
to get support from others in the class. This year it 's more like I 've got to
memorise things but last year I understood things. "

However, she does think she could improve her marks with more effort in writing her

own notes and more study at home. Jane' s learning goal is to get good marks and she

thinks that "mathematics is important to life in general - it makes it easier to know

about everything ".

In both general interviews, and stimulated recall i nterviews, Jane expressed some strong

bel iefs about the nature of mathematics learning (metacognitive knowledge) which relate

to strategy selection during learning episodes. Jane reported that mathematics learning

involves a lot of memorising formulas and applying them to the questions - but also adds

that "thinking comes into it but you need to memorise things first". In the stimulated

recall interviews Jane' s concern about not understanding the material is further amplified

as she tries to resolve the conflict of memorising methods versus learning with

u nderstanding.

191
Jane: "I like it when I understand what 's actually happening, but some of the stuff
when you just get given formulas, you don 't understand - so you can 't do
much about it - you 've just got to try and remember the formula. It 's heaps
easier if you know what you are actually doing. "

In examining Jane ' s work during actual lessons we will see how she deals with this

conflict and what strategies, if any, she employs so as to make the material meaningful.

LEARNING EPISODES

Introduction of new content via explanation and worked examples

In both of the stimulated recall interviews Jane' s behaviour during the introduction of

new work is o ften passive. There are frequent reports of inactivity and learning

behaviours were punctuated by shifts in attention . She reported not listening one minute

and paying attention in the next.

Jane: "I'm just waiting, and seeing if I can see where she gets the answer from. I
was just listening, I wasn 't actually thinking about it, I 'm just listening. "

Similarly, she is not always involved with other students' questions and answers.

Jane: "I heard it (Lucy's question), but I didn 't know what she was on about. I 'd
forgotten about that x over x stuff I didn 't bother to listen to the answer. "

On several occasions Jane reports ignoring information which is incomprehensible.

Jane: "I didn 't understand all that stuff about the area under the graph, or what
she 's (teacher) going on about. "

Int: "Did you pay special attention because you didn 't understand it? "

Jane: "No, 'cause she says the same thing over and over again, so I 'm not going to
understand it. I was thinking that I don 't understand this. "

Jane selectively decides to take notes . . based on monitoring her ability to understand

or remember material.

1 92
lane: "I didn 't take these examples down. I understand this, but if she 's (teacher)
doing something and I understand it but I know I won 't remember it I write it
down. If it 's something that I just don 't understand altogether I won 't write it
down. "

lane also ignored information based on cues from the teacher that information may be

off the topic.

lane: "I couldn 't understand what she 's going on about - she was saying that we
didn 't have to use it . It 's off the topic, not really worth listening to. "

Although lane is aware of her non-understanding in these instances she seems to have no

effective strategies for dealing with it.

When lane is prepared to be more active in the lesson, by participating in activities such

as looki ng up tables or doing calculations, she appears more motivated to resolve

difficulties. For example, lane' s attention to the solution p rocess, as a resu lt of

monitoring her previous failure, leads to an elaboration between parts of the problem

resulting in knowledge construction.

lane: "You know how you find out 0. 98, I didn 't realise that was a percentage and
when she (teacher) said percentage and 98% I learnt something. "

Also lane uses comparison of problems to construct knowledge :

lane: "I didn 't know why she (teacher) used 1/2 in (2x - 1 ), but when she used 413 in
the next one (3x - 4), I could see where she 'd got it from. I 'm able to work it
out now. "

However, several of lane' s reported elaborations appear to be general, and probably less

effective, when compared to the specific elaborations used by Karen. For example, while

the fol lowing report illustrates active thinking, it lacks specific l inks with relevant prior

knowledge.

lane: "The first time she (teacher) did this I didn 't really understand because I
wasn 't really listening - I wasn 't really thinking about it, but this time I
understood. Today I probably had heard it all before and now she 's going
over it again it 's easier. "

1 93
In another instance Jane is aware of her lack of prior knowledge - her metacognitive self­

knowledge that she c an ' t ' do graphs' is stronger than her metacognitive strategy

knowledge.

Jane: "I just don 't understand anything she was talking about. I 'm feeling bored.
I 'm sort of trying, but I didn 't bother for that one 'cause I don 't understand
graphs at all so I wouldn 't know what 's she 's (teacher) going on about. "

Jane appears either to have little strategic knowledge, or be unwilling to use strategies

such a help-seeking to overcome her lack of prior knowledge and to learn from the

episode.

Later, in the same lesson, the teacher discusses cubic functions. Jane reported that she

knew that x 3 graphs had two turning points but that she was unsure how one would find

the turning points. Her prior knowledge would be typical of most students, yet lane' s

self evaluation of ability and understanding remained low. This lack of confidence affects

her willingness to be part of the class discussion or seek help.

Int: "Why don 't you ask the teacher about this ? "

Jane: '"Cause you might be the only one who doesn 't know what she 's (teacher)
going on about. "

Int: "You think everyone else knew?"

Jane: "Yeah, other people seem to be answering questions."

Int: "Does that worry you ? "

Jane: "You notice it. You think maybe you 've missed something - here 's another bit I
don 't know! "

At other times during class discussion episodes Jane reported self-questions, but her

reluctance to ask public questions, or selectively attend to discrepant information, meant

that her self-questions went l argely unresolved.

Jane: "All of this stuff seems / don 't know how it relates, see I don 't know why you
.. .

would want to get g of 2, but there must be a reason why. I wondered what it
had to do with anything. "

1 94
During Video 2 lesson there is a discussion of 'synthetic division ' . This method was

suggested by Dean as an alternative to the teacher's method of long division. lane's

metacognitive beliefs about effective learning involving understanding are an i mportant

i nfluence on her evaluation of Dean 's method and her consequent learning outcomes.

Jane: "It (synthetic division) seems easier, but I don 't really understand what is
happening - it 's just a method. It would work for people who don 't understand
the long division, but I couldn 't see how it works. I was just taking it as you
just times this and put this over here and so on. "

Although Jane tries out both methods of division, influenced by her metacognitive

beliefs, she adopts ' long division ' as the preferred alternative. Later, she appears so

secure in her knowledge of this procedure that she actively evaluates the teacher' s

explanation .

Mrs H : " . . . change the sign and add and you get 5x "

2
in reference to x-2 )4x - 3x - 2
2
4x - 8x

Sx

Jane: "I was thinking I don 't know why she (teacher) doesn 't just minus it. She sort
of confuses you by saying change the sign and add; then you think that 's what
you 've got to do - but really, you 're just subtracting. It 's better if you know
what you 're doing then you don 't get yourself confused. "

Seatwork

Jane most often works independently at seatwork problems. She is usually on task,

follows teacher' s instructions, and reports valuing the opportunity for practice.

Jane: "I understood it when she (teacher) was going through it on the board, but it's
important to try some exercises. "

When the teacher assigns exercises Jane usually previews the exercises.

1 95
Jane's production evaluation strategy is based on sound criteria resulting in regularly

marked work.

Jane: " Well at the start I check the answers, like, for every question, like for these
ones I 'd check for each one and if I keep getting answers right then I do two
or three before I check the answers. If I 'm not sure I mark it straight away,
'cause if you leave it, then mark it, and find it 's wrong, and you don 't really
know what you 've done wrong, you 've got to go through the whole question
again. "

Like Gareth , Jane is sometimes over optimistic about her success, but unl ike Gareth she

is more likely to be able to self-correct her problems:

Jane: "I thought I was going quite well. I thought it was easy, but I wasn 't getting
them all right, I forgot to subtract the things to the end. "

When Jane has an incorrect answer she puts the correct answer in red. Usually Jane

refers to the answer to see if it adds any further information and often she tries the

question again. Several times during the videoed lessons, when these strategies still did

not help, she put a question mark against the problem.

Int: " What 's the question mark for? "

Jane: "So I 'll know I didn 't do it. "

Int: " Will you come back to that later on ? "

Jane: "I don 't know. If I really wanted to know I could ask someone at home, but I
probably won 't bother. "

When Jane got No. 8 wrong, further o n in the same lesson, after looking at the board

examples and checking the working, she eventually wrote the answer in red.

Jane: "Well ! wasn 't doing the questions that we were suppose to do. I did No. 8 and
I thought well it's probably getting harder so I didn 't worry. "

This response was affected by her metacogn itive knowledge of the text structure and

furthermore, when asked why she was doing No. 8, we see the strong influence of affect

in Jane's dec ision to modify the task.

1 96
Jane: " Cause she 'd (teacher) done (a), (b), (c), and I just wanted to go through a
whole question like 7 (a), (b), (c), (d), and not just (d) and (e) of a question. I
choose No. 8 'cause it looked big. I read it first and thought I could do it,
understand it . . . I liked the look of No. 8. "

lane ' s metacogn itive k nowledge of text structure further influences her ' next move ' .

Jane: " Well I got stuck near the end, so I went back to No. 6. I thought it would be
easier since it was back further; 'cause they get harder at the end. "

Like the other target students, Jane is aware of the teacher' s movements around the

class and listens in on conversations to gain help.

Jane: "Sometimes I listen if I 'm sitting next to them and she 's (teacher) going over
something I don 't understand - but I don 't really ask her myself "

It is of some concern that Jane fails to use more acti ve help-seeking strategies in the

classroom. S he makes no reference to using textbook examples or extra reading, and like

Karen, Jane is reluctant to seek help publicly both during seatwork and in class

discussion.

Int: " When you ' re stuck did you think about asking for help ? "

Jane: No, I didn 't even think about asking for help. "

Jane: "I 'd rather just sit there. I 'd rather just do it by myself I don 't like talking in
fron t of the class. "

As discussed earlier, Jane would have preferred to have some peers to work with : the

other three girls in the class work in a strong peer grouping, which only occasionally

i ncluded Jane.

Int: "In class you don 't ask many questions. What do you do if you need help ? "

Jane: "Sometimes I ask, like if I 'm sitting with Faye and that, otherwise I don 't do
anything. "

1 97
There were a few occasions when Jane cooperated with Jake, both in seeking, and giving

help . On one occasion when Jake asked the teacher about how to find the y i ntercept

Jane prompted Jake to ask again when the teacher did not reply.

Organisational strategies employed by Jane included writing out a summary of the

question requirements in red, "So I can see it, so I know what I have to find out " ,

coding o f problems w ith question marks, a n d copying notes.

Review of homework or seatwork

In the first videoed lesson Jane had not completed the homework. During the review she

answered some of the teacher's questions to herself, but for much of the time reported

that she was ''just watching". On one occasion when Jane was observed to mouth a

response to the teacher she reported: "I thought 'draw a diagram ', but it was wrong - I

was glad I didn 't say anything. " Unfortunately we see that the metacogn itive experience
of rel ief only adds to her belief that it is better not to answer publ icly in class.

Like Karen, Jane to some extent, relies on the review of seatwork to gain help with

difficult problems.

Jane: "I left No. 7 until she explained it. I went on to No. I . . . "

Faye: (later) "Mrs H how do you do No. 7? "

Jane: "I wanted to know this so I watched what the teacher was doing on the
board. "

When the teacher does revtew this problem, lane' s conflict between wanting t o

understand, and being able t o follow a method, surfaces. Jane followed the teacher' s

example even to the extent of pointing out an error in her calculations, but she still had

reservations about ' learning' from this example.

Jane: " This is just like a method thing, like when she (teacher) actually finished the
question I could go through and do the same steps, like substitute and divide it
by something. I don 't know why she 's doing it. I'm following what she 's doing,
but I don 't know why she 's doing it. "

1 98
Fol lowing on from this example Jane went on to do the next problem - a problem n ot set

by the teacher.

Jane: "/ went on to No. 8 to see if I could do it. They are the same type of question
and I wanted to see if I could do it. I needed to look at the board to see what
Mrs H has done. I write No. 7 down first then try No. 8. I mark No. 8: it was
right - and then I go back to Question 2. "

Thi s reported learning episode is ' loaded' with strategic learning behaviour:

• task management (modifying teacher set task) ;

• self-evaluation (" . . . to see if I could do it.") ;

• elaboration (comparing problem types);

• help seeking (looking at the worked example on the board) ;

• organisational strategy (recording No. 7); and

• production evaluation (marking work).

In addition, Jane' s success at this problem will reinforce her metacognitive knowledge

about strategies and outcomes of learning mathematics . She reinforces that doing

problems by comparing methods is a successful strategy , but at the same time she

rei nforces her belief that many problems need to be solved by following teacher­

presented methods rather than using meaningful constructed knowledge.

In another i nstance, when the teacher is reviewing seatwork problems, Jane observes

that the teacher is using a different method to the one that she used to complete the

problems. This awareness of conflict causes Jane to selectively attend to effect a

resolution.

Jane: "/ don 't understand her way. I found it easier to do long division. If I write
down the notes for this I should be able to do it. I think I ' ll listen and write it
down after she 's finished. I 'm checking to see if her way (Remainder
Theorem) gives the same answer. "

1 99
Homework

Like the other target students, Jane values the learning opportun ities homework

provides.

Jane : "Homework is important so that you can just go over the stuff and get use to
doing it all. Like you only had to do three question last night but after I did
three I could do them all because you just get into the habit of doing the same
thing in each question. "

Jane: "I think maths homework is important, like any homework that you get. Like
it 's just going over examples and that 's going to make you better, but its not
so important that you always have to get it done. "

Jane's decision to do homework is largely related to availability of time. She works for

1 9 . 5 hours outside of school time and complains of pressure of homework from

competing subj ects. Metacognitive decisions regarding her ability to complete the task

and affective reactions also are also contributing factors. When Jane begins her

homework she usually looks over the problems "to see if I know what 's happening " and

if she finds the first one easy she does the rest:

Jane: "Sometimes I 'll just look at the maths homework as I go through all the
homework I 've got through the day. I 'll look at it, and if it looks too hard I 'll
put it aside and if I finish all my other homework I 'll get back to it, but usually
if it looks too hard I just won 't do it. It just depends 'cause sometimes I 'll feel
like doing maths and sometimes I 'll feel like doing English. "

When Jane is stuck with her homework she uses her notes and worked examples from

the text to help , or "if I can 't find anything I usually leave a question mark o r leave it

out'. When asked what happens with the question m ark Jane' s response indicated

passive rather than adaptive help-seeking.

Int: "Are you prepared to follow · up your difficulties from homework in review
time the next day ? "

200
lane: "If she (teacher) goes over it I 'll just listen, but if she doesn 't I 'll just leave
it. "

Thus, while lane' s coding of difficulties with question marks, both in class time and in

homework, draws attention to her difficulties and signals anticipation of teacher help,

lane i s l argely reliant on other students and the teacher to determine if, and when, help is

forthcoming.

lane i s also aware that answers can be helpful. She qualifies this metacognitive strategy

knowledge with the view that this strategy is more useful with certain topics.

lane: "It 's easy in topics like algebra where sometimes ifyou 're just a couple of x 's
out or something, you can work back and see if you 've minused something
that you 're suppose to add or something and it 's usually enough. It 's not
usually easy for graphing and topics like that. "

Like Gareth, lane ' s marking on homework appears to be based on rather shaky criteria.

lane: "If I want to know if they are right or not, I mark them. Well usually some of
them I do - some I can 't do, but if I feel good about them and think I 've got a
good answer I 'll look it up and see if it 's right. "

Other strategic behaviours discussed by lane include task management: she occasionall y

tried some extra problems if the work was easy and she sometimes made notes in the

form of j ottings on her work about the solution method.

20 1
Test revision

Jane appears to be somewhat vague about learning for tests. She does no planning in

terms of schedules for test revision, however she does report using her Course Outline

to hep decide what to study.

Jane: "I just go through my notes and if I don 't understand anything. . . (she stops
unable to think what s he would do) . . . I don 't know, just do some exercises. "

Int: "There are a lot of exercises, how do you decide which ones to do ? "

J ane : "I don 't know, just pick some of them I suppose. "

When asked what she does with exercises that she marked in class she replied that, "I

might look at them. I just do some exercise from the book and if I get stuck I m ight look
at how I did the ones in class. " One could understand Jane's reluctance to review
marked problems as in many instances she had not resolved the difficulty with the

problems during class time.

To improve her revision sessions and performance Jane suggested that she should study

more exercises: "I only really study the easy ones as harder ones take too long. " Earlier

in the year J ane al so seemed concerned about notes.

Jane: "She doesn 't really give us much notes and Faye and that, they just go to the
book and get their own notes but I don 't do that. I should write more notes so
I 've got them for later, like I 've only got about two pages of notes so far. "

Jane sees the process of tests as helpful in the overall learning process: if s v alue is in

terms of revision rather than new knowledge construction.

Jane: "I think it 's good, you can just summarise everything that you 've learnt and
you need to know - it gives you extra practice. You 're just going over what you
already know: it puts all the stuff back in my mind. "

202
Summary

Although lane employs a wide range of learning strategies, her cognitive strategies

appear to lack the depth of those used by Karen. Her reports of processing varied from a

general state of awareness to a more focussed attentiveness. Generally, lane seems less

able to make full use of a range of elaborative strategies needed to i ntegrate new content

with previous knowledge. In particular, lane's efforts to link previous knowledge are

often hindered by negative self-evaluation of domain knowledge and lack of confidence.

Although lane reported many monitoring statements concerning her u nderstanding, o r

lack of understanding, . subsequent control strategies were not always effective m

resolving learning difficulties. Help seeking, cooperation with peers, and use of

resources were absent, or i neffectually applied by lane on many occasions.

lane's behaviour, more than any of the other target students, illustrates how affective

reactions to mathematics, and to learning mathematics, affect strategy use. Her

classroom learni ng behaviours and moods fluctuate greatly from active and i nterested t o

passive, bored o r frustrated, as she attempts to cope with the changing demands of

learning the sixth form mathematics content, and the different classroom environment.

Her decrease in performance levels (as measured by test results) have negatively affected

lane's metacognitive knowledge. Although lane expresses a will to 'understand'

mathematics, her ability to adapt to her learning environment, and to overcome her

difficulties, is l imited. Her lack of peer involvement, and perceived l ack of teacher

support, combined w ith her metacognitive self-knowledge, appear to h ave resulted in a

gradual acceptance of passive learning tendencies, and consequent decline in

performance. Jane h as made l ittle if any progress in developing effective metacognitive

strategies necessary to control and self-regulate learning behaviours needed for future

study i n mathematics.

203
8.5 Case Study 4 : ADAM

PROFILE

Adam is a fifteen year old accelerated mathematics student. He rates himself as okay at

mathematics : science is his favourite subj ect. Adam thinks that mathematics is important

for science and his learning goal is directed towards understanding. He prefers learning

by making his own notes and doing exercises; strategic memorising is not a feature of his

learning style but rehearsal is definitely important.

Adam: "Maths is a thinking and doing subject. It 's not necessary for you to
memorise. If you do lots of work then you just remember the maths - after you
do the work a few times you just remember the whole thing. "

Adam feels good about his learning when he can do all the questions but adds "and I

check that I understand everything ". Adam's intention to understand influences all
facets of his learning behaviour as illustrated by the following episode in which students

were asked to make a summary of their trigonometry unit (S ine and Cosine rules).

Rather than copying the formulae and/or worked examples, as was the case with all

other students, Adam not only made a summary but used this opportunity to enhance his

learn ing. He saw the task as a means of learning rather than one of task completion .

Adam: "I just revised all the proofs and wrote them down on paper and ran through
how to prove the three formulas. I went through to check to see if I understood
them. If I forgot how to do it I read through it and tried to work it out. I also
looked in our other textbook to see if there was any other way of doing them. "

LEARNING EPISODES

Class Discussion

During class discussions Adam exhibits a wide range of learning strategies. He reports

effective cognitive strategies to construct new knowledge from the day ' s lesson and he is

204
also very aware of the need to control his learning environment by using opportun ities

for rehearsal and task management activities.

Of the four target students, Adam is the only one who reports actively planning and

previ ewing the material to be covered, both before the lesson and during the lesson.

Adam: " When she said turn to Page 128 I looked and I actually read the question
before she (teacher) said what she was going to do. "

Previewing material provides Adam with the opportunity to go over the material several

times. Comments regarding the value of practice in automating procedures and revisiting

the material to aid understanding are typical throughout the stimulated recall reports.

Adam: "I think it 's good to read ahead because - I don 't know - I just finish
everything so I just read the next one. If I don 't understand something I 'll
read it again .. . l ' ve read the work, but not really learnt it. It 's easier for me, it
helps you to understand, to remember, and it makes it faster. "

Also, during discussion of a new topic Adam will skim through the text, often lookin g

for further information. For example, when the teacher introduces logarithms and

exponents Adam looks for references in the text and index, trying to find out abou t

natural logarithms. He i s not very satisfied, but rather than ask the teacher, h e reported

that he would investigate it further at home. Where the book provides alternative

explanations to those given by the teacher, such as was the case with proofs of the sine

and cosine rules, Adam will study and evaluate the alternatives.

Adam quickly works through class discussion problems, thus IS able to anticipate

answers and closely monitor h is progress.

Adam: "/ knew the answer before Mrs H worked it out. I checked all the calculations
on my calculator, then went on to the next question in the book. "

During class discussions Adam employs the metacognitive strategy of selective attention

to achieve three purposes. Firstly, he is conscious of selectively attending to i mportant

information.

205
Adam: "When I hear important things I would listen and try and remember them; like
'limit ', 'definition ', and things like that. I actually hear what I know and what
I don 't know. If I hear something I know I'm not very good at I just listen. "

Notes are also selectively taken on the basis of importance to the learni n g process.

Adam: "I always decide whether I 'm going to put an example into my notebook or
into my exercise book. I 'm thinking what is she (teacher) going to do with it - I
was thinking that she might do something new in using this example, I might
learn something new so I put it in my notebook. "

Secondly, when the teacher is rev1ewmg problems Adam selectively atten ds to the

process and conceptual material rather than the calculations.

Adam: "I don 't worry about the calculations 'cause I know I can do that - I can
program my calculator to do all of those. "

Thirdly, Adam uses selective attention , in combination with monitorin g understanding

and production, to attend only to those parts of the lesson relevant to his learning needs.

The remainder of the time Adam manages his own learning tasks.

Adam: "I just check with the board to see if my answer is right or look to see if there
is anything important. Normally I pay attention when she asks a question,
otherwise I work independently on my own problems. " and

Adam: "I already know that so I continue on my own work. I 'm listening to what she
(teacher) is saying but I know it. Now she 's doing some new work. I couldn 't
remember the work on standard error so I start to copy it down. "

Adam' s reports of e laborative statements are not very explicit. This is not unexpected as

many of the links w ith prior knowledge would be automatic, rather than as a result of

confusion or uncertainty, as was the case with Karen. However, there were repeated

instances of imagery, indicating a very active participation in the knowledge construction

process. For example, when the teacher talks about the derivative Adam reported that,

"/just have a diagram, I think, just drawing a diagram in my head ".

206
In instances where the l inks with prior knowledge are not automatic, Adam reports

intentional elaborative strategies of l inking. Unlike instances with the other target

students, Adam is not prepared to just watch and wait for the final answer, nor is he only

concerned with the calculations involved. Rather, elaborative strategies are employed to

further consolidate and integrate new information with existing knowledge.

Mrs H: " Yesterday we came up with the idea that we added them up by doubling
them. "

Adam: "I made notes on this part for homework, I 'm going back to look for the
formula she 's (teacher) talking about. " (Teacher continues with worked
example) ''I 'm putting the things, I 'm finding out the relationship between the
formulas and what she 's using for the example .. . l 'm working it through -
finding the relationship. "

On another occasion, when Adam tries to link with previous knowledge, he exhibits

strategic learning behaviours to deal with the uncertainty of the association with prior

knowledge.

Adam: "I 'm looking at my calculator to see if I can calculate standard error. I 'm
wondering what this n-1 button is. I can remember that my brother told me
that standard error is something to do with sampling so 1 thought this button,
the sample standard deviation, might be something to do with it. . . When I used
G11• 1 I came out with a very different answer so I think about it. I redo it. I 'm
still not sure what standard error is so I 'm listening to see what she (teacher)
might come up with. "

When involved with learning from class discussion and teacher explanations Adam is

often more critical, than are the other students, of the teacher' s explanation and

methods. As he examines teacher-presented methods he often draws on prior knowledge

of alternative strategies:

Adam: "I was thinking, 'what 's she (teacher) doing ? ' . . . I think she 's having problems
drawing the graph so / 'm just watching what she 's doing. I was thinking about
how to draw it, about how else to do it. I 'm thinking it looks a bit strange not
like the normal distribution.... / thought that she shouldn 't be drawing the lines
because it is discrete data. I'm thinking 'what is she · doing and how am I

207
 going to draw it in my book ? ' I've just started to draw my graph. I thought it
was a bit strange that she joins the lines. "

Furthermore, when the class data resul ts don ' t seem to provide a suitable distribution

Adam is able to use his prior knowledge to resolve this conflict.

