You are here:

The Metacognitive Approach to Computer Education: Making Explicit the Learning Journey
Article

, Southern Cross University, Australia

AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal) Volume 15, Number 1, ISSN 1065-6901 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical and practical exploration of a metacognitive approach to computer education, developed through a three-year action research project. It is argued that the approach contrasts significantly with often-employed directive and competency-based approaches to computer education and is more appropriate in addressing the longer-term learning needs of professionals such as teachers. The metacognitive approach focuses on beliefs, attitudes and learning strategies and assists learners to come to terms with the nature of technological change and their own ability to confront this change by embracing life-long computer learning. In this paper, the metacognitive approach is presented through a three-dimensional diagram. An exploration is also provided as to how the approach was developed and refined, through the research, into a print-based, self-paced learning resource which forms one component of a flexibly-delivered computer education course. It is argued that the metaphor of 'journey' might profitably be employed to support teachers to understand the unique and individual interplay of metacognitive factors on their approach to using computers.

Citation

Phelps, R. (2007). The Metacognitive Approach to Computer Education: Making Explicit the Learning Journey. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 15(1), 3-21. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 18, 2022 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Cairns, L. (2000). The process /outcome approach to becoming a capable organisation. Paper presented a t the Australian Capability Network Conference, (pp. 1-14) Sydney , Australia.
  2. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1990). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
  3. Coffin, R.J., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related affective states. Computers in Human Behaviour, 15(5), 549-569.
  4. Davis, P. (1999). How undergraduates learn computer skills: Results of a survey and focus group. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved November 14, 2006 from http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2099.cfm
  5. Derry, S.J. (1990). Learnings trategies for acquiring useful knowledge. In B. Jones& L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive in-s truc t ion (pp. 347-379). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. Dick, B. (2000). Approaching an action research thesis: An overview. Retrieved November 14, 2006 from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/phd.html
  7. Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1-24. F lave l l , J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problemsolving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) , The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). H i l lsda le , NJ :
  8. Grundy, S. (1995). Action research as professional development. Murdoch, WA : Innovative Links Project.
  9. Henry, J.W., & Campbell, C. (1995). A comparison of the validity, predic-t iveness and consistency of a trait versus situational measure of attributions. In M.J. Martinko (Ed.) , Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 35-51). Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press.
  10. Hiemstra, R. (1994). Helping learners take responsibility for self-directed activities. In R. Hiemstra & R.G. Brockett (Eds.), Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning (pp. 81-87). San Francisco:
  11. Hughes, J., Denley, P., & Whitehead, J. (1998). How do we make sense of the process of leg i t im is ing an educational action research thesis for the award of a Ph.D.? A contribution to educational theory. Educational Action Research, 6(3) , 427-452.
  12. Jones, B., & Idol, L. (1990). Introduction. In B. Jones& L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 1-13). Hillsdale,
  13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Martocchio, J.J., & Webster, J. (1992). The effects of feedback and cogni-t ive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 553-578.
  15. Melczarek, R.J. (2000, July). Technology education for teachers: A more self-directed approach. Paper presented a t ACEC2000 : Learning Technologies, Teaching and the Future of Schools, Carlton Crest Ho te l , Melbourne, Australia. Migno t , P. (2000). Metaphor: A paradigm for practice-based research into “career.” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28(4), 515-531.
  16. Paris, S.G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. Jones& L. Idol (Eds.), Dimen-s ions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). H i l lsda le , NJ :
  17. Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education and Training.
  18. Rea, A.I., Hoger, B., & Rooney, P. (1999). Communication and technology: Building bridges across the chasm. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 92-96.
  19. Ropp, M.M. (1997). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers and their use as pedagogical tools in preser DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections