This study assessed the effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge (MSK) on gains of low-achieving (LA) and high-achieving (HA) 5th grade students (N=41). Gains in reasoning scores of students from the Experimental group (compared to students from the control group) were obtained on the strategic and on the metastrategic level. Gains were preserved in near and far transfer tasks immediately after the end of instruction and 3 months later. Explicit teaching of MSK affected both LA and HA students, but it was extremely valuable for LA students who required a longer period than HA students to reach their top score.
Meta-strategic Knowledge (MSK) is a sub-component of metacognition that is defined in the present study as general, explicit knowledge about thinking strategies. In the present study we shall focus on the control of variables thinking strategy. Following an earlier study (Zohar & Peled 2007) that showed considerable effects of explicit instruction of MSK in laboratory setting, this study explores whether these effects are preserved in authentic classroom situations. Participants were 119 8th grade students from 6 classes of a heterogeneous school. Equal numbers of low-achieving and high-achieving students were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The findings showed dramatic developments in students’ strategic and meta-strategic thinking following instruction. The effect of the treatment was preserved in delayed transfer tests. Our findings show that explicit teaching of MSK had a strong effect on low achieving students. The implications of the findings for learning and instruction are discussed.
This study investigates how the context of mathematical tasks affects the performance of young children (ages 5–11). Subjects were 523 children from age 5 to 11. Three contexts of mathematical tasks (stereotypically boys’ contexts, stereotypically girls’ contexts and neutral contexts) are examined in three age groups (young, medium, and old). Boys’ and girls’ mean scores were compared for each age group in each of the three contexts. The data show that girls’ performance is affected by the context of the task while boys’ performance is not. The comparison between boys and girls in the three different contexts showed that in neutral contexts, the scores of boys and girls are similar. In (stereotypically) boys’ contexts, however, boys score significantly higher than girls. In (stereotypically) girls’ contexts, a significant interaction is found between age and gender, showing that the way girls are affected by such contexts depends on their age. The implications of these findings for gender-fair mathematics learning are discussed.
How should the information age affect teaching goals and methods? One of the claims voiced by educators is that computerized information tools make systematic study and acquisition of information redundant. Put bluntly this claim states that students should no longer ‘waste’ their time learning or memorizing texts and facts that can be retrieved in a keystroke. We attempted to examine the current role of information acquisition in learning processes by interviewing 24 expert academic researchers who work regularly with computerized information tools. Analysis of the researchers’ descriptions of their learning and thinking processes revealed that, according to the majority of the researchers, computerized information tools have not reduced the importance learning and acquiring information. These exploratory findings suggest that information acquisition should still be an important part of the curriculum in the age of information.
What do teachers (pre-service teachers as well as in-service teachers) need to know in order to be able to implement argumentation processes proficiently in their classrooms? What implications does that body of knowledge have for teacher education (TE) and professional development (PD) programs? Let us take a look at the reflections of a teacher who had taught (what she considered to be) a successful argumentation lesson in a ninth grade biology class. The teacher provided guidance to a group of four students who engaged in an argumentation activity about moral dilemmas in human genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2000). A typical problem with students’ initial reasoning in this unit is that they tend to form unwarranted opinions, ignoring alternative points of view. When they do justify their opinions, they tend to avoid cardinal justifications that involve the ethical sides of the issue, and thus to circumvent the focus of the dilemma. In her analysis of part of a lesson in which she provided guidance to her students, the teacher reported that before her intervention, students expressed their opinions in a loud voice, did not justify their opinions and did not listen to each other. A dramatic change took place following her intervention: students started to phrase the dilemma in terms of principled bio-ethical considerations, justify their opinions, refute each other’s arguments, and explain why other people’s opinions may be wrong. The guidance that has been successful in bringing about such a high-level discussion may seem an easy thing to do. Therefore, we should pay attention to the teacher’s report of what she had felt during the process of guiding her students (Zohar, 2004a, p. 146)
Like other countries, Israel had its share of projects that see the implementation of inquiry and higher order thinking in schools as their main goal. However, although many of these projects were quite successful, they did not succeed in changing the bulk of teaching and learning in Israeli schools. This article describes a new national educational policy called “Pedagogical Horizons for Learning”. The goal of this policy is to move the whole educational system towards a focus on higher order thinking and deep understanding. Such a move must consider the knowledge gained from previous projects but it must also lean on strategies for implementing systemic educational change. Implementing the goals of the “Pedagogical Horizons for Learning” on a national scale requires simultaneous work on three-dimensions: (a) curriculum, learning materials and standards; (b) professional development; and (c) assessment. The article outlines the plan for each of these three-dimensions and provides some accounts of the first stages of the implementation process.
What do teachers (pre-service teachers as well as in-service teachers) need to know in order to be able to implement argumentation processes proficiently in their classrooms? What implications does that body of knowledge have for teacher education (TE) and professional development (PD) programs? Let us take a look at the reflections of a teacher who had taught (what she considered to be) a successful argumentation lesson in a ninth grade biology class. The teacher provided guidance to a group of four students who engaged in an argumentation activity about moral dilemmas in human genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2000). A typical problem with students' initial reasoning in this unit is that they tend to form unwarranted opinions, ignoring alternative points of view. When they do justify their opinions, they tend to avoid cardinal justifications that involve the ethical sides of the issue, and thus to circumvent the focus of the dilemma. In her analysis of part of a lesson in which she provided guidance to her students, the teacher reported that before her intervention, students expressed their opinions in a loud voice, did not justify their opinions and did not listen to each other. A dramatic change took place following her intervention: students started to phrase the dilemma in terms of principled bio-ethical considerations, justify their opinions, refute each other's arguments, and explain why other people's opinions may be wrong. The guidance that has been successful in bringing about such a high-level discussion may seem an easy thing to do. Therefore, we should pay attention to the teacher's report of what she had felt during the process of guiding her students (Zohar, 2004a, p. 146)
