Discussion and conclusion

In this chapter I have argued that a new definition and operationalisation of collaborative metacognition is required in the literature. This is based on the theoretical understanding that social interaction has an impact both on the use of metacognition and on learning. Current conceptualisations of metacognition, together with understandings concerning the role of metacognition in learning have been based mainly on research with individuals in individual learning environments. However, much of school learning, and indeed work- related activities, involve collaboration with others. It is necessary therefore to understand the use of metacognition and its relationship to learning in such situations. Researchers have begun to consider this. However, theoretical understandings of collaboration and metacognition, together with operationalisations of these terms differ between researchers. This has resulted in the current situation where consolidation of findings is not possible.

In reviewing current research in the area, a picture emerges of the impact of the social situation on the use of metacognition. However none of the research studies reviewed, was able to provide a clear account of the impact of reciprocal interaction on the use of

metacognition. In order to provide a more coherent evidence base for theorists, educators and policy makers, I propose that a new theoretical understanding of the term collaborative metacognition be adopted. This term has been influenced by Vygotsky’s notion of zone of proximal development and also by Activity Theory, which is a development of Vygotsky’s theory. The theoretical notion of collaborative metacognition has two distinct strands: metacognition which contributes to participation in the activity and metacognition which is a result of participation in the activity. These two strands are fundamentally important in

our understanding of the reciprocal nature of collaboration. When a student makes a metacognitive statement to the rest of the group in a problem solving situation it is difficult to assume that the student wants it to be acknowledged, or indeed commented on.

However, regardless of the initial motivation for making the comment, if another student is then drawn into a discussion which questions, critiques or adds to that comment then this might be viewed as contributing to participation in the activity. The metacognitive statement appears then to have drawn in other group members. Similarly, when a student appears to question, critique or extend the argument or statement of another during the problem solving activity, metacognition which appears to be as a result of this might be viewed as collaborative metacognition.

The operationalisation of the term has been influenced greatly by the Goos et al (2002) study where the researchers based their notion of collaborative metacognition on Teasley and Roschelle’s (1993) concept of transactive discussion.

The usefulness of the term collaborative metacognition was assessed through a study of primary school children. Results showed a higher proportion of metacognitive statements led to a transactive statement than did cognitive statements. Similarly, a higher proportion of transactive statements led to a metacognitive statement. Chi square tests of association showed these differences to be statistically significant. Transactive statements therefore appear to act as a catalyst for students to make their thinking processes available to others. Similarly, when a student makes a metacognitive statement, the processes of making their thinking known appears to draw others into the discussion.

This relates well to the theoretical understanding of the concept which was highlighted previously and as such provides a potential tool to assist researchers in their understanding of the role of metacognition during collaborative problem solving in mathematics.

Further investigation of this role will be reported in the results chapters. These chapters will address the relationship between collaborative metacognition and successful problem solving as well as the impact of the teacher on collaborative metacognition.

In the next chapter I will provide an overview of the methodologies which guided the research study.

Chapter Four Methodologies 4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the methodology which has been adopted in this research. Stahl (2004) notes that methodologies are often shaped by ontological

assumptions regarding the nature of reality. Guba & Lincoln (1994) suggest that such assumptions are philosophical positions and are not themselves open to testing in any respect. However, different ontological assumptions have produced much debate within the area of educational research.

Gage (2009) claims that within educational research there has been what he terms paradigm wars. He notes that historically, apparently conflicting paradigms have been used to guide research in the field - the main two being interpretivist and positivist. According to Gage (2009), a consequence of adopting one or other paradigm has been that particular methods have to a certain extent been associated with each paradigm. Gage (2009) suggests that whilst there may be differences in the way in which researchers who adopt one paradigm over another approach and interpret their research, these differences should relate more to the types of issues which are under investigation rather than

representing an attempt to promote one particular paradigm as the only possibility within the research field.

Pring (2000) suggests that whilst the reality is not quite as simple as a dichotomous split, the concept of two different views provides a useful way to understand the important connections between philosophical understandings of the nature of knowledge, theoretical frameworks and subsequent methodologies. Whereas Grix (2002) claims that the

ontological position adopted by a researcher is representative of the way in which they view the world and the nature of reality. Grix (2002) suggests that this will then influence the type of research questions which are asked, together with the theoretical frameworks which are used to understand the research situation.

In this chapter I will firstly give a brief overview of the two main ontological views within the field of educational research, positivism and interpretivism. I will then provide an overview of a third paradigm that of critical realism, which I believe is in line with the ontological and epistemological assumptions made in the research contained within this thesis. Following this I will outline the theoretical framework which has informed my research. Finally, I will provide details of, and justification for, my choice of case study as

the methodology used to address the research questions.

4.2 Ontological Assumptions