MOGUĆNOSTI PODSTICANjA METAKOGNITIVNIH STRATEGIJA

Veselinov, Nikolić: MOGUĆNOSTI PODSTICANjA METAKOGNITIVNIH STRATEGIJA UČENIKA... ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

64

Msr. Danica Veselinov1 Visoka škola strukovnih studija za vaspitače „Mihailo Palov”, Vršac Originalni naučni rad Prof. dr Radmila Nikolić2 UDK: 371.315.4 Učiteljski fakultet, Užice ==============================================================================

MOGUĆNOSTI PODSTICANjA METAKOGNITIVNIH STRATEGIJA UČENIKA POSREDSTVOM HEURISTIČKO-METODIČKIH INSTRUKCIJA

Rezime: U eri savremenog društva, temeljenog na ubrzanoj naučno-informacionoj revoluciji, učenik u nastavnom procesu nije samo posmatrač, već i aktivni konstruktor svog znanja. Aktuelne didaktičke teorije proklamuju nastavu u kojoj je nastavnik instruktor i fasilitator, i kao takav treba učenicima da pomogne u razvijanju i podsticanju sopstvenih strategija učenja, konstruisanih na osnovu intencionalnosti, samoodređenja i samoorganizovanog učenja. U ovom eksplorativnom istraživanju razmatraju se mogućnosti uticaja heurističko-metodičkih instrukcija na podsticanje metakognitivnih sposobnosti, odnosno metakomponenata učenja kod učenika četvrtog razreda osnovne škole. Naš cilj je bio da utvrdimo koliko je putem seta didaktičko-metodičkih strategija, baziranih na heuristici i njenim metodama (istraživačko učenje, projekt metoda, problemska metoda, rad u manjim grupama, nastava u prirodi) moguće podstaći metakognitivne strategije učenika. Empirijsko istraživanje je sprovedeno putem eksperimentalnog programa, realizovanog u eksperimentalnoj grupi učenika, dok je kontrolna grupa radila u nepromenjenim uslovima. U skladu sa dobijenim rezultatima istraživanja, uporedili smo razlike između obe grupe i došli do zaključaka da je postojala statistički značajna razlika u rezultatima, odnosno izraženijim metakognitivnim sposobnostima učenika eksperimentalne grupe u segmentima koji su se odnosili na elaboraciju i povezivanje prethodno stečenog znanja sa novim, prevazilaženje teškoća tokom rada, proveravanje tačnih odgovora, način provere odgovora i izdvajanje glavnih pojmova i ideja iz teksta. Ključne reči: heurističko-metodičke instrukcije, metakomponente učenja, trijadni proces učenja.

Uvodna razmatranja Ubrzani naučno-tehnološki razvoj i stalno usavršavanje postojećih tehnologija u značajnoj meri su izmenili savremeno društvo. Razvoj znanja, njegova primena i stalno unapređivanje postali su karakteristika savremenog razvoja, dok moderna društva postaju društva znanja (Komnenović, Lažetić, Vukasović, 2010). Specifikum razvoja nauke i tehnologije u savremenom društvu neuporediv je sa bilo kojim ranijim vremenom, pa se tako društva znanja karakteristika svakog društva, u većoj ili manjoj meri, bez obzira na politički i ideološki diskurs, i utiču gotovo na svakog pojedinca (isto). U savremenim uslovima znanje i razvoj su neodvojivi jedno od

1 Imejl-adresa:[email protected] 2 Imejl-adresa: [email protected]


65

drugog, što znači da je efikasan privredni razvoj nezamisliv bez znanja, a da se obrazovanje nalazi u samom središtu problema vezanih za razvoj pojedinca i društva. Nove okolnosti zahtevaju odgovor na pitanje kakvo obrazovanje danas treba da bude, kako bi odgovorilo izazovima koje savremeni život postavlja pred njega. Nagli razvoj nauke i znanja je kao nezaobilazan zahtev postavilo oblikovanje nove obrazovne paradigme prema kojoj bi se mogao urediti obrazovni sistem primeren personalnim i društvenim potrebama čoveka postindustrijskog vremena (Milutinović, 2008). Potraga za novim paradigmama obrazovanja nikako ne znači odbacivanje etosa učenja i školovanja niti vrednosti obrazovnog procesa kojima se neguju intelektualni rast i kreativnost. Ovo bi jednostavno upućivalo na prepoznavanje potrebe da se sadašnje obrazovne strukture moraju promisliti u svetlu zahteva 21. veka (Milutinović, 2011). Emancipatorno usmerene didaktike, utemeljene na fenomenološki orijentisanom nastavnom procesu, naglašavaju da nastavni proces mora biti konstruisan na osnovu prediskustva učenika, a da se dalje ide ka shvatanju i saopštavanju, što je od konstitutivnog značaja za samointerpretaciju i interpretaciju sveta učenika (Gojkov i Stojanović, 2011). Osnovu ovakvih shvatanja nastavnog procesa čini postulat funkcionalno-kritičke orijentacije demokratizacije škole i društva. Tako nastaje ’didaktika usmerena ka učeniku’, čiji je cilj da u proces institucionalnog poučavanja i učenja uključi sve aktere koji posredno i/ili neposredno participiraju u nastavi (Gojkov, 2009, 2014). Heurističko-metodičke instrukcije podstiču kod učenika intelektualnu autonomiju, samostalno istraživanje, samokreiranje i autoregulaciju tokom procesa učenja, podstiču dizajniranje i iznalaženje sopstvenih strategija učenika i otvaraju mogućnosti za razvijanje i podsticanje metakognitivnih strategija učenja. U radu smo prikazali manji deo empirijskog istraživanja koje se odnosilo na efekte heurističko-metodičkih strategija u podsticanju metakomponenata učenja kod učenika četvrtog razreda osnovne škole. Naš cilj je bio da utvrdimo koliko je putem heurističko-metodičkih instrukcija moguće uticati na metakomponente učenja – pre početka učenja (sastavljanje plana učenja); za vreme procesa učenja (elaboracija i povezivanje prethodno stečenog znanja sa novim, prevazilaženje teškoća tokom rada na zadacima upotrebom drugih strategija rešavanja problema); nakon procesa učenja (proveravanje datih odgovora i tačnih rešenja, način provere odgovora, izdvajanje glavnih pojmova i ideja iz teksta). Rezultate i njihovu interpretaciju analiziraćemo u daljem tekstu rada.

Heurističko-metodičke instrukcije u službi podsticanja metakomponenata učenja

U konstelaciji sa emancipatornom didaktikom, nalazi se Freireova koncepcija ljudskog bića kao ’nezavršenog projekta’, koja posmatra relacije između nastavnika i učenika kao neizolovanu pojavu, što ukazuje na neophodnost holističkog, odnosno integrativnog pristupa u nastavnom procesu. Cilj ovog pristupa ogleda se u osvešćivanju pojedinca da bude sposoban da kritički reflektuje socijalnu realnost i identifikuje uslove koji ometaju sopstveno samoispunjenje. Tako je P. Freire (1972) isticao da suština poučavanja nije u sakupljanju i prenošenju znanja, već u otvorenom dijalogu između nastavnika i učenika u kom se kreira znanje. Odnosno, i nastavnici i učenici ovde čine subjekte u otkrivanju realnosti i re-kreiranju znanja. Vodeći se Sternbergovom trijarhičnom teorijom učenja, pokušali smo da heurističko-metodičkim instrukcijama podstičemo trijadu koja se odnosi na učenikov unutrašnji svet, njegovo iskustvo i spoljašnji svet koji ga okružuje. Ova trijada, dalje razuđena, odnosi se na tri


66

različite vrste komponenata, međusobno uslovljenih: 1) metakomponente, gde se svrstavaju izvršni procesi (metakognicija); 2) komponente operacionalizacije – procesi nižeg reda u službi izvršavanja metakomponenata i 3) komponente sticanja znanja, na nivou kojih su procesi za učenje načina rešavanja problema (Sternberg, 1989, 2005). U vezi sa tim, orijentisali smo se na strategije učenja koje pomažu razvoju metakognitivnih sposobnosti učenika, a neke od njih su elaboracija, organizacija materijala, monitoring i kontrolisanje napredovanja, verifikacija urađenog proveravanjem tačnosti odgovora i izdvajanjem glavnih pojmova i ideja iz teksta, odnosno sadržaja koji se obrađuje (Swanson, 1990). Dž. Flavel je u svojim radovima isticao da se široki spektar kognitivne produkcije javlja kroz akcije i reakcije četiri klase fenomena: metakognitivno znanje, metakognitivna iskustva, ciljevi i zadaci, i akcije ili strategije (1979). Metakognitivno znanje i metakognitivne sposobnosti se ne odnose samo na svesnost pojedinca o svojim kognitivnim procesima (opažanje, pamćenje, mišljenje), već i na svest o tome kad i u kojim situacijama određenje strategije učenja mogu biti efikasnije i bolje nego neke druge strategije učenja koje će možda biti efikasnije u nekim drugim situacijama i za rešavanje drugih problema (Stojaković, 2009). Isti autor napominje da učenici koji imaju veću sposobnost da nadgledaju i kontrolišu pored kognitivnih procesa i svoje strategije učenja i rešavanja problema, obično postižu bolje rezultate u učenju. Učenici koji su razvili sposobnost samokontrole svojih strategija učenja i samokontrolu svog učenja i postignuća u učenju u celini, sposobni su da kontrolišu proces učenja od početka do kraja, pa je takvo učenje duboko smisaono i usmereno ka cilju (isto). U podsticanju metakognitivnih strategija učenja važno je posvetiti pažnju svakom delu procesa učenja, svakom segmentu trijade, odnosno trofaznog procesa učenja, kako ga neki autori još nazivaju (Zimmerman & Pons, 1986). Heurističke instrukcije koje potpomažu metakognitivne veštine odnose se na upućivanje učenika kako da koriste strategija učenja kao što su nadgledanje, sumiranje, vođenje beležaka; podsticanje učenika da koriste strategije učenja koje povezuju novo i prethodno znanje; davanje instrukcija u elaboraciji sadržaja (podvlačenje glavnih ideja i pojmova, skiciranje, pravljenje šeme, dijagrama, sumiranje, komparacija, izdvajanje važnih novonaučenih činjenica od onih manje važnih); upotreba metode diskursa (disput, diskusija) i kritičko posmatranje određenih sadržaja; podsticanje učenika na introspekciju i metakognitivnu kontrolu mišljenja (Sternberg, 1984; Stojaković, 2007). Neke od heurističkih metodičkih instrukcija koje, takođe, mogu pomoći u podsticanju metakognitivnih veština odnose se na samoizveštaje, koji uključuju retrospektivne verbalne izveštaje i/ili samoprocenu u pisanoj formi, gde učenici sami sebi postavljaju pitanja za vreme i nakon procesa učenja (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007). U vezi sa samoizveštajima, pogodno je koristiti i metodu razmišljanja naglas (engl. Think-aloud). Ova metoda može da se koristi u toku samog rešavanja problema ili retrospektivno, kada učenik završi zadatak (Fonteyn, Kuipers & Grobe, 1993). Značaj metode razmišljanja naglas ogleda se u direktnoj povratnoj informaciji o metakognitivnom znanju i trenutno upotrebljenim strategijama prilikom rešavanja problema, kao i u mogućostima da se strategije koje nisu dovele do rešenja zadatka zamene nekim efikasnijim (isto). Za naše istraživanje su od značaja bili rezultati empirijskog istraživanja G. Gojkov, koji su se odnosili na odnos didaktičkih instrukcija i metakognitivnih sposobnosti. Posebnu pažnju