Adam: 'I looked back at the tree diagram. I was thinking that we probably didn 't
have enough data to make the 'mean ' work. I wasn 't worried too much
because when I did it at home I took the sample mean of my ten trials and it
was actually very close to the population mean which is 4"5. I found the
sample mean was 4"1 . I thought this data gives strange results but I didn 't
worry 'cause I knew what should happen. "

Unfortunately Adam i s the only student in the class to have completed a graph at home

so probably he will be the only student who has constructed the knowledge as i ntended

by the teaching episode.

Adam's critical examination of teacher/class discussion is also driven by his desire to

u nderstand the content. However, unlike Jane who appeared to be stuck in an

' understand or not understand' mode, Adam is able to use metacognitive and resource

management strategies to cope with any difficulties.

Adam: "I was wondering what standard error is, I thought I might ask my brother or
my father. I don 't really understand why do we find the standard error that
way. She didn 't really explain where it comes from. I didn 't really understand
why do we do it that way. "

Like the other target students Adam rarely answers questions publicly: this appears to be

an affecti ve reaction rather than a concern for correctness.

Adam: "I remembered that but I didn 't answer. I don 't usually answer the questions.
I know the answers but I don 't answer - it probably depends on the mood.
Sometimes I feel good and I answer the questions - other times I don 't answer
the questions. "

He does, however, always answer questions privately, frequently with an accompanying

metacognitive evaluation of understanding or production. Adam is also actively

answering and evaluating other students' questions. In the following example Adam

208
employs elaborative strategies of comparing and answering questions combined with

metacognitive monitoring understanding.

Adam: "I was listening to what he (Dean) is saying and just thinking what sort of
problem he is asking and see if I can do it. "

Adam ' s ability to 'keep up' with ease, combined w ith planning and previewing, increases

the l ikelihood that the lesson will become boring. On several occasions Adam reports

frustration with the slow pace but he has developed some affective strategies which,

when combined with task management and rehearsal strategies, can successfu lly relieve

the boredom factor.

Adam: "I readfrom the blackboardfrom the other teacher 's work - it was something
to do. " and

Adam: "I 'm looking at the next part so it doesn 't get too boring. "

Another strategy Adam used when the discussion is paced too slowly is to use this

opportunity for rehearsal. His deliberate strategy of over-learning, or structured

reviewing, means that the procedural content becomes natural and automatic - hence his

earlier comment concern i ng his non use of memorisation.

Adam: "I just revise all these things in my head again, tried to remember them better.
We 've fin ished the topic, we 've learnt everything it 's just revision. " and

Adam: "I 'm sort of refreshing because I thought about it the night before the lesson,
thinking it through again because it would be boring not thinking. "

Seatwork

Adam is very prompt to begin seatwork; usually beginning with a flip through the

exercises. He works at a fast pace, but rather than waiting for the rest of the class he

manages the task by doing extra exercises: "I actually didfive when everyone did one. "

The following comment, related to Adam ' s task management strategies, again illustrates

the fact that Adam's learning is directed to understanding, and knowledge construction,

rather than problem completion, and further illustrates Adam's ability to c ontrol his

learning:

209
Adam: "It 's not the exercises that are important. I need to know what we are going to
learn, the pages. I can find the exercises myself "

Adam reports comparing problem types during seatwork episodes.

Adam: "I'm thinking about No. 5 - if I can put that equation into my calculator or
not - it 's a bit different to the others. "

Unlike most of the other students Adam' s monitoring is not reliant totally on the text

answers - his prior knowledge and confidence allows Adam to evaluate the correctness.

Adam: "I didn 't look at the answers because I know it is right - I believe it is right. If
I was not sure I would check each answer, but because here I 've got the right
formula and the right numbers I know it 's right. "

His checking strategies are securely based on production monitoring and involve several

stages of diagnoses when difficulties arise.

Adam: ''I 'm unsure of the answer so I 'm thinking if it 's right or wrong. I ' ll know I 'll
get it right if I 've put the correct things in my calculator so I 'm just checking
that first. "

When completing problems Adam uses a coding system based on his anticipated ability

to complete the problems.

Adam: "I used a pencil to write the answer because I didn 't actually know if the
answer was correct. " and

Adam: "I write the question down - if I know the answer I just write it down with pen
and if I 'm not sure I just write it down with pencil. "

Like most other students, Adam is reluctant to ask for help during the class session. He

mentally notes that h e needs to further address the problem himself: he does this by self

study of the text both in class and at home, seeking help from his father or brother at

home, and by self-reflection.

Adam: "I didn 't really understand what that meant so I look in my textbook. I 'm
looking in my book for anything about standard error. ·" .and

210
Adam: "I was puzzled about standard error instead of standard deviation. I didn 't
really understand it. I decided to ask my brother. " and

Adam: "I 'm doing the next part of the question but I 'm still thinking about the part I
couldn 't do. "

Adam's ability to self-help is evidenced in the lesson on variance calculations. Many

students became frustrated trying to adapt the teacher' s instructions to their individual

calculator model:

Karen: " Can you show me how to used this stupid calculator. "

Adam, on the other hand, gets out his manual and successfully self i nstructs himself in

the variance calculation procedure.

There w as only one occasion during all of the observations when Adam was observed t o

be experiencing considerable difficu lty with a set of exercises. The exercises involved

sequence completions of a puzzle type nature:

Complete the fol lowing sequences : No. 2 0, T, T, F, . . .

No. 3 J, F, M, A , . . .

Adam's behaviour during this episode (Video 2) illustrated that h e has a range o f

learning strategies available for such a situation. Firstly, Adam reported prolonged

engagement with the problem - he continually reflected, returning to the problem

sequence in between successful attempts at later sequences.

Adam: "I 'm still thinking about the question 'cause I 'm stuck. I 'm trying to sort out
what the answer might be. I was thinking what would the letters stand for. I 'm
wondering if they represented some kind of number like 'b ' is the second and
'a to z ' but it didn 't work so I 'm still thinking. "

Adam ignores the teacher' s call to attend to No. 1 and continues to work on No. 2 .

Adam: "I knew I 'd got it (No. 1 ) right so I didn 't bother to l isten. I work quite a lot
on my own. I was thinking about my problems. I was trying to make a
connection with the alphabet but it didn 't work. "

211
At this stage Adam reported feeling very worried about still not being able to solve the

seque nce. He employs an affective strategy designed to assure himself of attainable

success.

Adam: "I 'm just thinking try to solve it, still solve it, solve it (nervous laugh). I think
sure I can solve it and things like that. "

Usually Adam is not concerned with other students' progress, but on this occasion he

actively monitors the class activity.

Mrs H: "How many people haven 'tfinished No. 2 ?' (Adam looks around the room) .

Mrs H!Lucy: "You are suppose to keep the answer to yourself " (Adam looks over in
Lucy ' s direction).

Adam: "I heard someone had solved it. I heard someone say 'One, Two, Three ', so I
went straight onto the next question (No. 3). I made the connection and solved
that too. "

Adam consistently follows the teacher' s direction, unless there is a legitimate reason to

modify the task. When students were asked to read worked examples or notes from the

text before attempting the exercises, many of the students would go straight to the

exercises preferring to refer to the readings only if stuck. Adam, on the other hand,

always completed the recommended reading first.

Adam reported monitoring the teacher' s movements and comments during seatwork

time. Most of the time he knows what he needs to do and reports that he ignores the

teacher's comments (selective attention), however he usually tries to answer class­

directed questions.

Mrs H: "If I asked you to write down in youtown words what a limit is. "

Adam: ''I 'm thinking in my head, I just go through in my head what she was asking. I
just tried to give a definition in my head to see if I could. I was happy with my
answer. I was trying it in my own words. " and

Adam: "I looked up because I thought this might be important; it sounds a bit
confusing, sounds a bit new. "

212
Review of Homework and S eatwork

Adam admits that most of the homework review sessions are a waste of time and that

productivity during these sessions depends on his mood.

Adam: " Going through with her, she (teacher) might link homework with something
else. It depends on my mood. Sometimes I might be thinking about other
subjects. Sometimes I might do some more maths, but often I can 't really go
ahead because I don 't know where to look for what I want. "

On a particular occasion, when only Gareth and Adam had done the assigned homework,

the teacher spent a large amount of class time letting the students take random samples

to provide data.

Adam: "I was thinking of something else, not maths. I 'm looking around the class. I
feel bored; I 've done the work. I was just waiting. I 'm looking at Gareth 's
work. I 'm looking at Gareth 's results. I wondered how long it would take. "

When the teacher displayed the results on a stem and leaf p lot Adam evaluated the

validity of the method rather than his own ability to complete the diagram.

Adam: "I thought tha t 's one way to do it - I suppose. It seemed a good way to do it. "

When the teacher continued with displaying the class resul ts one could see how Adam ' s

prior knowledge, gained from homework sessions, enabled him t o anticipate the lesson

direction .

Adam: ''I 'm thinking about the normal distribution of the curve. I knew that she was
going to talk about that 'cause she (teacher) told us that we are going to do
something about random numbers, normal distribution and standard e rror,
and things like that. I 'd looked ahead in my book to see what was coming. "

Adam is conscious of opportunities to learn, and sometimes uses rev iew time to w ork

independently on further exercises: "Well sometimes i& good, you can fit revisions into

the lessons. " In the above episode, after expressing boredom, Adam decided to move on
to some different work while the class caught up with the homework.

213
Adam: "I 'm getting bored. I 'm reading the notes I took a week ago from the book. I
remember that I forgot to do something - so I've looked up the book about
surveys - there are two types and I hadn 't finished it so I 'm writing some
more. I 've decided to work by tnyself until the class finishes. . . I 'm working
slowly to fill in the time. "

At other times, when Adam attends the review, he tries to use the opportun ity to

positively effect a learning outcome.

Adam: "I've finished all the question, so I 'm just looking at things on the blackboard.
I 'm thinking, trying out the answers again even though I know the answers I
answer her questions in my own mind. "

And in other instances Adam critically reviews the teacher' s methods:

Mrs H : " Can anyone tell me the quicker way ? "

Adam: "I was thinking about a quicker way. I didn 't really think about that method
(the teacher' s quicker way). Now I see hers I think it through and see if it
really works. I check through to see if it works and if it 's faster, and it seems
okay. "

Again we see an instance where Adam evaluated the method against criterion of

effectiveness and efficiency rather than solely against his ability to 'follow ' o r ' do' the

method.

Homework

Adam reports starting homework in class. When the teacher sets the homework in class

Adam records the homework in his logbook, previews the homework and decides if

there is enough time to do some or all of it in class: "I think, oh that will take about 1 0

minutes. " At home Adam sets a time limit and reports that he usually finishes i t before

or around the time set. It is i mportant to set a schedule as Adam has homework from

other subj ects to complete, and homework completion is very much the norm for Adam.

Adam feels that homework is mostly j ust for practice. He reported that he learnt a bit

about calculus and statistics at home but most of the learning was in class time. As well

as consolidation, Adam u ses the homework time to look ahead and prepare for future

class work.

2 14
Adam: "I look ahead a bit to see wha t 's coming up, but I won 't properly do all of the
questions. "

However, Adam reported that efforts to read ahead were somewhat hampered by l ack of

knowledge of what was required.

Adam: "I use to work ahead a lot last year because I had the form five curriculum
and I could do the whole thing before the teacher teaches it but I can 't this
year because I haven 't got the schedule. It was really good last year because I
could go ahead and do things myself "

All homework is marked, although not i n the physical sense of ticks and crosses.

Int: "Do you check your homework ? "

Adam: "I use to; I use to tick them, tick them right, but now I just look at the answers
and compare them to mine. "

Int: "So you check them; so you know you got say nineteen out of twenty. "

Adam: (indignant) "No, I don 't do that. I don 't count. If I got some wrong I redo the
question. "

On one occasion Adam modified his homework by actually doing less than was required !

However, there was a sensible explanation. When given a copy of last year' s test to

complete for homework, followed by a period of revision time, Adam carefully utilised

his time by reading the test through at home, evaluating his learning requirements, and

leaving the test to complete in class when he knew that he would have nothing else to

do.

Adam: "I read it through and worked it out mentally. I know I can do it all except the
limit question which I 've checked with Mrs H. Now I 'm going to do the test
and time myself - it should take about half-an-hour and I should get 1 00%. "

In summary, homework is an important feature of Adam' s learning. He strategically u ses

the time to consolidate, to c heck for u nderstanding, to seek help either by self-reflection

or from the text or family, and also to prepare for the next lesson.

215
Revision

Because of the thoroughness of Adam ' s homework efforts he feels that he does n ot need

to make a big effort when it comes to revising for tests.

Adam: "I find if you have done all your homework you are pretty well prepared. I
don 't think it 's necessary for you to revise; only if you don ' t understand
something, 'cause you 've just learnt the topic. I know the things already.
Unless I 'm not sure how to do something I won 't do much revision. "

Adam reported some planning of revision but he felt it was more appropriate for exam

revision than unit tests.

Adam: "I go through in my mind some of the topics but I don 't worry too much about
scheduling revision for tests, but I set a revision schedule for exams. "

L i ke the other students Adam reported reading through his notes (the day before) and

doing some exercises as test preparation. Adam also acknowledges the help from teacher

cues, especially from copies o f previous years tests.

Adam: " Well, we 've already seen last yea r 's and the year's before test so I don 't
think there is going to be much difference. They (teachers) don 't change them
much. "

Adam' s goal of sitting test is "to gain as high a mark as possible " (where 95+% IS

acceptable) and he sees tests as a part of the classroom system.

Adam: " Tests help me make sure I understand things. I think tests a re just an extra to
make sure you understand things - they don 't make me work harder. I don 't
learn anything by sitting tests. "

2 16
Summary

We can see from the given examples that Adam uses a wide range of learning strategies

which are both appropriate and effective in enhancing knowledge construction. In class

Adam is concerned about identifying what ought to be learnt. He prefers to u nderstands

concepts on the spot, but is not u nduly worried if difficulties arise. He is willing to

reflect on his learning and seek appropriate help to al lay any concerns.

Adam values practice, not just for it's own sake, but as an integral part of the learning

process. He subscribes to the view that if one practices enough one avoids the need to

rote learn formulae and procedures: practice provides Adam opportunities to review,

monitor and extend his understanding.

Through "intentional learning" (Bereiter & Scardamal ia, 1 9 89) Adam develops a

problem-solving approach to learning in which he is conscious of his learning goal, plans

his learning processes through active strategy deployment, monitors his progress

towards the learning goal , and is able to take remedial action where necessary. Adam ' s

critical examination a n d use o f the resources (text, teachers and family) i s a result o f his

desire to understand and integrate new knowledge.

Adam's strong prior knowledge base is obviously a major factor in his success, but it

needs to be acknowledged that this knowledge is not just domain based but also

metacognitively orien ted. Adam' s beliefs about himself as a learner, his beliefs about

mathematics learning, and his knowledge of a range of learning strategies and their

applicability, contribute to his effective autonomous learning behaviours. Adam's

effective self-regulatory strategies enable him to: monitor his comprehension; self-test by

generating and working through similar problems to those being presented; to anticipate

the answers to the teacher' s questions; and to check his own answers against those of

the teacher as well as the other students . It appears that it is only when one is able to

simultaneously monitor and control one' s learning, that the strategy of reflection can

be brought to bear on the learning situation. In summary, given sufficient resources,

Adam is ful ly able to self-direct his own learning both in class and at home.

217
8.6 Passive versus Active Learning

While it is acknowledged that much of the data reflects the students' ability to discuss

their learning, student reports and research observations indicated that these fou r

students engaged i n a wide range o f learning strategies with consequently wide ranging

learning outcomes. In what ways are their learning strategies differentiated to produce

these different learning outcomes? One could cl assify their learning styles on a

c ontinuous scale from passive through to active learning (Mitchell, 1 992a). On the one

e xtreme Gareth ' s learning is of a passive nature, and Adam' s is of an active n ature. Jane

and Karen fit somewhere in the middle ground. An examination of some specific uses of

learning strategies will i l lustrate these contrasting learning behaviours.

Firstly, these students all differ in their learning goals and beliefs about learning

mathematics. Gareth , in particular, has little sense of learning, and sees mathematics in

terms of problems to do. His learning strategies are directed at absorbing knowledge

from the teacher; they are directly linked to his belief that, if he follows the steps u sed by

the teacher, he has learnt the required mathematics. This is an extremel y restrictive

approach to learning which is epitomised by Gareth' s comments during a test review:

"Oh, is that all that question wanted; if you had asked it the same way as you had in
class I could have done that one! " Karen and Jane also view learning mathematics as
largely a matter of taking in information from the teacher and textbook and storing it in

memory. While Jane and Karen do acknowledge the importance of understanding in the

learning process, w hen understanding proves elusive, they lack specific strategies to

remedy their difficulties. In contrast, Adam's learning goals are fumly directed towards

understanding the c ontent and constructing new knowledge. Bereiter and S cardamalia's

( 1 989) concept of intentional learning appropriately captures Adam ' s learning process:

218
 . . . (those) who were "trying to learn " were not simply investing extra effort in
trying to solve the problems they were presented. Instead they were dividing their
effort between solving those problems and solving other, unassigned problems,
which were problems having to do with the state of their own understanding of
the phenomena ... The learning that resulted was not an incidental consequence of
solving mathematics problems but rather a goal to which (their) problem-solving
efforts were directed. (p. 3 65-6)

Another maj or area of strategy differentiation IS m the use of selective attention.

Although all students used selective attention, we see that the focus of their attentions

differs and thus the constructed knowledge differs. Gareth, and to some extent Jane and

Karen, focused solely on the curren t work without attempting to look for connections

with what was done previously. Each lesson, each problem, or each instruction w as seen

in isolation. Gareth, in particular, focused on the procedural and arithmetic steps in the

problem. In contrast, Adam's attention critically focuses on the conceptual details,

almost to the exclusion of the calculations.

S tudent evaluations of teacher-presented methods, or textual material also differed.

Adam critically evaluated methods on the criteria of efficiency, ease, and completeness in

terms of explanation and his own understanding. His self-questions led him to explore

beyond the given data and construct new knowledge. Jane and Karen were also able to

distinguish between those explanations which they understood and those which were

'just methods' . In contrast, Gareth accepted the teacher' s answers uncritically, even in

cases where they were incorrect, and did not expect to understand the explan ations. His

evaluations were based on whether he 'followed' the method - which resulted in his

bein g able to supply the answer. Having a copy of the worked example was critical for

Gareth' s learning process as this provided the 'recipe' needed to do further similar

examples.

219
Another contrast is found in students' ability to correctly monitor their learni ng process.

Although all students reported numerous monitoring statements, they were related to

different criteria of learning. Gareth ' s monitoring is related to task completion, and is

acc ompanied by statements of the lesson being 'easy' or 'hard' . Gareth dec ides that he

understands and will be able to retain important information simply because he has ' read

it' or ' seen it being done' by the teacher. In contrast, Adam' s approach is more active.

He evaluates his learning only after testing himself, or otherwise generating feelings and

info rmation about his actual state of memory and understanding.

As well as differing strategies related to learning awareness, the students ' ability to

contro l their own learning was remarkably differentiated. Gareth' s passive, dependent,

uninformed approach to learning mathematics meant that he relied heavily on the teacher

to p rovide the information and instruction. He saw the teacher as someone who told him

what to do, how to do it, what examples are worth investigation and what questions are

w o rth considering. This dependency extends to monitoring. Gareth is reliant on the text

and the teacher to provide the authority for the correctness of his work, as evidenced by

his acceptance of the teacher modify ing his working: "She knows what she is doing. "

Peterson ( 1 988) suggests that the reporting of a definitive or diagnostic reason for not

understanding may reflect students' general tendencies to be involved actively in the

mathematics task, regardless of their i mmediate understanding. We have seen examples

where Karen has, as a result of her involvement, been able to construct sufficient

mathematical knowledge and understanding to enable her to eliminate difficulties w ith a

minimum o f new information. Thus with an active learning approach cognitive failure

can become a metacognitive success if appropriate action is taken such as redirecting

attention, re-accessing i nformation sources, or help seeking.

B oth Karen and Jane pro vide evidence of episodes of self-regul ated learning. Karen

provided e vidence of i ndependent study to remediate conceptual difficulties, and Jane

reported doing extra exerc ises and looking ahead on occasions. However, although

a ware of difficulties, the weakness of their self-regulatory strategies are evidenced by

their reluctance to seek appropriate help when required. Both Karen and Jane are

220
unwilling to ask questions, or to answer questions, unless they are sure they are correct.

Their reluctance to become involved in discussions means that they do not profit from

feedback, and are reliant on other class members to prompt for help.

Rohrkemper and Corno ( 1 988) suggest that in order to perform a task efficiently, be it

learning or problem solving, students need to see both the approach they take and the

task itself as malleable: these three students (Karen, Jane and Gareth) appear unwilling

to control their learning environment to any great extent. Adam, however, i s in complete

control of his mathematics learning: he plans his learning, anticipates the lesson

direction, and actively seeks help. Adam' s reports of reflective thinking are also more

frequent than any of the other students, and appear to be effective in resolving conflicts

and constructing knowledge. Furthermore, Adam is able to adapt himself, the task, and

the learning situation, to maximise the learning opportunities. He fully appreciates the

difference between 'doing mathematics' and 'learning mathematics' as expressed by

Leinhardt and Putnam ( 1 987 : 559):

. . . by learning mathematics we mean graspmg the intentional content of the

lesson, connecting and integrating that content with prior mathematics
knowledge.

Homework and revi Sion sessions involve learning that is isolated and self-directed

(Thomas & Rowher, 1 993 ). It is in these learning episodes that one would expect

learning strategies to play a crucial role. Thus, not surprisingly, we see a v ariation in use

of learning strategies among our four target students. Gareth reports doing what he can ,

but is n o t able t o make any progress i n resolving conflicts from the lesson, o r furthering

his knowledge. Jane appears to be guided by affective reactions and metacognitive

knowledge - some difficulties are resolved, other are left with a question mark. Karen

selectively attends to problems experienced in the lesson and reports actively using the

tex t as a resource. Like the others, Adam completes the exercises, but in addition he

uses homework sessions to further his learning by reviewing and previewing material,

self-reflecting on concepts, and seeking help from family members.

22 1
In summary, although clearly all these target students use a range of learning strategies,

the appropriateness and effectiveness of these strategies are related to the learning goal

and the demands of the task. With the exception of Adam, for the most p art students'

learning was of a passive nature: students sampled selectively from the flow of

instructional stimuli according to their needs and interests, but seldom took action to

adapt the lesson to their individual requirements. They accepted their learning

environment as given, expected the teacher to provide explicit instruction and help,

relied on the teacher or text to monitor their progress, and made little u se of the

available resources in independent study. Stu dents' ability to control their learning and

adapt themselves, the task, and the learning environment to maximise the learning

opportunity, is largely a result of metacognitive knowledge and the use of metacognitive

strategies.

The role of prior knowledge in enabling learning strategies, especi ally elaborative and

monitoring strategies, to be successful must also be acknowledged. Other contributing

factors differentiating strategic learning included the availability of help at home, the

availability of resources, and the availability of study time. These and other factors

affecting strategic learning will be discussed in the following chapter.

222
 Chapter 9

Factors Affecting Learning Strategy Use

If you want to see a very faint star you should look a little to the side because
your eye is more sensitive to faint light that way - and as soon as you look right
a t the star it disappears.

(Waldrop, 1 992: 3 1 9)

As illustrated with the Interactive Model of Leaming Mathematics (section 2 . 3 ) there

are numerous person, instructional, and contextual factors affecting strategic learning.

This chapter will discuss factors evident in this study which influence students' u se and

development of strategic learning behaviours. The discussion draws on the l i terature

review, research observations, student reports, and the researcher' s knowledge of the

teaching-learning environment. Although these factors are considered under separate

organisational headings, it is noted that in reality, strategic learning behaviours are

influenced by a multiplicity of factors.

9.1 Person Factors

Prior Domain Knowledge

Relevant prior knowledge, both domain based and metacognitive, may be the student ' s

most valuable resource i n relation t o learning: a resource which greatly affects strategy

use. When learning, students need to activate and utilise their prior knowledge so as to

integrate it with the new information in a coherent and logical manner (Weinstein &

Mayer, 1 986). In the present study students' prior knowledge, as measured by the

previous year's examination, ranged from very weak (Gareth) to expert (Adam) . The

differential access to relevant knowledge affected the applicability and effectiveness of

learning strategies.

