SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2

Metacognitive Regulation Strategies Used by Middle School Students in Solving Science Problems: A Multiple Case Study

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Fen Problemlerini Çözme Sürecinde Kullandıkları Üstbilişsel Düzenleme Stratejileri: Çoklu Durum Çalışması

Nilgün Tatar(ALANYA ALAADDİN KEYKUBAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0009-6321-2469
Mevlüt İdgü(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0001-8409-8241
Pages
385–411
Publication Date
2026-08-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicated that the use of metacognitive regulation strategies varied according to both the type of problem and the students’ level of logical thinking.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the metacognitive regulation strategies employed by middle school students while solving open-ended and closed-ended science problems and to identify the similarities and differences in this process.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings indicated that the use of metacognitive regulation strategies varied according to both the type of problem and the students’ level of logical thinking.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings also demonstrated that the think-aloud method is an effective technique for identifying metacognitive regulation strategies.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Üst bilişsel düzenleme stratejileri · problem çözme · sesli düşünme yöntemi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the metacognitive regulation strategies employed by middle school students while solving open-ended and closed-ended science problems and to identify the similarities and differences in this process. The study is conducted using a multiple-case study design with four eighth-grade students representing concrete and formal operational thinking levels. The data were collected using the think-aloud method and were analyzed through content analysis. The findings indicated that the use of metacognitive regulation strategies varied according to both the type of problem and the students’ level of logical thinking. Open-ended problems revealed students’ metacognitive regulation strategies more explicitly, whereas in closed-ended problems, students tended to focus primarily on reaching the correct answer and therefore used these strategies in a more limited manner. Regarding logical thinking levels, students with formal operational thinking employed metacognitive regulation strategies in more diverse and extensive ways, particularly during open-ended problem solving. In contrast, students with concrete operational thinking used these strategies in relatively limited ways. The findings also demonstrated that the think-aloud method is an effective technique for identifying metacognitive regulation strategies.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerinin açık ve kapalı uçlu fen problemlerini çözerken kullandıkları üstbilişsel düzenleme stratejilerini incelemek ve bu süreçteki benzerlik ile farklılıklarını ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma, çoklu durum çalışması deseninde, somut ve soyut düşünme düzeyini temsil eden dört tane sekizinci sınıf öğrencisiyle yürütülmüştür. Veriler, sesli düşünme yöntemi kullanılarak toplanmış ve içerik analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, üstbilişsel düzenleme stratejilerinin kullanımının hem problem türüne hem de öğrencilerin mantıksal düşünme düzeylerine göre farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Açık uçlu problemlerin, öğrencilerin üstbilişsel düzenleme stratejilerini görünür hale getirdiği; buna karşılık kapalı uçlu problemlerde öğrencilerin sonuca odaklanarak bu stratejileri daha sınırlı kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. Mantıksal düşünme düzeyi açısından, soyut düşünme düzeyine sahip öğrencilerin özellikle açık uçlu problemlerde üstbilişsel düzenleme stratejilerini çeşitli ve yoğun biçimde kullandıkları; buna karşılık somut düşünme düzeyindeki öğrencilerin bu stratejileri sınırlı kullandıkları görülmüştür. Sonuçlar, sesli düşünme yönteminin üstbilişsel düzenleme stratejilerinin belirlenmesinde etkili bir yöntem olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tatar, N., İdgü, M. (2026). Metacognitive Regulation Strategies Used by Middle School Students in Solving Science Problems: A Multiple Case Study. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2, 385–411. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1826943

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. Abidin, A., Purnawarman, P., Hamied, F. A., & Bukhary Muslim, A. (2026). Metacognitive development through three-phase critical thinking intervention among Indonesian secondary students. Reflective Practice, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2026.2631429
  2. Akay, H., Soybaş, D., & Argün, Z. (2006). Problem kurma deneyimleri ve matematik öğretiminde açık-uçlu Soruların kullanımı. Kastamonu Education Journal, 14(1), 129-146. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefdergi/issue/49106/626664
  3. Aktamış, H., & Hiğde, E. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının problem çözme becerilerinin ve yaratıcılıklarının incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 49-65. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/266186
  4. Anderson, J. R. (2020). Cognitive psychology and its implications (9th ed.). Worth Publishers. Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0902_3
  5. Aydın, Ö. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde argumantasyonun (tartışma teorisinin) etkililiği [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  6. Aytaç, A., Türker, S., Bozkaya, T., & Üçüncü, Z. (2018). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu fen bilimleri 8. Sınıf ders kitabı. Tutku Yayıncılık.
