- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Students’ metacognition knowledge and skills during physics problem-solving process

Zeynep Dulger* and Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu†

  • Science and Mathematics Education Department, Physics Education Division, Marmara University, Istanbul, 34852, Turkey

  • *Contact author: lilithzd7@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: fbekiroglu@marmara.edu.tr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020106 – Published 17 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4s17-6dxs

Abstract

This study examined how students utilized metacognition while solving physics problems. A case study design was implemented, involving 30 11th-grade students. Data were collected by using open-ended physics problems, with a think-aloud strategy applied during the process. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted using the metacognition during problem-solving rubric, classifying students as either experts or novices. The findings revealed several key insights: First, the majority of high school students fall into the novice category, struggling with the application of metacognitive knowledge and skills while solving physics problems. Second, expert students demonstrate strong evaluation and planning skills but limited metacognitive knowledge and monitoring abilities. Third, novice students exhibit major deficiencies in metacognitive knowledge and monitoring. Fourth, assessment practices focusing heavily on final results may hinder the development of deeper metacognition and problem-solving skills. Fifth, metacognitive knowledge and monitoring are crucial for generating successful solutions for scientific problems, especially in high-complexity tasks. Last, familiarity with the content and the complexity level of the problem may influence students’ success in problem solving. The metacognition rubric developed for this research may serve as a valuable tool for future studies in the field.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (93)

  1. L. Chen, K. Inoue, Y. Goda, F. Okubo, Y. Taniguchi, M. Oi, S. Konomi, H. Ogata, and M. Yamada, Exploring factors that influence collaborative problem solving awareness in science education, Tech. Know. Learn. 25, 337 (2020).
  2. P. Griffin, E. Care, and B. McGaw, The changing role of education and schools, in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, edited by P. Griffin, B. McGaw, and E. Care (Springer Dordrecht, 2011), pp. 1–15.
  3. R. Scherer and R. Tiemann, Factors of problem-solving competency in a virtual chemistry environment: The role of metacognitive knowledge about strategies, Comput. Educ. 59, 1199 (2012).
  4. A. L. Brown and A. L. Metacognition, Executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms, in Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding, edited by F. E. Weinart and R. Kluwe (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1987), pp. 65–116.
  5. L. De Backer, H. Van Keer, and M. Valcke, Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation, Instr. Sci. 40, 559 (2012).
  6. A. Efklides, Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation, Eur. Psychol. 13, 277 (2008).
  7. J. Meijer, M. V. J. Veenman, and B. H. A. M. van Hout-Wolters, Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy, Educ. Res. Eval. 12, 209 (2006).
  8. T. Tuononen, H. Hyytinen, M. Räisänen, T. Hailikari, and A. Parpala, Metacognitive awareness in relation to university students’ learning profiles, Metacognit. Learn. 18, 37 (2023).
  9. T. García, M. Cueli, C. Rodríguez, J. Krawec, and P. González-Castro, Metacognitive knowledge and skills in students with deep approach to learning, evidence from mathematical problem solving, Rev. Psicol. 20, 209 (2015).
  10. H. J. Hartman, Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills, in Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by H. J. Hartman (Springer, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 33–68.
  11. D. Lucangeli and S. Cabrele, The relationship of metacognitive knowledge, skills and beliefs in children with and without mathematics learning disabilities, in Metacognition in Mathematics Education, edited by A. Desoete and M. Veeman (Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2006), pp. 103–134.
  12. N. M. Seel, Metacognition and learning, in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, edited by N. M. Seel (Springer, Boston, MA, 2012), 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_108.
  13. M. V. Veenman, Assessing metacognitive skills in computerized learning environments, in International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies, edited by R. Azevedo and V. Aleven (Springer New York, 2013), pp. 157–168.
  14. A. Desoete, Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: How you test is what you get, Metacognit. Learn. 3, 189 (2008).