67

autorka je posvetila broju metaiskaza koje su ispitanici dali. Prisustvo metakognitivnih sposobnosti se, prema broju reakcija koje su se mogle svrstati kao metakognitivne, kvalifikovalo kao slabo. Naime, od ukupnih metakognitivnih reakcija, ispitanici su bili najuspešniji kod sposobnosti koje se odnose na svest o nivou razumevanja i analize problema (3,8%); sagledavanje problemske situacije u celini i povezivanje već poznatog od ranije i onog što tek treba da se otkrije (3,1%); elaboracija i svest o upotrebi prethodnog znanja (2,9%), i pronalaženje optimalne strukture u sadržaju koji se rešava i njeno organizovanje u glavne i sporedne ideje i aktivnosti (2,8%) (Gojkov, 2009). Kada je u pitanju bio monitoring nad sopstvenim radom i aktivnostima, metakognitivne reakcije su manifestovane u sledećim aktivnostima: svest o postavljenom cilju koji treba ostvariti (1,9%); načini pomoću kojih treba realizovati cilj (1,8%); često postavljanje novih pitanja i proveravanje (1,5%); preispitivanje nakon urađenog zadatka o drugim načinima rešavanja problema i mogućnostima uklapanja postojećeg znanja u novo (0,8%). Za naš rad su, takođe, bili značajni nalazi istraživanja iste autorke koji su se odnosili na vezu metakognitivnih reakcija i intelektualnih sposobnosti (r=0.56). Ova značajna veza manifestovala se i u efikasnosti rešavanja problema, a veza između ove dve varijable posmatrala se prema broju manifestovanih reakcija, gde su ispitanici bili podeljeni na tri kategorije. Prvu kategoriju su činili ispitanici koji su imali pet i više metaiskaza, drugu oni koji su imali od tri do pet metaiskaza, a treću kategoriju činili su ispitanici koji su imali tri i manje metaiskaza. T-testom za nezavisne uzorke ispitana je razlika između onih sa najvišim i najnižim skorom u metakomponentama, i utvrđena je statistički značajna razlika u korist onih sa najvišim skorovima u metaiskazima. Razlike su se ispoljile u intelektualnim potencijalima, uspehu u rešavanju problema i u kreativnosti (Gojkov, 2009).

Metodološki okvir istraživanja U našem istraživanju3 posebno smo bili zainteresovani za onaj segment metakognitivnih sposobnosti koje se odnosi na metamišljenje (mišljenje i znanje o sopstvenom mišljenju i sposobnost analize procesa i metoda mišljenja u rešavanju problema) i metakognitivno znanje (znanje o tome šta se zna, a šta ne zna; znanje o sopstvenim greškama i propustima) (Stojaković, 2009). U toku eksperimentalnog istraživanja, učenici eksperimentalne grupe su bili pod uticajem eksperimentalnog faktora, indikovanog u heurističko-metodičkim instrukcijama, odnosno strategijama učenja. Heurističke instrukcije su podrazumevale ono što vodi otkrićima, ono što je istraživačko, pronalazačko. Akcenat je na učeničkom samostalnom nalaženju principa (zakonomernosti), dok se na minimum svodi ono što je redudantno, što skriva bit, istinu i skraćuje vreme za rešavanje u poređenju sa drugim poznatim metodama u istraživačkoj delatnosti (Jelavić, 2008; Vilotijević, 2008). Prilikom konstruisanja časova heurističkog tipa, prioritet smo dali ciljevima stvaralačke samorealizacije učenika, zatim oblicima i metodama nastave koji omogućavaju organizovanje produktivne delatnosti učenika, i na kraju, nastavnim sadržajima (Ristanović, 2010). Zadržali bismo se na ovom, uslovno rečeno, hijerarhijskom odnosu, u kom organizacioni oblici i metode heurističke nastave imaju prednost nad sadržajem. Klafki je navodio značaj transformacije didaktičkog trougla u didaktički šestougao,

3 Istraživanje predstavlja mali deo empirijskog istraživačkog rada sprovedenog za potrebe izrade doktorske disertacije.


68

gde je težište sa pitanja „šta učiti” pre nego na pitanje „kako učiti” (Gudjons, Teske, Winkel, 1994). Tokom procesa rešavanja problema na časovima učenike smo usmeravali da sprovode heurističke strategije čija se metodička vrednost ogleda u davanju opštih instrukcija, sa maksimalnim smanjenjem nastavnikove participacije u smislu davanja gotovih rešenja i univerzalnih recepata (Rudd, 2010). Heurističko-metodičke instrukcije u velikoj meri utiču na samoefikasnost učenika, što se ogleda u nerutinskom dolaženju do rešenja, heurističkom rezonovanju i heurističkim strategijama (Landa, 1976). Cilj nam je bio da učenicima pružimo mogućnosti za samoregulativnim strategijama (planiranje, praćenje, strategije upravljanja resursima) i podstičemo ih da budu konstruktori sopstvenog znanja (Ponton & Caar, 2000). Heurističke-metodičke strategije na časovima su podrazumevale upotrebu projekt metode na onim časovima gde smo smatrali da su pogodni sadržaji za njenu realizaciju, interaktivni rad u malim grupama, ambijentalnu nastavu, istraživački rad učenika i dolaženje do novih informacija samostalnim putem, učenje otkrivanjem, problemsku metodu sa elementima stvaranja problemske situacije, dekompozicije problema i iznalaženja jednog i/ili više rešenja. Tokom istraživanja, akcenat smo stavljali na posmatranje sopstvenog učenja, što je bilo realizovano vođenjem Dnevnika nedeljnika (introspektivni protokol), u koji su učenici zapisivali svoja zapažanja sa časova, samoevaluirali učenje, evidentirali šta im je pričinjavalo teškoće u učenju i davali predloge (strategije) i iznalazili rešenja pomoću kojih bi mogli da prevaziđu teškoće. Predmet istraživanja je uticaj heurističkih strategija i metoda učenja na podsticanje metakognitivnih veština učenika u nastavi prirode i društva, kao i mogućnosti da se za tu svrhu formira efikasan sistem aktivnosti s ciljem podsticanja razvoja viših misaonih procesa: kritičkog mišljenja, autonomije u učenju, samoorganizovanog učenja i samoefikasnosti u učenju. Problem istraživanja. Transmisija opširnog fundusa znanja sa nastavnika na učenike eksplikovana je kao neprihvatljiva i tako postala predmet oštrih kritika savremenih didaktičkih teorija. Ciljevi vaspitanja i obrazovanja dominantnih teorija učenja savremenog doba orijentisani su na učenje učenja, dijaloške, heurističke i diskurs metode nastave, misaonu aktivizaciju učenika, pozitivni transfer učenja, metakomponente u učenju i podsticanje sopstvenih strategija učenja. Problem istraživanja odnosi se na sledeće: U kojoj meri mogu da se podstaknu metakognitivne veštine učenika putem heurističkih strategija, iz ugla eksplorativnog učenja, samoregulacije u učenju, odnosno da se didaktičko-metodičkim instrukcijama provociraju samoorganizacija u radu i autonomija u učenju? Posmatraće se pitanje doprinosa sistematskog korišćenja didaktičko-metodičkih aktivnosti (individualnih i grupnih) u uslovima specifičnim za nastavu prirode i društva i mogućnosti ovih aktivnosti da doprinesu razvoju metakomponenata u učenju. Metakognitivnom participacijom u učenju učenicima bi mogao da se omogući lakši put u savladavanju nastavnih sadržaja iz predmeta Priroda i društvo i njihovom boljem razumevanju, sposobnosti za interpretaciju, te trajnosti znanja. Cilj istraživanja je da se utvrdi koliko je putem seta didaktičko-metodičkih strategija, baziranih na heuristici i njenim metodama (istraživačko učenje, projekt metoda, problemska metoda, rad u manjim grupama, nastava u prirodi) moguće podstaći metakognitivne strategije učenika. Zadaci istraživanja

1. Ispitati u kojoj meri će heurističke metodičke instrukcije uticati na planiranje učenja i nalaženje veze prethodno naučenih sadržaja i informacija.


69

2. Ispitati u kojoj meri će heurističko-metodičke instrukcije podsticati kod učenika nadzor nad sopstvenim učenjem, realizovanog kroz mogućnost detektovanja teškoća i iznalaženja načina za njihovo prevazilaženje.

3. Ispitati u kojoj meri će heurističko-metodičke instrukcije uticati na proveravanje datih odgovora, način provere i izdvajanje glavnih pojmova i ideja iz obrađenog sadržaja.

Hipoteze istraživanja smo formulisali na osnovu očekivanja vezanih za rešavanje zadataka u tri etape procesa učenja – pre, za vreme i posle procesa učenja. H1 se odnosi na pretpostavku da će postojati statistički značajna razlika između grupa u zadacima gde se od učenika tražilo da napišu kako izgleda njihov plan učenja, i u zadatku koji se odnosi na povezivanje prethodno naučenog gradiva sa novim. H2 je predstavljala očekivanja da će postojati statistički značajna razlika između grupa u zadatku gde se od učenika tražilo da prepoznaju šta im predstavlja teškoće u radu i na koji način bi bilo moguće prevazići prepreke. H3 je predstavljala očekivanja da će postojati statistički značajna razlika između grupa u zadacima gde se od učenika tražilo da napišu da li proveravaju tačnost rešenih zadataka i, ako proveravaju, na koji način to rade, kao i u zadatku u kom je trebalo izdvojiti glavne pojmove i ideje u tekstu. Nezavisnu varijablu činile su heurističke metodičke strategije, a zavisnu varijablu metakognitivne sposobnosti učenika praćene na tri nivoa procesa učenja – pre početka procesa učenja, za vreme procesa učenja i posle procesa učenja. Očekivani obrazovni efekti nastali pod uticajem eksperimentalnog faktora – heurističkih metodičkih instrukcija – su razvijenije metakomponente indikovane u sledećim etapama: 1) planiranje (mogućnost pomoći prethodnog znanja u onome što treba da se uči, u kom pravcu učenje i mišljenje treba da se usmere, šta je prvo potrebno uraditi, koliko vremena će biti potrebno da se reši problem ili nauči određeno gradivo); 2) nadgledanja (monitoringa) – kontrola onoga što se radi i tempo napredovanja; koje je pitanje ostalo otvoreno; da li razgovor sa nastavnikom, drugom ili nekom drugom osobom može biti od pomoći; na koji način nastaviti dalje, koje su informacije važne za dalji rad; šta uraditi i koje strategije učenja upotrebiti kada se naiđe na prepreku; 3) samoevaluacija (da li je zadatak dobro urađen; da li je tok mišljenja, učenja i rešavanja problema bio uspešan ili neuspešan u odnosu na očekivanja; šta je moglo da se uradi drugačije; na koji način je moguće primeniti ovaj način mišljenja i ovu strategiju učenja i rešavanja problema u drugim situacijama i drugim sadržajima; da li bi trebalo da se još jedanput vrati korak nazad i proveri rešenje zadatka) (Pintrich, Wolters & Baxter, 2000; Stojaković, 2007, 2009). Uzorak istraživanja. U ovom istraživanju populaciju su činili učenici četvrtog razreda osnovnih škola u Pančevu, u školskoj 2014/15. godini. Uzorkovano je 146 učenika iz dve osnovne škole, starosti 9−10 godina, a uzorak su činila tri odeljenja eksperimentalne i tri odeljenja kontrolne grupe. Odlučili smo se za neverovatnosni namerni uzorak. Ovaj uzorak smo smatrali najprikladnijim s obzirom na prostorne uslove škola; organizcione pogodnosti koje, između ostalog, podrazumevaju dogovor učiteljskih aktiva četvrtog razreda obe škole što se tiče korišćenja udžbenika i redosleda nastavnih tema preporučenih od iste izdavačke kuće; uzrast učenika (ako uzmemo u obzir da se tehnika praćenja razvoja metakognitivnih sposobnosti – introspektivni protokoli i izveštaji – može primeniti tek od devete godine), blizinu škola sa parkovima (Tamiški kej i Narodna bašta), koji su nam bili od značaja za izvođenje ambijentalne nastave.