223
Instruction frequently linked new content to prior learning and students responded with

personal elaborations relevant to their prior knowledge and experiences. However,

whether any elaboration (either teacher supplied or student initiated) can be u sed, or is

appropriate, depends on the information at hand and the existing knowledge of the

student. Elaborations from low achievers often involved trying to recall having worked

some simi lar method, or remember past suggestions by the teacher, rather than recalling

the conceptual o r procedural information relevant to the problem. The strength of the

urge to remember past experiences is unfortunately reinforced by teacher comments such

as, "Remember how we did it yesterday " and "Look back at No 8. to see how you did

it ". Consequently, i nstruction could assist elaborations which relate to conceptual and
procedural recall by asking "What do we know about solving these type of equations? "

(x + 4 = 2x + 1 ), rather than "Remember what we did yesterday ". The open and

conceptual n ature of this question would be more conducive to appropriate student

response .

In cases where students have no relevant pnor knowledge each procedure must be

learnt i n isolation. For example, when learning surd manipulation the teacher illustrates

the following steps in a worked example:

� + .J8 = 3 ..J8 + .J8 = 4 ..J8 = 4 -J4x2 = s J2

Because of his weak algebraic knowledge Gareth does not make any elaborative

connections with algebraic simplification: he sees these steps as a totally new rule-based

procedure to be learnt in isolation and recalled when he is tested on surd questions.

Gareth: ''I 'm going over all the procedures until it gets in my mind how to do it. I
wrote down the procedures."

Int: "Could you have explained the steps in your own words ? "

Gareth: "/ could have if I had the working down. "

Later, when trying his first problem, Gareth reports swapping the factors of .J"hf6
around so as to get the same pattern as on the board (i.e., the square factor first). With a

more relevant knowledge base, involving a recognition of commutativity of

224
multiplication, Gareth would not be in the position of having to mimic every step of the

worked example. The availability of the assumed prior knowledge would enable him to

make appropriate elaborative l inks and thus see this problem as an extension or variation

of the given worked example.

Stu dents' ability to perceive and carry out cognitive processing intended by the teacher

sometimes depended on prior knowledge (Marx & Walsh, 1 988). Gareth ' s lack of the

assumed prior knowledge meant that mislearning was more likely to occur: an example

of Gareth constructing a ' buggy' algorithm in relation to rationalising surds was

discussed i n section 7 . 2 .

Those students who lack the necessary prior knowledge need t o be adaptive: they may

need to use alternative strategies to produce equivalent knowledge. For example,

Gareth, who is aware of his weak prior knowledge (metacognitive person knowledge),

consistently tries to minimise the effects of limited prior knowledge by applying resource

management learning strategies. In class, whenever the teacher introduces a new topic,

Gareth skims his text for defi nitions and formula in readiness for class questions. He

sometimes reported previewing previous years' work in an attempt to 'make up' for a

limited background knowledge on a topic.

Alexander and Judy ( 1 98 8 ) suggest that the nature of strategy use changes as

individuals become more knowledgeable in a domain . Those students with sufficient

prior knowledge are more likely to access this knowledge and use elaborative strategies

to integrate the new knowledge into existing schemas, or construct new schemas w here

necessary. Karen and Adam both reported more specific elaborations with previous

content, rather than j ust elaborations involving recall of previous experiences with

content. In particular, Adam's use of previewing strategies meant that his domain

knowledge was sufficient to allow him to anticipate teacher directions, and plan which

episodes of the lesson to attend to, accordi ng to his personal learning goal.

225
S tu dents' ability and inclination to monitor their understanding and learning process is

greatly dependent on the availability of prior knowledge. Access to appropriate prior

knowledge assists students with monitoring their understanding. In contrast, if memory

resources are strained monitoring is unlikely to occur. Examples of Gareth' s learning

i llustrates that without adequate prior knowledge it is difficult to monitor the

reasonableness of an answer to problems.

B eliefs and metacognitive knowledge

When students repeatedly do not u nderstand their formal instruction, and written

assignments do not make sense, they may come to conclude that mathematics is not

supposed to make sense. Gareth, in particular, is influenced by his belief that

mathematics does not need to make sense.

Int: "Is it important to understand the concepts; like say to know what standard
deviation is about?

Gareth : "No, it 's more important that I can do the problems. "

S iemon ' s ( 1 990a) data indicated that a student' s belief that mathematics is not

concerned w ith meaning was the driving force in determining his or her monitoring

behaviour. I t is probable that because of such a belief, students like Gareth are likely to

stop monitoring their work thoughtfully. Several i nstances were observed in which

students were not the least bit troubled by answers that were clearly unreasonable. For

example, in a practical trigonometry exercise, students were quite happy to calculate the

height of the bui lding (six metres) as ranging between one and forty metres ! Gareth also

reported several instances, including the following response involving calculations of

variances, in which he concerns himself totally with syntax rather than semantics:

Int: "What is that last column (x- :; / ?" (Interviewer points to column in the table)

Gareth: "/ don 't really know. I just know how she 's (teacher) done it. All I know is that
it helps you when you get the standard deviation. "

While some students demonstrated a commitment to monitoring calculations, few

students mon itored the formulation and evaluation of their cognitive goal i n relation to

the task. However, there were occasions when students, such as Adam and Jane, valued

226
and attended to the construction of meaning, They demonstrated a preparedness t o

analyse the problem statements before making any decision about what needed to be

done. When completing exercises in a statistics unit Jane always wrote out a summary of

each of the question requirements in red, "So I can see it, so I know what I have to find

out ". In several instances Adam reported critically evaluating the teacher or his own
method. The fol lowing instance is an example of Jane's evaluation of alternative

methods against the cognitive goal of understanding rather them ease of computation :

Jane: "I decided to try both methods (synthetic division and long division) with these
exercises - to see which one is the easiest and which one I understand the
f
most. . . When I use both methods I did one and got two diferent answers so I
looked up the answers after each one to see which method gave the right
answer. "

Self assessment of one ' s successes or failures IS important m the formation of

metacognitive knowledge. Gareth readily tal ks about his weakness in learni ng

mathematics.

Gareth: "My weak points are that I can 't really do a whole lot of maths questions a t
one time because I get really impatient. I get bored doing maths questions
over and over all the time, I find it hard to concentrate. My good points, um, I
have none. "

However, when questioned further, Gareth did decide that he did some things that were

helpful for learning.

Gareth: "Well, if I don 't understand something it helps if you read it over and over
again. . . Taking part in discussions is good 'cause it helps you remember the
period more. Like if you 're just doing questions (exercises) all period you
don 't really take much in. So when you 're really discussing it in a group it
gets real, it 's easier. "

Thus, although Gareth i s able to reflect on his learning strategies (metacognitive strategy

knowledge) one can again see that he believes that learning mathematics is about

'taking' in content and that success is measured by 'easiness' . His admission that doing

exercises is in itself a l imited learning experience is consistent with what one w ould

expect from a passive learning experience (Kyriacou & Marshall, 1 989; Mitchell, 1 992a).

227
Nature of the learning goal

The nature of students' learning goals will affect the nature of their learning strategies

(Garner, 1 990a) . Lein hardt and Putnam ( 1 987) suggest that because of the difficulty in

getting students to define learning (as opposed to task completion) as a goal it is unlikely

that students effectively assess progress towards the goal of learning at higher levels.

Some students in the present study did not see themselves primarily as learners; their

metacognitive processes were directed at working out a comfortable, or at least

acceptable way of coping with the school task. For these students the goal of

understanding everything is unrealistic and consequently marginalised.

B rent: "I don 't really understand everything. I just try and get the basic idea. Like
she 'll (teacher) explain a topic before you start doing it and you should be
able to do the starting stuff, later on it changes things 'round a bit and adds
new things on - it gets a lot harder. Sometimes you cannot understand
anything in a lesson, like yesterday 's lesson on compound interest. I just leave
it and try and concentrate on the basic stuff - like, it 's not really worth trying
to understand. "

Such students are not always aware of the purpose of seatwork, they lack a fmn

conceptual grasp of the goal of the task in which they are engaged. It is assumed that

sets of exercises are to help students become aware of the general techniques - the

theory being that if you do enough examples you will 'see through ' the particular to the

general . The value of promoting the generalisation (for example, being able to state the

conditions when Cosine Rule is appropriate for finding the unknown side of a triangle) is

that the generalisation is the student's own knowledge and they no longer need to rely

on memorised formula. Some students, however, perform the necessary sub-skills, or

algorithms, on demand, but do not grasp the significance of the learning activity. Instead,

their goals were c learly directed towards task completion rather than intentional

learning. In particular, low achievers used strategies such as copying problem solutions

from peers or worked examples, checking answers from the book rather than self­

c hecking, and frequent help seeking that contributed to content coverage rather than

c ontent mastery. For example, when these students sought help they asked questions

228
such as, "Can you show me how to do this ?" and "/ can 't get the same answer as the

book does ", so as to facili tate task completion.

In c ontrast, students whose goal is to learn with understanding were more incl ined to ask

questions directed to obtaining specific information . For example, on one occasion when

Adam evaluates the teacher given summary, he queries a specific piece of information:

Adam: "Where does the 0 come from in f '(x) = 4 + 0? "

S tu dents such as Adam see themselves primarily as learners; they select appropriate

strategies for knowledge construction, rather than task completion, and monitor their

understanding of it.

A ffective Factors

Marland and Edwards ( 1 986: 79) suggest that "the ' private, inner-worlds' of moods,

feelings, interests, self-images, previous experiences and fantasies" often direct students

thinking, attention , involvement and learning processes . They found that interview

protocols of secondary school students suggested that engaging in mental activities

connected with these ' inner worlds' sometimes aided and sometimes impeded learning.

S imilarly, students in this study reported many affective reactions to learning

m athematics, being in a classroom situation, revision, and 'taking' tests . For some

students these affective factors were an important influence on their strategic learning

behaviours. Interest and motivation factors were especially influential.

Gamer ( 1 98 8 : 64-5) suggests that "metacognitively sophi sticated learners know whether

or not the c riterion task to be completed warrants the costly expenditure of time and

effort involved in strategic processing". If the task is viewed as unimportant, or if the

learner is not devoting conscious attention to it, monitoring is unlikely. For example, if a

student views understanding as unimportant, or at best an incidental consequence of

doing problems, then his or her monitoring is based on completion criteria rather than

understanding. The e lement of choice in strategy use was evidenced when students'

reported that knowing which learning strategy (they should employ to improve their

learning) was a different matter to actually using the strategy.

229
Jane: "... if I really wanted to know I could ask someone at home, but I probably
won 't bother. "

Karen : "To start with I couldn 't be bothered to write down the notes so I just thought
I was going to put down the occasional sentence of what she (teacher) wrote. I
was going to wait and see what she wrote first. "

B oth Karen and Jane had after-school employment: Karen worked 1 8 hours a week and

Jane worked several hours before school each day and in the weekends. In class they

showed day-to-day variations in their cognitive strategies, ranging from 'just looking'

and 'not really thinking' to complex elaborations. Their obvious tiredness, and resulting

lack of motivation, may go some way to explain why appropriate learning strategies

were not always invoked.

Several students reported feelings of disinterest and boredom. Nickerson ( 1 989: 24)

notes that "the tendency of students sometimes to balk at making the effort required to

understand ideas, rather than simply acquiring surface or algorithmic knowledge, may be

the reflection of a deep preference and not just laziness or lack of adequate instruction".

The fact that learning mathematics is at times very difficult, requiring higher-order

thinking, resolution of ambiguity, tolerance for uncertainty, self-criticism, and hard

mental work, means that it is not surprising that students' interest may wane from time

to time. For many students boredom, which was the result of the work being too hard or

uninteresting, led to task avoidance, rather than a more adaptive strategic response. In

contrast, Adam's response to boredom frequently involved affective control, or task

management, resulting in performance success, or the creation of rehearsal

opportuni ties.

Moreover, Adam's interest in understanding the content meant that he was more likely

to employ elaborative and information seeking strategies. Clearly, learning strategies

involving the relation of new material to prior knowledge, posing questions, searching

for main ideas, looking for additional sources of information, and critical evaluation

(which typified Adam ' s deep-level processing) would be more time consuming, require

effort, and need to be sustained by an u nderlying interest. Adam' s use of these deep-level

strategies made it unnecessary for him to fall back on simply memorising material.

230
 9.2 Instructional Factors

How does i nstruction affect the students' strategic learn ing behaviours? Campione and

colleagues ( 1 989) commentary on mathematics instruction suggests an air of foreboding.

Emphasis on direct instruction, emphasis on sub-skil ls, emphasi s on skills before

u nderstanding, lack of on-line diagnosis, absence of explicit strategic instruction, and

assessment practices all contribute to students' distorted view of mathematics learning.

Students are not made aware of the reasons for the skills and procedures they are
taught. They are seldom given explicit teaching regarding the orchestration,
management, and opportunistic and appropriate use of those skills. And they a re
seldom required to reflect on their own learning activities. These factors help to
induce in students a flawed understanding of themselves as learners and of the
a cademic domains they are called upon to master. (Campione et al, 1 989: I l l )

Mastery versus Performance Orientation.

Ames and Archer ( 1 988) found that the goal orientation of classrooms, as perceived by

the students, affected the use of learning strategies. S tu dents constantly construct

interpretations of their teacher's behaviour and expectations, and the n ature and purpose

of classroom activity. In classrooms that emphasise a mastery learning approach success

is seen as dependent on effort and strategic behaviours. In classrooms that emphasise a

performance orientation, students are socialised with the goal of getting good g rades,

being judged able, and feel success is dependent on ability (Newman & Schwager,

1 992) . A survey (Appendix 5 ) , adapted from High School Science (Nolen, 1 98 8 ; Nolen

& Haladyna, 1 990), showed that the students of this study percei ved their mathematics

instruction to be principally mastery orientated. In particular, students expressed positive

perceptions about cooperative work, teaching for understanding, learning from mistakes,

independent thinking, and questioning. In fact, no student disagreed with the statements:
•
Students in this c l ass often help each other;
•
Most of the students in this class work well together;
•
Our teacher thin ks mistakes are okay as long as w e learn from them;
•
Our teacher tries to get us to think for oursel ves; and
•
Our teacher wants us to learn to solve problems on our own.

23 1
There were however, some indicators of performance orientation expressed

simultaneously. The maj ority of students felt that they moved onto new topics before

they had really understood the old one, that you had to compete to get good grades, that

it was difficult to ' keep up' , and that you had to memorise l ots of material . Adam was

the only student that disagreed with the statement, "To get good grades in this class, you

have to memorise a lot of facts". Performance orientation would have been reinforced by

the common instructional practice of indicating students' ranked performance within and

between classes.

Perceptions of performance orientation were also reflected in students' negative views of

public help-seeking. B oth Karen and Jane reported relating the desire not to seek help

publicly to feelings of personal inadequacy, and a wish to avoid comparison with other

students.

Despite i nstances of performance orientation, overall it appears that students are well

aware of the desirability of a m astery orientation and accept that the teacher wou l d like

to be able to encourage this approach. In reality however, there are still many pressures

resulting from the 6th form assessment system and coverage of the course, which, when

combined with a lack of prior knowledge, cause many students to adopt a performance

orientated approach . Indeed the teacher, faced with keeping the class in parallel with

other classes, sometimes looked for shortcuts, or side-stepped the more demanding parts

of the course, to make up for missed periods. For example, when introducing

differentiation concepts, the teacher spent time on the concept of the derivative,

including the calculations from first principles. However, the learning goal became

confused when the teacher stated that, "Now we are going to forget about how it is

found and just use the formula ". While acknowledging that calculations from first
principles are onerous for higher degree formulae, efforts to link the rule based approach

with the first principles, rather than disregarding the i ntroductory material, would have

i ncreased the focus on mastery as well as performance.

232
Despite the demands for course completion the students' overall perception of a mastery

goal orientation matches the researcher' s impression of the classroom instruction. Most

students wanted to learn with understanding, and valued cooperation and the sharing of

ideas. However, in real ity, many students lack the knowledge and control of the range of

learning strategies necessary to attain this goal . What is missing from this mastery

orientation is the explicit valuing of appropriate learning strategies: instruction must not

only focus on the need for understanding and learning from errors , but must also provide

students with explicit modelling and teaching of appropriate learning strategies.

Demands of the task

The maj ority of the seatwork and homework time was spent on exerci ses which

provided practice for the teacher-provided examples. Thus, the focus IS on

computational procedures and accuracy: students know in advance which computational

procedures are required to solve the exercises. Students rarely worked on problems

requiring the i ntegration of information across several topics and assessment was mostly

restricted to single topics. While practice is important for the learning of procedural

skills, the reliance on this type of exercise will limit the need for active or intentional

learning (Bereiter, 1 992).

The teacher often reminded students that practice was the key to learning.

Mrs H : "Try them all. People who have attempted lots of work tend to do better in
exams. "; and

Mrs H: " We are going to do lots of examples to make sure we know what we are
doing. "

The concern is that without opportun i ties to do problems requiring higher-order skills,

students may come to view practice as a way of memorising set examples and

procedures that are to be tested in exams. Thus, for the low ach iever the means to

success is not to think through the problem and integrate information to form new ideas,

but rather to recall how the teacher (or oneself) did a similar problem.

Mrs H: "The reason some of you a re not doing very well is that you a re not doing
your homework. You need to p ractice until you can say, 'I have met this
question before '. "

233
Mrs H : " The main thing is to ask yourself have I done anything like this before ? "

The implications of these beliefs were seen in the elaborative strategies of many students

who relied on recalling a similar problem. For the low achieving student, the reliance on

teacher-given examples is particu larly disempowering. These passive learning behaviours

meant that it was difficult for students to have any purposeful strategies for coping when

stuck .

Jake : "I didn 't do any homework. I don 't know how to do it in class, so I couldn 't
do it at home. "

Furthermore, when tasks become difficult, involving high-level cognitive processing, o r

when the answers are n o t readily available, there was a tendency for many students t o

resist task engagement. In such situations students either participate minimally, seek

assistance, or give up total ly.

Mrs H : "Which of these (Cosine or S i ne Rule) would b e the easiest to prove ? "

Lucy: " You 're the teacher, you tell us. " and

Mrs H: " What do you think makes it quadratic ? "

Faye: "Because there is four letters. "

Mrs H: "No. "

Faye: " Well, just tell us. "

In some instances students invented strategies for producing answers in ways that

circumvented the intended learning demands of the task. For example, students copied

work from other students, they answered questions using prompts from other students

or the textbook answers, or they offered provisional answers (guesswork) to indicate

that they had been e ngaged in the task.

The students mostly expected the teacher to present 'official' algorithms for solving

problems step-by-step, without their needing to reflect on the process. Thus the

teacher' s activities are constrained by obligations, and the "students are not only

' victims' of this classroom culture but also are the 'culprits' " (Voigt, 1 994: 287).

234
Faye: "She 's a very good teacher, she writes down the answers for you. "

In the fol lowing example the teacher' s request to have students answer a genuine

problem, rather than recall information, met with substantial student resistance:

Mrs H: "Hmv do you think we could solve sin x = cos x ? "

Dean: "If we haven 't done it, how can we tell you ? "

Students' desire to have the information supplied rather than to be actively involved in

the generation and integration of information was clearly demonstrated by their

preference for teacher 'given ' summaries.

Brent: "Can you (teacher) write a glossary of terms we need to know ? "

When tasks were high in procedural complexity (e. g . , practical trigonometric

investigation) most students spent more time focusing on the procedures of

measurement, locating a suitable building and recording the information, than on the

content. This was reinforced by the teacher' s instructions, which also focused on what

students needed to do to complete the task, rather than the learning outcome. Further

evidence of students' focus on products was to be seen in students' evaluations of

lessons or homework sessions. Students rarely commented on the conceptual learning

outcomes, preferring to note the length of time spent, or the amount of work done, o r

w hether o r not the work was 'easy or hard' .

I nstruction generally favoured "linear learning" (Mitchell, 1 992b: 1 79) in which attempts

are made to link successive ideas and events, but only in the order they are presented.

Little attempt was made to form links between ideas or procedures learnt in different

topics. For example when teaching differentiation techniques there was no attempt t o

link the product o f differentiation w ith the gradient o f the graph, nor were any links

made between the evaluation of Cosine Rule and Pythagoras, nor were there any links

between solving simul taneous equations and the graphing of these sets of equations.

235
A nother major factor affecting strategic learning behaviours is the balance between task

demands, instructional support, and compensatory behaviour (Thomas & Rohwer,

1 993). S upports are teacher or text provided aids that serve to prompt o r sustain student

engagement in the learning activity, such as information aids, opportunity for practice, or

psychological support. Compensations, on the other hand, reduce or eliminate the

demands. For example, the teacher may reduce the demands of a test by providing an

alternative pathway to achievement (make up test) thus reducing the need for students to

engage in autonomou s learning activities. Rohrkemper and Corno ( 1 988) found that to

reduce cognitive loads teachers subdivide tasks, set short term learning goals, and scale

down test questions so that students can succeed. These findings were confirmed in the

present study : the teacher provided informational products, no doubt with the intention

of supporting the learner, such as a list of specific items in a test, graphs, tables, and

summaries that students would otherwise need to generate. An alternative would be to

provide orienting information (e.g., a list of content areas to be responsible for), a model

for a process (e.g, a table to complete), or a concept map or flow diagram from which

the s tu dent would form a summary .

Key Word

The teacher's instruction made frequent reference to keywords. For example, when the

teacher quickly reviews the students' exam papers (with the emphasis on the teacher

reviewing rather than the students) the following comments are included:

Mrs H : " When you hear 'gradient ' or 'tangent ' what should you think about?

Mrs H: " What are the keywords, what should the words 'rate of change ' tell you ? "

Mrs H : "Look at the paper, the most important thing is to find the keywords. "

It i s assumed that the recognition of keywords will help students recall the appropriate

sequence of actions necessary to solve a problem. While the recognition of keywords

may help some students to complete a problem it does little to help students construct

meaningful mathematical knowledge. By compensating for problem-solving demands,

keywords enable students to complete a problem without necessarily understanding the

problem situation, without modelling the problem mathematically, and without acquiring

236
the intended procedural knowledge. It serves to reinforce the goal of performance rather

than mastery.

Low achieving students, looking for ways to remember problem methods, are often the

ones to pick up on the keywords. For example, Gareth called out correctly the answers

to the first two of the above q uestions, but he was still unable to do either of the

questions correctly. The low achiever is particularly vulnerable to rrtisusing the keyword

strategy . For example, when trying to solve the problem: "Find the equation of the line,

given m = 2 and the x intercept is 8. " Gareth first writes 8 = 2x + c, looks puzzled, then

refers to his text for a worked example. He then writes the answer as y = 2x + 8 using

the keyword ' intercept' to identify the (incorrect) solution method !

Summaries
The teacher' s use of summaries was intended to support the students ' learning. On the

several occasions when the teacher encouraged students to participate in providing

summary statements she was met with a total reluctance by students to offer

suggestions. The students, via this negative feedback, probably precipitated the teacher

to eventually supply all the summary material .

M rs H: "I'll get you (class) a course outline and do a summary from that. "

A lthough sometimes encouraged to participate in summary writing, students were often

given an option or way out of the process:

Mrs H: "If you need notes on what we have done today and you don 't trust your own,
use Chapter 22. " ; and

Mrs H : "Because this work is new, I don 't feel we can do examples and then you write
notes. I feel I need to give you the notes first. "

Rohwer and Thomas ( 1 989) argue that with no external requirement to read for

meaning, or to be selective, and with no expectation that students will be responsible for

demonstrating their knowledge of the main ideas in a lesson, students have little

opportun ity to develop the learning strategies of selective attention, paraphrasing and

organisation that are needed for autonomous, self-regulated learning.

237
Worked examples

Students differed substantially in the u se of worked examples. Some students (Dean,

B rent, Craig, Gareth) attended to the computational procedures, and were able to

provide answers to the teacher' s step-by-step questions. Rarely did students ask

questions related to the conceptual nature of the problem - preferring to direct their

attention to the acquisition of specific information needed for the algorithmic activity . In

effect, they sabotaged the instmction by selecting from it only the minimum necessary to

ach ieve correct performance.

B rent: "Where did the 2 come from in the last line ? "

Dean : "Do we have to know all of them ? " (reference to trig ratios)

In contrast, more successful students directed their attention to the underlying stmctu re

of the worked examples. They used discussions as an opportunity to self-question and

generate self-explanations, which are critical for effective learning (Chi & B assok, 1 989).

