Effects of the Know-Want-Learn Strategy on Primary School Students’ Metacognition and Physics Achievement
This study is aimed at examining the effects of the Know-Want-Learn (KWL) strategy on primary school students’ metacognition and physics achievement. A pre-test – post-test control group design was used, where the treatment was the implementation of the KWL strategy. A physics knowledge test and a questionnaire about metacognition were administered to sixth-grade primary school students of both genders. The results obtained were treated statistically, using descriptive statistics and a paired-samples t-test, as well as an independent samples t-test. The analysis of the results obtained showed that for both variables (physics achievement and metacognition): (1) there was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores for the group of students who had been taught traditionally, (2) there was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores for the group of students who had been taught by the use of KWL strategy and (3) there was a significant difference in the post-test scores between the group of students who had been taught traditionally and the group of students who had been taught by the use of the KWL strategy. Important insights about the effects of the KWL strategy in learning physics have been generated.
Akyüz, V. (2004). The effects of textbook style and reading strategy on students’ achievement and attitudes towards heat and temperature (Dissertation, Middle East Technical University).
Al-Khateeb, O. S. M. & Idrees, M. W. K. (2010). The impact of using KWL strategy on grade ten female students’ reading comprehension of religious concepts. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12, 471–489.
Blachowicz, C. & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York, Guilford Press.
Bogdanović, I., Obadović, D., Cvjetićanin, S., Segedinac, M. & Budić S. (2015). Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Physics Learning Efficiency and Correlation between Them. European Journal of Physics Education, 6(2), 18-30.
Brozo, W. G. & Simpson, M. L. (1991). Readers, teachers, learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas. New Jersey, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Bryan, J. (1998). K-W-L: Questioning the known. The Reading Teacher, 51(7), 618–620.
Camp, D. (2000). It takes two: teaching with twin text of fact and fiction. The Reading Teacher, 53(5), 400–408.
Cantrell, R. J., Fusaro, J. A. & Dougherty, E. A. (2000). Exploring the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social studies: a comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques (London, Sage Publications).
Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988) Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Davis, G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Draper, J. D. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and a literacy: a case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 520–529.
Efklides A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema, 21(1):76-82.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: L. B. Resnick (Ed.) The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Foote, C. J., Vermette, P. J. & Battaglia, C. F. (2001). Constructivist strategies: Meeting standards and engaging adolescent minds. Larchmont, Eye on Education.
Gammill, D. M. (2006). Learning to write way. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 754–762.
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In: D. J. Hacker, J. Dunloskey & A. C. Graesser (Eds.) Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hartlep, L. K. & Forsyth, A. G. (2000). The effect of self-reference on learning and retention. Teaching of Psychology, 27(4), 269–271.
Hewitt, P. G. (1990). Conceptually speaking. Science Teacher, 57(5), 54–57.
Hrin, T., Milenković, D. & Segedinac, M. (2015). The Effect of Systemic Synthesis Questions [SSynQs] on Students’ Performance and Meaningful Learning in Secondary Organic Chemistry Teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9620-y
Jared, E. J. & Jared, A. H. (1997). Launching into improved comprehension. The Technology Teacher, 56(6), 24–31.
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.
Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 696–699.
Martorella, P. H., Beal, C. M. A. & Bolıck, C. M. (2005). Teaching Social Studies in Middle and Secondary Schools. New Jersey, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mclain, K. V. M. (1993). Effects of two comprehension monitoring strategies on the metacognitive awareness and reading achievement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
Mok, M. M. C., Lung, C. L., Cheng, D. P. W., Cheung, H. P. C. & Ng, M. L. (2006). Self-assessment in higher education: experience in using a metacognitive approach in five case studies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 415–433.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London, Sage Publications).
Ngozi I. H. (2009). Metacognitive Strategies on Classroom Participation and Student Achievement in Senior Secondary School Science Classrooms. Science Education International, 20(1/2), 25-31.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: a teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.
Ogle, D. (2005). K-W-L + in action. In: H. Daniels & M. Bizar (Eds.). Teaching the best practice way: Methods that matter, K-12. Portland, Stenhouse.
Ogle, D. (2009). Creating contexts for Inquiry: from KWL to PRC2. Knowledge Quest, 38(1), 56–61.
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human Learning. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ozsoy, G. & Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82.
Posner, M. I. (1989). Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Bradford/ MIT Press.
Rahman, F., Jumani, N. B., Chaudry, M. A., Chisti, S. H. & Abbasi, F. (2010). Impact of Metacognitive Awareness on Performance of Students in Chemistry. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(10), 39-55.
Reichel, A. G. (1994). Performance assessment: five practical approaches. Science and Children, 22, 21–25.
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review 7(4), 351–371.
Segedinac, M., Segedinac, M., Konjović, Z. & Savić, G. (2011). A formal approach to organization of educational objectives. Psihologija, 44(4), 307–323.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A. & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51-79.
Szabo, S. (2006). KWHL: a student-driven evolution of the KWL. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 57–67.
Taslidere E. & Eryilmaz A. (2012). The Relative Effectiveness of Integrated Reading Study Strategy and Conceptual Physics Approach. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 181-199.
Tok, S. (2013). Effects of the know-want-learn strategy on students’ mathematics achievement, anxiety and metacognitive skills. Metacognition Learning 8: 193–212.
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann.
Weinert, F. E. & Kluwe R. H. (1987). Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Copyright (c) 2016 Journal of Subject Didactics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).