70

Eksperimentalni faktor je sproveden na časovima Prirode i društva, gde se, u okviru sadržaja na osnovu Nastavnog plana i programa, putem heurističko-metodičkih strategija, intenzivno radilo na podsticanju metakognitivnih sposobnosti učenika. Istraživanje je trajalo šest meseci, a test za proveru metakomponenata predstavljao je ’prvi presek stanja’, odnosno uvid u razlike razvijenih metakomponenata učenja učenika eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe. Naše pretpostavke su se zasnivale na očekivanjima da će učenici eksperimentalne grupe na testu pokazati razvijenije metakomponente učenja od učenika kontrolne grupe. Test je formiran od seta pitanja koja su se odnosila na rešavanje zadataka vezanih za trijadni proces učenja – pre početka procesa učenja, za vreme procesa učenja i nakon procesa učenja. Zadatak učenika je bio da najpre pročitaju dati tekst o gradu Pančevu, a nakon toga odgovaraju na pitanja. U skladu sa tim, sastavljeni su bili zadaci u okviru kojih smo proveravali da li učenici imaju plan učenja, da li tekst koji uče dovode u vezu sa prethodnim znanjem, a ako ga dovode – koje im prethodno znanje može pomoći u rešavanju zadataka; na koji način je moguće prevazići teškoće; da li proveravaju tačnost odgovora i ako proveravaju na koji način to rade; izdvajanje glavnih pojmova i ideja u tekstu. Zadatke, odnosno pitanja i odgovore smo formulisali u vidu kategorija, a svaka kategorija je, u zavisnosti od učeničkih odgovora, sadržala potkategorije. Neki odgovori učenika, usled niske frekventnosti, a samim tim i otežane statističke obrade, nisu mogli da čine zasebne potkategorije, pa su iz tog razloga bili prisajedinjeni nekoj, smisaono najpribližnijoj potkategoriji odgovora. Od ukupnog uzorka učenika obe grupe, iz analiza testa isključeno je 19 učenika koji nisu popunili test. Grupe su bile ujednačene na inicijalnom testu znanja t(125)=.642, p=.522; po rodnoj strukturi - χ2(1)=.928, p=.335 i obrazovnom statusu roditelja: majka - χ2 (2)=3.239, p=.198, otac - χ2 (2)=1.840, p=.399. Ujednačavanje grupa na osnovu navedena tri kriterijuma smatrali smo adekvatnim iz sledećih razloga: inicijalni test znanja pomogao nam je da grupe budu ujednačene pre početka delovanja eksperimentalnog programa, uzimajući u obzir postignuća učenika na testu koji se odnosio na proveru znanja nakon obrađene jedne nastavne teme. Po ovom kriterijumu ujednačavanja dobili smo grupe, odnosno odeljenja u kojima su učenici bili na približno istom nivou znanja, što nam je bilo značajno za dalji tok istraživanja, imajući u vidu da su se naša očekivanja odnosila na pretpostavku da će razvijenije metakognitivne sposobnosti učenika eksperimentalne grupe uticati na bolja postignuća ovih učenika na testovima znanja. Kada su u pitanju rodna struktura učenika i obrazovni status roditelja, smatrali smo da bi bilo važno ujednačiti grupe na osnovu ova dva kriterijuma, s obzirom da bi veći broj dečaka ili devojčica u okviru grupe mogao da utiče na rezultate kako na testovima znanja, tako i na testovima provere metakognitivnih sposobnosti. Razlog zbog kog smo se odlučili da treći kriterijum ujednačavanja grupa bude obrazovni status roditelja nalazi se u pretpostavci da bi učenici, čiji su roditelji višeg obrazovnog statusa, mogli da poseduju razvijenije metakognitivne strategije učenja, budući da bi roditelji sa završenom višom/visokom stručnom spremom mogli da utiču na podsticanje metakomponenata, kao što su planiranje i povezivanje prethodno naučenog sa novim gradivom, samoproveravanje tokom i nakon procesa učenja, izdvajanje važnih od manje važnih činjenica i slično. S druge strane, kod učenika čiji je obrazovni status roditelja niža stručna sprema (osnovna škola), pretpostavke se odnose na to da ovi učenici ne poseduju razvijene matkomponente učenja ili da su one slabo izražene. Zbog toga smo pri ujednačavanju grupa izuzeli (ekstremne) slučajave koji bi mogli da utiču na relevantnost podataka.


71

Nalazi i interpretacija rezultata istraživanja

U prikazu nalaza polazi se od pitanja na testu koja su se odnosila na planiranje, odnosno sastavljanje plana učenja, što je predstavljalo prvi segment u procesu učenja. Nakon toga, interpretacija rezultata istraživanja odnosiće se na segmente tokom procesa i nakon procesa učenja. Ovakav redosled analiza rezultata istraživanja vođen je zadacima na testu koji su služili za proveru metakomponenata u trijadnom procesu učenja. U zadatku u kom se od učenika tražilo da napišu da li su imali plan učenja, i ako su ga imali kako je on izgledao, hi-kvadrat test nije pokazao statistički značajnu razliku u rezultatima između odgovora eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe (χ2(6)=4.433, na nivou 0.05 r=0.618). Učenici obe grupe su navodili kao odgovore da im se plan učenja sastojao u čitanju teksta više puta, izdvajanju važnih informacija, podeli teksta na delove, podvlačenju važnih reči i sl., međutim, značajna razlika između grupa u rezultatima ipak nije postojala. Ovo bismo objasnili sa dva aspekta koji su nam se činili najrealnijim. Prvi aspekt bi se odnosio na to da učenici u ovom uzrastu još uvek nisu svesni važnosti sastavljanja plana za dalje učenje, kao ni činjenice da im plan učenja znatno može pomoći u ekonomičnosti vremena i samoorganizaciji, a samim tim i boljim postignućima u učenju sadržaja. Drugi aspekt se odnosi na mogućnost da učenici nisu smatrali važnim pravljenje plana za rešavanje zadataka na ovom, dakle konkretnom testu. U prilog tome govori i to da deca mlađeg školskog uzrasta obično odmah započinju rad na zadacima nasumice i bez obzira na težinu zadatka. Još uvek slabo razvijene ove metakomponente dovode do toga da učenici ovog uzrasta ne mogu da planiraju i odluče o tome koliko im vremena treba za učenje i rešavanje nekog problema (Stojaković, 2009). U jednom američkom istraživanju pratilo se pojavljivanje i iščezavanje metakognitivnih strategija učenja tokom pet godina. Rezultati su pokazali da su mogućnosti uključivanja metakognitivnih strategija varirale tokom istraživanja, pa su neke metakomponente (strategije planiranja i selfmonitoring) bili izražene u trećem razredu, ali su u četvrtom gotovo bile neprimetne, da bi u petom razredu bio zabeležen ponovo viši skor u ovoj metakomponenti (Annevirta & Vauras, 2006). U zadatku gde se od učenika očekivalo da napišu na koji način se rešavanje zadataka sa testa može dovesti u vezu sa prethodnim znanjem, hi-kvadrat test je pokazao statistički značajnu razliku u odgovorima, odnosno rezultatima između učenika eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe (χ2(4)=20.546, na nivou 0,05 r=0.000).


72

Grafik 1. – Veza sa prethodnim znanjem

Mogli bismo, dakle, da zaključimo da postoji statistički značajna razlika u korist eksperimentalne grupe u pogledu povezivanja već poznatih činjenica sa tekstom i zadacima sa testa, što nam ukazuje da su se ovi učenici oslanjali na prethodno stečena iskustva. U prilog tome govori i podatak da je dvostruko više učenika kontrolne grupe navelo da ne razmišlja o povezivanju prethodnog znanja sa novim, a ovoj potkategoriji odgovora učenika pripojili smo one odgovore u kojima su učenici navodili da ne nalaze nikakvu vezu između prethodno stečenih znanja i zadataka sa testa. U istraživanju G. Gojkov o uticaju didaktičkih instrukcija na metakognitivne i kreativne reakcije izražene kroz metaiskaze, došlo se do rezultata koji su pokazali da su ispitanici bili najuspešniji, između ostalog, kod onih metaiskaza koji su se odnosili na elaboraciju i svest o načinima da se upotrebi prethodno znanje, strategije smisaone organizacije materijala i svest o nivou razumevanja i analize problema. Upoređujući naše rezultate sa rezultatima pomenutog istraživanja, mogli bismo da zaključimo da su ispitanici koji su bili pod uticajem didaktičkih instrukcija i heurističkih strategija pokazali razvijenije metakomponente koje se odnose na povezivanje ranije naučenog sa novim gradivom. Ovi ispitanici su navodili da pronalaze vezu između usvojenog gradiva i onog koje se tek uči, kao i da im prethodno znanje može pomoću u strukturisanju novog znanja. U kategoriji, definisanoj na osnovu zadatka u kom je trebalo navesti način prevazilaženja teškoća na koje su učenici nailazili prilikom rešavanja zadataka, hi-kvadrat test je pokazao da


73

postoji statistički značajna razlika između eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe (χ2(2)=30.676, na nivou 0.05 r=0.00). Učenici eksperimentalne grupe su u znatno većem broju slučajeva u odnosu na učenike kontrolne grupe odgovorili da je za prevazilaženje teškoća neophodno ulaganje više truda, kao i pomoć drugog. Potkategoriji koja se odnosila na ulaganje više truda prilikom rešavanja zadataka, pripojili smo i odgovore učenika predstavljene u vidu šeme, tabele, simbola, grafika. Takođe, neki učenici su dolazili do rešenja tako što su potencijalno tačne odgovore predstavljali malim crtežima, a zatim ih sistemom eliminacije precrtavali, izdvajajući jedno ili dva moguća rešenja. S druge strane, kontrolna grupa je procentualno više (čak u 86,7% slučajeva) ostavila nepopunjeno mesto, što smo protumačili da učenik ne može/ne zna da definiše odgovor.