  7. Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., & Moos, D. C. (2007). The effect of a human agent’s external regulation upon college students’ hypermedia learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9014-9
  8. Ben-David, A., & Orion, N. (2013). Teachers' voices on integrating metacognition into science education. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3161–3193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.697208
  9. Bingham, A. (2004). Çocuklarda problem çözme yeteneklerinin geliştirilmesi (A. Ferhan Oğuzkan, Çev.). Milli Eğitim Basımevi. (Original work published 1971)
  10. Bitner-Corvin, B. L. (1987, April 23-25). The GALT: A measure of logical thinking ability of 7th through 12th grade students [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, USA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED293717.pdf
  11. Blackford, K. A., Greenbaum, J. C., Redkar, N. S., Gaillard, N. T., Helix, M. R., & Baranger, A. M. (2023). Metacognitive regulation in organic chemistry students: How and why students use metacognitive strategies when predicting reactivity. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(3), 828–851. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00208F
  12. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
  13. Bryce, D., & Whitebread, D. (2012). The development of metacognitive skills: Evidence from observational analysis of young children’s play. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9091-2
  14. Cankoy, O., & Darbaz, S. (2010). Problem kurma temelli problem çözme öğretiminin problemi anlama başarısına etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(38), 11-24. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87436
  15. Chen, J., & Li, X. (2015). Research on solving ill-structured problems for e-learning: Cognitive perspectives. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(12), 920-923.
  16. Demir, S., & Demir, Y. (2024). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel farkındalıklarını incelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 11(3), 317-339. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.1581188
  17. Desoete, A., & Özsoy, G. (2009). Introduction: Metacognition, more than the lognes monster? International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 1-6. https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/266
  18. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2018). Teachers’ direct and indirect promotion of self-regulated learning in primary and secondary school mathematics classes–insights from video-based classroom observations and teacher interviews. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 127-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9181-x
  19. Dinç, B. (2018). Yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin gerçek yaşam durumlarına uygun problem kurma becerilerinin incelenmesi [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Eskişehir Osman Gazi Üniversitesi.
  20. Double, K. S. (2025). Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false. Behavior Research Methods, 57(3), 97. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02621-6
  21. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004
  22. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation. In Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.). Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297-323). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  23. Efklides, A. (2014). How does metacognition contribute to the regulation of learning? An integrative approach. Psychological Topics, 23(1), 1-30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279900448_How_Does_Metacognition_Contribute_to_the_Regulation_of_Learning_An_Integrative_Approach
  24. Eric, C. C. M., & Mansoor, N. (2007). Metacognitive behaviors of primary 6 students in mathematical problem solving in a problem-based learning setting [Paper presentation]. Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding Conference, Singapore. https://repository.nie.edu.sg/server/api/core/bitstreams/fea40d78-0ada-49c2-b604-74142aa42382/content
  25. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(3), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3
  26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring a new area of cognitive—developmental. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  27. Foong, P. Y. (1990). Metacognitive-heuristic approach to mathematical problem [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Monash University.
  28. Greene, J.A., Robertson, J., & Costa, L-J. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using think-aloud methods. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 313-328). Routledge.
  29. Halmo, S. M., Yamini, K. A., & Stanton, J. D. (2024). Metacognition and self-efficacy in action: How first-year students monitor and use self-coaching to move past metacognitive discomfort during problem solving. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(ar13), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-08-0158
  30. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315009674
  31. Jaleel, S., & Premachandran, P. (2016). A study on the metacognitive awareness of secondary school students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 165-172. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040121 Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Eğitim araştırmaları: Nicel, nitel ve karma yaklaşımlar (S. B. Demir, Çev., 4th ed.). Eğiten Kitaplar.