  15. M. F. Teng and D. Zhang, Task-Induced involvement load, vocabulary learning in a foreign language, and their association with metacognition, Lang. Teach. Res. 28, 531 (2024).
  16. K. Popper, All Life is Problem Solving (Routledge, London 1999).
  17. E. Ince, An overview of problem solving studies in physics education, J. Educ. Learn. 7, 191 (2018).
  18. G. Pólya, Mathematical Methods in Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1977).
  19. R. M. Garrett, Issues in science education: Problem-solving, creativity and originality, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 9, 125 (1987).
  20. J. L. D. Docktor, N. E. Strand, J. P. Mestre, and B. H. Ross, Conceptual problem solving in high school physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020106–1 (2015).
  21. E. Gaigher, J. M. Rogan, and M. W. H. Braun, Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem-solving in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 1089 (2007).
  22. M. Reddy and B. Panacharoensawad, Students problem-solving difficulties and implications in physics: An empirical study on influencing factors, J. Educ. Pract. 8, 59 (2017).
  23. C. Riantoni, L. Yuliati, N. Mufti, and N. Nehru, Problem solving approach in electrical energy and power on students as physics teacher candidates, J. Pendi. Indones. 6, 55 (2017).
  24. Sutopo B. Waldrip, Impact of a representational approach on students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding in learning mechanics, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12, 741 (2014).
  25. A. E. Young and F. C. Worrell, Comparing metacognition assessments of mathematics in academically talented students, Gifted Child Q. 62, 259 (2018).
  26. A. F. Artz and E. Armour-Thomas, Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups, Cognit. Instr. 9, 137 (1992).
  27. B. Berardi-Coletta, L. S. Buyer, R. L. Dominowski, and E. R. Rellinger, Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach, J. Exp. Psychol. 21, 205 (1995).
  28. T. García, C. Rodríguez, P. González-Castro, J. A. González-Pienda, and M. Torrance, Elementary students’ metacognitive processes and post-performance calibration on mathematical problem-solving tasks, Metacognit. Learn. 11, 139 (2016).
  29. C. D. Zepeda and T. J. Nokes-Malach, Assessing metacognitive regulation during problem solving: A comparison of three measures, J. Intell. 11, 16 (2023).
  30. R. Glaser, L. Schauble, K. Raghavan, and C. Zeitz, Computer-based learning environments and problem solving, in Scientific Reasoning Across Different Domains, edited by E. D. Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandi, and L. Verschaffel (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992), pp. 345–371.
  31. A. Koch, Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts, Sci. Educ. 85, 758 (2001).
  32. T. Gok, The general assessment of problem solving processes and metacognition in physics education, Int. J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 2, 110 (2010).
  33. A. F. Gourgey, Metacognition in basic skills 𝚤nstruction, Instr. Sci. 26, 81 (1998).
  34. J. W. Morphew, G. E. Gladding, and J. P. Mestre, Effect of presentation style and problem-solving attempts on metacognition and learning from solution videos, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010104 (2020).
  35. A. R. Mota, N. Didis Korhasan, K. Miller, and E. Mazur, Homework as a metacognitive tool in an undergraduate physics course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010136 (2019).
  36. F. Ogan-Bekiroglu and Z. Dulger, Looking for a relationship between metacognitive awareness and problem solving skills in physics, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI), 2017, Seville, Spain (2017), pp. 3436–3439, 10.21125/iceri.2017.0941.
  37. Z. K. Prasetyo, The development of a metacognition instrument for college students to solve physics problems, Int. J. Instr. 13, 767 (2020).
  38. E. Sijmkens, M. De Cock, and T. De Laet, Scaffolding students’ use of metacognitive activities using discipline-and topic-specific reflective prompts, Metacognit. Learn. 18, 811 (2023).
  39. G. Taasoobshirazi, M. Bailey, and J. Farley, Physics Metacognition inventory part II: Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 2769 (2015).
  40. C. Wider and W. Wider, Effects of metacognitive skills on physics problem-solving skills among form four secondary school students, J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 22, 357 (2023).