Grafik 2. – Prevazilaženje teškoća

Naše rezultate smo uporedili sa dobijenim rezultatima istraživanja u kom su se upoređivale dobijene razlike između grupe u kojoj su bile podsticane tehnike samoinstrukcije, samopropitivanja i samonadgledanja i grupe koja je radila u neeksperimentalnim uslovima (Sweeny, 2010). Takođe, akcenat je bio i na metakognitivnoj verbalizaciji, gde su učenici koristili metodu razmišljanja naglas za vreme rešavanja zadataka i nakon rešavanja zadataka. Analizama je utvrđeno da je postojala statistički značajna razlika u metakognitivnim tehnikama elaboracije i samonadgledanja u korist eksperimentalne grupe. Učenici eksperimentalne grupe su koristili šematske prikaze i dijagrame kako bi eliminacijom netačnih odgovora došli do tačnog rešenja. Slično kao u našem, i u ovom istraživanju su se merile razlike između grupa u strategijama koje su učenici naveli da su doprinele prevazilaženju teškoća prilikom rešavanja zadataka. Rezultati oba istraživanja su pokazali da su postojale statistički značajne razlike


74

između grupa u metakomponentama koje su se odnosile na iznalaženje načina i rešenja prilikom prevazilaženja prepreka, kao i da su učenici eksperimentalnih grupa u većem broju koristili tehnike elaboracije u vidu izdvajanja važnog od manje važnog, praćenja toka učenja samopropitivanjem i prevazilaženju prepreka putem samoorganizovanog učenja kroz pravljenje šematskih i tabelarnih prikaza. Proveravanje tačnosti odgovora bila je kategorija u kojoj je postojala statistički značajna razlika u procentu odgovora učenika između dve grupe, što je pokazao i rezultat hi-kvadrat testa (χ2(1)=9.935, na nivou 0.05 r=0.02). Eksperimentalna grupa je u 83% slučajeva odgovorila da je proveravala tačnost odgovora, dok je to kod učenika kontrolne grupe bilo zabeleženo u 58% slučajeva. Ovakve rezultate pripisali bismo dejstvu heurističkih instrukcija, uzimajući u obzir da se tokom eksperimentalnog programa sa učenicima permanentno radilo na proveravanju dobijenih rešenja sa rešenjima para iz klupe, članovima grupe, te frontalno kroz sistematizaciju i povratnu informaciju o sadržaju koji se obrađivao. Takođe, sa učenicima eksperimentalne grupe smo na časovima na kojima je bila zastupljena petominutna provera zajedno komentarisali rešenja i ukazivali na važnost provere odgovora. Insistirali smo na tome da netačno rešen zadatak i uvid u greške treba da budu motivacija za iznalaženje boljih strategija i metoda pri rešavanju zadataka sličnog tipa.

Grafik 3. – Proveravanje tačnosti odgovora

U kategoriji koja se odnosila na način provere urađenih zadataka, zabeležena je statistički značajna razlika u korist eksperimentalne grupe, što nam je pokazao hi-kvadrat test (χ2(4)=16.433, na nivou 0.05 r=0.02). Učenici eksperimentalne grupe su značajno više puta


75

naveli da tačnost odgovora proveravaju tako što ponovo čitaju tekst ili ponovo razmišljaju o pitanjima. Pored ovih odgovora, učenici su davali i one u kojima su navodili da tačnost odgovora proveravaju konsultujući se sa učiteljicom, parom iz klupe, koristeći informacije sa interneta, istražujući tekstove u monografiji o gradu Pančevu. Recipročno ovom odnosu, učenici kontrolne grupe su u znatno većem broju naveli da ne proveravaju tačnost odgovora.

Grafik 4. – Način provere

U već pomenutom istraživanju (Sweeny, 2010) upoređivani su rezultati eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe u zadacima koji su se odnosili na tehnike rešavanja problema. Rešavanje problema odvijalo se u tri koraka, a koraci su bili raspoređeni po nivoima težine (koraci su slični onome što se u našim školama koristi kao poluprogramirani materijal u vidu članaka koji se smenjuju jedan za drugim, gde se na sledeći članak prelazi nakon obrađenog prethodnog članka). Analizom rezultata je utvrđeno da su učenici eksperimentalne grupe bili uspešniji u rešavanju sva tri koraka problema – prepoznavanje problema, pronalaženje pogodnih strategija za njegovo rešavanje, proveravanje datih odgovora korišćenjem pomoćnih informacija, retrospektivno rešavanje problema i samopropitivanje kroz izveštaj o radu na zadacima. U pomenutom istraživanju G. Gojkov (2009) utvrđeno je da su didaktičke strategije uticale kod ispitanika na dublju analizu sadržaja problema, često postavljanje novih pitanja i proveravanje, preispitivanje nakon urađenog zadatka o drugim mogućnostima i putevima za njegovo rešavanje.


76

U našem istraživanju smo potkategorijama koje su se odnosile na revidiranje problema i čitanje teksta više puta pripojili odgovore učenika da su prilikom provere rešenja ponovo dekomponovali problem, analizirali delove teksta počevši od onog što je nepoznato u tekstu, preispitivali se da li postoji više mogućih rešenja, a nakon toga delove sintetisali u strukturnu celinu. Na osnovu nalaza pomenutih istraživanja i našeg istraživanja možemo da zaključimo da su učenici izloženi dejstvu heurističkih didaktičkih instrukcija pokazali viši stepen u metakomponentama koje su se odnosile na deo nakon procesa učenja. U kategoriji koja se odnosila na zadatak u kom se od učenika tražilo da izdvoje glavne pojmove i ideje iz teksta, hi-kvadrat test je pokazao statistički značajnu razliku u odgovorima između eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe (χ2(3)=10.111, na nivou 0.05 r=0.018). Tako su učenici kontrolne grupe u znatno većem broju slučajeva ostavili prazno mesto, odnosno nisu imali nikakav odgovor, dok je kod učenika eksperimentalne grupe ovo zabeleženo u značajno manjem broju slučajeva.

Grafik 5. – Pojmovi i ideje

Upoređujući naše rezultate sa rezultatima drugih istraživanja (Fonteyn, Kuipers, & Grobe, 1993; Gojkov, 2009; Rudd, 2010; Sweeny, 2010) došli smo do zaključka da je kod onih učenika koji su bili izloženi uticaju heurističkih instrukcija primećena značajna razlika u pronalaženju


77

optimalne strukture u sadržaju koji se rešava i njenom organizovanju u glavne i sporedne ideje, izdvajanju važnih pojmova u sadržaju koji su prezentovali kontekste i bliže ih objašnjavali onda kada su učenici nailazili na teškoće. U jednom američkom istraživanju (Chalmers, 2009), upoređivani su rezultati eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe, gde se merio pozitivan skor u matematičkim iskazima kod učenika 3. razreda osnovne škole. Učenici eksperimentalne grupe su bili pod uticajem didaktičkih instrukcija u toku tri meseca koje su podrazumevale podsticanje metakognitivnih strategija učenja, a nakon toga su rešavali testove gde se zahtevalo samostalno definisanje pojmova i ideja na osnovu dobijenih rešenja. Učenici su imenovali i označavali simbolima svoje metakognitivne strategije učenja koje su koristili pri dekomponovanju problema i iznalaženju optimalnih rešenja. Zabeležena je značajna razlika u rezultatima u korist eksperimentalne grupe. Naime, ova grupa je pokazala znatno viši nivo uključivanja strategija elaboracije i proveravanja rešenja, ali i definisanja i izdvajanja najvažnijih pojmova na obrađivanim sadržajima (Chalmers, 2009). Rezultati našeg istraživanja su pokazali da su učenici eksperimentalne grupe davali odgovore u kojima su osmislili posebne nazive za pojmove i ideje koje su smatrali najznačajnijim. Isto tako, neki učenici su glavne pojmove i ideje potkrepili malim crtežima, odnosno simbolima, pomoću kojih bi još detaljnije mogli da pojasne svoje viđenje izdvajanja izabranih pojmova i ideja kao najvažnijih. Upoređujući naše rezultate sa rezultatima navedenog istraživanja, došli smo do zaključka da su heurističke didaktičke instrukcije uticale na završni deo procesa učenja, u kom su učenici elaborirali svoj rad. Isto tako, učenici eksperimentalne grupe su u oba istraživanja pokazali viši nivo razvijenosti metakomponenata kada su u pitanju sistematizacija naučenog i tehnike revidiranja datih odgovora. Na osnovu analize dobijenih rezultata mogli bismo da potvrdimo drugu i treću hipotezu koje su glasile da će postojati statistički značajna razlika u korist učenika eksperimentalne grupe u onim metakomponentama koje se odnose na elaboraciju i monitoring procesa učenja (u zadatku u kom se očekivalo da učenici prepoznaju teškoće i nađu načine za njihovo prevazilaženje), sistematizaciju i povratnu informaciju nakon procesa učenja kroz samopropitivanje i proveravanje rešenja, odnosno datih odgovora, kao i u onim metekomponentama gde je kod učenika trebalo podstaći samostalno izdvajanje pojmova i ideja u tekstu. Prvu hipotezu, koja se odnosila na očekivanja da će postojati statistički značajna razlika u korist eksperimentalne grupe kada su u pitanju planiranje učenja i povezivanje prethodnog sa novonaučenim gradivom, mogli bismo delimično da potvrdimo. Ova hipoteza bi mogla biti potvrđena u onom segmentu koji se odnosi na pretpostavku da će učenici eksperimentalne grupe imati razvijeniju svest o povezivanju prethodno usvojenih sadržaja sa novim. Međutim, u segmentu koji se odnosio na planiranje, odnosno pravljenje plana učenja, hi-kvadrat test je pokazao da nije postojala statistički značajna razlika između grupa u planiranju procesa učenja, što nam ukazuje da ovaj deo prve hipoteze ne može biti potvrđen. Kontrolna varijabla u istraživanju na ovom testu bio je obrazovni status roditelja. Na osnovu ove varijable, hteli smo da proverimo da li je na odgovore učenika uticao obrazovni status njihovih roditelja, što bi dalje moglo uticati na dobijene rezultate, budući da ne bismo sa sigurnošću mogli da tvrdimo da su heurističko-metodičke instrukcije bile presudni faktor u razvijenijim metakognitivnim sposobnostima učenika. Za svaku kategoriju, odnosno zadatak, rađen je hi-kvadrat test koji je trebalo da pokaže da li je postojala statistički značajna razlika u odgovorima između grupa u odnosu na obrazovni status roditelja. Iz analiza razlika u odnosu na obrazovni status oca isključena su 4 ispitanika čiji je otac imao završenu osnovnu školu, zbog malog broja ispitanika u ovoj kategoriji. Iz istog razloga,


78

isključeno je 7 ispitanika iz analiza razlika u odnosu na obrazovni status majke. Dakle, razlike u odnosu na obrazovni status roditelja rađene su uključujući dve kategorije obrazovnog statusa – srednja i viša/visoka stručna sprema. Analize razlika u postignuću na ovom testu u odnosu na obrazovni status roditelja rađene su odvojeno za eksperimentalnu i kontrolnu grupu. U slučajevima gde je broj ćelija sa očekivanim frekvencama manjim od pet bio veći od 20%, posmatran je Likelihood Ratio pokazatelj. Hi-kvadrat test je pokazao da ni na jednoj kategoriji, koje su bile važne za naš rad, nisu postojale značajne razlike u rezultatima na testu provere metakognitivnih sposobnosti i obrazovnog statusa majke i oca u obe grupe. Dakle, i u okviru eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe, nije postojao indikator koji bi ukazivao na parazitarno dejstvo ovog faktora.