These self-explanations have the characteristic of adding tacit knowledge about the

actions of the example solution, thus inducing greater understanding of the principles

involved. S tudents ' use of worked examples from their text will be discussed more fully

in section 9 . 3

Opportunity t o think

To use learning strategies effectively i nstmction needs to provide students with time to

clarify what has been happening in the lesson. Tobin and Imwold ( 1 992: 2 1 ) suggest that

time is needed "so that students are able to engage in such processes as are required to

evaluate the adequacy of specific knowledge, make connections, clarify, elaborate, build

alternatives, and speculate". In reality this was not the case: a large amount of teacher

prompting, self-answering of questions, and limited wait time was evidenced in most

lessons. Doyle ( 1 988) suggests that this drive to keep the production rate high, to keep

the lesson mov ing, limits the opportunity to develop autonomous learning capabilities

and reinfo rces students' dependency on the teacher for task accomplishment.

238
Students learn that non-answers quickly generate teacher prompting and many accept a

passive role in class discussion. If the teacher regularly answers her own questions she

abrogates the need for students to engage in cognitive processing and self-management.

Mrs H: "What is our conclusion going to be ? "

Class: (no response)

Mrs H: "Okay, the conclusion we can draw is. . . "

Low achieving students in particular were given less time to respond. The teacher often

i nterrupted with a prompt or the answer, rather than guidance when they responded

incorrectly, and rarely praised their success.

Mrs H: "What is the thing inside the square root called? Can anyone remember - it
begins with v. "

Dean: (cal ls out) " Velocity. "

Gareth: "Variance. " (No acknowledgment from the teacher)

Mrs H: "Variance, not velocity. You may be asked to find the variance in the test. "

Stimulated recall interviews did reveal however, that often students were answering

questions, but privately; perhaps because of the expectation that others, or the teacher

would answer.

Adam: "I noticed that she (teacher) forgot to times by n/2 but I didn 't really want to
speak out because I feel like, because I thought someone else might pick it up
as well. "

The teacher often used instructional stimuli such as questions related to comprehension

and brainstorming to encourage students to make judgements about their knowledge.

There was an u nstated, but mainly unfulfilled, requirement that if the student j udged that

personal mastery was inadequate, the student would request help.

239
 Teacher directed learning

Many of the i nstructional demands were very structured. While the intent may have been

to support the students by guiding their learning, students were in fact given l ittle

e ncouragement to preview material, explore the text, or generally take any responsibili ty

for directing their own learning. On one occasion, when Adam had completed the

requi red homework and was worki ng independently while the rest of the students

completed the given task, the teacher checked his work. Rather than inquire about

Adam ' s self-directed work she i mmediately set some alternative task.

Adam: "She (teacher) said read estimation. I thought she would just come to see what
I was doing. I didn 't know she would tell me to read something else (surprised
tone). It doesn 't matter. I can do that at home sometime - it doesn 't worry me.
I 've already done the work on estimation, but I didn 't tell her, so it will be like
revision anyway.

For many students the teacher or the provided answers are the source for 'revealing

correctness ' . What is missing is regular prompting for students to decide on the

reasonableness of their solutions, the justification of their procedures, the verbalisation

of their processes, and reflection on the their thinking - all of the behaviours that lead to
the development of mathematical thinki ng. If students are to be expected to behave

autonomously in the tertiary sector, some preparation in the development of appropriate

learning strategies is necessary.

_Another influence is the i nstructional cues which enable students to anticipate learning

activities. Marland and Edward ( 1 986) found that secondary school students in a biology

class reported committing the teacher' s last question in a segment of classroom

discourse to memory. They did this because a tactic commonly used by the teacher for

securing and sustaining attention was to ask a student to recall the teacher' s last

question. In the present study, the teacher sometimes u sed an instructional technique of

going around the class for answers to a set of problems. The intention was to encourage

all students to participate. However, some students reported concentrating only on

thinki ng of an answer for ' their turn' - this practice usually interfered with the process of

evaluating other students' answers.

240
Homework Review

Homework reviews were often not linked to the needs of the students . For many

individuals homework reviews were either unnecessary, as they had successfully

completed the homework, or inappropriate as they had not attempted the homework.

Dean: "It 's (homework review) sort of a waste of time, she (teacher) should ask if
anyone has any problems and then go over it from there. "

Some students expressed approval of the homework review as a means of getting help.

Craig: "She (teacher) explains things if you don 't know how to do it - this is good. I
don 't always get help at home. "

lake: "I don 't bother to take the homework home if it 's too hard - if you don 't
understand it there 's no point, kind of thing. Most days she (teacher) goes
over the homework. It 's a good idea 'cause if you don 't understand it at home
you can make sense of it when she goes over it, and ask questions then. It 's
going to be easier when she 's going over it 'cause it reminds you of how to do
it and that. "

However, although many students appreciated the opportun ity to receive help, they

largely let the teacher determine the nature and extent of the help.

Lucy: "You feel a bit dumb asking questions. I sometimes ask, but if I got one wrong
and the rest right I wouldn 't really worry. "

The predicability of the homework review suggested to some students that there was a

limited need to check work, to complete homework, or to persevere when homework

became difficu lt. For instance Abe rarely completed homework:

Abe: "Homework is important, but for some reason Ijust don 't do it!... She (teacher)
goes over homework most days, I can pick up things there. I tune in, have the
page ready. She 'll probably ask me a question so it 's best if I'm following. "

Lucy: "I try to sort out the problem from the answer, but usually I just give up; we 'll
go through it in class anyway. "

Another viewpoint of some students was that homework review provided an incentive to

complete the homework.

24 1
Kane: "It 's (homework review) a good idea. I supposed it 's the sort of thing like,
when you 're at home you think, I 've got to get this done because she 'll
(teacher) be going over it and sort of getting into trouble type of thing. "

However, rather than complete homework, some students developed coping strategies

to disguise their lack of completion or complained that it was too difficult:

Abe: "She (teacher) doesn 't usually check your work. If she asks me a question I
just open up my book, look at it and hope someone else will tell me the
answer. "

Jake: "I didn 't do my homework 'cause I didn 't know what to do. "

Assessment

In the classroom situation performance feedback is critical for shaping accurate

metacogniti ve knowledge. Specifically, in the acquisition of procedural knowledge

attention to feedback, when one has made a mistake, plays a crucial role in learning

(Ames & A rcher, 1 98 8 ; Evans, 1 99 1 b) . Evans ( 1 99 l b:67) suggests that "feedback which

is simply given to the learners without clear reference to the way they tackled the task is

unlikely to lead to control". In the present study most students relied on the textbook

answer, or the teacher, to provide feedback during seatwork and homework episodes.

Such feedback is often limited to a ' right or wrong' judgement. Only Adam

demonstrated a thorough self-diagnosis of his errors, and was truly able to learn from all

his mistakes. As discussed earlier (section 7.4) students who were reluctant to fully

investigate thei r errors, or seek help when needed, missed opportunities to learn from

these situations .

Simi larly, when tests were returned the focus o f both instruction and the studen t was o n

the product, rather than the learning process. S hort and Weissberg-Benchell ( 1 989)

suggest that teachers should explicitly teach students to recognise the multiple causes

responsible for learning outcomes. "Success experiences would provide information

regarding task -appropriate strategies, whereas failure would provide feedback regarding

task-inappropriate strategies" (p.50).

242
In the present study there was limited explicit teacher references to checking p rocedures,

and to the value of checking. A notable exception was with solving simu ltaneous

equations, where checking by back-substitution was an integral part of the procedure.

Indeed, Gareth expressed the view that this procedure was called the "substitution

method" because you "substituted in at the end" ! Unfortunately no connection with a

graphical representation was discussed as an alternative way of checking the

reasonableness of the solution.

The formal assessment u sed in this 6th form course was dominated by questions

requiring repetition of teacher-given procedures. This practice can substantially reduce

the task demand and the corresponding developmen t and use of effective study strategies

(Thomas & Rowher, 1 993). Examples of questions which required a modicum of

original thought either occurred at the end of the test paper, and were awarded few

marks, or were accompanied by hints so as to effectively reduce the demand for high­

level thinking. For example, the following question is the final question for a test on

Graphs and Functions:

2
x -9
S ketch the graph of y =
x+3

[Hint . . . factorise first]

Continuous exposure to this level of assessment i nfluences students' learning strategies.

Gareth demonstrates that he feels influenced by the type of questions in the tests :

Gareth: "It 's more of a concern to know how to get the right answers because you
don 't really get checked much on understanding, all you get is a list of
problems in the test. "

Int: "Do you think you might change your learning if the tests had different kinds
ofproblems ? "

Gareth: "Yeah, yeah, like discuss what the mean is and definitions of the mean and
formulas and stuff like that would make it heaps easier. It would make me
change the way I learn. "

243
The students were well aware of the structure and content of each test.

Adam: "We 've already seen last year's and the year 's before test, so I don 't think
there is going to be much difference. They (teachers) don 't change them
much. "

Students gained information from teacher sought and teacher giVen cues, and from

revision of previous years' papers. The following are examples of teacher provided cues:

Mrs H: "These questions are going to be very similar to the ones in the exam. " ; and

Mrs H: "If there is a question exactly the same as this, with the numbers changed -
which is extremely possible - I will be extremely cross if you haven 't achieved
something. "

The following are examples of students seeking cues from the teacher:

Dean: "So you reckon that this one will be in the test ? ";

Faye: " Will they give us these formula ? " ; and

Jane: "Do we need to know all of those special angle things ? "

The predicability of the test content and structure would encourage a passive learning

approach in which rev ision is reduced to a quick flip through the classroom examples

and teacher-provided summaries.

Mrs H: "On Monday I will give you an algebra summary of all the things you should
be able to do. "

For the most part, students relied on these teacher given cues about the test c on te nt,

teacher given summaries of topics to study, and class revision periods the day before

(which often use copies of previous test) to direct their study activities.

244
Review sessrons reduced the need for students to engage in memory augmentation

activities on their own. What are intended by the teacher as supports for learning become

compensations (Thomas & Rowher, 1 993 ) , disempowering students and denying their

needs to self-regulate their own learning. Evidence from a class study session illustrates

how low achieving students are cued to memorise examples to be recalled in test

situations :

Mrs H: " You need to be able to say in a test, I've done this before, this is how I g o
about it. "

In another review session what began as the modelling of appropriate study strategy was

quickly reversed because of a class management decision .

Mrs H: "/ suggest strongly that you use those kinds of questions in your revision. You
have ten minutes to identify what you can and cannot do and we will go over
that. "

After just a few minutes the teacher interrupted the class and began to go over the paper

starting at No. 1 and continuing on - without regard to the previous instruction which

encouraged students to identify their own particul ar learning needs.

The students in this study generall y lacked an awareness of the role of learning strategies

for revision, nor were they aware of how other students study . Without opportun ities to

reflect on their own l earning and an awareness of possible alternative strategies students

are unable and uninterested in improving their learning performance. The most common

reply when asking students how they could improve their grades was to do more of the

same !

In summary, the pre sent assessment encourages students to use learning strategies

appropriate for rote memorisation, and recall of previously seen examples. The incentive

to use metacognitive monitoring and control strategies to direct the learning process is

limited. There is little need to plan or schedule revision as students know, or hope, that

the teacher will direct their revision a day or so before each test. If one believes that

learning requires i ndependent thinking, assessment should include new tasks requiring

new applications of general principles or procedures (Mitchell , 1 992a).

245
9.3 Contextual Factors

Classroom Discussions

The social n ature of the classroom situation lends itself to opportunities for developing

and encouraging a range of learning strategies. S killed thinkers (often the teacher, but

sometimes more advanced students) can demonstrate desirable ways of tackling

problems, analysing texts, and constructing arguments. "This process opens normally

h idden mental activities to inspection" (Resnick, 1 987 :40). Specifically, in class

discussions students can use elaboration strategies (asking and answering questions), and

demonstrate metacognitive strategies involving evaiuation of understanding and overall

progress.

However, research has found that by the time students reach senior high school there

may be a divergence in attitudes and behaviours regarding help-seeking and questioning

(Newman & Schwager, 1 992). Several of the students in the present study reported that

they felt uncomfortable speaking publicly in class:

B rent: "Well even if I do listen, it 's still more for other people in the class. Like, I
don 't know, I just don 't feel the class is directed at my learning capabilities,
it 's directed higher. Everyone else is more intelligent. The class just moves too
fast for me. "

Although the sample size of students was small, female students were noticeably

reluctant to participate in discussions - thus l imiting opportunities to enhance their

learning with effective and personal feedback.

Karen: "I honestly thought it was called a pictograph. I don 't want to say anything in
case it is so far wrong I embarrass myself "

Jane: "Some of the time I don 't understand the stuff enough in mathematics to
answer questions 'cause I 'll probably get it wrong. I only answer questions if I
know the answers. "

Int: " What about asking questions in class ? "

Jane: "If I don 't understand usually someone e lse asks her to slow down. "

246
B rooks and B rooks ( 1 993 :7) suggest that students' unwillingness to answer teacher' s

questions, unless they are confident that they already know the sought after response, is
�(:'01<-he r�
a direct consequence of teachers' use of questions: "When studgnts ask questions, most

teachers seek not to enable students to think through intricate issues, but to discover

whether students know the "right" answers . " In this study when female students were

unsure of the answer to a direct question they would provide an evasive answer so as to

minimise the risk of exposing mistakes or lack of knowledge. This technique is also used

by students who have not attended to the task - rather than admit to not trying, they

suggest that the task is too difficult, or that they haven ' t quite finished it yet, and thus

put the onus back on the teacher to do the work ! One could view this tactic as a form of

help seeking - but it is limited by its rel iance on the teacher and the situation.

Lucy: "I haven 't a clue "

Jane : "I didn 't know how to start it. "

Jake : "I 'm not sure how to do it. "

Female students however, did report being active m terms of self-dialogue, and on

occasions when they were sure of an answer they participated in the discussion.

Jane: (Corrects the teacher' s error) "I had worked it out on the calculator. I knew
she was wrong because I had checked it on the calculator. It was quite good to
find a mistake. "

Peer Interaction

Although not explicitly encouraged by the teacher, many students cooperated with peers

in help-seeking and help-giving learning activities. As discussed in section 7 .4,

cooperation enables students to share knowledge and skills, and provides students with

additional opportunities to learn new concepts or procedures. When students articulate

processes and concepts, they gain conscious access and control to cognitive and

metacognitive processes. However, it was noted that much of this content-relevant peer

discussion occurred outside the teacher' s awareness, as did much non-relevant

discu ssion !

247
Also, peer groupings were sympathetic and supportive of other students' behaviour. For
'
example, students often covered for a peers off-task behaviour by supplying the answer

or prompting the student.

Mrs H: "Abe the answer to 'b ' ? "

Abe: ''I 'm not up to part b yet. (Dean pushed his book in front of Abe) Oh! 6. "
' '

A modification of the above scenario is the col lective effort of the students to pressure

the teacher to present the information.

Mrs H: "We took five numbers and took the mean. "

Faye: "I don 't remember that, does anyone else remember that? "

Some students (Dean, Kane, Faye) provided feedback as to the level of detail that they

wanted, especially in relation to proofs, and constantly cued the teacher for information

regardin g test questions and topics.

Dean: "We haven 't done these - is it going to be in the test? " (a reference to limit
questions in a previous year' s test paper)

Brent: "Do we have to know this ? " (a reference to trig ratios)

Some students reported a different perspective of the teacher and peers as helpers, and

this view was reflected in their choice of helpers.

Jake: "I ask her (teacher) but I still don 't understand. "

Lucy : "I sort of worry about it (the lesson) if I didn 't understand and I don 't really
have time to ask her (teacher). She sort of gets a bit annoyed when you ask her
'cause she already knows so she expects it to be easy for you. "

The social setting also enabled students to collectively, or sometimes individually,

attempt to determine the pace of the lesson. Feedback, often supported by peers, as to

the difficulty or pace of the lesson was directed to the teacher in an attempt to speed up

or s low the pace.

248
Faye: "Yeah, yeah, we get that, we get that. "

In other i nstances Faye attempts to speed up the pace of the lesson by answering several

question s at once, or by suggesting that the homework review be skipped.

Mrs H: "Any problems with the homework ? '

Faye: " We 've marked them all! "

Within the social setting some students also looked for peer or teacher approval . Dean in

particular, makes public comments about his progress, his ability to answer questions

and his h omework completion .

Mrs H: "Abe, see if you can see any pattern ?

Abe: "Pass. " (teacher gives correct answer)

Dean: (calls out) "I knew that, I told him that. "

Gareth also suggests that answering teacher questions will enhance the teacher' s

assessment of his ability and cooperativeness.

Classroom seating arrangements were also used by students as a method of

environmental control. Students selected seating according to peer groupings: seating

arrangements sometimes enhanced the learning process, but for some students

arrangements provided the necessary distractions to avoid the learning task. Dean

usually was i nvolved with a lot of off-task talk with peers. When separated from peers

by the teacher he reported, "you get a lot more work done separated " .

Use o f resources

S tudents were supplied with two texts and a course summary. As discussed in section

7 . 1 the students' main textbook (Form six mathematics: Revision, B arrett, 1 990) is

divided into small discrete units which provides little incentive for students to connect

topics. Karen was the only student (from i nterviews with each class member) who

reported referring to another unit during the trigonometry section:

Kare n : "I went back to the other trig section when I was looking for proof of sine,
cosine and tangent rule, and there was something else I didn 't understand

249
 about a right angle triangle and I went back to the other trig chapters in the
book. "

Each chapter has a short introduction, followed by worked examples (with explanation

steps), and exercises. Only Adam reported regularly reading the introduction : he used it

to help with learning but found that it had insufficient depth of information. This resulted

in Adam seeking further help from his family. A few students noted that they had l ooked

at the introductory material if it was part of homework reading.

In contrast, all students reported referring to the worked examples. Concordant w ith a

previous study (Anthony, 1 994 ) , involving distance education mathematics students ,

there were reported differences in the manner in which students processed worked

examples.

Faye: "I refer to worked examples to check formula I haven 't memorised yet. "

Dean: "I read worked examples - if I don 't understand it I always refer back to them
and think, oh that 's how you do it. "

Lucy: "I try and work them out and see what they have done. There a re not enough
worked examples. "

Low ach ieving students tended to use the worked example as a recipe; they matched the

steps in the example with the problem. When the student reads the example, learning

only the sequence of actions, they will at most acquire an algorithmic procedures to be

recalled with similar problems.

Craig: "When I 'm stuck I look at a worked example and try to do the same thing. "

Gareth: "I work through the worked example while I 'm doing work, like if I 've got
tro uble with a question I come back and see how they do it with a worked
example. I see how they do it and work backfrom their answer. "

B rent: "I always use the worked example during homework, that 's the only way I
understand how to do it. I just go through them and see if I understand them
and if I don 't I write them out, just go through the steps, read what they have
in the side. "

250
Self-explanations are the process of developing meaning for the self and as such are also

a vital part of learning from worked examples (Chi & B assok, 1 989). What gets

explained (when one is explaining to oneself during worked examples) is how to work

around the problem, how to connect a new piece of information, or how to restructure

or rearrange existing information. Genuine self-explanations will only be initiated when

an incongruity is noted or some integration is needed.

Lucy reports an active learning approach to processi ng the explanations provided by the

text to supplement her own self-explanations:

Lucy: "I don 't usually read the explanation, unless I 'm stuck. I can usually sort of
see what they 've done anyway. "

Jake uses the explanations as a check after first trying to work it out for himself.

Jake: "I look at the worked examples to see what you 're doing and look at the
explanations to see what you 're meant to be doing. "

However, low achieving students regard these explanations as ' recipe instructions' - the

supply of explanations means that these students no longer need to apply elaborative

learning strategies to construct meaning from the worked example. For example, despite

Gareth reporti ng that, "the explanations are pretty helpful in generally working it out,

sort of seeing where they are going ", he sometimes misuses these explanations when
applying them to exercises (see example in section 8.2). These behaviours contribute to

dependence, eliminate the need to think for oneself, and foster the growth of learned

helplessness .

The text glossary is a particularly valuable resource a t this level. I t was frequently used

by students .

Dean: "If she (teacher) asks what something means I always turn to the back to say,
'urn this is what it means '. "

Karen: "I always look up the glossary when there is a word I don 't understand. "

Several students had difficulties with mathematics terminology. For example, Gareth

confuses the terms derivative and deviation, x dash and x bar, table and graph, and had
trouble understanding the definition of frequency when the g lossary referred to it as a

25 1
tally. Dean asked what the word assumption means - the word was asymptote. B rent
asked, "what does the c arrow thing mean ? " - referrin g to the < sign. More

encouragement to use the glossary in homework assignments may be of some help.

Students need explicit instruction in ways to help themselves to learn from textual

resources, i ncluding learning the language requirements of mathematics.

While some students (Dean , Brent and Gareth) referred to previous years' notes to assist

with revision, in general, students ' learning was constrained by their lack of use of

resources.

B rent: "I don 't use the other text (McLaughlin, 1 985). It 's in the wrong order - too
hard tofind the same topics. I go back to the· third and fourth form on algebra
and stuff It 's got really basic stuff and it just refreshes your memory. "

The m ajority of students used the ir texts only as directed by the teacher, confining

themsel ves to a narrow set of exercises, and referring to worked examples and

explanatory material only when stuck. With regard to thei r present text students

generally felt that there were plenty of exercises. However, the more dependent, passi ve

learners in the class expected the teacher to explain what the book says rather than make

sense o f it themselves. Their suggestions for an ideal text included: "a good cover " ;

"more notes "; and "questions like you would get in an actual exam - they should be
worded the same. " In contrast, more active learners explored their text by trying further
problems, seeking further information about the topic, and previewing material . While

these students felt that there were enough exercises, they suggested that the ideal book

should have more explanations, "like where fomwlas come from" and more worked

examples.

The teacher did remark that reading a mathematics textbook is different to reading a

novel . However, on the few occasions when students were expected to read some

explanatory material, it was assumed that students had the necessary skills to effectively

process the text.

252
Mrs H : "Instead of doing examples for homework you can do some reading and
summarising. I 'm not just asking you to read like you would a novel - it 's a
concentrated read. "

Students who view texts solely as a source of exercises may become dependent on oral

i nstruction from the teacher and h ave difficulty using the text effectively to overcome

difficu lties during homework sessions. Students need to be taught how to make effective

uses of thei r text if they are to function as autonomous, self regulated learners in tertiary

studies.

Another resource given to students was an outli ne of the 6th form topics and assessment

plan ( Course summary). While some students used this to check topics for each test,

other students appeared u naware of i ts existence. Possibly when i t was handed out at the

beginning of the year these students either did not value its usefulness, or felt hopeful

that the teacher would provide such information for them at appropriate times during the

year.

Learning outside of the classroom

In an ideal learning environment learning mathematics should n ot cease as soon as the

student leaves the classroom. Homework and revision sessions shou l d provide

opportu n i ties for consolidating achievement and farther independent learning. However,

students' opi ni ons about homework were varied, ranging from "essential" and "helpful"

to "hopeless" !

Lucy: "/ don 't mind homework if it 's not too long. I think it 's quite important to
practice what you 've done or you 'll forget it. Also it 's important to do it by
yourself because in class you usually see what your friends have done. "

Lucy ' s comments reflect metacognitive evaluations as well as the more usual rehearsal

strategy referred to i n the following comment from Dean.

Dean: "I think it 's (homework) importantfor the reconciliation (sic) of the work that
you 've done in class. . . Doing exercises is the most important thing. "

B rent however, doesn't l ike homework at all !

253
B rent: .. I don 't like homework. I attempt it, but I just don 't understand it so I give
up.

In the present study, students' tendency to do homework was influenced by mon i toring

of thei r u nderstanding in class. They interpret this in an uniquely individual manner. For

example, Jake supports the idea of homework as a form of rev ision but finds that h i s l ack

of understanding of the lesson inhibits his abi lity to complete homework.

Jake: "I only attempt homework if I know what I 'm doing. There 's no point in going
through it if you don 't understand the days work 'cause you won 't be able to
do the homework. I 'm not understanding the days work so tha t 's why I haven 't
done much homework lately. "

Thi s view contrasts to those of Kane and Abe who feel homework is beneficial when

understanding is lacking in class.

lnt: .. If you were having difficulty with the lesson would you take the homework
home ? "

Kane: It would be more important to take the homework home because if you didn 't
..

learn anything then you 're going to be behind in the next class. " and

Abe: "If there 's something I don 't understand in class then I might just look at the
book, but I won 't get any paper out or anything. I just look through it - I look
at the part of the book where it explains it right at the beginning. It doesn 't
happen very often! "

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons ( 1 986) found that high school students use of self­

regulated learning strategies in non-classroom situations displayed substantial correlation

with academic achievement. As learning outside of the classroom is l argely unsupervise d

o n e wou l d expect that knowledge and use o f learning strategies would b e especially

important (Thomas & Rowher, 1 993). Evans ( 1 99 1 a) , using both concurrent and

retrospective interviews to examine secondary school mathematics students' homework

behaviours, concluded that learning strategies used at home largel y reflected those

practiced by students i n the classroom.

