Promoting General Metacognitive Awareness, Schraw, 1998

1. Metacognition is multidimensional
Framework of metacognition
Metacognition
Knowledge of cognition-what individuals
Regulation of cognition-set of activities that
know about their own cognition or about
help students control their learning. There
cognition in general. There are 3 types:
are three essential skills:
Declarative knowledge-knowledge about
Planning-selection of appropriate strategies
oneself as a learner and about what factors
and allocation of resources that affect
influence ones performance
performance. Examples: making predictions,
allocating attention selectively before
beginning a task.
Procedural knowledge-knowledge about
Monitoring-ones on-line awareness of
doing things, such as heuristics and
comprehension and task performance.
strategies. More procedural knowledge gives Example: periodic self-testing. Monitoring
rise to more automatic performance.
ability develops slowly and is quite poor in
Examples include chunking and categorizing
children and adults.
new information.
Conditional knowledge-knowing when and
Evaluating-appraising the products and
why to use declarative and procedural
efficiency of ones learning. Examples-reknowledge. Helps students selectively
evaluating goals and conclusions.
allocate resources and use strategies more
effectively.
Knowledge and regulation of cognition are related-knowledge of strategies is related to
self-reported strategy use. College students judgments of their ability to monitor their
reading comprehension were significantly related to their observed monitoring accuracy
and test performance.
2. Metacognition is domain-general
Knowledge and regulation of cognition are domain-general (span a wide variety of
subject areas and domains) in nature. Some studies have shown that teaching
strategies such as identifying main goals, self-monitoring, self-questioning and selfassessment can improve learning in all domains and that strategy use and self regulation
are correlated in multiple domains. There is empirical evidence (Schraw, 1995) to
support the conclusion that adult learners possess a general monitoring skill.
Schraws view-cognitive skills tend to be encapsulated in subject areas, where
metacognitive skills span multiple domains.
Acquisition of metacognition does not depend strongly on IQ. Alexander, Carr, and
Schwanenflugel (1995) reported that content specific knowledge was modestly related
to IQ, but strategies and comprehension monitoring were not related at. IQ constrains
knowledge acquisition initially, but becomes less important as other skills, such as task
specific strategies and metacognitive knowledge come into play.
Well organized instruction of the use of effective learning strategies may in large part
compensate for differences in IQ.
Many researchers believe that metacognitive knowledge is domain specific initially, but
as students acquire metacognitive knowledge in a number of domains, they may

construct general metacognitive knowledge and skills that cut across all academic
domains.
Swanson (1990) found that metacognitive knowledge compensated for IQ when
comparing fifth and sixth grade students problem solving
While high levels of domain specific knowledge may facilitate the acquisition and use of
metacognition, domain knowledge does not guarantee higher levels of metacognition.

3. Promoting general metacognitive awareness

Promote the importance of metacognition-teachers should model both cognitive and
metacognitive skills for their students
Students can model metacognitive skills as well and provide a rationale for these skills
within the students zone of proximal development, compared to teachers.
Make metacognitive knowledge and skills explicit- Schraw uses a strategy evaluation
matrix (strategy-how, when and why to use it) to increase metacognitive knowledge in
his students and a regulatory checklist that helps facilitate planning, monitoring, and
evaluation. Similar to Reif- forcing students to go through the process of representing
the problem, initial problem analysis, implementation, and checking work allows them
to be better problem solvers.
Foster conducive environments-Students possess knowledge and strategies that are
appropriate for a task, but do not use them. Students fail to engage and persist in a
challenging task or fail to attribute their success to the use of strategies and selfregulation. They may believe that low ability makes the extra effort (metacognition)
useless.
Schraw says that the most salient characteristics of successful learners is their goal
orientation. Mastery orientation-students want to improve their competence.
Performance orientation-students want to prove their competence. Teachers can focus
on increasing ones current level of performance, rewarding increased effort and
persistent, and strategy use to discourage performance orientation.
We discussed goal orientation previously-there needs to be a balance. Getting good
grades is an incentive for students to work harder. But what we assess can cause
students to focus on the wrong things, like just getting a final numerical answer. We
can also assess for problem analysis and checking, as well as holistic grading to see if
they are monitoring their learning, such as like what we saw on the QMFPS.