Zaključna razmatranja

Na osnovu rezultata istraživanja došli smo do zaključka da su heurističke instrukcije uticale na razvijenije metakognitivne komponente učenika eksperimentalne grupe, i da su ovi učenici imali razvijenije strategije učenja koje su se odnosile na samopropitivanje, upoređivanje odgovora, iznalaženje novih rešenja, povezivanje novog gradiva sa prethodnim iskustvima i naučenim sadržajima, izdvajanje glavnih pojmova i ideja, korišćenje pomoćnih informacija. Ovde je trijadni proces učenja bio u centru posmatranja, odnosno pitanje da li je, počevši od plana učenja, nadovezujući se na nadgledanje vlastitog procesa učenja, pa do samoevaluacije i elaboracije urađenog, moguće uticati na razvijenije metakomponente učenika, odnosno frekventniji broj metaiskaza. Teorijske analize radova koje smo koristili kao putokaz u istraživanju, ukazivale su nam na međuzavisni odnos između heurističkih instrukcija i dva aspekta metakognitivnog znanja – deklarativnog i proceduralnog. Isto tako, trijarhična teorija inteligencije vodila je naša očekivanja u smeru razvijenijih metakognitivnih strategija učenja kod učenika koji su bili izloženi heurističkim metodičkim instrukcijama. Rezultati dobijeni na osnovu ovog istraživanja potvrdili su našu pretpostavku da će učenici koji su bili izloženi uticaju heurističkih metodičkih instrukcija, operacionalizovanih kroz istraživačko učenje, problemsku metodu, interaktivni rad, samoevaluaciju i introspekciju svog rada, pokazati viši nivo razvijenosti metakognitivnih strategija. Ova očekivanja bila su potvrđena na dva nivoa učenja – za vreme i posle procesa učenja. Međutim, u delu koji se odnosi na planiranje, odnosno sastavljanje plana učenja, naše pretpostavke nisu bile potvrđene, što smo mogli da vidimo na osnovu rezultata u kategoriji pitanja koje se odnosi na pravljenje plana učenja. Nepostojanje statistički značajne razlike u rezultatima između eksperimentalne i kontrolne grupe, kada je pravljenje plana u pitanju, sagledali smo sa dva aspekata i uporedili sa teorijskim analizama drugih autora. Ovo pitanje ostaće otvoreno za neka dalja istraživanja, gde ćemo pokušati da definišemo rešenja i pronađemo odgovore koji bi nas usmerili ka iznalaženju onih heurističkih instrukcija koje bi pokazale razvijeniji i ovaj segment procesa učenja, odnosno metakomponenata koje se odnose na deo pre početka procesa učenja.


79

Literatura

Annevirta, T. & Vauras, M. (2006). Developmental changes of metacognitive skill in elementary school children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 197–225.

Fonteyn, M. E., Kuipers, B. & Grobe, S. J. (1993). A description of think-aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 3, 430–441.

Gojkov, G. (2009). Didaktika i metakognicija. Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitača „Mihailo Palov”.

Gojkov, G, Stojanović, A. (2011). Participativna epistemologija u didaktici. Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitača „Mihailo Palov”.

Gojkov, G., Gojkov Rajić, A., Stojanović, A. (2014). Heurističke didaktičke strategije u visokoškolskoj nastavi. Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih studija za vaspitače „Mihailo Palov”.

Gudjons, H., Teske, R., Winkel, R. (1994). Didaktičke teorije. Zagreb: Educa. Jelavić, F. (2008). Didaktika, 5. dopunjeno izdanje. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. Komnenović, B., Lažetić, P., Vukasović, M., (2010). Nacionalni okvir kvalifikacija. Beograd: Centar za

obrazovne politike. Landa, L. N. (1976). Intructional Regulation and Control: Cybernetich, Algorithmization and Heuristics in

Education. Moscow: Institute of General and Educational Psichology; Academy of the Pedagogical Sciences.

Milutinović, J. (2008). Ciljevi vaspitanja i obrazovanja u svetlu dominantnih teorija 20. veka. Novi Sad: Savez pedagoških društava Vojvodine.

Milutinović, J. (2011). Alternative u teoriji i praksi savremenog obrazovanja – put ka kvalitetnom obrazovanju. Novi Sad: Savez pedagoških društava Vojvodine; Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitača „Mihailo Palov”.

Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The Self-Report Method. In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, R.F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 224–239). New York: NY: Guildford Press.

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A. & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw, & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition (pp. 43– 97). University of Nebraska: Buros-Nebraska Series on Measurement and Testing.

Ponton, M. K. & Carr, P. B. (2000). Razumevanje i promovisanje autonomnosti u samodirigovanom učenju, u časopisu Psihologija u svetu, 4, str. 3–11.

Ristanović, D. (2010). Heuristički model nastave. Jagodina: Pedagoški fakultet. Rudd, D. (2010). The Effects of Heuristic problem – Solving Strategies on Seventh Grade Student’s Self-

Efficacy and Level of Achivment in Mathematics. State University of New York: The College at Brockport.

Sternberg, R. (2005). Kognitivna psihologija. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a Triarchic Theory of Human Inteligence, In: The Bihevioral and Brain

Sciences, 7, Cambridge: University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert

students? Instructional Science, 26, 127–140. Stojaković, P. (2007). Psihologija za nastavnike, šesto prerađeno i dopunjeno izdanje. Banja Luka: Media

Centar. Stojaković, P. (2009). Nastavna pitanja i zadaci u svjetlu stvaralačkih procesa učenja. Istočno Sarajevo:

Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. Swanson, L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314. Terhart, E. (2001). Metode poučavanja i učenja: uvod u probleme metodičke organizacije poučavanja i učenja.

Zagreb: Educa. Veenman, M. V & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and

task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176. Vilotijević, M. (2008). Inovacije u nastavi. Vranje: Učiteljski fakultet. Zimmerman, B. J. , & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student

use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628.


80

Biografske note

Danica Veselinov je rođena 1978. u Pančevu, gde je završila osnovnu školu i gimnaziju „Uroš Predić”. Godine 2010. diplomirala je na Učiteljskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, a 2011. završila master studije na istom fakultetu, iz oblasti Didaktike. Od 2011. godine zaposlena je na Visokoj školi strukovnih studija za vaspitače „Mihailo Palov” kao nastavnica za izvođenje praktične nastave, a iste godine postaje doktorand Učiteljskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Nišu, iz oblasti Metodike razredne nastave. Do sada je objavila više radova čija je problematika vezana za didaktičko-metodička pitanja razredne nastave i vaspitno-obrazovnog rada u predškolskim ustanovama. Radmila Nikolić je rođena u Užicu 1950. godine. Osnovnu i srednju Učiteljsku školu je završila u Užicu, a na Filozofskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu osnovne studije pedagogije, gde je i magistrirala i doktorirala na grupi za pedagogiju. Zaposlena je na Učiteljskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Kragujevcu, na katedri za pedagoške i psihološke nauke u zvanju redovnog profesora (uža naučna oblast: Pedagogija, Didaktika, Metodike), gde obavlja i funkciju dekana fakulteta od 2012. godine. Angažovana je na master i doktorskim studijama na Učiteljskom fakultetu u Užicu i Učiteljskom fakultetu u Vranju. Istraživač je u naučnim projektima finansiranim od strane Ministarstva za prosvetu, nauku i tehnološki razvoj Republike Srbije. Recenzent je u KAPKU za društveno-humanističke nauke. Član je komisija za ocenu naučne zasnovanosti tema i odbranu doktorskih disertacija, magistarskih teza, master i specijalističkih radova, kao i član Srpske akademije obrazovanja. Objavila je 15 knjiga (monografija i udžbenika) i preko 100 naučnih i stručnih radova. Učestvovala je na brojnim međunarodnim i naučno-stručnim konferencijama u zemlji i inostranstvu.

Veselinov, Nikolić: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ENCOURAGING STUDENT’S METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES…

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

67

Danica Veselinov1, MA

Preschool Teacher Training College “Mihailo Palov“ in Vrsac Original scientific paper PhD Radmila Nikolić2 UDK: 371.315.4

Teacher Training Faculty in Uzice DOI: 10.17810/2015.06 ==============================================================================

THE POSSIBILITIES OF ENCOURAGING STUDENT’S METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES

THROUGH HEURISTIC-METHODOLOGICAL INSTRUCTION

Abstract: In the era of contemporary society, which revolves around the fast information science revolution, the pupil is no longer just an observer in the educational process but rather an active constructor of one’s own knowledge. Current didactic theories proclaim teaching, in which the teacher is an instructor and a facilitator, and as such should encourage and help develop the pupil’s learning strategies constructed on the basis of intentionality, self-established and self-organized learning. In this explorative research the possible influence of heuristic-methodological instructions on encouraging metacognitive ability is explored, i.e. the meta-component of elementary school fourth grade pupils. Our goal was to determine to what extent it is possible to encourage the pupil’s metacognitive strategies with didactic-methodological strategies based on heuristics and its methods (discovery learning, project method, problem method, work in small groups, teaching in nature). The empirical research was conducted through an experimental program, realized in the experimental group of pupils, while the control group worked in unchanged conditions. In accordance with the gathered research results, we compared the differences between both groups and came to a conclusion that a statistically significant difference in the results occurred, i.e. through the research of the metacognitive abilities of the experimental group pupils in the segments which referred to elaborating and connecting previously acquired knowledge with new, overcoming work difficulties, checking correct answers, method of checking the validity of the answers and determining the main concepts and ideas from the text. Key words: heuristic-methodological instruction, learning meta-components, triadic learning process.

Introduction

Fast technological development and constant improvement of the existing technologies has significantly changed contemporary society. The development of knowledge, its application and constant improvement have become a characteristic of contemporary development, while modern societies are becoming societies of knowledge (Komnenovic, B., Lazetic, P., Vukasovic, M., 2010). The specificity of scientific and technological development in contemporary society is incomparable to any other previous period, therefore society

1 [email protected] 2 [email protected]


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

68

knowledge is a characteristic of any society, to different degrees, regardless of the political and ideological discourse, it influences almost every individual (ibidem). In this day and age knowledge and development are inseparable, which means that efficient economic development is unthinkable without knowledge, and that education is in the center of problems connected to the development of individuals and society. New circumstances demand an answer to the question what education today should be like, in order to answer to the challenges which contemporary life puts before it. A sudden developmental spur in science and knowledge as an unavoidable condition put forth the formation of a new educational paradigm with which an educational system adequate for individual and social needs of the postindustrial time could be created (Milutinovic, J., 2008). The search for new educational paradigms does not mean abandoning the educational ethos and education nor the values of the educational process with which intellectual growth and creativity are nurtured. This only recognizes the need to reevaluate current educational structures in the light of the 21st century demands (Milutinovic, J., 2011). Emancipation directed didactics, founded on the phenomenologically oriented educational process, stress that the teaching process must be constructed on the basis of the pupil’s existing knowledge, and that one should move from that point towards understanding and vocalizing, which is of constitutional importance for self-interpretation and interpretation of the pupil’s world (Gojkov, G., Stojanovic, A., 2011). The basis for such an understanding of the teaching process is the postulate of the functional-critical orientation towards the democratization of school and society. In this way a “didactics directed towards the pupil” was formed, whose goal is to include all actors who directly or indirectly participate in teaching into the process of institutional research and leaning (Gojkov, G., 2009, 2014). Heuristic-methodological instruction encourages in a pupil intellectual autonomy, independent research, self-discovery and self-regulation during the learning process, encourages designing and search for one’s own learning strategy and opens up the possibility for the development and encouragement of metacognitive learning strategies (Terhart, E., 2001). In the paper we have presented a smaller part of the empirical research which refers to the effects of heuristic-methodological strategies on the encouragement of learning in fourth grade elementary school pupils. Our goal was to determine to what extent it is possible to influence meta-components of learning through heuristic-methodical instructions – before the start of teaching (construction of a teaching plan); during the teaching process (elaborating and connecting previously acquired knowledge with new, overcoming difficulties while solving tasks by using different problem solving strategies); after the learning process (checking the given results and correct solutions, way of checking the answer, deducing the main concepts and ideas from a text).

Heuristic-methodological instructions for encouraging meta-components of learning

In a constellation with emancipated didactics, we find Freire’s conception of a human being as an “unfinished project” , which views the relation between a teacher and a pupil as an occurrence which is not isolated, which indicates that the holistic approach is necessary, i.e. the integrative approach in teaching. The goal of this approach is reflected in making an individual capable of critically reflecting the social reality and identifying the conditions which hinder one’s self-fulfillment. P. Freire (1972) pointed out that the essence of research is not gathering and conveying knowledge, but rather in an open dialogue between teachers and


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

69

pupils in whom knowledge is created. In other words, both teachers and pupils here are subjects in reality creation and knowledge re-creation. Guided by Sternberg’s triarchic theory of learning, we tried to encourage with heuristic-methodological instructions the triad which refers to the pupils’ internal world, their experience and the outer world which surrounds them. This triad further developed refers three different types of components, which are mutually conditioned – 1) meta-components, where executive processes are created (metacognition); 2) components of operationalization – processes of a lower level whose function is to execute meta-components and 3) the components of gaining knowledge, on the same level as the processes of learning ways for solving problems (Sternberg, R. 1989, 2005). Consequently, we were oriented towards learning strategies which help in the development of metacognitive abilities of the students, and some of them are elaboration, material organization, monitoring and controlling progress, verification of the achieved by checking the correctness of answers and by finding main concepts and ideas from a text, i.e. content which is analyzed (Swanson, L., 1990). Flavel in his works indicated that a wide range of cognitive production occurs through actions and reactions of four classes of phenomena: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience, goals and aims, and actions and strategies (1979). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive abilities do not only refer to the individuals awareness of one’s cognitive processes (noticing, remembering, thinking), but also to the awarenessabout when and in what situations can certain learning strategies be efficient and better than some other learning strategies which would better fit some other situation and solve some other problem (Stojakovic, P., 2009). The same author notes that learners who have a better ability to monitor and control not only their cognitive processes but also their learning and problem solving strategies, usually gain better results in learning. Pupils who developed the ability to control their learning strategies and learning achievement as a whole, are capable of controlling the learning process from beginning to end. This type of learning is meaningful and directed towards a goal (ibidem). In the encouragement of metacognitive learning strategies it is important to pay attention to every part of the learning process, every segment of the triad, i.e. three-phase learning process, as some authors call it (Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M., 1986). Heuristic instructions which encourage metacognitive skills refer to instructing students how to use learning strategies such as observing, summarizing, making notes; encouraging pupils to use learning strategies which connect new and previously acquired knowledge; giving instructions and elaborations of content (highlighting main ideas and concepts, sketching, making schemes, diagrams, summarizing, comparing, singling out newly learned important information from that which is less important); using the discourse method (dispute, discussion) and critical observation of certain contents; encouraging students to do introspection and metacognitive control of thinking (Sternberg, R., 1984; Veenman, M. V., & Spaans, M. A., 2005; Stojakovic, P., 2007). Some of the heuristic methodological instructions which can also help on the encouragement of metacognitive skills refer to self-reporting, which includes retroactive verbal reports or/and self-evaluation in a written form, where pupils ask themselves questions during and after the process of learning (Paulhus, D.L. & Vazire, S., 2007). Connected to self-reporting, it is useful


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

70

to use the methos of thinking-aloud. This method can be used during the process of solving a problem or retroactively, when the pupil finishes the task (Fonteyn, M.E., Kuipers, B. & Grobe, S.J., 1993). The importance of the thinking-aloud method is reflected in the direct feedback on the metacognitive knowledge and used strategies for solving the problem, as well as the possibility to change the strategies which did not result in a successfully solved task (ibidem). For our research relevant are the results of the empirical study conducted by G. Gojkov, which refers to the relation between didactic instruction and metacognitive ability. The author paid special attention to the number of meta-statements which the subjects made. The number of statements which could be marked as meta-statements was low. In other words, from the total metacognitive reaction, the subjects were most successful at using abilities which refer to the awareness of the level of understanding and problem analysis (3.8%); observing the problem situation as a whole and connecting the already learned knowledge with the new (3.1%); elaboration and awareness of the usage of previously acquired knowledge (2.9%), and finding optimal structures in the content which is being solved and its organization in main and supporting ideas and activities (2.8%) (Gojkov, G., 2009). When it comes to monitoring one’s own work and activities, metacognitive reactions were manifested in the following activities: awareness of the goal which needs to be achieved (1.9%); the ways through which the goals will be achieved (1.8%); frequently asking new questions and checking (1.5%); reexamining after completing the task about other ways of solving the problem and the possibilities of incorporating old knowledge into the new (0.8%). Relevant for this paper were also the findings of the same author which refer to the connection between metacognitive reactions and intellectual ability (r=0.56). This relevant connection was also manifested in the problem solving efficiency, and the connection between these two variables was observed according to the number of manifested reactions, where subjects were grouped into three categories. In the first category were subjects with five or more meta-statements, in the second the ones from three to five meta-statements and in the third category the ones with less than three meta-statements. With the Independent Samples T-test the difference between the ones with the highest and the lowest scores in meta-statements was tested. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the ones with the highest scores on the meta-statements. The differences were expresses in the intellectual potentials, success in problem solving and creativity (Gojkov, G., 2009).

Methodology

In our research3 we were particularly interested in the segment of metacognitive abilities which refer to meta-thinking (thinking and knowledge of one’s own thinking and ability to analyze thinking processes and methods while solving problems) and metacognitive knowledge (knowing what one knows, and does not know; knowledge of one’s own mistakes and actions) (Stojakovic, P., 2009). During the experimental research, subjects in the experimental group were under the influence of the experimental factors, i.e. heuristic-methodological instructions, that is learning strategies. Heuristic instructions incorporated that which leads to discovery, that

3The research represents a small part of an empirical research conducted for the needs of a doctoral theses completion.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

71

which is experimental. The accent is on the subjects independent search for principles (laws), while keeping redundancy to a minimum, which holds the core, truth and shortens the time necessary for solving the problem in comparison with other known methods in the research activity (Vilotijevic, M., 2008; Jelavic, F., 2008). During the construction of heuristic classes, the priority was on the student’s creative self-realization goals, than on methods and forms of class which ensure productive subject activity organization, and finally, educational content (Ristanovic, D., 2010). We would concentrate on this, heuristic relationship, in which organizational forms and methods of heuristic teaching have priority over content. Klafki stated the importance of the transformation from the didactic triangle to a didactic hexagon, where the gravity center is moved from the question “what to learn” to the question “how to learn” (Gudjons, H., Teske, R., Winkel, R., 1994). In class during the process of solving problems we encouraged the students to use heuristic strategies whose methodological value is reflected in giving general directions, with a maximal decrease of the teacher’s participation in the sense of giving solutions and universal rules (Rudd, D., 2010). Heuristic-methodological instructions strongly influence the pupil’s self-efficiency, which is reflected in solving the problem in a non-standard way, heuristic thinking and heuristic strategizing (Landa, L. N., 1976). Our goal was to enable the students to use self-regulated strategies (planning, monitoring, resource management strategies) and encourage them to be the constructors of their own knowledge (Ponton, M. K., Caar, P. B., 2000). Heuristic-methodological strategies in classes incorporated the usage of theproject method, in classes where we considered the content suitable for its realization, interactive work in small groups, ambient learning, student’s discovery work and independently reaching new information, discovery learning, problem method with elements of creating problem situations, problem decomposition and finding one and/or more solutions. During the research, the accent was put on monitoring one’s own learning, which was realized by keeping a Weekly Diary (introspection protocol), in which pupils wrote their insights from class, self-evaluated their learning, noted down what presented a problem while learning and gave suggestions (strategies) and sought for solutions on how to solve the problem.

Research subject is the influence of heuristic strategies and learning methods on encouraging pupil’s metacognitive skills in the subject nature and society, as well as the possibility to form an effective activity system with the goal of encouraging higher mental processes: critical thinking, autonomy in learning, self-organization in learning as well as self-efficiency in learning.

Research problems. Transmission of a large knowledge fond from a teacher to a pupil is regarded as unacceptable and so became a subject of harsh criticism by contemporary didactic theories. Educational goals of dominant teaching theories of the contemporary age are oriented towards learning to learn, dialogue, heuristic and discourse teaching methods, thinking activation of the student, positive transfer in learning, meta-components in learning and encouraging one’s own learning strategies. The research problem refers to the following: To what extent can the pupil’s metacognitive skills be encouraged with heuristic strategies from the perspective of explorative learning, self-regulation in learning, in other words to provoke self-organization in work and autonomy in learning with didactic-methodological instructions? We will explore the question of the contributions of systematic usage of didactic-methodological activities (individual and group) in conditions specific for nature and science classes, as well as the possible positive influence of these activities to the development of meta-components in learning. Through metacognitive participation in learning we could ease


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

72

the pupils’ acquisition of educational content from the subject nature and society and contribute to their better understanding, interpretation abilities and knowledge permanence.

The research goal is to determine to what extent it is possible to encourage the pupils’ metacognitive strategies with didactic-methodological strategies based on heuristics and its methods (discovery learning, project method, work in small groups, education in nature).

Research tasks

1. Explore to what extent will the heuristic methodological instructions influence study planning and finding the connections between the previously learned content and information.

2. Examine to what extent the heuristic methodological instructions will encourage self-monitoring in learning realized through detecting difficulties and finding ways to solve them.

3. Explore to what extent the heuristic methodological instructions will influence the checking of given answers, ways of checking and singling out of new concepts and ideas from the covered content.