254
 While there was a considerable and varied range of higher order procedures
enacted in the classrooms, the major actor in this was the teacher, the students '
main role being to answer questions posed by the teacher. The amount of time
allocated to knowledge and understanding of mathematics structures was less,
and again it was the teacher who took responsibility for this work. The
procedures used by the students in their homework overall reflected these
classroom emphases, with application of specific procedures being the most
common processing activity .. .lt is questionable whether the absence of active
reflection on the part of the students, either in class or during homework,
constitutes the most useful approach to mathematics education. " (p. 1 4 1 )

Findings in the present study support Evan' s conclusion. There were disappointingly few

reports of the metacognitive behaviours of planning and previewing for this level of

seni or mathematics students. The majority of the students' homework activities were

teacher directed: they did not see it as necessary, nor important, to do any activity other

than those specified by the teacher. Most students did only the set exercises and

appeared somewhat surprised at being asked if they did any alternative problems, o r

further reading. Student reports reflected the teacher-dependent attitude evidenced in

thei r class behaviours. They fel t that they would not be able to understand anythi ng that

the teacher hadn ' t covered i n class, and that it was irrelevant to their learning to read the

text further:

lnt: "Do you ever do any more exercises or look ahead in the text ? "

Faye: "No because I won 't understand it. "

At home there were two major factors influencing strategic learning beh aviours:

avail ability of time, and availability of expert help and resources.

Pressure of Time

Only three of the twel ve students (Adam, Craig and Lucy) did not have out of school

employment, and seven of the twelve students worked ten hours or more. With these

commitments, combined with extra-curricula activities, doing homework every night

seemed a n impossibility for many students. Revision also seemed vulnerable to pressures

of time:

255
Karen: "I 'm not going to have time for revzswn, I haven 't done my English
assignment. "

Craig: "/just do revision if I have time. "

Time was a certainly a major factor toward the end of the 6th form assessment period.

Several students reported giving up u nder the strain of five for six tests and assignments

due in one week.

Faye: "If I 'd done some study I could have done better (in a mathematics test) but I
had too much pressure on me this week. I have had 1 0 (maybe an
exaggeration?) tests this week. "

Availability of help
Availability of help at home influences students' learning in an on-going way - rather

than j ust as a presage entry variable. For many students the decision to take homework

home, and the efforts that go into homework, are moderated by the availability of help

outside the classroom.

Kane: "My brother 's at Massey. He 's pretty good at maths and if I 'm stuck I ask
him. I normally try and work it out myself 'cause then I know what I 've done
wrong. I would go to my brother if I didn 't understand it at all. "

Faye: "I don 't have any help at home, but if I 'm really, really stuck I'll just ring
someone else who 'll probably know what they 're doing and ask the teacher
next day. I remember which one it was and ask. "

Int: "Have you got anyone at home who can help with your maths ? "

Lucy: "No, not really, I mean we go through it the next day in class anyway so I
don 't really need to. "

Availability of help at home also influences in-class help-seeking beh aviours. For

example, in the statistics lesson Adam reported that he made a decision in class to seek

help at home rather than press the teacher to elaborate on the n ature of the standard

error. Dean ' s class behaviour also appears to be influenced by the availability of help

from his tutor. His class behaviour is often disruptive and he appears to give up when the

256
'going gets tough ' - "Oh, I 'll get my tutor to show me this ", and puts the responsibility

for learning onto h i s tutor.

Behaviours reported for revision were of a similar nature to homework strategies. The

majority of students felt that rev ision did not actually provide opportunities for learning

mathematics, rather revision enabled one to rehearse what was already known.

Jake: "Revision just puts all the stuff back in my mind. I don 't think tests help you
learn at all. They just make you really nervous. You 've just got to try and
cram it in, a certain amount, and you 're not really learning anything at all. "

Karen: "I think tests are important, but they don 't make a lot of difference. I worry if
I know I'm going to fail it, and if I know it 's going to be a hard test, then I will
do a lot of study for it. "

Jane: "I think tests are good. You get to summarise everything that you 've learnt
and you need to know. It gives you extra practice. You don 't really learn
anything more, it 's just going over everything you know. "

Adam: "I think the test is just an extra to make sure you understand things - they
don 't make me work hard. "

Dean however, expressed the view that tests were important for collecting marks:

Dean: "I think tests are mainly so we can get end of year marks. ' Cause when are
you going to use like the sort of trigonometry we do when you leave school? -
there 's probably a one-in-a-million chance! "

One can see the impact of Dean ' s metacognitive knowledge on his rev ision strategies:

Dean: "! ' d do a couple of hours before I go to bed so I 'm nice and fresh for the test
in the morning. "

Int: "Do you pay much attention to the teacher cues about the test? "

Dean: "Cues are heaps important 'cause it 's not much point studying for something
that 's not going to be in the test. If you know what's sort of going to be in the
test you can base your study around it. "

257
It appears that while many students view homework as important, its value is in

providing practice opportunities. Very little planning, previewmg, diagnosis of

difficulties, or reflective learning activities were reported. Similarly, reviSion was

important for consolidating ideas, but students made little use of higher-order

organisational strategies and self monitoring strategies to enhance revision, tending to

rely more on the rehearsal strategies of rereading and practice.

Moreover, homework provided little incentive for s tudents to develop autonomous

learning behaviours. Rather than support the development of higher order self-regulatory

learning strategies through the use of resource management strategies, affective control

and metacognitive behaviour, homework tended to reinforce the view that learning

mathematics was al l about completing problems from a textbook, especially problems set

by the teacher.

9.4 Summary

The present study has provided much evidence to support the Interactive Model of

Learning Mathematics (section 2.3). The influence of both presage and product factors
on strategic learning behaviours was clearly demonstrated in both the students'

classroom and home learning environments. In support of the constructivist learning

paradigm, the influence of prior knowledge was seen to be especially important. Without

access to relevant domain knowledge students were unable to provide appropriate

elaborations and therefore the likelihood of forming generalisations from worked

examples was limited. Moreover, without appropriate metacognitive knowledge,

strategic behaviours focused on task completion rather than knowledge construction and

understanding.

Positive instructional factors affecting students' strategic learning behaviours included:

• teacher proximity to students while moving about the room encouraged help seeking;

• teacher/student discussions encouraged elaborations;

258
• summarising on the blackboard prompted students to review their u nderstanding; and

• teacher direction and task specification promoted student attention .

Additionally, this study highlights vanous instructional factors which appear to

contribute toward passive learning behaviours. In particular, if classroom instruction and

assessment revolve around the end p roduct of the task, students will be encouraged to

view learning in terms of ' doing' or 'completing' a task and gear their strategies to that

end.

" The affective tone, characteristic goals, ways of approaching mathematical

tasks, and attitudes to knowledge - whether constructed or acquired from others -
that the learner observes in the classroom, may become what mathematics is for
him o r her, and may contribute to the kinds of thinking and learning and
problem-solving strategies that the learner uses in undertaking mathematical
tasks. " (Evans, 1 99 1 a: 1 26)

In the present study there were occasions when the teacher, i n trying to support the

student' s learning, effectively reduced the learning demands on the student by doing the

student 's thinking and processing for them. Students were not disposed to seek and
evaluate information on their own, preferring to rely on the teacher to automaticall y

direct their learning. As students convince the teacher to b e more direct, and to lower

the ambiguity and risk in classroom tasks, instruction may inadvertently mediate
against the development of higher-order skills.

To promote h igher-order thinking in the mathematics class we may require a less direct

i nstructional approach - one that transfers some of the burden for teaching and learning

from the teacher to the student, and promotes greater student autonomy and

independence in the learning process. Moreover, if mathematics is to be viewed as a

social activity, more acknowledgment needs to be afforded to the social nature of

classroom learn ing. Results from this study showed that not all students benefited fro m

t h e opportunity t o interact with peers a n d resources, and help-seeking behaviours were

greatly influenced by contextual factors.

259
 Chapter 10

Conclusions

An awareness of learning strategies and the ability to employ them can provide
students with the potential to learn with understanding and the requirements to
overcome failure.
(Herrington, 1 990: 3 3 3 )

10. 1 What Learning Strategies are Important in Mathematics?

Thi s study has shown that students use a w ide range of cognitive, metacogn itive,

affective and resource management learning strategies. From a constructivist learning

perspective these learning strategies are seen as essential : how else c an students be

actively involved in constructing their own mathematical knowledge, if not by using

learning strategies? However, the case studies c learly demonstrate that knowing about

learning strategies per se is not the issue. It is the knowledge and use of appropriate

learning strategies that differentiates between successful and unsuccessful learning

outcomes.

Learning strategies are, by definition, planned and goal directed, therefore the

appropriateness of any strategy is in part mediated by the students' metacogn itive

knowledge, in particular their beliefs about learning mathematics. It was evident from the

present study that when students' learning w as directed towards understanding and

constructing new knowledge, appropriate learning strategies were more likely to be

employed. Active o r i ntentional learners viewed classroom and homework activities as a

260
 means to learn and understand mathematics, rather than solely as tasks to be

completed.

In contrast, less successfu l students, such as Gareth, who believe that mathematics is

largely about recal ling worked examples, employed learning strategies largely to meet

this goal. As we have seen, obtai ning a written record, either by copying from the

teacher' s worked examples or completing exercises, was a major focus of Gareth ' s

cl assroom acti vities, and he consequently directed his learning strategies towards task

completion. Any mathematical understanding and knowledge construction that did occur

was largel y incidental to task completion.

Appropriate beliefs regarding the nature of learning and the discipline of mathematics

need to develop in concert with learni ng strategies in a mutually reinforcing way.

Effective learners need to have knowledge of a wide range of learning strategies t o

enable selection o f strategies appropriate t o individual tasks. A "good strategy u ser"

(Pressley et al. , 1 987) needs to know the 'whens ' and 'whys' of strategy use. That is, a

student needs extensive metacognitive knowledge of both the general utility o f the

strategy and of the appropriate task conditions. For example, it is important that students

can differentiate between strategies appropriate for revision of open-book tests and

closed-book tests. While some s tudents expressed a knowledge of differing task

demands, few were able to effecti vely adapt their revision strategies to cope with the

varying demands of different types of tests . Karen 's strategy reflects a reliance on the

text to provide the answers for her, although she does acknowledges that some

famili arity with the text would be advantageous.

Kare n : "In an open-book test you can go through the text and learn the formulas or
find out from the textbook how to solve it. So you don 't have to do as much
revision 'cause e verything is in the textbook. I might just read the textbook
through the night before. "

Cognitive strategies employed by s tudents to encode and integrate new information with

prior knowledge included rehearsal, elaboration, and organisational strategies. S eatwork

and homework exercises were used as an opportunity to con·solidate new procedures.

26 1
The more successfu l students also evaluated their own understanding, and sought

assistance from peers, family or the teacher during these learning episodes. Students who

were aware of the value of over-learning actively sought opportunities to rehearse

information. This was in direct contrast with less successful students who frequently

expres sed the view that once a procedure is learnt or understood practice is no l onger

necessary. These students employed rehearsal strategies mainly to promote short-term

memory of procedures for recall in tests.

Successful students employed elaborative strategies, such as linking between topics and

problem types, imagery, self-explanations, and questioning to enhance thei r learn i ng

processes. Their elaboration strategies relied to a large extent on a requisite level of prior

knowledge for successful implementation. All students were prompted by instructional

cues to elaborate. However, prior knowledge determined not only what material w as

elaborated, but also influenced the nature of the elaboration process itself. Without

relevant prior knowledge students may not always achieve the teacher-intended

outcome. Insufficient domain knowledge, combined with surface learning goals, res ulted

in e laborations focussed on recall of previous experiences, rather than recall of

conceptual information . Those students using recall were largely limited to attemptin g

problems types similar to those seen before.

B rent: "Is that the same as the limit question we had in the test the other day ? "

Gareth : "Oh, is that all that question wanted. If you had asked it the same way as you
had in class I could have done that one. "

I n contrast, students with relevant prior knowledge were often able to resolve conflicts

and construct new knowledge, based on a reconstruction of existing knowledge

incorporated with new information.

The process of reflection is widely advocated by mathematics educators as an essential

element of the constructivist learning process. Constructivism "allows one to emphasize

that we are at least partially able to be aware of these constructions, and then to modify

them through our conscious reflection on that constructive process" (Confrey, 1 990:

262
1 09 ) . Reflection, u sed in this sense, covers a wide range of metacognitive behaviours

which were evident in the behaviour of successful students.

Metacogniti ve strategies enabled students to control and regu late their learning.

Although all students reported using metacognitive strategies, the effectiveness and

specificity of the strategies varied between individuals. Student reports and observations

of monitoring u nderstanding and production evaluation were widespread. However, the

accuracy and subsequent action taken, as a result of monitoring and evaluations,

differentiated the more successful students from the less successful students. For

example, Gareth was unable to successfu lly evaluate his learning; more often than not he

over estimated his ability to complete seatwork and expressed unfounded confi dence in

his understanding of the lesson.

Gareth : "It wasn 't really as complicated as she (teacher) said. You just shift the tables
from one column to the next. "

Gareth often had many, and sometimes all, of his seatwork exerci ses i ncorrect, but

because he neither marked them, nor sought assistance, he profited little from his e fforts.

In contrast, more successfu l students reported frequent epi sodes of monitoring related to

not u nderstanding. The recognition of conflicts and confusion enabled them to seek

strategic remedies in the form of questioning, help seeking, anticipation, problem

diagnosis, selective attention, and reflection.

Selective attention to features of the learning task was mediated by the students'

expectations about the learning task and their prior knowledge. Students whose goal was

to u nderstand, focussed on procedural and conceptual issues. They reported elaborations

of linking between topics, self-questions and self-explanations. They were aware of the

need to focus attention on particular concerns and reported anticipating teacher

explanations which woul d assist to resolve conflicts and difficulties. In contrast, when

expectations and/or prior knowledge are inconsistent with the teacher-presented learning

goals, the student may focus on inappropriate aspects of the task. For example, during

homework review, Gareth focused on marking with ticks and completing calcul ations,

rather than on specific difficulties to be resolved .

263
Reports of affective reactions were common from all students. However, there was no

evidence that there were qual itative differences in affective strategies between less and

more successful students. Whereas some students (like Adam) reported being on task for

most of the lesson, other successful students (like Faye and Karen) interspersed episodes

of work with off-task tal k. Corno ( 1 989) suggests that thi s may be a purposeful strategy

to avoid overtax ing the information-processing system. Efforts to stay motivated and on­

task appeared to be based largely on personal learning styles and somewhat unrelated to

performance outcomes.

The appropriate employment of resource management strategies are closely linked to

metacognitive behaviours. Resource management strategies enabled students to behave

adapti vely and control the learning environment. Successful students used resource

management strategies to enhance their own learning needs by adapting their learning

task , to seek help from other persons or resources, and to control the physical n ature of

their environment.

The u se of appropriate help-seeking was found to be a critical factor in students'

learning success. With the exception of Adam, those students who sought help

cooperatively from peers appeared to benefit most from classroom seatwork. They were

able to bridge gaps in procedural and conceptual knowledge and complete all the

required exercises. Those students who preferred to ' wait and see' if help came via the

teacher review were less likely to be successful. Willingness to seek help in homework

sessions was important if homework was to be more that just a practice of what was

already learnt in class. The fact that Adam rarely asked questions in class may have been

v iewed as inefficient, if it were not for the fact that Adam always sought help from

family members at home. Although not explicitly encouraged by the instructional

demands, knowledge of how best to use the textbook, i ncluding the contents, index,

i ntroduction and glossary, assisted students to optimise their learning outside the

c lassroom.

264
Of all the students in the present study, Adam (A grade) consistently reported using the

range of learning strategies which are widely promoted by mathematics educators (see

section 4.2). However, although his learning was intentional, well planned and controlled

by effective metacognitive behaviours, he preferred to rely on help from home rather

than from peers and teacher. He rarely questioned the teacher, and his efforts to plan and

work independently were hampered by lack of course information. Also, as a direct

result of the teacher-provided summaries, Adam only occasionall y made summanes

himself, and he exhibited limited use of higher-order organisational strategies.

Examples of strategi c behaviours which were c haracteristic of the more successful

students in this study are provided in Figure 6. However, as noted earlier, having

strategic knowledge, or even using a range of strategies, did not necessarily guarantee

successful learning. Levin ( 1 98 8 : 1 96) suggested that "in order for students to apply

learning strategies effectively and independently two critical "cogs" (Levin, 1 98 6) - as

represented by cognitive and metacognitive components - must be in place and smoothl y

functioni ng". Appropriate metacognitive knowledge and behaviour empower s tudents to

pursue cogni tive goals of their own and thus makes them less dependent of school-work

procedures.

The present study concludes that not only must these 'critical cogs' be in place, but also

students must be willing to be 'active' or ' intentional' learners (Bereiter & Scardamalia,

1 989). Quality learning can only occur with the consent of the learner: "One cannot

mandate high order i ntellectual activity such as reflecting on and con tributing towards

one' s own ideas" (Mitchell, 1 992a:80). Successful students in the present study

appeared willing to accept a greater responsibility for their achievement outcomes by

selecting, structuring and creating a learning environment which opti :rriised their learning.

However, as discussed in the previous chapter, unless the learning environment values

and encourages mastery learning, and explicitly encourages the development of

autonomous learning behaviours necessary for constructivist learning, many learners will

fai l to optimise their strategic learning potential.

265
 Strategic Learning Behaviours of Successful Students

Cognitive Strategies
• completes a lot of problems for practice/over-learning (Adam)
• elaborated new knowledge to personal knowledge and beliefs ( Karen)
• elaborates new knowledge to prior knowledge, links information as well as recall
(Karen, Adam)
• organises notes and exercises for l ater reference (Jane)
• codes exercises to indicate problems for later reference (Jane, Karen)
uses colour coding, font changes for emphasis (Gareth)
• is attentive and on-task most of the time (Adam, Karen)

Metacognitive Behaviours
• plans and anticipates learning by readi ng ahead in the text (Adam)
• monitors personal progress in relation to other students (Karen)
• monitors understanding effectively (Adam, Jane, Karen)
• evaluates procedures and algorithms c ritically (Adam, Jane and Karen)
• reflects on the work over a period of time (Adam)
• is aware of the need for revision (Karen, Adam)
• uses a range of checking strategies (Adam)
• diagnoses reasons for comprehension and mastery failures (Jane, Adam)
• self-evaluates progress over a topic, assesses readiness for test (Adam)
• selectively attends to conceptual aspect of the material (Adam)
• selectively attends to teacher' s comments based on interest and need (Adam, Karen)

Affective Strategies
• controls self motivation (Adam)
• varies routine to avoid boredom (Faye)

Resource management strategies

• seeks opportunities for rehearsal during teacher/class discussion (Adam)
• seeks appropriate assistance (Adam)
• proactively seeks out information from resources (Adam)
• cooperates with other peers (Karen) , family (Adam)
• modifies tasks to increase learning potential (Adam, Faye)
• monitors the teacher' s movements/comments during seatwork (Karen, Adam)
• selects seating arrangement to suit personal learning style (Adam, Faye, Karen)

Figure 6: Strategic Learning Behaviours

266
1 0.2 When Students Fail to Use Learning Strategies

While establishing that learning strategies, and in particular metacognitive strategies,

are a significant factor in successfu l student learning, it is equally i mportant to identify

situ ations i n which students do not behave strategically. Although many students do

'figure out' how to learn as a result of repeated exposure to tasks that require strategic

planning, a large number of students fail to acqui re adequate learning-to-learn skills.

Some learners, despite considerable effort, both in class and at home, are u nsuccessful

in their learning endeavours. The present study has shown that an examination of

stu dents' strategic learning behaviours reveals: many students are either not using

appropriate learning strategies; or there i s a discrepancy between learning strategies that

they should (or are expected) to use, and those that they do use; or those strategies that

they do use are i neffective.

Specifical ly, learners may not benefit from strategic learning because:

• they fail to realise that a cognitive problem exists;

• their strategic knowledge is inadequate for the problem they have identified;

• they have the necessary content, or strategic knowledge to remedy the existing

problem , but apply it ineffectively ;

• they choose not to remediate the problem; or

• the learning environment i s not supportive of strategy use.

Failure to Identify the problem

Strategies are either processes that are u sed to reach a learning goa l , or they are brought

into play when a problem in understanding or performance is encountered. Research

studies (Anthony, 1 99 1 ; Chi & B assok, 1 989) suggest that it is the less successful

students who either monitor i naccurately or do not monitor at all . When learners (like

Gareth) do not fully understand how to evaluate their learning, they do not necessarily

detect this failure. Such students may make incorrect j udgements about their

u nderstanding, based on criteria such as fol lowing the teachers' working, getting a

certain percentage correct, or merely getting the first exercise correct.

267
Inappropriate metacognitive knowledge concerning learning goals, and bel iefs about

mathematics learning, are often related to inaccurate self-monitoring. In Gareth ' s case

we saw that he equated 'completing' a problem with 'being able to understand' or

'having learnt' the problem. Sometimes the very act of doing a problem assured Gareth

that it was correct. He did not reflect on the reasonableness of the answer and, on

occ asions when he failed to verify his answer, he missed the opportunity to learn from

probable errors. In an example reported in section 8 . 2 , Gareth felt assured that he was

correctly squaring the numerator and denominator, so did not mark his work .

Gareth: "I thought it was a good lesson. I thought it was pretty easy, some of it. . / know
.

when you have a surd at the bottom you 've got to square it so you wouldn 't
have one at the bottom and I know why. It makes sense not having surds at the
bottom because it wouldn 't go into any other number. "

Other students also reported not marking, or even not doing, their homework based on

personal j udgement of how easy it was.

Int: "Do you mark your homework ? '

Dean : "If I 'm having difficulty I do, but if I think I 'm understanding it I just leave it. "

Alexander and Judy ( 1 988) suggest that strategic processmg IS more effective and

efficient when students possess at least a foundation of domain knowledge. For a

student like Gareth, a lack of prior knowledge means that most of the content appeared

relatively ' new' and there is little basis on which to assess present understanding.

Furthermore, past experiences in l earning mathematics had shaped Gareth ' s

metacogn itive knowledge to the extent that he expressed l ittle, if any, expectation of

understanding the presented content. If n o problem in understanding is identified (even

i f one does exist), a student is unlikely to be strategic (Garner, 1 990a). Because

recognising that there is a problem is a precondition to employing any kind of remedial

strategy, it is not surprising that Gareth rarely seeks explicit help from the teacher, nor

expresses frustration in class.

Gareth: "It wasn 't really as complicated as she said. You just shift the tables from one
column to the next. "

268
Strategic Knowledge

Sometimes learners fai l to be strategic, not because they cannot recognise that a

problem exists, but because they do not know how to remedy the problem that they

have identified. For example, Jane recognised that she did not understand the teacher' s

explanation, but previous attempts at asking for teacher assistance rarely proved

helpfu l , resulting in the fol low ing reported metacognitive knowledge:

Jane: "If you ask the teacher a question she just explains it in the same way. If you
didn 't understand it the first time it 's not much use. "

Moreover, Jane lacked the necessary strategy knowledge to remedy the situ ation. S he

occasionally cooperated with peers to gain extra assistance, but more often withdrew

from the learning situation . Jake was another student who lacked help-seeking s ki l l s . It

was not unusual for Jake to spend all of his seatwork time appearing to be working, but

actually doing no work at all in his book. This pattern continued with homework:

Jake: "/ only attempt the homework if I know what I 'm doing. There 's no point in
going through the homework - if you don 't understand the day 's work you
won 't be able to do the homework. . ! don 't bother to take the homework home
.

if it 's too hard. "

An examination of students' revision strategies indicated another area in which some

students have inadequate knowledge of appropriate learning strategies. While a few

students reported that they thought about the topics to be studied, many failed to make

use of the course summary , or report any planning of revision content. Moreover, some

students failed to assess whether they had done adequate revision - it had not occurred

to them to evaluate or monitor their revision strategies. Replies to the question "How do

you know whether you have done enough study?" included:

Gareth: "/ don 't know, when you start getting heaps of questions right I suppose. "

Jane: "/ don 't know, just when I get sick of it. "

Dean: "Well ifyou 're getting it right with the answers in the back of the book. "

269
Most students were unaware of alternative methods of improving their revision

performance. Their suggestions of general strategies, usually involving doing more of

the same, reflected their reliance on increased effort, rather than speci fic knowledge of

alternative strategies:

Faye: "Do some examples, just the same sort of thing really. "

Jane: "Spend longer. "

Gareth: "Go through the examples more slowly. "

Jake: "Try and understand the work more. "

Brent: "Work longer and harder. "

Only Adam qualified his suggestion to do more : "Do more exercises if possible, but as

long as they are not all straightforward exercises. "

Only a few students previewed topic material . The majority preferred to let the teacher

tell them what tasks and when to do them. It is not conclusive from this study whether

students were not aware of the value of previewing, or whether they s i mply chose not

to preview. Gareth however, did comment that he had tried reading ahead and doing

some extra exercises, but because he h ad met w ith little success he had abandoned the

strategy.

