Vol. 15 No. 3 (2024):
Research Article

Metacognition and Lexical Complexity in Sketch Mapping – A Secondary Analysis of Think-Aloud Protocols and Sketch Maps

PDF
Neli Heidari
Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Nadine Cruz Neri
Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
Knut Schwippert
Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Sandra Sprenger
Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Sketch Map of Student 3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.n.hei.15.3.177.189
Categories

Published 2024-08-17

Keywords

  • metacognition,
  • lexical complexity,
  • think-aloud protocols,
  • sketch maps,
  • qualitative research

How to Cite

Heidari , Neli, Nadine Cruz Neri, Knut Schwippert, and Sandra Sprenger. 2024. “Metacognition and Lexical Complexity in Sketch Mapping – A Secondary Analysis of Think-Aloud Protocols and Sketch Maps”. European Journal of Geography 15 (3):177-89. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.n.hei.15.3.177.189.

Copyright (c) 2024 Neli Heidari , Nadine Cruz Neri , Knut Schwippert, Sandra Sprenger

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2024-05-17
Accepted 2024-08-16
Published 2024-08-17

Abstract

Metacognition, encompassing students’ awareness of their knowledge, regulation of actions, and experiences, is fundamental to both geography education and lifelong learning. Language is key to externalizing internal processes and enabling interaction within a geography classroom. However, there remains a distinct gap in research specifically focusing on students’ abilities in metacognition and language while solving geographical tasks. Therefore, the present study aims to address this gap by researching the role of metacognition and its alignment with lexical complexity and geographical performance in sketch mapping. To achieve this, a qualitative research design was developed. Ten upper secondary students participated in think-aloud protocols while sketching maps of a predefined route within the school area. This methodological approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of how upper secondary students employed metacognitive strategies and exhibited lexical complexity during sketch mapping. The results show a high degree of heterogeneity in metacognitive use, lexical complexity, and sketch map proficiency among participants. Findings indicate that participants’ use of metacognition is significantly aligned with lexical complexity in think-aloud protocols, as well as their performance on sketch maps. Implications for geography education practice are provided at the end of the paper.

Highlights:

  • Conceptualization of metacognition and lexical complexity in the context of geography education related to sketch mapping.
  • Highlighting alignments of metacognition, lexical complexity, and map skills through participants’ quoted statements and their sketch maps.
  • Deriving implications of results in the context of language-aware geography education through macro-scaffolding.

 