  41. L. R. Novick, Analogical Transfer, problem similarity, and expertise, J. Exp. Psychol. 14, 510 (1988).
  42. T. Perfect and B. Schwartz, Applied Metacognition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2009).
  43. C. Schuster, F. Stebner, D. Leutner, and J. Wirth, Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: An experimental training study, Metacognit. Learn. 15, 455 (2020).
  44. A. Desoete, Evaluating and improving the mathematics teaching-learning process through meta-cognition, Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 5, 705 (2007).
  45. M. V. Veenman, B. H. Van Hout-Wolters, and P. Afflerbach, Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations, Metacognit. Learn. 1, 3 (2006).
  46. M. V. Veenman, Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion, Metacognit. Learn. 6, 205 (2011).
  47. S. Matook, Y. Maggie Wang, N. Koeppel, and S. Guerin, Metacognitive skills in low-code app development: Work-integrated learning in information systems development, J. Inf. Technol. 39, 41 (2024).
  48. E. Papleontiou-Louca, The concept and instruction of metacognition, Teach. Dev. 7, 9 (2003).
  49. M. T. H. Chi, P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  50. T. De Jong and M. G. M. Ferguson-Hessler, Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics, J. Educ. Psychol. 78, 279 (1986).
  51. P. T. Hardiman, R. Dufresne, and J. P. Mestre, The Relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices, Mem. Cogn. 17, 627 (1989).
  52. J. P. Mestre, J. L. D. Docktor, N. E. Strand, and B. H. Ross, Conceptual problem solving in physics, Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 55, 269 (2011).
  53. J. L. Docktor, J. Dornfeld, E. Frodermann, K. Heller, L. Hsu, K. A. Jackson, A. Mason, Q. X. Ryan, and J. Yang, Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010130 (2016).
  54. J. H. Larkin, Processing information for effective problem solving, Engl. Educ. 70, 285 (1979).
  55. M. Finegold and R. Mass, Differences in the process of solving physics problems between good problem solvers and poor problem solvers, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 3, 59 (1985).
  56. A. G. Priest and R. O. Lindsay, New light on novice-expert differences in physics problems solving, Br. J. Psychol. 83, 389 (1992).
  57. F. Reif and J. I. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  58. J. H. Larkin, J. I. Heller, and J. G. Greeno, Instructional implications of research on problem solving, New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1980, 51 (1980).
  59. B. Zhang, X. Liu, and J. S. Krajcik, Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool, Sci. Educ. 90, 579 (2006).
  60. J. F. Voss, Problem Solving and the Educational Process (Routledge, London, 2012).
  61. A. S. Dhillion, Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics, Sci. Educ. 82, 379 (1998).
  62. A. Neto and M. O. Valente, Problem solving in physics: Towards a metacognitively developed approach, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook (1997).
  63. P. Rozencwajg, Metacognitive factors in scientific problem-solving strategies, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 18, 281 (2003).
  64. G. Taasoobshirazi and J. Farley, A multivariate model of physics problem solving, Learn. Individ. Diff. 24, 53 (2013).
  65. J. Prather, R. Pettit, K. McMurry, A. Peters, J. Homer, and M. Cohen, Metacognitive difficulties faced by novice programmers in automated assessment tools, in Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research (ICER), Espoo, Finland (2018), pp. 41–50,, 10.1145/3230977.3230981.
  66. S. Wismath, D. Orr, and B. Good, Metacognition: Student reflections on problem solving, J. Excel. Coll. Teach. 25, 69 (2024).
  67. M. Y. Loh and N. H. Lee, The impact of various methods in evaluating metacognitive strategies in mathematical problem solving, in Mathematical Problem Solving, edited by P. Liljedahl and M. Santos-Trigo (Springer, Cham, 2019), pp. 155–176.
  68. J. Zumbach, C. Ortler, I. Deibl, and S. Moser, Using prompts to scaffold metacognition in case-based problem solving within the domain of attribution theory, J. Prob. Based Learn. 7, 21 (2020).