  32. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
  33. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
  34. Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847527
  35. Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(3), 317-336. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015124013119
  36. Kaya, S., & Kablan, Z. (2018). Rutin olmayan problemlerle ilgili yapılan araştırmaların analizi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437652
  37. Landis, J. R. ve Koch, G. G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics. 33, 159-174.https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  38. Liliana, C., & Lavinia, H. (2011). Gender differences in metacognitive skills. A study of the 8th grade pupils in Romania. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 396-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.255
  39. Nunaki, J. H., Damopolii, I., Kandowangko, N. Y., & Nusantari, E. (2019). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning to train the students' metacognitive skills based on gender differences. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 505-516. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12232a
  40. Overton, T., Potter, N., & Leng, C. (2013). Examining approaches to solving open-ended problems in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Application, 14(4), 468-475. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00028A
  41. Özkubat, U., & Özmen, E. R. (2018). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin matematik problemi çözme süreçlerinin incelenmesi: sesli düşünme protokolü uygulaması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 155-180. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.299494
  42. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
  43. Panigrahi, A. R., Pany, S., & Verma, A. (2025). The impact of meta-cognitive skills on students learning. International Journal of Applied Research, 11(2), 242-250. https://doi.org/10.22271/allresearch.2025.v11.i2d.12364
  44. Punia, P., Malik, R., Bala, M., Phor, M., & Chander, Y. (2022). Relationship between logical thinking, metacognitive skills, and problem-solving abilities: mediating and moderating effect analysis. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2022.143370
  45. Quek, K. S., Toh, T. L., Leong, Y. H., & Ho, F. H. (2014, July 15-20). Using practical worksheet to record and examine metacognitive strategies in problem solving. In C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, & D. Allan (Eds.). Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 36th Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (Vol, 5), pp. 25-32. Vancouver, Canada. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED600026.pdf
  46. Sadykova A, Iskakova M, Ismailova G, Ishmukhametova A, Sovetova A & Mukasheva K. (2024). The impact of a metacognition-based course on school students’ metacognitive skills and biology comprehension. Frontiers in Education, 9:1460496. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1460496
  47. Schellings, G. L., van Hout-Wolters, B. H., Veenman, M. V., & Meijer, J. (2013). Assessing metacognitive activities: the in-depth comparison of a task-specific questionnaire with think-aloud protocols. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 963-990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0149-y
  48. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  49. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7 (4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
  50. Sevgi, S., & Çağlıköse, M. (2020). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin üstbiliş becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(1), 139-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.546885
  51. Subramarian L. (2005). An investigation of high school geometry students proving and logical thinking abilities and the impact of dynamic geometry software on student performance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Central Florida. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1505&context=etd
  52. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
  53. van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical approach to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.
  54. Vatansever, Ö. (2018). Scratch ile programlama öğretiminin ortaokul 5. ve 6. Sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerisi üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi [Yayınlanmamış yükseklisans tezi]. Uludağ Üniversitesi.
  55. Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Training metacognitive skills in students with availability and production deficiencies. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 299–324). IAP Information Age Publishing.
  56. Veenman, M. V., Bavelaar, L., De Wolf, L., & Van Haaren, M. G. (2014). The on-line assessment of metacognitive skills in a computerized learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.003
  57. Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11409-006-6893-0
  58. Yıldırım, P. D., & Şimşek, P. D. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  59. Yıldız, E. (2008). 5E modelinin kullanıldığı kavramsal değişime dayalı öğretimde üstbilişin etkileri: 7. Sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesine yönelik bir uygulama [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
  60. Yolcu, H. (2013). Fen öğretiminde kavram karikatürleri tekniğinin yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamında kullanılmasının ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin başarı, tutum ve mantıksal düşünme yeteneklerine etkisi [Yayınlanmamış yükseklisans tezi]. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi.
  61. Zepeda, C. D., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2023). Assessing metacognitive regulation during problem solving: A comparison of three measures. Journal of Intelligence, 11(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11010016
  62. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261
  63. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6