Gareth: "Sometimes I do (read ahead) when it 's straightforward, but usually everything
else is too hard. "

On the few occasions when homework reading was assigned there was little indication

as to the purpose or value of the activity and most students simply ignored this type of

homework.

No students reported, or were observed, to be using organisational strategies such as

concept mapping o r flow diagrams. Moreover, as discussed more ful ly i n section 9.2,

students' summaris ing behaviours were almost exclusively teacher directed. It i s of

some concern whether students have sufficient expertise in locating the main ideas of a

lesson to enable the m to form their own summaries.

270
Applying knowledge appropriately

S tudents may possess a repertoire of learning strategies but not always employ the

appropriate strategy . Nickerson ( 1 989) refers to misapplication of a strategy as a

"failu re of commission". Gamer ( 1 988) suggests that a signifi cant aspect of strategic

learning is the need for flexible use. Thi s implies that knowing when to use a learning

strategy (conditional knowledge) is as important as knowledge how to use it. If the

wrong strategy is used, or if an appropriate strategy is used i neffectively, then learning

performance may be diminished. For example, when Gareth i s stuck with a problem i n

c lass h e is aware that h e can ask for help, or try to help himself by comparin g the

problem to a worked example, reading the text, or working backwards from the ans wer.

However, on several occasions Gareth was observed to unsuccessfully work backwards

from an answer by trying various substitutions on his calculator; in one i nstance thi s

w a s observed for a period of over five minutes. When asked w h y h e didn 't ask for help,

Gareth replied, "/ only call her if I 'm really in trouble, I learn more by figuring out how

they got it myself, you know doing it myself". Unfortunately, the instances when Gareth
actually 'figured it out' were rare. Gareth ' s situation was compounded by the fact that
�0
w he n he did ask for assistance the teacher was l ikely"attend · Gareth ' s presentation, or

to do the problem for him, rather than assist him to ' figure it out' ! Gareth ' s selective

focus on computations, and i ndeed his persistence in self-checking each step during

teacher explan ations, i s another example of an ineffective strategy application.

I n other instances, well practiced routines, such as keyword strategies that produce a

product, any product, can also inhibit the use of more effecti ve learning enhancing

strategies. Levin ( 1 986) suggests that both more and less successful learners believe

that an i neffective learning strategy is effective just because it is commonly used or

prescribed. Unfortunately the tendency to persist in using procedures once they are well

rehearsed, without reflection on them, or examining them further, h as been w i dely

noted (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1 992).

27 1
Choosing to be strategic

Another explanation for students' failure to use strategic learning behaviours is that

even when students have appropriate strategic knowledge they may choose not to u se i t

(Borkowski & Muthukrishma, 1 992; Palmer & Goetz, 1 98 8 ; Pintrich & Schrauben,

1 992). Because employing learning strategies requires effort, and does n ot always result

in successful learning, students may merely avoid their use (Garner, 1 990a). There are

three interrelated reasons why students from this study sometimes chose not to employ

strategies, despite having knowledge of appropriate strategies.

Firstly, if students do not judge the learning behaviour as significant or usefu l , it is

unlikely that they will pursue it in the absence of external directives or incentives (Paris

et al., 1 983). Without conditional knowledge regarding why a particular strategy is

usefu l , it might only be executed in compl iance with a teacher request. For example,

some students were unaware of the value of using the textbook as a resource -

preferring to rely on the teacher for information and instructions about which pages to

study, and which exercises to complete.

Secondly, on many occasiOns students appeared to not want the bother of acting

strategically. Passive learning behaviours exhibited by some students suggested that

they are accustomed to being ' spoon fed ' and told what to do. For example, when the

teacher questioned students' understanding she assumed, but did not require, that

students would respond accordingly . However, students who knew that general

questions such as, "Do you all follow that?", did not necessarily require a response,

would be u nlikely to monitor their cognitions rigorously. By ass igning much of the

responsibil i ty for their learning to the teacher, students simply avoided employing

strategic learning behaviours. Students who were accustomed to tasks that required

minimal involvement resisted the teac her' s attempt to engage them i n more complex

and ambiguous tasks by negotiating the task demands downwards.

Additionally, the cost-benefit trade-off and effort required by strategic learning

behaviours may influence whether students choose to employ them. Students may

regard an action to be relevant, meaningfu l , and useful for a particular goal, but they

272
may also perceive it to be cumbersome or demanding. Lucy, for example, expresses

some concern about the personal cost of behaving strategically:

lnt: "Would you askfor help ? "

Lucy: "I probably would, but you feel a bit dumb. "

The stress involved in expecting to look stupid (and avoiding situations where that i s

most likely to occur) "can lead ego-involved students t o give up, and decide against

i nvoking effortful strategies" (Garner & Alexander, 1 98 9 : 1 53).

Moreover, students are unlikely to invoke strategies demanding time and effort i f they

bel ieve that the strategies will not make any difference, and that they w i l l fai l to

perform successfully. Gareth, for example, feel s that last minute revision of exercises is

not effective in improving performance.

Gareth : "Last year I kept on bumming out because I did examples and my brain just
couldn 't handle all the examples. "

Thirdly, at times student choices of actions and goals are influence by i ndividual factors

such as mood, tiredness, learning styles, risk taking, achievement aspirations, self­

concept, fear of failure, and fluctuating motivation. To succeed strategically the learner

needs both the "skill and the will" (Pintrich & De Groot, 1 990) - if the student is not

motivated to achieve h igh grades, or not interested in mathematics, then the student i s

unlikely t o i nvoke deep-processing strategies.

Self attributions are another significant factor. Gamer ( 1 990a: 52 1 ) concludes that

"without h igh self-esteem and the tendency to attribute success and failure to their level

of effort, both children and adults are unlikely to i nitiate or persist at strategic activity".

In l ight of the fol lowing self-assessment from B rent i t is not surprising that he only

occasionally attempts homework.

B rent: "I think homework is to see if you can do it on my own. Like, I can 't do it on
my own - it reflects in my tests and stuff "

I n particular, students who attribute success to luck, or ability (which they haven' t got)

are unlikely to be motivated to be strategic.

273
Classroom learning environment

Th i s study has found that although classroom instruction is designed to support

strategic learn ing there are, on occasions, contextual and instructional factors which

inhibit the development o f such behaviours - especially strategies related to self­

regulation and autonomous learning. Maintaining coverage of the course content while

focussing on qual ity learning has been a persistent tension in mathematics instruction .

Contextual influences on strategic learning behaviours, such as availability of peer

support, involvement in class discussions, availabil ity of resources and help; combined

with instructional factors issuing from teacher-directed instruction, questioning

techniques, use of homework review, and assessment, have been discussed fully in

Chapter 9.

In summary, conventional instructional practices which emphasise routi nes for sol ving

'textbook problems' and domain content knowledge, place too l ittle emphasis on the

other aspects of mathematical knowledge (see Neyland, 1 994b) - including

metacognitive knowledge. As a consequence, appropriate metacognitive knowledge

that is critical for mathematical thinking does not devel op. Students who lack

knowledge of learning strategies, i ncluding conditional strategy knowledge, are unable

to apply appropriate learning strategies. Without the abi l ity to monitor and control their

learning, these students are limited to relying on teacher instruction and direction of

thei r learning. In particular, passive learners will be out of their depth in a constructi vi st

learning environment: without a range of appropriate learning-to-learn skills, to cope

with the cognitive dem ands of constructing knowledge and evaluating their own

learning, success will be l i mited.

10.3 Methodological Implications

This ethnographic research was conducted in the classroom setting with the emphasis on

understanding the learning process from the students' perspective. Research findings

rel ied heavily on interpretations of students' self-reports of strategic learning behaviours.

Although these verbal reports are necessarily i ncomplete, the collection of verbal report

274
data was crucial, as it provided direct evidence about processes that would otherwise be

invisible.

In particular, stimul ated recall interviews proved to be very successful in providing a rich

data source. Interview reports confirmed the limitation of relying solely on observation

of classroom behaviours (Peterson et al., 1 982, 1 984). Al though students often appeared

to be 'doing' the same things in class, stimulated recall interviews highlighted significant

qualitative differences in the manner in which students approached their learning. Some

students were able to go through the motions of displaying appropriate beh avioural

engagement in class with only minimal active learning occurring. Contributing factors,

such as inaccurate assessment of understanding, inappropriate selective attention, and

the nature of elaborations, where highlighted in students self-reports .

Adverse critics of verbal reporting suggest that problems may occur because more

successful learners may be unaware of the complexity of their thinking, or that less

successful learners may be unable to explain their thinking. The quality of student

responses provided in Chapter 8 indicate that these reservations are unjustified.

Moreover, data from the present study found that all target students reported relatively

similar frequencies of learning strategy types (see section 8 . 1 ).

The stimulated recall interview method could profitably be further adapted by videoing

several students simultaneously. Interviews would provide comparative data of students'

reported strategies. However, while this would control for instructional variables, it

would not control for the impact of beliefs and domain knowledge, which were found to

be major determinants i n students' selection and application of strategies.

Ethnographic research tends to reveal the complexity of educational phenomena.

Wiersma ( 1 99 1 : 243) suggests that "as more ethnographic research is done, the

educational community should become better informed and become more sensitive to the

importance of context in educational research". As we discover more about the learning

strategies that students use, we will be better able to test hypotheses about the strategies

that we predict as likely to produce the greatest success for given types of learners.

275
1 0.4 Implications for Classroom Instruction

The fol lowing recommendations are put forward based on the findings of the current

study. They are tentati ve recommendations since the study did not encompass the

dimension of strategy train i ng, neither did it seek to develop specific guidelines for

mathematics learners and teachers.

Few students learn to become active learners on their own . Coli ins et al. ( 1 989) suggest

that a model of cognitive apprenticeship is critical . While some students receive this

modelling from their home environment, all should receive instruction in such skills

throughout their schooling. The recommendations outlined below are proposed as

important considerations if mathematics learners are to be self-regulated and able to

learn how to do for themselves what teachers typically do for them in the classroom.

1 . Teachers should be encouraged to model effective learning strategies and provide

explicit strategy instruction within the context of their current mathematics program

(see Herrington et al. , 1 994). In particular, students should be informed of the value

of metacognitive strategies such as planning, previewing, monitoring, and self

evaluation .

2 . Teachers need to be aware of the influence of the instructional context, including the

task demands, learner support, and assessment methods, on their students' strategic

learning behaviours:

• The instructional environment must minimise the kind of compensations that

reduce or eliminate demands for cognitive activities. The 'end product' should

not be handed over without the engagement of the learner. Teacher-suppl ied

summaries, too little wait time after a question, and the acceptance of answers

from other students, may effectively deny students the opportunity to actively

engage in the learning process for themselves.

• Predictable classroom routines, such as homework reviews and questions around

the c lass, may enable students to subvert the intended learning activity by

276
 participating minimally. S uch routines can be manipulated by the students to the

detriment of their own learning.

• Assessment should be more collaborative, assess higher-order skills, and be as

congruent as possible with the learning being asked for in class.

3. During class discussion there needs to be a greater tolerance for alternative responses.

A slower pace would provide opportunities for students to reflect on procedures, and

build connections between ideas and skills. Furthermore, in order to make effective

use of worked examples, i nstruction needs to give more attention to the

metacognitive behaviours and self explanations apparently needed in order to profit

from such i nstruction.

4. S tudents, especially at senior level, need to be encouraged to take a more active role

in thei r own learning. This will help students feel that they 'own ' the mathematics

they are learning, and will empower students to cope with any future mathematical

study they may undertake:

• S tudents need to be aware of the value of help-seeking strategies. Networking

and ensuring peer help is available, is a possible redress for students who have

no help avai lable at home.

• Students need to be taught to make effective use of printed resources.

• The learni ng environment needs to provide opportunities for all students to be

involved in collaborative learning. Communication amongst students i s seen as

essential, not only to support the social learning process but also to stimulate

the process of reflection.

• S tudents need to be able to effectively monitor their understanding, and be

able to self-assess and accurately mark completed exercises.

5. S tudents need to build an appropriate metacognitive knowledge base:

• S tudents need to become more aware of their own learning strengths and

weakness.

• Instruction needs to engender appropriate beliefs about mathematics and

mathematics learning.

277
 • Students should be provided with experiences which allow them to assess

strategy use, and the comparative effectiveness of different strategies for

different learning tasks.

6. Recognition should be given to the fact that the use of mathematics learning strategies

is i nterrelated to numerous presage and product factors. Strategic learning behaviours

cannot be imposed on students en mass, rather they must be selected and employed

by the students on an individual basis.

In summary, the present study suggests that teachers need to be concerned about the

extent of the presence of students' passive learning behaviours in the mathematics

classroom . Instruction should be concerned with students' learning strategies and beliefs,

as well as their content knowledge. Just as mathematics teachers in the 1 980s devoted

much instruction to the explicit teaching of problem solving strategies, we need in the

1 990s to teach not just how to do mathematics but also how to learn to do mathematics.

The learning environment must actively encourage the development and use of students'

strategic learning behaviours by providing feedback on their use of strategies and

demonstrating their improved performance.

10.5 Additional Research

This study has highlighted the passive nature of many students' learning behaviours, their

lack of awareness of appropriate strategies, and inappropriate beliefs and learning goals.

Additionally, aspects of classroom instruction are seen to support passive learning rather

than promote active learning behaviours. In view of the fact that current curriculum

documents support a constructivist learning paradigm, in which learners are expected to

take more responsibility for actively constructing their own knowledge, it is i mportant

that further research explores i nstructional factors which will promote and support the

development of self-regulated learning strategies necessary for autonomous learn ing.

278
Areas which warrant further attention are as follows :

• Research is needed into practical ways to encourage students to accept greater

responsibility for their own learning. The apparent unwillingness, or inability, of many

students to play a more dominant role in adapting instruction to su it their own

learning goals is of concern. In particular, research needs to investigate the

development of metacognitive behaviours related to control of learning.

• In a constructivist learning environment there is an increased need for peer interaction

and communication. However, much of the peer cooperation and classroom discourse

in this study involved only a small proportion of the class, suggesting that the

potential of student tutoring and cooperative learning for facilitating u nderstanding

and enhanced performance is under-real ised and should be further explored,

particularly in senior mathematics classrooms.

• There is a need to focus on further classification and analysis of the nature of

students' mental experiences within specific learning episodes; in particular, the

nature of students' elaborations as u sed with worked examples. An exploration of

activities that encourage appropriate student elaborations is also necessary .

• The effects of assessment on student lee.rning behaviours are significant. Further

research needs to examine ways in which assessment can support and promote

desired learning behaviours. In particular, there is a need to investigate the

development of more collaborative assessment methods.

• Students' expenences of learning mathematics outside the classroom need further

study. In particular, the role of homework and student revision, and teacher/student

expectations of independent learning, are largely unexplored issues.

• The development and encouragement of appropriate help-seeking behaviours,

whether they involve self-help from problem diagnosis, use of textual resources, or

help from other students and adults, needs further attention.

279
• Further research is needed to determine learning activities that will foster the

development of appropriate metacognitive beliefs, and learning goals which will

ensure that students' learning is appropriately directed toward understanding rather

than task completion.

10.6 Summary : Major Outcomes

1. Students' learning of mathematics was found to be a highly idiosyncratic process.

While cornmonalities in the range of learning strategies existed, the u se of learning

strategies in specific i nstances differentiated individual learning approaches and

outcomes.

2. Simply having s tudents engage i n activities does not always result in the desired

level of mathematical competence. The level of cognitive engagement that the

student engages in is of utmost importance, rather than instructional time or time­

on-task per se. In some instances students' learning strategies enhanced the learning

process and in others it appeared to hinder learning. Thus, the implementation of

appropriate strategy use is as important a measure as is students' time on-task and

use of strategies in general.

3. A requisite level o f prior knowledge (both domain and metacognitive) is necessary

for effective strategic learning behaviour.

4. Students metacognitive knowledge (beliefs about learning mathematics, beliefs about

themselves as learners, strategy and task knowledge) l argely determines their

learning goals. As strategies are goal directed students' metacognitive knowledge

greatly influences the choice of learning strategies employed.

280
5. Students' learning goals were a major mediator i n determining t h e appropriateness

of strategic learning behaviours. Those students who intended to u nderstand the

mathematical content reported more appropriate elaborations, and self monitoring of

understanding. Their awareness of lack of comprehension facilitated appropriate

strategies to remediate problems. Those students who regarded learning

mathematics as an activity, rather than as a goal, used learning strategies appropriate

to accomplishing task completion rather than the cognitive objective for which the

task was designed. Their learning behaviours focused on rehearsal strategies and

elaborations related to recalling prior instances of problems rather than information

related to problem types or concepts.

6. While students reported numerous accounts o f metacognitive awareness of mental

states, attempts to analyse, evaluate or direct their thinking (metacognitive control

strategies ) were less frequent.

7. There was ample evidence o f passive learning behaviours. These behaviours reflect

students' lack of awareness of appropriate learning strategies. Without such

strategic knowledge students accepted their learning environments as given,

expected the teacher to provide explicit instruction and help, relied on the teacher or

text to monitor their progress, and made little use of available resources in

i ndependent study.

8. Instruction may have unwittingly contributed to passive learning behaviours. Passive

learning was supported by compensatory instructional methods such as teacher­

given summaries, teacher-directed rev ision and planning, external verification of

production , and limited cognitive demands in discussion and assessment tasks.

Teacher feedback was directed primarily at helping students to generate products.

Furthermore, i nstruction provided little opportunity or incentive for students to

develop and use autonomous, self-regulatory strategic learning behaviours.

281
9. Strategic learning behaviours contributing to successful learning included rehearsal,

elaboration, organisation, self-instruction and self-evaluation at various stages

during the learning process. More successful students planned their work, were able

to self-instruct, self-assess and correct their work, they modified their learning tasks,

and knew when it was appropriate to seek help. High achieving students relied

heavily on social sources of assi stance, whether it be family members, teacher or

peers. Additionally, successful students were able to adapt their physical and social

learning environment to optimise their learni ng opportunities.

1 0. Contributing factors of low achievement were found to be :

• lack of relevant prior knowledge and experiences;

• lack of orientation towards mastery learning and an associated confusion

about task goals;

• inappropriate use of learning strategies related to monitoring understanding;

• infrequent reports of metacognitive behaviours to control learning;

• ineffective use of help seeking and resources; and

• low access to out-of class resources, including help from adults.

1 1 . Stimulated recall interviews offered a valuable way of investigating students'

awareness and use of learning strategies in the classroom.

Finally, results from this study hold promise for improving teaching by making

i nstruction more adaptive to the needs, interests and learning strategies of the stu dent -

and for improving learning, by developing students' awareness of the necessary learning

strategies for effective mathematics learning. Success of new curriculum developments i n

mathematics i s critically l inked to creating a suitable learning environment which fosters

students' development of autonomous learning behaviours. To achieve this, both teacher

and student need to work in a partnership aimed at developing appropriate

metacognitive knowledge and behaviours. The learning environment must pro vide

learning opportu nities that require h igher-order thinking and strategies, and provide

feedback which enhances the development of knowledge and appropriate learning

behaviours.

282
Appendix 1 : Information Letter

Dear Parents,

As part of my research in Mathematics Education I am investigating the learning

behaviours and strategies of senior mathematics students. I have received permission
from the Principal, ------------, the Board of Trustees, and the classroom teacher, Mrs
H . . . . to conduct my research. During Term One I have been an observer in your
daughter' s/son ' s mathematics class: observing the interaction of instruction and
students' learning behaviours and discussing with students their learning behaviours.

To i ncrease our knowledge of which strategies are most effective and responsive to
c lassroom instruction, mathematics teachers need more detailed knowledge of what
strategies are presently used in the classroom environment. I am particularly interested in
the students' awareness of ways that they go about learning, understanding and doing
mathematics in the classroom and at home.

To collect data directly from the students, I wish to discuss learning mathematics
strategies in more detail with some of the students in the class. I will use video segments
of a class session to help students recall their learning behaviours. All students have been
told about the nature of the study and have had any questions answered. Unfortunately
there will not be time to interview all students . If your son or daughter is to be
interviewed their written consent will be obtained. Interviews will take place in students'
study periods with a maximum of 3 interviews. Additionally, I will ask all students to
voluntarily complete occasional questionnaires and diaries of homework sessions.

As well as providing valuable information on actual use of learning strategies in the

classroom, it is hoped that discussions with students during the research will increase
students' awareness of their learning behaviours.

Confidentiality and anonymity of all data will be respected and a written summary of the
study will be presented to the --------Board of Trustees at the completion of the proj ect
in Term 3 . If you have any queries about this study please feel free to contact me at
Massey University----------or at home ---------.

S incerely

Glenda Anthony

283
Appendix 2: Consent Form

LEARNING STRATEGIES IN MATHEMATICS

STUDENT'S CONSENT FORM

I have been present at the researcher' s discussion of the research study and have had the

details of the study explained to me. My questions about the study have been answered

to my satisfaction, and I understand that I may ask further questions at any time.

I agree to the researcher making a video of me working in the classroom and I am

will ing to discuss my learning behaviours with the researcher in a subsequent interview,

I also understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time, or to decline to

answer any particular questions in the study. I agree to provide information to the

researcher on the understanding that it is completely confidential .

Signed:

Name:

Date:

284
Appendix 3 Questions from Questionnaires

STUDENTS ' PERCEPTIONS A BOUT MA THEMA TICS LEARNING questionnaire

I. What is your favourite subject this year?

2. What is your least favourite subject this year?

3. How do you feel about learning maths?

4. Why are you studying maths this year?

5. What goals/expectations do you have for your learning of maths?

6. How does learning maths differ from learning other subjects that you are taking

this year?

7. How much time and effort d o you put into learning maths?

8. Who do you think is mostly responsible for your learning of maths?

9. In what way does the teacher, and/ o r classroom instruction affect your learning?

1 0. In what ways can you control you learning of maths?

LEARNING FOR A MA THS TEST (completed at the end of a calculus unit)

1. Have you learnt most of the material in class or will most of the learning be from

your revision work?

2. What have you already done t o prepare for the test (a) during class time

(b) during homework times

3. How will you complete your revision/study for the test?

4. What resources (e.g., notes, tests, people) will you use?

5. Will you be mostly trying to understand the material or to remember the material?

6. How do you feel about learning for the test?

7. How well do you think you w i l l d o in the test?

8. Do you think your result will be better o r worse than your usual maths results?

9. What things could you do differently, in either maths lesson o r a home, that could

result in increased performance in another test?

1 0. Did you do the review test in the weekend? If so what did you learn by doing it?

285
Appendix 4 : Homework Diary (condensed format)

I am interested in how you go about learning mathematics away from the classroom.

Please complete this HOMEWORK DIARY for each session you spend learning/doing
mathematics at home, over the next week.

I would like you to briefly record any activity you do associated with your mathematics.
Some of these activities wil l be observable, such as : do Exercise 6. 1 ; check answers for
help; and clear my desk. However, other activities are not easily observable as they
occur in your thought process. For example: questioning your understanding of a
problem, trying to remember what the teacher said in class, and thinking of a "reward"
(cup of coffee) when you finish.

Every five minutes, or a more suitable i nterval, during a study/homework session, please
record all of your activities on the form provided:

NAME: _____ DATE _______

TIME ACTIVITIES -Observable A CTIVITIES - Thinking

Did you complete all the set homework for today?

Did you understand the homework?

What did you achieve by doing the homework/ study?

Did you do any thinking, studying, or exercises that were not set by the teacher?
(explain)

What learning/thinking activities were most useful in this study session?

286
 Appendix 5: ORIENTATION SURVEY (Condensed format)

Your opinions about this maths class

Please mark the response A, B , C, D, or E that best matches your opinion.

A B c D E

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

1. I think I am l earning a lot in this class. A B C D E

2. S tudents in this class work together so everyone can learn. A B C D E
3. W e often move on to a new topic before w e really understand the A B C D E
old one.
4. When students ask questions in this class it slows u s down. A B C D E
5. You have to compete in this class to get good grades . A B C D E
6. I ' m satisfied with how much we are learning in this c lass. A B C D E
7. I n this class, it is OK to spend extra class time o n a hard topic . A B C D E
8. In this class, only a few students can really succeed. A B C D E
9. S tudents in this class often help each other learn. A B C D E
10 S tudents in this class often have trouble keeping u p w ith the work. A B C D E
11. After class, I usually feel satisfied with what I have learned. A B C D E
12. Only the smartest students can get a good grade i n this class. A B C D E
13. Most of the students in this c lass work well together. A B C D E
14. Our teacher wants us to work cooperatively with each other. A B C D E
15. Our teacher wants u s to understand why things happen the way A B C D E
they do.
16. Our teacher thinks mistakes are OK, as long as w e learn from them. A B C D E
17. Our teacher h as to cover all the material in this course, even if we A B C D E
don' t understand it all .
18. To get a good grade i n this class, you have to memorise a lot of A B C D E
facts.
19. O u r teacher doesn' t like students t o make mistakes. A B C D E
20. Our teacher tries to get us to think for ourselves. A B C D E
21. I n this class it' s more important to get right answers than to A B C D E
u nderstand why they' re right.
22. Our teacher helps us see how what we learn relates to the real A B C D E
world.
23. Our teacher wants us to learn to ask questions about maths. A B C D E
24. Our teacher lets us know how we compare to other students. A B C D E
25 . Our teacher wants u s to learn how to solve problems on our own. A B C D E
26. Our teacher encourages us to ask questions when we don' t A B C D E
understand something.

287
Appendix 6 : Stimulated Recall Interview 1 : Jane

Reported and observed learning behaviours and metacognitive knowledge from a single
lesson about Normal distribution and use of tables.

Re hfted!observed behaviour Behaviour ·strate

"Yeah, I know the answer." Monitoring understanding Metacognitive

" . . . sometimes i t ' s quite hard to understand what s he's Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
trying to ask." knowledge

Looks at book i n response to teacher' s reference to Refers to questions in the text. Cognitive
(b) and (c).

"Most of this stuff I understood, it was easy." Evaluation of understanding Metacogni ti ve

"The first time she did this I didn't reall y understand Monitoring understandi ng Metacogni ti ve/
because I wasn ' t really listening, I was n ' t real ly and metacognitive knowledge metacogniti ve
thinking about it, but this time I understood. " knowledge

"She said w e had done t h i s in class so I am looki ng Looking back in book for Cognitive
back to see if I had it in my book." previously studied work

''I ' m j ust waiting and seeing i f I can see where she Trying to fol low the Cogniti ve/
gets the answers from." procedure/anticipation metacognitive

''I ' m j ust l isteni ng." Listening to the teacher Cognitive

Jane is watching the work on the board Attending to the board work Cognitive

"Now that she is going over it again its easier." Linking with previous Cognitive/
work/evaluation metacognitive

"Yeah, I know the answer." Monitoring understanding Metacognitive

"I heard it, (but I didn ' t know what she was on Listening to other student' s Metacogni ti ve
about)." question
(monitoring understand i ng)

" . . . well s he ' s on about all those z's and x ' s and all Monitoring understanding metacogniti ve
that stuff and i t ' s h ard to understand what s he ' s /metacognitive knowledge
going o n about."

"She was say i ng that we didn ' t have to use it,. it's off Selective attention Metacogni ti ve
the topic , not really worth l istening to."

"I wasn ' t l istening to Dean, i t ' s got nothing to do Selective attention Metacogni ti ve
with me what he' s going on about."

''I' d rather sit there. I ' d rather j ust do it by myself." Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
knowledge

"I don' t l ike talking i n front of the class." Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
knowledge

288
''I ' m looking at Question 5 and 7 that we were Following teacher's Cognitive
supposed to do for homework." instruction

"I thought, draw a diagram . . . " Answering teacher' s question Cognitive

to herself

" . . . but i t was wrong, I'm glad I didn ' t say anything." Metacognitive experience Metacogni ti ve
experience

"I don' t do anything, I feel bored. I look at the book Metacognitive experience Metacogni ti ve
but for nothing in particular." experience

" . . . this i s easy, I understand this . " Monitoring u nderstanding Metacognitive

"When s h e used x ' s and a l l those letters and stuff i t ' s Metacognitive knowledge Metacogni ti ve
too hard t o understand. I wish she'd go over it more." knowledge

"I can remember the formula." Recall ing formula Cogn i ti v e

1 : "Why don ' t you answer some of the teacher' s Metacognitive knowledge Metacogni t iv e
questions. knowledge
Jane: "I' ve never done it."

"I looked up the table at the back of the book, I tried Trying out one of the Cogniti ve
to work it out." problems

Looks over the seatwork problems. Previewing set questions Metacognitive

Looking at teacher' s working on the board. Attending to teacher Cognitive

explanation

''I ' m understanding this." Monitoring understanding Metacognitive

" . . .if s he ' s doing something and I understand it, but I Selective note taking Metacogn i ti vel
know I wont remember it I write it down. If it's cognitive
something that I j ust don ' t understand altogether, I
wont write it down."

" ... we' ve already done some of these in our books Evaluating the need to take Metacognitive
anyway." notes

Reads book then attends to teacher's working on the Reads q uestion in text i n Cognitive
board. conj unction with teacher' s
explanations

"I thought I better do some work." Regulates behaviour Affective

Gets calculator out. "I worked out (27-40)/6 and tried Calculates answer to step in Cognit i ve
to find out what it was, I looked at the back of the teacher' s worked example.
book (tables)."

"I couldn't find it." Evaluating performance Metacognitive

"Your know how you find 0.98, I didn' t realise that it Linking of teacher Cognitive
was a percentage and when she said percentage and explanation with prior
98% ... " knowledge.

289
" . . . then I learnt something." Metacognitive experience Metacogni ti ve
experience

Read seatwork problems before getting books and Reading through seatwork Metacognitive
pencils out. problems.

"I marked it after I had done (c) . " Marki ng exercises Metacognitive

" I looked up the back o f the book (tables) t o see Trying to diagnose error Metacogni ti ve
where they got that answer from." (working backwards)

"I tried to work it out again . . . " Redoing problem Cognitive

" . . . but I did n ' t get it." Evaluating performance Metacogni ti ve

"I put a question mark next to it." Coding/organisation Cognitive

"if I really wanted to know I could ask someone at Help seeking/ metacognitive Resource
home, but I probably wouldn ' t bother. knowledge management/
metacogni ti ve
knowledge

"When I have a new question I write it out in a Colour coding Cognitive

di fferent colour."

I : "What you write i t out in ful l ? Selective Cognitive

Jane: "No, l ike it i s the probability that i t ' s less than processing/organisation
something so I can see it, so I know what I have to
find out."

"I j ust go through my notes and if I don't understand Revision based on evaluating Cognitive/
anything I j ust go through some of the exercises." understanding Metacognitive

"If I get stuck on the questions I' m doing, I ' l l go back Help seeking Resource
and have a look how I did them." management

" I ' m finding these quite easy." Evaluating performance Metacogni ti ve

"Well I was n ' t doing the questions that we were Selecting own problem Resource
s uppose to do. I did No. 8 'cause she'd done (a) and management
(b) and I ' d just wanted to go through a whole
question like 7(a), (b), (c), (d), and not just (d) and
(e) of a question . ! like the look of No. 8; it looks
. .

bigger."

"I thought well it's probably getting harder so I Metacognitive knowledge I Metacognitive
didn't worry." monitoring performance knowledge /
metacogniti ve

"I read it first and thought I could do it, understand Previewing, assessing ability Metacognitive
it. to complete the task

"I don' t always do the one's she puts on the board. . . " Modifying the task Resource
management

" . . . but for homework I do the set ones, if I do the Doing homework Cognitive
homework."

290
"Well I got stuck near the end so I went back to No. Help seeking Resource
6." management

"I thought it would be easier since it was back Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
further, 'cause they get harder at the end." knowledge

"I can hear her." Monitoring the teacher's Resource

action around the c lassroom management

"I sometimes listen, if I ' m sitting next to them and Help seeking Resource
she ' s going over something I don ' t understand I j ust management
l isten but not often."

''I ' m drawi ng a diagram for this problem." Drawing a diagram Cognitive

"I thought I was going quite well, I thought it was Evaluating progress Metacogni ti ve
easy, but I wasn' t getting them all right . . . "

" . . .1 forgot to subtract things at the end. Diagnosing error Metacognitive

"I didn ' t really learn anything new, but I got more Evaluating learning Metacogni ti ve
practice."

"It's important to try some exerci ses." Metacognitive knowledge Metacogni ti ve

knowledge

"I didn't u nderstand all that stuff about the area Monitoring understanding Metacogni ti ve
under the graph, or what she 's going on about."

I: "Did you pay special attention because you didn' t Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
understand it?: knowledge
Jane: "No, 'cause she just says the same thing over
and over again , so I ' m not going to understand it."

"I was thi nki ng that I don ' t understand this." Monitoring understanding Metacognitive

"I see what she's trying to get at ." Trying to follow the teacher Cognitive
explanation.

"I understand some of it." Monitoring understanding Metacognitive

"For that question there - when she got to the end I Following the teacher' s Cognitive
found out how she did it - so I was just waiting until explanation
she got the final answer..."

" . . . 'cause at the end when she gets the final answer Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
its easier to understand I think." knowledge

"I' m trying to find the answer i n my tables." Trying to answer the teacher ' s Cognitive
question

"I got lost. I couldn't understand what she ' s going on Evaluating performance Metacognitive
about - I couldn' t find it."

Redoin roblem Co nitive

29 1
Appendix 7 : Seatwork Behaviour: Karen

Reported behaviours and metacogmtlve knowledge from classroom observations and

three simulated recall interviews with Karen.

"I wasn' t sure about the last problem." Monitoring understanding Metacognitive

''I ' d started to click what logs were and I could do Metacognitive experience/ metacognitive
the problems." evaluating progress.

"I do my marking in red and my corrections in red Colour coding work for Cognitive
if I want them to stand out." emphasis

"If there's something I really don ' t understand I'll Selective organisation Cognitive
put a big box around it."

"If I ' ve got an exam coming up I'll go through Reading selected information Cognitive
my book and see what I ' ve got circled in my book from exercise book
and read it."

"I was sort of l istening, but I decided to finish the Monitoring the teacher/ Resource
problem off." selective attention management/
metacogniti ve

"I don ' t like leaving unfinished problems." Personal knowledge Metacognitive
knowledge

"Well, I know I got that one right." Production evaluation Metacognitive

"I was thinking I was pretty smart." Person Knowledge Metacognitive

knowledge

"I wrote down the numbers but I'm stuck." Production evaluation Metacognitive

"I wrote a note in my log book to do some at Aware of the need for Metacognitive
home." reVISIOn

"I was very confused." Confusion Metacognitive

experience

"I went to the third one because I couldn' t do the Production evaluation I task Metacognitive/
second one." management resource
management

''I'm reading the example." Previewing work Metacognitive

Asks Jane if she has a ruler Peer cooperation · Resource

management

292
"I looked up to see what she (teacher) was going Monitoring the teacher Resource
on about . . . " management

" . . . and I thought, 'I know that' ." Self evaluation Metacognitive

"I was incredibly bored, wishing that maths was Affective reaction Metacognitive
over." experience

Flips through the next few pages Previewing work Metacognitive

"I took a w h i le to compare it with the answer" Comparing own to model Cognitive
answer

"I' ve finished all my work so I'm just reading the Task management Resource
next page." management

Marks a block of work and on finding it IS all Uses feedback of success to Metacognitive
wrong then marks each one from there on. manage her checking
behaviour

Seeks help from Faye Peer cooperation Resource

management

Reads Faye ' s work Help from peers Resource

management

"Mrs H how do you do 4c?" Seeks help form the teacher Resource
management

Uses textbook to seek information Help seeking Resource

management

293
Appendix 8: Homework Interview: Adam

Reported behaviours and metacognitive knowledge from homework interview with

Adam

"I always feel that I can do it in a certain time Sets time limit to complete Metacognitive
limit that I set for myself." homework

"I always feel that I can finish it easily." Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
knowledge

"I decided i f there is time for me to get the Planning time allocation Metacognitive
questions done - I would think, oh that will take
me ten minutes."

"I get my books out, get my exercise book and Organise study environment Resource
pencil case out." management

"If I haven't had a look in class I skim through to Preview homework Metacognitive
see what it' s about."

"I usually finish it before or around the time - Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
unless there' s a problem." knowledge

"I used to tick them right, but now I j u st look at Check homework Metacognitive
the answers and compare them to mine."

" .. .if I got some wrong I redo the question." Correct working Cognitive

"I fmish a whole block, sometimes I mark after a Check at the end of section Metacognitive
big question." rather than every part

" ... before an exam I would do some revision." Revision exercise Cognitive

"I do look ahead a bit now to see what ' s coming Previewing class work Metacognitive
up."

"If I don' t know how to do a question I would Use text explanations for help Resource
look back at the explanations." management

"I usually think about science not maths, but Thinking about maths Metacognitive
sometimes, but not a lot."

"I usually complete my homework." Completes homework Cognitive

294
"I do sometimes set some sort of schedule that I Planning schedule Metacognitive
can fol low, especially with revisiOn. For
homework I usually look at my log book and
think how long it will take for each subject and
the set a schedule."

"Last year I learnt a lot at home; this year not Evaluate learning Metacogniti ve
much, j ust a few bits about calculus and /metacogniti ve
statistic s . knowledge

" I d o a l ot more (learning) in class this year." Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive

knowledge

" . . . she might link homework with something Looking for links with pnor Cognitive
else." knowledge

. . .it depends on my mood. Sometimes I might be Attention control Affective

thinking of other subjects, sometimes I might do
some more maths . . . "

"Last year we were given a detailed prescription Need for learning goal Metacognitive
of what to learn . I need to know what it is we are knowledge
going to learn, the pages. I can find the exercises
myself."

"Well sometimes it' s good you can fit revisiOn Revision during lesson Cognitive
into the lessons."

295
Appendix 9: Test Revision: Gareth

Gareth ' s reported behaviours and metacognitive knowledge from test revision interview
and questionnaire.

"I bummed out as usual ." Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive

"I did some questions and read through my Rehearsal Cognitive

notes."

"I split the trigonometry topic into different Planning topics to study Metacognitive
sections."

"I don ' t do the examples the night before . . . " Planning time schedule for Metacognitive
study

" . . . it doesn't really help me much because I just Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive
Jose concentration." knowledge

"I just go over my notes the night before." Rehearsal Cognitive

"I just write it (formula) out a few hundred Rehearsal Cognitive

times."

"I read my notes over and over again ." Rehearsal Cognitive

"I sit in a quiet room with no interference." Environmental management Resource

mar�agement

"I do some reviSion from 4th Form revision Revision exercises Cognitive
book."

I: "What did you learn in your review session?" Recall Cognitive

G: "Eve thin came back into m mind."

296
 Bibliography

Alexander, P. A. ( 1 992) . Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns.

Educational Psychologist, 27, 33-5 1 .

Alexander, P. A. & Judy, J. E. ( 1 988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic

knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 5 8 , 375-
404.

Alton-Lee, A. G. ( 1 984) . Understanding learning and teaching: An investigation of

pupil experience of content in relation to immediate and long term learning.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

A lton-Lee, A., Nuthal l , G., & Patrick, J. ( 1 993). Reframing c lassroom research: A lesson
from the private world of children. Harvard Educational Review, 63( 1 ), 50-84.

Ames, C. ( 1 992) . Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation, Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 26 1 -27 1 .

Ames, C., & Archer, J. ( 1 988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning
strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
260-267.

Anthony, G. ( 1 99 1 ) . Learning approaches and study patterns of distance education

students in mathematics. Unpublished MPhil thesis, Massey University,
Palmerston North.

Anthony, G. ( 1 994). The role of worked examples in learning mathematics. I n A. Jones

et al. (Eds. ) , SAMEpapers 1994 (pp. 1 29- 1 43). Hamilton: Centre for S cience and
Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.

Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. ( 1 992). Development of a cognitive metacognitive

framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups.
Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 1 37- 1 75 .

Australian Education Council ( 1 99 1 ). A national statement o n mathematics for

Australian schools. Melbourne, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.

B achor, D. G. ( 1 99 1 ). Thinking skills or strategic behaviour and arithmetic word

problems: research, assessment and instruction. In R. F. Mulcahy, R. H. Short, &
J. Andrews (Eds.), Enhancing learning and thinking (pp. 1 37- 1 59). New York:
Praeger.

297
B aird, J . R . ( 1 986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: a classroom
study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263 -282.

B aird, J. R . , & Northfield, J . R. ( 1 992). Learning from the PEEL experience.

Melbourne: Monash University Printing Services.

B arrett, J. R. ( 1 990) . Form 6 mathematics: Revision. Auckland: ESA Publications.

Begg, A. ( 1 993a) . Tomorrow ' s mathematics curriculum. In E. McKinley et al. (Eds. ) ,

SAMEpapers 1 993 (pp. 2 1 0-23 1 ). Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics
Education Research, University of Waikato.

Begg, A. J. C. ( 1 993b) Professional development of high school mathematics teachers.

(Report to the Research Division of the Ministry of Education). Hamilton: Centre
for S cience and Mathematics Education Research, Un iversity of Waikato.

Bereiter, C. ( 1 992). Referent-centred and problem-centred knowledge: Elements of an

educational epistemology. Interchange, 23(4), 337-36 1 .

Bereiter, C . , & Scardamalia, M . ( 1 989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. I n

L. B . Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 3 6 1 -392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

B iggs, J. B . ( 1 987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne:

Australian Council for Educational Research.

B iggs, J. B . ( 1 989) . Approaches to enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education

Research and Development, 8 ( 1 ), 7-25 .

B iggs, J . B . ( 1 99 1 ) . A student learning in the context of school. In J . B iggs (Ed . ) ,

Teaching for learning (pp. 7-29). Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational
Research.

B iggs, J. B. ( 1 99 3 ) . From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher

Education Research and Development, 1 2( 1 ), 73-8 5 .

B iggs, J. B . , & Moore, P . ( 1 99 3 ) The process of learning. Sydney: Prentice Hall .

B isanz, J. & Lefevre, J. ( 1 990). S trategic and nonstrategic processing in the development
of mathematical cognition. In D. F. Bjorklund (Ed.), Children 's strategies:
Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 2 1 3-244). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

B lais, D. M. ( 1 98 8 ) . Constructivism - a theoretical revolution for algebra. Mathematics

Teacher, 624-63 1 .

298
Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. Task factors, teacher behaviour, and students'
involvement and use of learning strategies in science. The Elementary School
Journal, 88, 235-250.

Borkowski, J. G . , & Muthukrishna, N. ( 1 992) . Moving metacogmt10n into the

classroom: 'Working Model ' and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K.
Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in
schools (pp. 477-50 1 ) . San Diego: Academic Press.

Borkowski, J. G., Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. ( 1 989) . The challenges of teaching
good information processing to learning disabled students. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 36, I 69- I 85.

B ransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., & Rieser, J. ( 1 986). Teaching thinking and
problem solving: Research foundations, American Psychologist, 4 I , I 078 - 1 089.

B ri ars, D . J. ( 1 983). An information-processing analysis of mathematical ability. In R. F.

Dillon, & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.) Individual differences in cognition (Vol I , pp.
I 8 1 -204) , New York: Academic Press .

B rooks J., & Brooks M. ( I 993). In search of understanding: the case for the
constructivist classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

B rown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A. & Campione, J. C. ( 1 983). Learni ng,
remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. H. Markman (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vo/. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77- 1 66). New
York: Wiley.

B ruer, J. T. ( 1 993). Schools for thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.

B u rton, L. ( 1 984). Mathematical thinking: The struggle for meanmg. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 1 5( 1 ), 3 5 -49 .

Burton, L. ( 1 992). Becoming a teacher of mathematics. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 22(3), 377-386.

Carnpione, J. C., B rown, A. L., & Connell , M . L. ( 1 989). Metacognition: On the

importance of understanding what you are doing. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver
(Eds. ) , Research agenda in mathematics education: The teaching and assessing
of mathematical problem solving (pp. 93- 1 1 4) . Reston , VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

299
Candy , P . C. ( 1 989). Constructivism and the study of self-direction in adult learning.
Studies in the Education of Adults, 2 1 (2), 95- 1 1 6.

Cardelle-Elawar, M. ( 1 992). Effects of teaching metacognitive skills to students with low

mathematics ability . Teaching and Teacher Education, 8 (2), 1 09- 1 2 1 .

Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. ( 1 987).The cognitive academic language learning

approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 2 1 (2), 227-249.

Chi, M. T. ( 1 987). Representin g knowledge and metaknowledge: Implications for

interpreting metamemory research. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. KJuwe (Eds . ) ,
Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 239-266). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Chi, M. T., & Bassok, M . ( 1 989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. I n L. B .
Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert
Glaser (pp. 25 1 -2 8 2). Hillsdale , NJ: Erlbaum.

Chi, M. T . , B assok, M . , Lewis, M . , Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. ( 1 989).Self-explanations :

How students study and u se examples i n learning to solve problems. Cognitive
Science, 1 3 , 1 45 - 1 82.

Christopoulos, J. P., Rohwer, W. D., & Thomas, J. W. ( 1 987) . Grade level differences in
students' study activities as a function of course characteristics. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 1 2, 303-323.

Cobb, P. ( 1 988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics
education . Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87- 1 03 .

Cobb, P . , Wood, T . , & Yackel , E. ( 1 990). Classrooms as learning environments for

teachers and researchers. In R. Davis, C. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds . ) ,
Constructivist views o n the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 1 25 - 1 46).
Reston : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Collins, A., B rown, J. S . , & Newman, S . E. ( 1 989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching

the c raft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) , Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453 -494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Confrey, J. ( 1 990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. Davis, C. Maher, &
N . Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of
mathematics (pp. 1 07 - 1 22). Reston : National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

300
Confrey, J. ( 1 992). Learning to see children 's mathematics: Crucial challenges in
constructivist reform. Paper presented at the Seventh International Congress of
Mathematics Education, Quebec, Canada.

Corno, L. ( 1 989). Self-regu lated learning: A volitional analysis. In B . J. Zimmennan &

D. Schunk (Eds .), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory,
research and practice (pp. 1 1 1 - 1 4 I ) . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cullen, J. L. ( 1 985). Children's ability to cope with failure: Implications of a

metacognitive approach for the classroom. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G . E.
MacKinnon, & T. G. Wailer (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human
peifonnance (Vol . 2, pp. 267-300). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Dansereau, D. F. ( I 985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman & R.

Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to research (Vol.
I , pp. 209-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davis, R. B ., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. ( 1 990) . Suggestions for the improvement of
mathematics education. In R. B . Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.),
Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 1 87 - 1 9 1 ).
Reston, V A: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Denzin, N. K. ( 1 988). Triangulation. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research,

methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 5 1 1 -5 1 3) . NY:
Pergamon Press.

Department of Education ( 1 987) The Curriculum Review. Welli ngton: Department of

Education.

Department of Education ( 1 988) National Curriculum Statement (Draft). Wellington:

Department of Education.

Derry, S. J. ( 1 990a). Remediating academic difficu lties through strategy training: The
acquisition of useful knowledge. Remedial and Special Education, 1 1 (6), 1 9-3 1 .

Derry, S . J. ( 1 990b). Learning strategies for acquiring useful knowledge. In B . Jones &
L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 347-379) .
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Derry, S. J., & Murphy D. A. ( 1 986). Designing systems that train learning abi lity: From
theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 56( 1 ), 1 -3 9 .

Doyle, W . ( 1 988). Work i n mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking

during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23 (2), 1 67- 1 80.

301
Dweck, C. S . ( 1 986) . Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
4 1 , 1 040- 1 048.

Evans, G. ( 1 99 1 a). Lesson cognitive demand and student processing in upper secondary
mathematics. In G. Evans (Ed.), Learning and teaching cognitive skills (pp. 1 24-
1 43). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Evans, G . ( 1 99 1 b) . Student control over learning. In J. Biggs (Ed . ) , Teaching for

learning: The view from cognitive psychology (pp. 5 1 -70). Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.

Fennema, E. ( 1 989). The study of affect and mathematics: A proposed generic model for
research. In D . B . McLeod & V . M . Adams (Eds .), Affect and mathematical
problem-solving: A new perspective (pp. 205-2 1 9) . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L. ( 1 985). Autonomous learning behaviour: A possible

explanation of gender-rel ated differences in mathematics. In L. C. Wilkinson & C.
Marrett (Eds . ) , Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 1 7-35). Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.

Flavell, J. H. ( 1 976) . Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B . Resnick (Ed. ),

The nature of intelligence (pp. 23 1 -235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

Flavell, J. H . ( 1 98 1 ) . Cognitive monitoring. I n W . P. Dickson (Ed . ) , Children 's oral

communication skills (pp. 35-60) . New York: Academic Press.

Flavell, J. H. ( 1 987) . Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition.

In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and
understanding (pp. 2 1 -29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gabrys, G., Weiner, A., & Lesgold, A. ( 1 993). Learning by problem solving in a coached
apprenticeship system. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundation of
instruction (pp. 1 1 9- 147). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. ( 1 992). Educational psychology. B oston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Galloway, V. & L abarca, A. ( 1 990) . From student to learner: S ty le, process, and
strategy. In D. W. Birckbichler (Ed.), New perspectives and new directions in
foreign language education (pp. 1 1 1 - 1 58). Illinios: National Textbook Company.

Gamer, R. ( 1 98 8). Verbal-report data on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In C . E .

Weinstein, E . T. Goetz, & P . A . Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies:
Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. S an Diego: Academic Press.

302
Garner, R. ( 1 990a). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Towards a
theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60( 4 ), 5 1 7-529 .

Garner, R. ( 1 990b). Children's use of strategies in reading. In D. F. Bjorklund (Ed . ) ,

Children 's strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 245-
268) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garner, R. ( 1 992) . Metacognition and self-monitoring strategies, in S . J. Samuels & A.

E. Farstrup (Eds .), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 236-
252). Delaware: International Reading Association.

Garner, R., & Alexander, P. ( 1 989) Metacognition: Answered and unanswered

questions. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 1 43- 1 5 8

Garofalo, J . , & Lester, F. K. Jnr. ( 1 985). Metacogn ition , cognitive monitoring, and
mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1 6,
1 63- 1 76.

Garrison, D. R. ( 1 993). A cogmttve constructivist view of distance education: An

analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Distance Education, 1 4(2), 1 99-2 1 1 .

Gavelek, J. R. & Raphael, T . E. ( 1 985). Metacognition, instruction, and the role of

questioning activities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Wailer
(Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance: Vol. 2. Instructional
practices (pp. 1 03- 1 36). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Glaser, R. ( 1 984) . Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American

Psychologist, 39, 93- 1 04.

Glesne, C . , & Peshkin, A. ( 1 992). Becoming a qualitative researcher: An introduction.

New York: Longman.

Gray, S . ( 1 99 1 ) . Ideas in practice: metacognition and mathematical problem solving.

Journal of Developmental Education, 1 4(3), 24-26, 28 .

Grube, G. (Trans.). ( 1 974). Plato 's Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Hennessy, S . ( 1 993). S ituated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for

classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1 -4 1 .

Herrington, A. J. ( 1 990). S trategies for developing mathematical understandings. In K.

Milton & H. McCann (Eds.), Mathematical turning points: Strategies for the
1990s (pp. 325-340). Hobart, Tasmania: Australian Association of Mathematics
Teachers.

303
Herrington, A. J. ( 1 992) . Student beliefs and strategies for learning mathematics.
Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Western Australia, Perth.

Herrington, T . Wong, K., & Kershaw, L. ( 1 994). Fostering mathematical thinking and
learning. Adelaide : Austral ian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc.

Hidi, S . ( 1 990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60, 549 -57 1 .

Hiebert, J. ( 1 992). Reflection and communication : Cognitive considerations in school

mathematics reform. International Journal of Educational Research, 1 7, 439-
456.

Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. ( 1 9 92). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D.
A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 65-97) New York: Macmillan.

Hiebert, J . , & Lefevre, P. ( 1 986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics:

An introductory analysis, In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural
knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1 -27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kardash, C. M. & Amlund, J . T . ( 1 99 1 ). Self-reported learning strategies and learning
from expository text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1 6, 1 1 7- 1 3 8 .

Kelly, G. A . ( 1 955). The psychology ofpersonal constructs. New York: Norton.

Kilpatrick, J. ( 1 98 5 ) . Reflection and recursion, Educational studies in mafhematics, 1 6,

1 -36.

King, A. ( 1 99 1 ) . Effects of training in strategic questioning on children' s problem­

solving performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 8 3 , 307-3 1 7 .

Knight, G. ( 1 992). "A formula is a leather armchair": metaphor and mathematics

education. In B. Bell et al. (Eds.), SAMEPapers 1992. Hamilton: Centre for
Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.

Kyriacou, C., & Marshall , S . ( 1 989). The nature of active learning in secondary schools.
Evaluation and Research in Education, 3 ( 1 ), 1 -5 .

Lampert, M . ( 1 990). When the problem i s not the question and the solution is n o t the
answer: Mathematical knowledge and teaching. American Educational Research
Journal, 27 , 29-63 .

304
Lawson, M . 1., & Chinnappan, M. ( 1 994) . Generative activity during geometry problem
solving: Comparison of the performance of high-achieving and low-achieving high
school students. Cognition and Instruction, 1 2( 1 ), 6 1 -93.

Leder, G. C., & Gunstone, R. F. ( 1 990). Perspectives on mathematics learning.

International Journal of Educational Research, 1 4(2), 1 05- 1 20.

Leinhardt, G. ( 1 98 8 ) . Getting to know : Tracing students' mathematical knowledge from

intuition to competence, Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 1 1 9- 1 44.

Leinhardt, (J., & Putnam, R. T. ( 1 987). The skill of learning from classroom lessons.
American Educational Research Journal, 24, 557-587.

Lester, F. K. ( 1 988). Reflections about mathematical problem-solving research. In R. I .

Charles & E . A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical
problem solving (pp. 1 1 5- 1 24). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J. , & Kroll, D. L. ( 1 989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs, and
metacogn ition: Key influences on problem-solving behaviour. In D. B. McLeod &
V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem-solving (pp. 75-88). New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Levin, J. R. ( 1 98 6) .
Four cognitive principles of learning-strategy instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 2 1 , 3 - 1 7 .

Levin, J. R . ( 1 988). Elaboration-based learning strategies : Powerful theory = Powerful

application. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1 3 , 1 9 1 -205 .

Lincoln, Y. S . , & Guba, E. G. ( 1 985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California:

S age Publications.

Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P. , & Klusewitz, M. A. ( 1 993) . College students' conditional
knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8 5(2), 2 39-252.

Marland, P. W. & Edwards, J. ( 1 986). S tudents' in-class thinking. Instructional Science,

1 5, 75- 8 8 .

Marland, P . , Patching, W. , & Putt, I . ( 1 992a). Thinking while studying: A process

tracing studyi ng of distance learners. Distance Education, 1 3 (2), 1 93-2 1 7 .

Marland, P . W., Patching, W. , & Putt, I . ( 1 992b). Learning from text: Glimpses inside
the minds of distance learners. Townsville: James Cook University of North
Queensland.

305
M arton, F., & Neuman, D. ( 1 992) . Constructivism and phenomenography. Paper
presented at the International Congress of Mathematics Education-7, Quebec.

Marx, R. W., & Walsh, J. ( 1 988). Learning from academic tasks. The Elementa ry School
Journal, 8 8 (3), 207-2 1 9 .

Mason, J. ( 1 988). Learning and doing mathematics. London: Macmillan.

Mathison, S. ( 1 988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 1 7(2), 1 3- 1 7 .

Mayer, R. E . ( 1 992) . Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within

educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405-4 1 2 .

McCombs, B . L. ( 1 988). Motivational skills training: Combining metacognitive,

cognitive, and affective learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P.
A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: issues in assessment,
instruction, and evaluation (pp. 1 4 1 - 1 69). S an Diego: Academic Press .

McKeachie, W. J . , Pintrich, P . R . , & Lin, Y . ( 1 985). Teaching learning strategies.

Educational Psychologist, 20, 1 53- 1 60.

McLaughlin, J. W. ( 1 985). Sixthforrn mathematics: Notes and examples. Auckland

McLeod, D . B. ( 1 989). The role of affect in mathematical problem solving. In D. B .

McLeod & V . M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A
new perspective (pp. 20-36). NY: Springer-Verlag.

McLeod, D . B . ( 1 99 1 ) . Research on learning and instruction in mathematics: The role of

affect. In E . Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S . Lamon (Eds,), Integrating research
on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 55-82). Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Centre of Educational Research, University of Wisconsin.

McMillan, J. H . , & Schumacher, S . ( 1 993). Research in education: a conceptual

introduction. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Miles, M. B . ( 1 990). New methods for qualitative data collection and analysis: vignettes
and pre-structured cases. Qualitative Studies in Education, 3( 1 ), 37-5 1 .

Miles, M. B . , & Huberman, A. M. ( 1 9 84). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of

new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Ministry of Education ( 1 992). Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington:

Learning Media.

306
Ministry of Education ( 1 993). The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington :
Learning Media.

Ministry of Education ( 1 994) . The New Zealand Education Gazette, 73 (6). Wellington :
Ministry of Education.

Mitchell, I ( 1 992a). The class level. In J. R. Baird & Northfield (Eds.), Learning from
the PEEL experience (pp. 6 1 - 1 04). Melbourne: Monash University · Printing
Services.

Mitchell, I. ( 1 992b). A perspective on teaching and learning. In J. R. Baird & Northfield

(Eds.), Learning from the PEEL experience (pp. 1 7 8- 1 93). Melbourne: Monash
University Printing Services.

Mitchell, I. ( 1 992c ). Bringing constructivism into the classroom (sound recording).

Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, S an Francisco.

Muralidhar, S. ( 1 993). The role of multiple data sources in interpretive science education
research . International Journal of Science Education, 1 5(4), 445-455 .

National Council o f Teachers o f Mathematics ( 1 989). Curriculum and evaluation

standards for school mathematics. Reston, V A: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Newman, R. S. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Goals and self-regulated learning: What motivates children to

seek academic help? I n M. L. Maehr & P. R . Pintrich (Eds.), Advances iJ!
motivation and achievement, Vol, 7 (pp. 1 5 1 - 1 83). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI
Press.

Newman, R. S., Schwager, ( 1 992). Student perceptions and academic help-seeking. In

D . H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.
1 23- 1 46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Neyland J. ( 1 994a). Introduction. In J. Neyland (Ed.) , Mathematics education: A

handbook for teachers, Vol. 1 (pp. 1 -5). Wellington: Wellington College of
Education.

Neyland J. ( 1 994b). Problems with the proposed unit standard framework for
mathematics . The New Zealand Mathematics Magazine, 3 1 ( 1 ), 1 -9 .

Nickerson, R . S . ( 1 989). O n improving thinking through instruction. Review of Research

in Education, 1 5 , 3-57.

307
Nisbet, 1 . , & Shucksmith, 1. ( 1 986) . Learning strategies. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.

Noddings, N . ( 1 990) . Constructivism in mathematics education. In R. B. Davis, C . A.

Maher, & N . Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning
of mathematics (pp. 7 - 1 8) . Res ton, V A: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Noddings, N . ( 1 993) . Constructivism and caring. In R. Davis & C . Maher (Eds.),

Schools, mathematics, and the world of reality (pp. 35-50) . Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Nolen, S. ( 1 988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies.
Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.

Nolen, S . , & Haladyna, T. M. ( 1 990). Motivational and studying in high school science.
Journal of research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 1 1 5- 1 26.

Nunan, D. ( 1 99 1 ) . Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers.

Englewood Cliffs, N1: Prentice-Hall .

O'Malley, 1. M., & Chamot, A. M. ( 1 990) . Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Owen, E . , & Sweller, 1. ( 1 985). What do students learn while solving mathematics
problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272-284.

Oxford, R. L. ( 1 990). Language learning strategies. Boston : Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Palincsar, A. S . , & B rown A. L. ( 1 984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehens ion-fostering

and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2), 1 1 7-
1 75 .

Palmer, D . 1 . , & Goetz, E. T. ( 1 988). Selection and use of study strategies: The role of
the studier' s beliefs about self and strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E . T. Goetz, &
P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment,
instruction, and evaluation (pp. 4 1 -6 1 ). San Diego: Academic Press.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wilson, K. K. ( 1 983). Becoming a strategic reader,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-3 1 6.

Paris, S . G . , & Winograd, P. ( 1 990).How metacognition can promote academic learning

and i nstruction, In B. F. 1ones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction. (pp. 1 5-5 1 ). Hillsdale, N1: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ ates.

308
Perkins, D. N. ( 1 99 1 ) . What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational
Technology, 3 1 (9) , 1 9-2 1 .

Perkins, D . N . , & Salomon, G. ( 1 989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational

Researcher, 1 8 ( 1 ) , 1 6-25.

Peshkin, A. ( 1 993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher,

22(2), 23-29 .

Peterson, P . L. ( 1 988). Teaching for higher-order thi n king in mathematics: The challenge
for the next decade. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research agenda for
mathematics education: Perspective on research on effective mathematics
teaching (pp. 2-26). Reston, V A: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Peterson, P. L., /jl Swi ng, S. R. ( 1 982). Beyond time on task: Students' reports of their
thought processes during classroom i nstruction. The Elementary School Journal,
82, 48 1 -49 1 .

Peterson, P. L. , & Swing, S . R. ( 1 983). Problems in classroom implementation of

cognitive strategy instruction. In G. M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds .), Cognitive
strategy research: Educational applications (pp. 267-287). New York : Springer­
Verlag.

Peterson, P. L. , S wing, S . R., Braverman, M. T . , & Buss, R. ( 1 982). Students' aptitudes

and their reports of cognitive processes during direct i nstruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 5 35-547 .

Peterson, P . L., S wing, S . R., Stark, K. D., & Waas, G. A. ( 1 984). Stu dents' cognitions
and time on task during mathematics instruction. American Educational Research
Journal, 2 1 , 487-5 1 5 .

Peverly, S .T . ( 1 99 1 ) . Problems with the knowledge-based explanation o f memory and

development. Review of Educational Research, 6 1 ( 1 ), 7 1 -93.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V . ( 1 990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82( 1 ), 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. , & B oyle, R. A. ( 1 993). Beyond cold conceptual change:
The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of
conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 1 67- 1 99 .

309
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B . ( 1 992) . Stu dents' motivational beliefs and their
cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schun k & J. Meece
(Eds .), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 1 49-
1 83). Hillsdale , NJ: Erlbaum.

Pokay, P. , & Blumenfeld, P. ( 1 990) . Predicting achievement early and l ate in the
semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82( 1 ), 4 1 -50.

Polya, G. ( 1 957). How to solve it (2nd Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Prawat, R . S . ( 1 9 89). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition m

students: A research synthesis. Review of educational Research, 59( 1 ) , 1 -4 1 .

Pressley, M. ( 1 986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of
mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 2 1 ( 1 & 2), 1 39- 1 6 1 .

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J . G., & Schneider, W. ( 1 987) . Cognitive strategies: Good
strategy users coordinate metacognition, and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G.
Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of child development (Vol . 4, pp. 89- 1 29). New York:
JAI.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J . G., & Schneider, W. ( 1 989). Good information processing:
What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of
Educational Research, 1 3 , 857-897.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zaj chowski, R., & Evans, E . ( 1 989). The
challenges of classroom strategy instruction . The Elementary School Journal, 89,
30 1 -342.

Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuck, L. M . , Martin, V., Wood, E . , & Willoughby,
T. ( 1 990) . A primer of research on cognitive strategy i nstruction : The i mportant
issues and how to address them. Educational Psychology Review, 2 ( 1 ), 1 -5 8 .

Putnam, R . T . , Lampert, M., & Peterson, P . L. ( 1 990). Alternative perspectives in

knowing mathematics i n elementary schools. Review of Research in Education,
1 6, 57- 1 50.

Ramsden, P. ( 1 988). Context and strategy: S ituational influences on learning, In R. R.

Scmeck (Ed. ), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 1 59- 1 84 ) . New York:
Plenum Press.

Resnick, L. B. ( 1 987). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National

Academy Press.

3 10
Resnick, L. B . ( 1 988). Treating mathematics as an ill-structured discipline. In R. I .
Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical
problem solving (pp. 32-60). Reston, V A: NCTM.

Resnick, L. B. ( 1 989a) . Developing mathematical knowledge. American Psychologist,

44(2), 1 62- 1 69.

Resnick, L. B . ( 1 989b) . Introduction. In L. B . Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and

instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1 -24) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Ritchie, G . , & Carr, K. ( 1 992) . A constructiVISt critique of mastery learning m

mathematics. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 27(2), 1 9 I -20 I .

Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. ( 1 989). The lEA Study of Mathematics II: Contexts
and outcomes of school mathematics. Oxford: Pergamon.

Rohrkemper, M., & Corno, L. ( 1 988). Success and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptive
learning and classroom teaching. Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 297-3 I 2 .

Rohwer, W. D., & Thomas, J. W. ( 1 989). Domain specific knowledge, metacognition,

and the promise of instructional reform. In C. B. McCormick, G. E. Miller, & M.
Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research (pp. 1 04- 1 32). New York: Springer­
Verlag.

Romberg, T. ( 1 992). Mathematics learning and teaching: What we have learned in ten
years, In C. Collins & J. N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: A n agenda for
the twenty-first century (pp. 42-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schiefele, U. ( 1 99 1 ). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3

& 4), 299-323.

Schmeck, R. R. ( 1 988). An introduction to strategies and styles of learning. In R . R.

Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 3- 1 9) . NY: Plenum
Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H . ( 1 985). Mathematical problem solving. New York, FL: Academic

Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. ( 1 987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A . H . Schoenfeld

(Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 1 89-2 1 5) . Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schoenfeld, A. H. ( 1 988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of
"well-taught" mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 1 45 - 1 66.

31 1
Schoenfeld, A. H. ( 1 992) . Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacogn ition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). NY:
Macmi llan.

S hort, E. J . , & Weissberg-Benchell, J. A. ( 1 989). The triple alliance for learning:

Cognition, metacognition, and motivation, In C. B . McCormick, G. Miller, &
Press ley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational
applications (pp. 3 3-63). NY: Springer-Verlag.

Shuell, T. J. ( 1 986). Cognitive concepti ons of learning. Review of Educational Research,

56(4), 4 1 1 -436.

Shuell, T. J . ( 1 988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 1 3 , 276-295 .

S iemon, D. ( 1 992a) . Children 's approach to mathematical problem solving. A paper

presented at the Annual Conference of the M athematics Education research Group
of Australasia, Sydney, Australia.

S iemon, D. ( 1 992b) . Cultural influences on children 's approaches to school. Paper

presented at the International Congress of Mathematics Education-7, Quebec,
Canada.

Silver, E. A. ( 1 979). S tudent perceptions of relatedness among mathematical verbal

problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1 0, 1 95-2 1 0.

Silver, E. A. ( 1 985). Research on teaching mathematical problem sol ving: Some

underrepresented themes and needed directions. In E. A. Silver (Ed . ) , Teaching
and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp.
247-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

S life, B. D . , Weiss, J., & Bell, T. ( 1 985). Separability of metacognition and cognition:
Problem solving i n learning disabled and regul ar students. Joumal of Educational
Psychology, 77(4), 437-445.

S outhwell , B., & Khamis, M. ( 1 99 1 ). Beliefs about mathematics and mathematics

education. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Australian Associ ation
for Research in Education, Gold Coast, Queensland.

S tanic, G., & Kilpatrick, J. ( 1 989) . Historical perspectives on problem solving in the
mathematics curriculum. In R. Charles & E. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and
assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 1 -22). Reston, V A : National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

312
Sternberg, R. J. ( 1 985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.
Cambridge, London : Cambridge University Press .

Swanson, H . ( 1 990) . Influences o f metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem

solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306-3 1 4.

S wi ng, S . R . , & Peterson, P. L. ( 1 988). Elaborative and integrative thought processes in

mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 54-66.

S wing, S. R., Stoiber, K. C., & Peterson, P. L. ( 1 988). Thinking skills versus learning
time: Effects of alternative classroom-based interventions on students'
mathematics problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 1 23- 1 9 I .

Thomas, J. W. ( 1 988). Proficiency at academic studying. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 1 3 , 265-275 .

Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. ( 1 986) . Academic studying: The role of learning
strategies, Educational Psychologist, 2 1 ( 1 & 2), 1 9-4 1 .

Thomas, J . , & Rohwer, W. D. ( 1 987) Grade-level and course-specific differences in

academic studying: Summary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1 2, 3 8 1 -
385 .

Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. ( 1 993). Proficient autonomous learning: Problems and
prospects. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of i nstruction
(pp. 1 -32). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tobin, K., & Imwold, D. ( 1 993). The mediational role of constraints in the reform of
mathematics curricula. In J. A. Malone & P. Taylor (Eds.), Constructivist
interpretations of teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 1 5-34). Perth : Curtin
University of Technology.

Toumasis, C. ( 1 993). Fostering auto-learning abilities m mathematics: A Greek

experience. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and
Technology, 24(4), 553-567 .

Van Haneghan, J. P., & B(l.ker, L. ( 1 989). Cognitive monitoring in mathematics. In C. B .

McCormick, G . Miller, & M . Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From
basic research to educational applications (pp. 2 1 5-238). NY: Springer-Verlag.

Voigt, J. ( 1 994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 275-298 .

313
Volet, S . E., & Lawrence J. A. ( 1 989). Goals in the adaptive learning of university
students. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.),
Learning and instruction:: European research in and international context (Vol.
2-3, pp. 497 -5 1 6).0xford: Pergamon .

Waldrop, M. M . ( 1 992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and
chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wang, M. C., Haertel G. D . , & Walberg, H. J. ( 1 993). Toward a knowledge base for
school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63 , 249-294.

Wang, M. C . , & Peverly, S . T. ( 1 986) . The self-instructive process in classroom learning

contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1 I , 370-404.

Warwick, D. P . ( 1 973). Survey research and participant observation : A benefit cost

analysis. In D. P. Warwick & S. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative research methods
(pp. 1 89-302). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Weinstein, C. E. ( 1 988). Assessment and training o f student learning strategies, I n R.

Schmeck (Ed. ), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp . 29 1 -3 1 6) . New
York: Plenum Press.

Weinstein, C. E . , & Mayer, R. E. ( 1 986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. E.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3 1 5-327). NY:
Macmillan.

Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. ( 1 990a). I.ASSI-HS (Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory-High School Version). Clearwater, FL: H & L Publishers.

Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. ( 1 990b). I.ASSI-HS User 's Manual. Clearwater, FL:
H & L Publishers.

Weinstein, C. E . , Zimmerman, S. A . , & Palmer, D. R. ( 1 988). Assessing learning

strategies: The design and development of the LASSI. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T.
Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds. ) , Learning and study strategies: Issues in
assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 25-40). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wheatley, G. H. ( 1 99 1 ). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics

learning. Science Education, 75( 1 ) , 9-2 1 .

Wheatley, G. H.( 1 992). The role of reflection in mathematics learning. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 23, 5 29-54 1 .

314
White, C. ( 1 993). Metacognitive, cognitive, social and affective strategy use in foreign
language learning: a comparative study. Unpublished PhD thesis, Massey
University, New Zealand.

Wiersma, W. ( 1 99 1 ). Research methods in education. Boston: Allyn and B acon.

Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. ( 1 982). Students' and teachers' views of thinking
processes for classroom learning. The Elementary School Journal, 82(5), 492-
5 1 8.

Wong, K. Y. ( 1 990) . How secondary school students learn mathematics. In K. Milton &
H. McCann (Eds.), Mathematical turning points: Strategies for the 1990s (pp.
566-572). Hobart, Tasmania: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.

Wong, K. Y., & Herrington, A. ( 1 992) . Research in learning strategies in mathematics.

In B. Atweh, & J. Watson (Eds.), Mathematics education in Australasia (pp. 1 29-
1 42). Queensland University of Technology.

Yates, G. C . , & Chandler, M. ( 1 99 1 ) . The cognitive psychology of knowledge: Basic

research findings and educational implications. Australian Journal of Education,
35(2), 1 3 1 - 1 53 .

Zimmerman, W. & Cunningham, S . (Eds.) ( 1 99 1 ) . Visualization in teaching and

learning mathematics. The Mathematical Association of America.

Zimmerman, B . , & Martinez-Pons, M. ( 1 98 6). Development of a structured interview for

assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23 , 6 1 4-628.

Zimmerman, B . , & Martinez-Pons, M. ( 1 988).Construct validation of a strategy model

of student self-regul ated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-
290.

315