Research hypothesis was formulated on the basis of expectations connected to solving the problems in the three phases of learning – before, during and after learning. H1 refers to the assumption that there will exist a statistically significant difference between the groups in tasks where the pupils are asked to write what their study plan looks like and in the task which refers to connecting the previously acquired content with new content. H2 refers to the assumption that a statistically significant difference will exist between the groups in tasks where pupils need to recognize difficulties in their work and ways in which they could overcome those differences. H3 refers to the assumption that a statistically significant difference will exist between the groups in tasks in which the pupils need to write whether they check the correctness of the solved tasks, and if they do, how they do it, as well as in the task in which they single out the main concepts and ideas in a text. Independent variable consisted of heuristic methodological strategies, and dependent

variable metacognitive ability of the participants followed through the three learning phases – before the learning process, during the learning process and after the learning process. Expected educational effects created under the influence of the experimental factor – heuristic methodological instructions – are development of meta-components induced in the following stages: 1) planning (the possibility that previously acquired knowledge will help in what needs to be learned, in which direction learning and thinking should be headed, what is the first thing that needs to be done, how much time it will take for the problem to be solved or for certain content to be learned); 2) monitoring –control over what is being done and the pace of progress; which question is still left unanswered; whether conversation with the teacher, a friend or a third person can be helpful; how to proceed further, what information is relevant for the following work; what to do and which learning strategies to implement when facing a problem; 3). Self-evaluation (whether the task is correctly completed; whether the flow of thinking, learning and problem solving was successful unsuccessful in comparison to


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

73

the expectations; what could have been done differently; in what way is it possible to apply this learning and problem solving strategy in other situations and on different subject matter; should we go one step behind again and check the solution of the task) (Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A. & Baxter, G. P., 2000; Stojakovic, P., 2007, 2009). Research sample. In this research the subjects were fourth grade elementary school pupils from the city of Pancevo, in the school year 2014/15. In the research participated 146 students from two elementary schools, aged 9-10. The sample consisted of 3 experimental and 3 control groups. In this research we opted for non-probability sampling and consider this sample the most adequate if we take into account the space conditions of the school, organizational advantages, which among other things, include an agreement on the teaching activities of the fourth grade in both schools, along with the usage of recommended books and ordering the teaching topics in the same way as the publishing house recommendation; the pupil’s age (if we take into account that technique for following the development of metacognitive ability – introspective protocols and reports – can only be applied after the age of nine), the proximity of the schools to parks (Tamis harbour and the National garden), which were important for the realization of ambient teaching. The experimental factor was conducted in classes of nature and society, in which intensive work was conducted to encourage the pupil’s metacognitive abilities with heuristic-methodological strategies which were incorporated in the curriculum. The research for six months, and the meta-component test represented “the first ground check”, that is insight into the differences of meta-component development between students of the experiment and the control group. Our assumptions were based on the assumptions that the pupils in the experimental group would have better results on the development of meta-components test than the pupils in the control group. The test consists of a set of questions which referred to solving tasks connected to the triad learning process – before the process of learning, during the process of learning and after the learning process. The pupils task was first to read a text about the city of Pancevo, and after that answer some questions. In accordance with this we composed tasks in which we tested whether the pupils had a learning plan, whether they connect the content they are learning with previous knowledge, and if they do which previous knowledge can help them to solve the problem; if they check the correctness of the answer and how they check; singling out the main ideas and concepts in the text. The tasks, that is questions and answers we formulated in categories, and every category, depending on the pupil’s answer, contained subcategories. Some of the pupils answers, due to low frequency, and therefore difficult for statistical processing, were not able to form separate sub-categories, and therefore were added to a category which was the closest in meaning. From the total sample from both groups, from the analysis we excluded nineteen pupils who did not complete the test. The groups were equal in the initial test of knowledge t(125)=.642, p=.522; on gender structure - χ2(1)=.928, p=.335 and educational status of the parents: mother - χ2 (2)=3.239, p=.198, father - χ2 (2)=1.840, p=.399. Making the groups compatible on the abovementioned three criteria was considered adequate for the following reasons: the initial knowledge test helped the groups be even before the effects of the experimental program, by taking into account the pupils’ achievements on a test which tested the knowledge after the completion of one teaching


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

74

unit. After these equalizing criteriawe got groups, i.e. classes in which the students were at the approximately same level of knowledge, which was important for the continuation of the research considering the fact that our expectations refer to the assumption that developed metacognitive skills of the experimental group result in better results on tests of knowledge. When it comes to the gender structure and parent educational status, we considered it important to match the groups according to these criteria, since a larger number of boys or girls could influence the acquired results on the knowledge test, as well on the metacognitive ability tests. The reason why we chose the educational level of the parents to be our third criterion is due to the assumption that pupils whose parents have a higher level of education could encourage meta-components, self-checking during and after the process of learning, separating important from less important facts etc. On the other hand, the assumption with parents with lower educational status (elementary school), is that these students do not possess developed learning meta-components or that they are weakly expressed. Because of this during the process of making the groups compatible we excluded some (extreme) cases so as not to influence the relevancy of the findings.

Findings and research results interpretation

In the results representation we start from the questions on the test which refer to planning, that is making a learning plan, which represents the first segment in the learning process. After that, interpretation of the research results will refer to the segments during and after the learning process. In the task on which the pupils were asked to write whether they had a learning plan, and if they had it what it looked like, the Chi-square test did not show a statistically significant difference between the answers of the experimental and control groups (χ2(6)=4.433, on the level 0.05 р=0.618). Pupils in both groups wrote as answers that their plan for learning was to read the text many times, single out important information, split the text into segments, underline important words etc. however a significant difference between the groups did not exist. We would explain this from two aspects which from our view seem the most plausible. The first aspect is that pupils at this age are still not aware of the importance of constructing plans for further learning, nor the fact that a learning plan could greatly help in time economy and self-organization, and therefore better achievement in content learning. The second aspect refers to the possibility that the pupils did not consider making a plan for the solving of this particular task important. Furthermore, younger children usually start the task immediately and randomly regardless of the task difficulty. Still weakly developed these meta-components leads to students being unable to decide how much time it will take them to solve a certain problem (Stojakovic, P., 2009). One American research monitored the occurrence and disappearance of metacognitive strategies over a period of five years. The results showed that the possibility of using metacognitive strategies varied during the research period. Therefore, some meta-components (planning strategies and self-monitoring) were frequent in the third grade, but were nearly non-existent in the fourth grade, only to become present again in the fifth grade (Annevirta, T. & Vauras, M., 2006). In the tasks where the students were expected to write how the solution method could be connected to previously acquired knowledge, the chi-square test showed a statistically significant difference in the answers between the pupils in the experimental and control groups (χ2(4)=20.546, on the level 0,05 р=0.000).


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

75

Chart 1. – Connection with previous knowledge

Connection with the previously acquired

Information from the internet

Correlation with other subjects

Previously known facts

I do not think about that

Experimental group


Information from the internet

Correlation with other subjects

Previously known facts

I do not think about that

Control group

We could therefore conclude that there exists a statistically significant difference in favor of the experimental group when it comes to connecting already acquired facts with the text and test tasks. This indicates that these pupils leaned on previously gained experience. Twice as many students in the control group stated that they do not think about connecting previously acquired knowledge with new. To this subcategory we added the students who stated that they do not find any connections between the previously acquired knowledge and test tasks. In the research of G. Gojkov (2009) on the influence of didactic instruction on metacognitive and creative reactions researched through meta-statements, results showed that subjects were the most efficient, among other things, in those meta-statements which referred to elaboration and consciousness of the ways in which to use previously acquired knowledge, strategies of meaningful material organization and consciousness of the problem, level of understanding and analysis. By comparing our results with the results of the previously


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

76

mentioned research we could conclude that subjects which were under the influence of didactic instruction and heuristic strategies showed greater developed meta-components which refer to the connecting of previously acquired knowledge with the new. These subjects stated that they find a connection between the acquired knowledge and the one which is being learned, as well as saying that the old knowledge can help structure the new. In the category defined on the basis of the task in which the subjects needed to write the ways in which they overcame problems during the problem solving process, the Chi-square test showed that there exists a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups (χ2(2)=30.676, on the level 0.05 р=0.00). Pupils from the experimental group in comparison to students in the control group more frequently gave answers that for overcoming difficulties one needs to invest more effort, as well as ask for the help of others. The subcategory which referred to investing more effort for solving a problem we merged with the answers which referred to using schemes, tables, symbols and charts. Furthermore, some students came to a solution by representing the potentially correct solutions in a little drawing, and then through the system of elimination crossed out some answers leaving one or two plausible solutions. On the other hand, the control group left the answer field blank in a larger number of cases ( in 86.7% of cases), which we interpreted as a sign that the pupils couldn’t/did not know how to define the answer.

Chart 2 – Overcoming difficulties


Experimental group

Putting in more effort

Someone’s help

Something elese/without an answer

Putting in more effort

Someone’s help

Something elese/without an answer

Control group

We compared our results with a study which compared the differences between a group in which self-instruction, self-examination and self-monitoring techniques were encouraged and a group which worked in non-experimental conditions (Sweeny, C., M., 2010). Furthermore, the stress was on metacognitive verbalization, where the pupils’ used the thinking aloud method during and after the process of solving a problem. The results analysis determined that there existed a statistically significant difference in metacognitive elaboration techniques and self-observation in favor of the experimental group. Experimental group pupils used schematic representations and diagrams in order to eliminate incorrect answers and reach correct solutions. In this research, like in ours, the researchers measured the differences in strategies which the pupils mentioned contributed to overcoming difficulties which came up during the process of solving the task. The results of both studies showed there exist statistically significant differences between the groups regarding meta-components which refer to ways and solutions for overcoming problems, as well as the fact that experimental


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

77

group students more frequently used techniques for elaboration by separating the important from the less important, following the flow with self-inquiry and overcoming problems through learning self-organization by making schemas and table representations.

Checking the correctness of the answer was the category in which a significant statistical difference existed between the two groups of students, which was confirmed by the Chi-square test results (χ2(1)=9.935, on the level 0.05 р=0.02). In 87% of cases the experimental group answered that they checked the correctness of the answer, while the control group pupils did the same in 58% of cases. In our opinion such results are due to the effect of heuristic instruction, since during the experimental program the pupils continuously checked the correctness of the answers with their partner, group members, frontally through systematization or feedback on the taught content. Furthermore, with experimental group pupils in classes in which we had whole-class five minute checking the answers were commented on and we indicated the importance of checking answers. We insisted that incorrectly solved tasks and mistake understanding need to be motivation for finding better strategies and methods for solving tasks of a similar nature.

Chart 3 – Checking the answer correctness

Control group

yes

no

Experimental group

yes

no

In the category which referred to the way in which the pupils checked the correctness of the answers, a statistically significant difference was found in favour of the experimental group, which the Chi-square test confirmed (χ2(4)=16.433, on the level 0.05 р=0.02). The experimental group students more frequently stated they check the correctness of the answers by reading the text again or thinking about the question again. Apart from these answers, the students also stated that they checked the correctness of the answer by consulting the teacher, a partner, using information from the internet, researching texts in a book about the city of Pancevo. Reciprocally, the control group pupils frequently noted that they did not check the correctness of the answer.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

78

Chart 4 – Way of checking

Experimental groupDoes not check thecorrectnes

Reads again

Thinks aboutthe questionagain

Consults withothers

Somethingelse

Control groupDoes not check thecorrectnes

Reads again

Thinks aboutthe questionagain

Consults withothers

Somethingelse

In the already mentioned research (Sweeny, C., M., 2010) the results of the control and experimental group results were compared for tasks which referred to problem solving techniques. The problem solving process was conducted in three steps, which were divided on the difficulty basis (the steps are similar to what is used in our schools as a half-programmed material in the form of articles which change one after another, pupils moves from one article after they have finished the current one). Through the result analysis we determined that the experimental group was more successful in solving all three problem steps – determining the problem, finding an adequate strategy for its solution, checking the answers using helpful information, retrospective problem solving and self-questioning during the report on work on the problem. In the mentioned research conducted by G. Gojkov (2009) it was determined that didactic strategies influenced the participants to do a deeper problem analysis, often pose new questions and to check and reexamine other possibilities and ways of solving the problem after it has been solved. In our research to subcategories which referred to problem revision and reading the text numerous times we added pupil answers that during the checking of the solutions they decomposed the problem again, analyzed parts of the text starting from what is unknown in the text, thinking whether there exist multiple answers for the problem, and after that structure the parts into a whole. After the analysis of the aforementioned studies and the results of our own we can conclude that students who were exposed to the influence of heuristic didactic instructions showed a higher degree of meta-components which referred to the post-learning part. In the category in which the pupils needed to single out the main ideas and concepts from the text, the Chi-square test showed a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control group answers (χ2(3)=10.111, on the level 0.05 р=0.018). The control group pupils in a significantly higher number left the answer space blank for this question, while this was significantly less frequent in the experimental group.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