  69. K. Vo, M. Sarkar, P. J. White, and E. Yuriev, Development of problem-solving skills supported by metacognitive scaffolding: Insights from students’ written work, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 25, 1197 (2024).
  70. J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2016).
  71. D. E. Eccles and G. Arsal, The think aloud method: What is it and how do I use it?, Qual. Res. Sport Exercise Health 9, 514 (2017).
  72. P. C. Jackman, M. J. Schweickle, S. G. Goddard, S. A. Vella, and C. Swann, The event-focused interview: What is it, why is it useful, and how is it used?, Qual. Res. Sport Exercise Health 14, 167 (2022).
  73. G. Schraw and R. S. Dennison, Assessing metacognitive awareness, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 19, 460 (1994).
  74. R. A. Sperling, B. C. Howard, R. Staley, and N. DuBois, Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs, Educ. Res. Eval. 10, 117 (2004).
  75. J. M. Wood, Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial, webPsychEmpiricist, available from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html [accessed October 3, 2007].
  76. S. Du Toit and G. Kotze, Metacognitive strategies in the teaching and learning of mathematics, Pythagoras 2009, 57 (2009).
  77. S. Caliskan, G. S. Sezgin, G. S. Selcuk, and M. Erol, Evaluation of problem solving behaviors of physics teacher candidates, Hacet. Univ. Egit. Fak. Der. 30, 73 (2006).
  78. P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Patterns of multiple representation used by experts and novices during physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010111 (2008).
  79. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980).
  80. F. K. Lester, Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970-1994, J. Res. Math. Educ. 25, 660 (1994).
  81. G. Taasoobshirazi and J. Farley, Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 447 (2013).
  82. S. A. Tachie, Meta-cognitive skills and strategies application: How this helps learners in mathematics problem-solving, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 15, em1702 (2019).
  83. A. Desoete, Metacognitive Prediction and evaluation skills and mathematical learning in third-grade students, Educ. Res. Eval. 15, 435 (2009).
  84. S. Avargil, R. Lavi, and Y. J. Dori, Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education, in Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in Stem Education: Learning, Teaching and Assessment (Springer, Cham, 2018), pp. 33–64.
  85. C. Bereiter and M. Scardamalia, Surpassing Ourselves: An Inquiry into the Nature and Implications of Expertise (Open Court, Chicago, IL, 1993).
  86. Zeynep Dulger and Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu, Examination of the relationship between metacognitive awareness and problem solving strategies, Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 10, 595 (2024).
  87. K. Lingel, J. Lenhart, and W. Schneider, Metacognition in mathematics: Do different metacognitive monitoring measures make a difference?, ZDM Math. Educ. 51, 587 (2019).
  88. J. Garofalo and K. F. Lester, Metacognition, cognitive monitoring and mathematical performance, J. Res. Math. Educ. 16, 163 (1985).
  89. M. Ali, C. Abd-Talib, N. H. Ibrahim, J. Surif, and A. H. Abdullah, The importance of monitoring skills in physics problem solving, Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 1, 1 (2016).
  90. T. Muir, K. Beswick, and J. Williamson, “I’m not very good at solving problems”: An exploration of students’ problem solving behaviours, J. Math. Behav. 27, 228 (2008).
  91. M. L. Fernandez, N. Hadaway, J. W. Wilson, and A. O. Graeber. Connecting research to teaching: Problem solving: Managing it all, Math. Teach. 87, 195 (1994).
  92. D. W. Braithwaite and L. Sprague, L. Conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognition in routine and nonroutine problem solving, Cogn. Sci. 45, e13048 (2021).
  93. S. Wismath, D. Orr, and M. Zhong, Student perception of problem solving skills, Transformative Dialogues Teach. Learn. J. 7, 1 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020106– Published 17 July, 2025
  • Received 13 February 2025
  • Accepted 3 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation