Affiliation:
1. MANUU, College of Teacher Education- Darbhanga, Bihar
Abstract
This study was to examine the effect of constructivist approach on mathematical metacognition. Instructional intervention package was planned to implement through true-experimental design. Initially sixty students from ninth-grade were selected through randomly and assigned into two groups; experimental and control groups. These two groups; experimental and control groups were formed on the basis of Raven’s Progressive Matrix test scores through matched by randomization. Finally, forty-four students in which twenty-two in each group were included for interventions as a sample for this study. Inventory of metacognitive regulation as the form of pretest and posttest were administered before and after the implementing the instructional intervention. After analyzing data by using analysis of co-variance techniques, revealed that metacognitive regulation in terms of planning and monitoring skills were not improved by constructivist approach among the secondary level students.
Reference31 articles.
1. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approach to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: a literature review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206.
3. Chen, W. (2002). Six expert and student teachers' views and implimentation of constructivist teaching using a movement approach to physical education. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 255-272.
4. Cobb, P. (1994c). An Exchange: Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23(7), p.4.
5. Cobb, P. (1994b). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.