LA CULTURA YUMBO
A. PERÍODO PREINCA 3.1 Historia Kitu Kara
3.1.2. Cosmovisión del pueblo Kitu Kara
It seems likely that the algorithmic and conceptual teaching strategies would have the biggest impact on pre-test MCAI and PST scores, so it is useful to discuss whether this was the case. In Chapter 5, at pre-test it was found that Group A (MSM) had the lowest MCAI scores and these were significantly lower than those of Groups B and C. This would suggest that students in Group A had the lowest levels of metacognitive skills before they started the intervention and this would suggest that their teacher was the one who was least effective in teaching these skills. However, the interviews with the teachers suggest that there was little difference in the teaching strategies of the teachers of Group A and B who both used more of the algorithmic approach, and therefore might be expected to be less effective in developing metacognitive skills than the teacher of Group C who used the conceptual approach. Group A had only been taught by their current teacher for one term and so there are uncertainties about what had happened prior to this and the impact on MCAI pre-test scores. Thus, there are uncertainties about why Group A had significantly lower MCAI scores at pre- test.
In chapter 5 it was found that at pre-test Group A (MSM) had the highest PST scores and these were significantly higher than those of Group B. This would suggest that students in this group had the highest levels of stoichiometric abilities at the beginning of the intervention and their teacher was the one who was most effective in teaching these abilities. In contrast, Group B (MSF) was the group with the lowest PST scores and this would suggest that the teacher of these students was the least effective in promoting stoichiometry abilities. However, the interview answers of the teachers of Groups A and B suggested that they broadly used similar strategies to teach stoichiometry. Again, this discrepancy between the teachers’ reports and the pre-test
152
PST scores could be explained by the fact that Teacher A had only one term with his students. Another possibility is that there could have been differences in ability between the groups. Thus, there are still uncertainties about why Group A had the highest PST scores at pre-test. In addition, the Teacher of Group C, appeared to be the most effective of the three teachers in supporting the chemistry skills of her students. However, the pre-test PST scores of her students were approximately midway between those of Groups A and B. Thus, these findings point to a lack of correspondence between the use of teaching strategies and the students’ PST scores.
In chapter 5 it was also reported that Group B (MSF) and Group C (control) made significant improvements in their PST scores. Given the preceding discussion these findings might be due to the MSF being an effective intervention to develop stoichiometry abilities, and the progress might be due to the control group already having good metacognitive abilities which allowed them to make the most gains from their extra experience with chemistry problems. It is also possible that the teacher of Group C was a particularly effective teacher and as a result, during the intervention she continued to provide a very effective learning experience for her students with the result that the control group has a significant increase in their PST scores.
7.5 Summary
In general teachers of stoichiometry follow algorithmic or symbolic teaching approach. This approach does not usually promote the development of metacognitive skills awareness as students do not have opportunities to question their thinking. It is more of a prescriptive kind of teaching where students learn without necessarily understanding the underlying concepts and as result students tend to memorise steps and rules to follow when solving stoichiometry problems. It was observed that this was the teaching approach predominantly followed by the teachers of the
153
intervention groups while the teacher of the control group used a mix of different teaching approaches which included collaboration, peer tutoring, and conceptual development.
The control group teacher who taught her students by starting from basic concepts to build up a conceptual framework in stoichiometry may have helped students to develop conceptual understanding of stoichiometry by reflecting on their thinking as they solve stoichiometry problems (Haidar and Naqabi, 2008; Cardellini, 2002). Her students learned in collaborative groups or pairs; this also gave them opportunities to develop their metacognitive awareness (Ellis et al., 2014; Scharlach, 2008). It is possible that the control group students developed metacognitive skills awareness more because the teacher taught them metacognitive strategies.
One cannot be sure why there were no statistically significant differences in MCAI scores between the control Group and both intervention groups at pre-test. However, it is possible that the control group teacher had supported her students using metacognitive strategies and as a result they continued to improve on their MS awareness and academic achievement during the intervention. It is also possible that this teacher continued to encourage metacognitive strategies during the intervention and this resulted in improvement in PST scores between pre- and post-test. The low MCAI pre-test scores and high PST scores of the MSM Group could possibly be explained by individual students’ characteristics as a different teacher taught them stoichiometry prior to the intervention.
The teachers of the three groups used different approaches to motivate their students, although the students did not report differences in their motivational orientation as discussed in Chapter 6. The teacher of Group C appears to have used better strategies for motivation compared to the other two teachers although this
154
does not appear to have resulted in higher levels of motivation in the Group C students. The next chapter brings the findings from the four studies together and discusses the contribution made by these findings to our understanding of metacognition and learning, and the implications for practice. In addition to discussing limitations of this research, the chapter also concerns a discussion on the importance of multi-method approach in researching metacognition.
155
Chapter 8: Discussion
8.1 Introduction
The aim of this thesis was to find out if instructional interventions which teach metacognitive strategies during problem-solving activities in stoichiometry could increase achievement and metacognitive skills awareness and use in secondary school students. Also investigated in this thesis were the students’ perceptions of their motivational orientation together with their metacognitive skills awareness and use; and the teachers’ perceptions of how they teach stoichiometry.
Each of the results chapters in the thesis addressed a specific set of questions. In the first study (Chapter 4) there was an investigation of whether an explicit metacognitive skills instructional method could help students improve their MS awareness and achievement in stoichiometry; in the next chapter (Chapter 5), the investigation concerned whether two explicit metacognitive instructional methods; MSF and MSM, increased metacognitive awareness and use, and achievement in stoichiometry during problem-solving.
The following chapter (Chapter 6) concerned similarities/differences in students’ self- reported MS awareness and use, their general level of MS awareness and motivational orientation during problem-solving tasks in stoichiometry. Then the last research chapter (Chapter 7) considered whether the teachers of the three conditions used similar or different instructional approaches to teach stoichiometry and to motivate their students and also whether their teaching approaches involved the use of metacognitive instructional methods. In this chapter, there is also a consideration of broader issues about metacognition and the relevance of the findings to practitioners.
156
Sections 8.2-8.5 focus on the findings from the four studies. Section 8.6 discusses the overall conclusions drawn from the four studies. Section 8.7 discusses implications of the findings for teaching and learning and section 8.8 is concerned with the limitation of this research while in section 8.9 suggestions for further research are discussed. The chapter concludes section 8.10 which summarises and synthesises the findings from the four studies and how they made a contribution to our understanding of metacognition in teaching and learning.