79

Chart 5. – Concepts and ideas

Experimental group

Does not have concept s and ideas

Geographic feat ures

Fami l iarizat ion wi t h t he ci ty past

A det ai l ed fami l iarizat ion wi t h t he ci ty

Control group

Does not have

concept s and i deas

Geographic features

Fami l iari zat ion wi th the ci t y past

A det ai l ed

fami l iari zat ion wi th t he ci ty

By comparing our results with the results of other studies (Fonteyn, M.E., Kuipers, B. & Grobe, S.J., 1993; Gojkov, G., 2009; Rudd, D., 2010; Sweeny, C., M., 2010) we came to a conclusion that a significant difference exists between pupils who were influenced by heuristic instructions and those who were not when it comes to finding optimal content structures and their organization into main and sub-ideas, singling out important ideas and concepts in the content which was closer explained when the pupils had problems. In an American study (Chalmers, C., 2009), control and experimental group results of third grade elementary pupils were compared, on positive mathematical scores.For three months experimental group pupils were under the influence of didactic instructions which incorporated the encouragement of metacognitive learning strategies, after which they were given tests where they needed to independently define concepts and ideas on the basis of reached results. The pupils named and marked with symbols their metacognitive learning strategies which they had used for the problem decomposition and finding optimal solutions. A considerable difference in results was found in favor of the experimental group. Namely, this group showed an higher level of using elaboration strategies and solution checking, but also defining and singling out the most important concepts and in content processing (Chalmers, C., 2009). The results of our research showed that exoerimantal group pupils gave answers in which they thought up special names for concepts and ideas which they considered the most important. In the same way some pupils represented the main concepts and ideas through small drawings that is symbols, with the help of which they were able to make clearer their separation of the chosen concepts and ideas as the most important. By comparing our results with the aforementioned study we came to a conclusion that heuristic didactic instructions influenced the final part of the learnng process, in which the pupils elaborated their work. Furthermore, experimantal group pupils in both studies showed a higher developmental level of meta-components regarding the systematiyation of the aquired knowledge and techniques for revsison of the given answers.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

80

On the basis of the result analysis we con confirm the second and third hypothesis, which say that there will exist a statistically significant difference in favour of the experimental group in meta-components which refer to elaboration and monitoring ot the learning processes (in the task where the pupil is expected to recognize the difficulties and find ways to overcome them), systematization and feedback after the learning process through self-examination and solution checking, as well as in meta-components where pupils are encouraged to independently single out concepts and ideas in a text. The first hypothesis, which refers to the expectations that there will exist statistically significant difference in favor of the experimental group when it comes to planning of learning and connecting of the previous knowledge with the new content, we can partially confirm. We can confirm the part of the hypothesis which refers to the assumption that the experimental group will have a better developed awareness of connecting previously acquired knowledge with the new. However, in the segment which refers to the planning of the learning process, the Chi-square test did not show a significant difference between the groups, which indicates that this part of the first hypothesis cannot be confirmed. The control variable in the research in this test was the educational level of the parents. On the basis of this variable, we wanted to check whether the parents’ educational level influenced the pupils’ answers, which would influence the gotten results, since we would not be able to state that the heuristic-methodological instructions were the determining factor in the development of metacognitive learning ability of the pupils. For every category, task, the Chi-square test was done which should show whether there existed a statistically significant difference in the answers between groups on the basis of the educational level of the parents. From the analysis of differences based on the fathers educational level we excluded 4 subjects whose father had finished elementary school, and because of the small number of subjects in this category. For the same reasons, we excluded 7 subjects because of the mothers’ educational status. Therefore, the differences based on the educational level of the parents included two categories of educational levels – high school/higher education. The difference analyses in the achievement of this test on the basis of the differences of the parents’ educational level were conducted separately for the control and experimental groups. In the cases where the number of cells with expected frequencies lower than five was up to 20% the Likelihood Ratio was examined. Chi-square test showed that there were no significant differences in the results of the metacognitive ability test and the parents’ educational level in any of the categories which were significant for our work. Therefore, in the experimental and control groups, there did not exist an indicator which would indicate a parasitic influence of this factor.

Conclusion

On the basis of the research results we arrived at a conclusion that heuristic instructions influenced the development of metacognitive learning components in the experimental group, and that these pupils had a better developed learning strategies which referred to self-inquiry, answer comparison, finding new solutions, connecting the new content with previous experience and learned content, singling out the main concepts and ideas, using additional information. The triad learning process was in the center of attention, i.e. the question whether, starting from the learning plan, continuing to the monitoring of one’s own learning process, and to the self-evaluation and elaboration of the completed work, it is possible to


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

81

influence the development of the learners’ meta-components, i.e. the frequency number of meta-statements. Theoretical analysis of the papers which we used as guidance in our research indicated a dependent relationship between heuristic instructions and two aspects of metacognitive knowledge – declarative and procedural. In the same way, the triarhic intelligence theory lead to our expectations in the direction of developing metacognitive learning strategies in pupils who were exposed to heuristic instruction methods. The gathered results on the basis of this research confirmed our assumption that pupils who were exposed to the influence of heuristic methodological instructions, operationalized through discovery learning, the problem method, interactive work, self-evaluation and introspection of one’s work, would show a higher level of metacognitive strategy development. These expectations were confirmed on two levels of learning – during and after the process of learning. However, in the part which referred to the planning of learning our assumptions were not confirmed, which we have seen on the basis of the results in the category of questions which referred to the making of a learning plan. The absence of a statistically significant difference in the results of the control and experimental groups, when making of learning plans is in question, was viewed from two aspects and compared with the theoretical analysis of other authors. This question will remain open for other studies, where we will attempt to define solutions and find answers which would direct us towards finding those heuristic instructions which would make this learning segment more developed, i.e. meta-components which would refer to the pre-learning stage.

Bibliography:

Annevirta, T. & Vauras, M. (2006). Developmental changes of metacognitive skill in elementary school children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 197- 225.

Veenman, M. V., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.

Vilotijevic, М. (2008). Inovacije u nastavi. Vranje: Uciteljski fakultet. Gojkov, G. (2009). Didaktika i metakognicija. Vrsac: Visoka skola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje

vaspitaca „Mihailo Palov“. Gojkov, G, Stojanovic, A. (2011). Participativna epistemologija u didaktici. Vrsac: Visoka skola strukovnih

studija za obrazovanje vaspitaca „Mihailo Palov“. Gojkov, G., Gojkov Rajic, A., Stojanovic, A. (2014). Heuristicke didakticke strategije u visokoskolskoj nastavi.

Vrsac: Visoka skola strukovnih studija za vaspitace „Mihailo Palov“. Gudjons, H., Teske, R., Winkel, R. (1994). Didakticke teorije. Zagreb: Educa. Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use

of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628. Jelavic, F. (2008). Didaktika, 5. dopunjeno izdanje. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. Кomnenovic, B., Lazetic, P., Vukasovic, М. (2010). Nacionalni okvir kvalifikacija. Beograd: Centar za

obrazovne politike. Landa, L. N. (1976). Intructional Regulation and Control: Cybernetich, Algorithmization and Heuristics in

Education. Moscow: Institute of General and Educational Psichology; Academy of the Pedagogical Sciences.

Milutinovic, J. (2008). Ciljevi vaspitanja i obrazovanja u svetlu dominantnih teorija 20. veka. Novi Sad: Savez pedagoskih drustava Vojvodine.

Milutinovic, J. (2011). Alternative u teoriji i praksi savremenog obrazovanja – put ka kvalitetnom

obrazovanju. Novi Sad: Savez pedagoskih drustava Vojvodine; Vrsac: Visoka skola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitaca „Mihailo Palov“.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

82

Paulhus, D.L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The Self-Report Method. In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, R.F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 224-239). New York: NY: Guildford Press.

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw, & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition (pp. 43 - 97). University of Nebraska: Buros-Nebraska Series on Measurement and Testing.

Ponton, M. K. & P. B. Carr (2000). Razumevanje i promovisаnje autonomnosti u samodirigovanom ucenju, u casopisu Psihologija u svetu, 4, str. 3-11.

Ristanovic, D. (2010): Heuristicki model nastave. Jagodina: Pedagoski fakultet. Rudd, D. (2010): The Effects of Heuristic problem – Solving Strategies on Seventh Grade Student’s Self-

Efficacy and Level of Achivment in Mathematics. State University of New York: The College at Brockport.

Sweeny, C. M. (2010). The Metacognitive Functioning of Middle School Students with and without Learning

Disabilities During Mathematical Problem Solving. University of Miami: Scholary Repository – Electronic Theses and Dissertations.

Swanson, L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 306-314. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a Triarchic Theory of Human Inteligence, In: The Bihevioral and Brain

Sciences, 7, Cambridge: University Press. Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert

students? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140. Sternberg, R. (2005). Kognitivna psihologija. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. Stojakovic, P. (2007). Psihologija za nastavnike, sesto preradjeno i dopunjeno izdanje. Banja Luka: Media

Centar. Stojakovic, P. (2009). Nastavna pitanja i zadaci u svjetlu stvaralackih procesa ucenja. Istocno Sarajevo:

Zavod za udzbenike i nastavna sredstva. Terhart, E. (2001). Metode poucavanja i ucenja: uvod u probleme metodicke organizacije poucavanja i ucenja.

Zagreb: Educa. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, Vol 34, No. 10, 906-

911. Fonteyn, M.E., Kuipers, B. & Grobe, S.J. (1993). A description of think-aloud method and protocol analysis.

Qualitative Health Research. 3, 430-441. Freire, P. (1972): Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Chalmers, C. (2009). Primary student’s group metacogntive processes in a computer supported collaborative

learning environment. Queensland University of Technology: Centre for Learning Innovation; Faculty of Education.

Biographical note:

Danica Veselinov was born in 1978 in Pancevo, where she finished elementary school and grammar school “Uros Predic”. In 2010 she completed her bachelor studies at the Teacher Training Faculty, Belgrade University, where she became a Master of Arts in the area of didactics. From 2011 she has been working at the Preschool Teacher Training College “Mihailo Palov” as a teacher for practical training. In the same year she has enrolled in the PhD studies at the Teacher Training Faculty, Nis University, in the area of methodology. To the present she has published many papers connected to didactic-methodological issues and preschool education. Radmila Nikolic was born in Uzice in 1950. In the same city she finished elementary school and teacher training high school. At the Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University, she completed


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

83

her bachelor studies in the field of pedagogy, where she also finished her master and doctoral studies also in the field of pedagogy. She works at the Teacher Training Faculty in Kragujevac in the department for pedagogy and psychology science and has the title full-professor (in the area of: Pedagogy, Didactics, Methodology), where she has also been the dean since 2012. She also works at the Teacher Training Faculty in Uzice and the Teacher Training Faculty in Vranje for the master and doctoral studies. She is a researcher for scientific projects financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. She is a reviewer for KAPKU for the humanities. She is a member of the Evaluation Committee for the scientific basis and defense of doctoral thesis, master thesis and specialist papers. She is a member of the Serbian Academy of Education. She has published 15 books (monographs and course books) and over 100 scientific and professional papers. She participated in many international and scientific conferences in the country and abroad.

Documents

MOGUĆNOSTI PODSTICANjA METAKOGNITIVNIH STRATEGIJA