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
  2. Anderson, J. R., & Funke, J. (2007). Kognitive Psychologie (Vol. 2). Spektrum Akademischer Verlag Heidelberg.
  3. Apostolopoulou, A., & Klonari, A. (2022). Children’s map reading abilities in relation to distance perception, travel time, and landscape. European Journal of Geography, 2(2), 35–47. https://eurogeojournal.eu/index.php/egj/article/view/74
  4. Blades, M. (1990). The reliability of data collected from sketch maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80032-5
  5. Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
  6. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). L. Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Cox, M., Elen, J., & Steegen, A. (2020). Fostering students geographic systems thinking by enriching causal diagrams with scale. Results of an intervention study. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 29(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2019.1661573
  8. Cruz Neri, N., Klückmann, F., & Retelsdorf, J. (2022). LATIC–A linguistic analyzer for text and item characteristics. PLOS ONE, 17(11), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277250
  9. Dal, B. (2006). The origin and extent of student’s understandings: The effect of various kinds of factors in conceptual understanding in volcan-ism. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 11(1), 38–59.
  10. Dunn, J. M. (2011). Location knowledge: Assessment, spatial thinking, and new national geography standards. Journal of Geography, 110(2), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2010.511243
  11. Engelen, E., & Budke, A. (2021). Secondary school students’ development of arguments for complex geographical conflicts using the inter-net. Education Inquiry, 14(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1966887
  12. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explana-tions of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3
  13. Firth, R. (2011). Making geography visible as an object of study in the secondary school curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 22(3), 289–316. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.601209
  14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psycholo-gist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  15. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motiva-tion, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  16. Frank, F., Obermaier, G., & Raschke, N. (2010). Kompetenz des Kartenzeichnens–Theoretische Grundlagen und Entwurf eines Kompe-tenzstufenmodells. Zeitschrift für Geographiedidaktik-ZGD, 38(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.18452/25539
  17. Gallagher, F., & Leahy, A. (2019). From drowned drumlins to pyramid-shaped peaks: Analyzing the linguistic landscape of geography to support English language learning in the mainstream classroom. Irish Educational Studies, 38(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2019.1606727
  18. Gebele, D., Zepter, A. L., Königs, P., & Budke, A. (2022). Metacognition in argumentative writing based on multiple sources in geography educa-tion. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(8), 948–974. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080069
  19. German Geographical Society. (2012). Educational Standards in Geography for the Intermediate School Certificate with sample assignments. https://geographiedidaktik.org/download/educational-standards-in-geography-for-the-intermediate-school-certificate-with-sample-assignments-3-edition-2014/?wpdmdl=821&refresh=6634a653b03cd1714726483.
  20. Gersmehl, P. J., & Andrews, S. K. (1986). Teaching the language of maps. Journal of Geography, 85(6), 267–270.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221348608979428
  21. Gieseking, J. J. (2013). Where we go from here: The mental sketch mapping method and its analytic components. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 712–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413500926
  22. Halliday, M. A. (1999). The notion of "context" in language education. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 1–24). John Benjamin Publishing Company
  23. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30.
  24. Hasselhorn, M., & Labuhn, A. S. (2008). Metakognition und selbstreguliertes Lernen. In W. Schneider & M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch der pädagogischen Psychologie (pp. 28–37). Hogrefe.
  25. Heidari, N., Schwippert, K., & Sprenger, S. (2024). Thinking. Speaking. Producing. Maps: linking cartographic concepts and cartography-specific language use. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2024.2363633
  26. Heine, L., Domenech, M., Otto, L., Neumann, A., Krelle, M., Leiss, D., Höttecke, D., Ehmke, T., & Schwippert, K. (2018). Modellierung sprachlicher Anforderungen in Testaufgaben verschiedener Unterrichtsfächer: Theoretische und empirische Grundlagen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Lin-guistik, 2018(69), 69–96. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/zfal-2018-0017
  27. Heuzeroth, J., & Budke, A. (2021). Metacognitive strategies for developing complex geographical causal structures: An interventional study in the geography classroom. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(2), 382-404. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020029
  28. Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working papers/Lund University, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, 53, 61–79.
  29. Kettunen, K. (2014). Can type-token ratio be used to show morphological complexity of languages? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 21(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2014.911506
  30. Kimerling, A. J., Muehrcke, P. C., Muehrcke, J. O., & Muehrcke, P. (2016). Map use: Reading, analysis, interpretation. ESRI Press Academic.
  31. Kirk, R. M. (1995). Geography as conversation? Progress in Human Geography, 19(3), 169-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269508709315
  32. Kohlstock, P. (2018). Kartographie (Vol. 2568). UTB.
  33. Lane, R., Carter, J., & Bourke, T. (2019). Concepts, conceptualization, and conceptions in geography. Journal of Geography, 118(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2018.1490804
  34. Matthews, P. H. (2014). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford Quick Reference.
  35. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
  36. McLellan, E., MacQueen, K. M., & Neidig, J. L. (2003). Beyond the qualitative interview: Data preparation and transcription. Field Methods, 15(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239573
  37. Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. J., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Develop-ment of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500479991
  38. Metoyer, S., & Bednarz, R. (2017). Spatial thinking assists geographic thinking: Evidence from a study exploring the effects of geospatial technol-ogy. Journal of Geography, 116(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2016.1175495
  39. Metz, H. M. (1990). Sketch maps: Helping students get the big picture. Journal of Geography, 89(3), 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349008979610
  40. Morawski, M., & Budke, A. (2017). Language awareness in geography education: An analysis of the potential of bilingual geography education for teaching geography to language learners. European Journal of Geography, 8(1), 61–84. https://eurogeojournal.eu/index.php/egj/article/view/280
  41. OECD. (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills: The PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. OECD Publish-ing.
  42. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
  43. Prediger, S., & Pöhler, B. (2015). The interplay of micro- and macro-scaffolding: an empirical reconstruction for the case of an intervention on percentages. ZDM, 47(7), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0723-2
  44. Puttick, S., & Cullinane, A. (2021). Towards the nature of geography for geography education: An exploratory account, learning from work on the nature of science. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(3), 348-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1903844
  45. Rawling, E. (2022). A framework for the school geography curriculum. Geographical Association. https://geography.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GA-Curriculum-Framework-2022-WEB-final.pdf.
  46. Robinson, P. J. (2005). Teaching key vocabulary in geography and science classrooms: An analysis of teachers’ practice with particular reference to EAL pupils’ learning. Language and Education, 19(5), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668695
  47. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.
  48. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(s1), 153–170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x
  49. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  50. Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, 112, 112–113. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008
  51. Stephanou, G., & Mpiontini, M.-H. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and their effects on performance expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects. Psychology, 8(12), 1941–1975. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.812122
  52. Tomlinson, R., Milson, A. J., Demirci, A., & Kerski, J. J. (2012). International perspectives on teaching and learning with GIS in secondary schools (Vol. 9789400721203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2120-3
  53. Troffa, R., Mura, M., Fornara, F., & Caddeo, P. (2009). Cognitive mapping analysis and regional identity. Cognitive Processing, 10(2), 328–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0306-7
  54. van der Graaf, J., Raković, M., Fan, Y., Lim, L., Singh, S., Bannert, M., Gašević, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). How to design and evaluate personalized scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 18(3), 783–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09361-y
  55. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considera-tions. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
  56. Veenman, M. V. J., & van Cleef, D. (2019). Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: Students’ self-reports versus on-line assessment methods. ZDM, 51(4), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-1006-5
  57. van der Veer, R., & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky in English: What still needs to be done. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9172-9
  58. von Stülpnagel, R., & Frankenstein, J. (2015). Configurational salience of landmarks: An analysis of sketch maps using space syntax. Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0726-5
  59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). Plenum Press.
  60. Wise, N., & Kon, J. H. (1990). Assessing geographic knowledge with sketch maps. Journal of Geography, 89(3), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349008979612

Most read articles by the same author(s)