Whats all the Fuss about Metacognition? Schoenfeld, 1987.

Students in a geometry class spent the most time exploring problem solutions, rather than
reading, analyzing, planning, implementing, and verifying. Its not only what you know, but
how you use it that matters.
An expert mathematician, although he had not worked in geometry for a number of years, spent
more time analyzing, planning, and verifying in addition to exploring.
Schoenfeld also discusses another aspect of metacognition-beliefs and intuitions. Students have
preconceptions and misconceptions about the subject matter, and we should take this into
account.
Question about how many buses are needed to hold 1128 soldiers. 1/3 of students said that the
answer was 31 remainder 12. In Schoenfelds class, 30% of students solve a proof problem
correctly then make a conjecture that flatly violates what they just proved. They dont see the
connection between the two problems.
Students beliefs: Math consists of mastering formal procedures that are completely divorced
from real life, discovery, and problem solving. They disregard proof because its meaningless to
them. They also believe that all problems can be solved in 10 minutes or less, only geniuses are
capable or discovering mathematics.
Schoenfelds approach to developing metacognitive skills:
o use videotapes. He has students in his class watch videos of students struggling to solve
problems. The students can objectively analyze the behavior when its someone elses
then to see how the analysis applies to yourself. Thus, they are more aware of
metacognitive issues and more receptive to his teaching techniques.
o Teacher as role model for metacognitive behavior-he works through a problem from
scratch, modeling self-regulatory strategies.
o Whole class discussions of problems with teacher serving as control-scribe and
orchestrator of students suggestions, but does not guide students to correct solutions.
Asks for suggestions to solve the problem, and the class discusses whether or not the
suggestion is reasonable, implements the suggestion, monitors whether it is working,
checks the final solution and discuss alternative solutions.
o Problem solving in small groups-he describes himself as a coach, watching students as
they practice and giving on-line corrections. He asks the group What are you doing?
Describe it precisely. Why are you doing it? How does it help you? After a while,
students prepare their answers in advance, before he reaches the group. This develops
a good habit of self-regulatory skills.
Post instruction, students spend more time planning, implementing, and verifying. Not as much
as the expert mathematician did, but they were getting better.

How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A metaanalysis on self-regulation training programmes, Dignath, Buettner, Langfeldt, 2008.

This analysis only discusses the results of 48 metacognitive interventions with children between
grades 1-6, but I still found some interesting points that might be used for older students.
They looked at the instructional strategy of the intervention-metacognitive (metacognitive
knowledge and skills), cognitive (repetition, organizational, and problem solving strategies) and
motivational (causal attribution and self-efficacy beliefs, action control, and feedback), and
combinations of metacognitive and motivational, cognitive and motivational, and cognitive and
metacognitive. The highest effect sizes were found for:
Metacognitive and motivational (combination)
Motivational
Metacognitive and cognitive (combination)

Within the metacognitive strategy interventions, they found the largest effect sizes to be a
combination of planning and evaluation strategies. Monitoring had the largest effect size on
academic performance overall, but the difference was not significant.

Within the metacognitive reflection groups (impact of promoting students metacognitive

reflection)-found that they largest effect sizes to be a combination of knowledge of
metacognitive strategies and benefit. I found this very interesting because we hope that by
having student buy in they are more likely to practice using the strategies.

Im not exactly sure what they mean by reasoning but I think they mean metacognitive selfregulation skills
Overall, the most effective training programs include interventions with
o metacognitive and motivational aspects.
o knowledge about strategy application and its benefits (learners need to be motivated to
use the strategies-they need the skill and the will to engage in self-regulated learning.)
o feedback about their learning (learner should be encouraged to ask for feedback and
talk about his learning. Analysis of the learning outcome and the factors which led to
the outcome should offer conclusions about the appropriateness of ones own goal
setting and procedures to attain this goal.)
Knowing what kinds of metacognitive interventions work, we can adapt these for physics and
other natural sciences and help teachers/professors implement these types of strategies in their
own classrooms.

Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in the Classroom: The Effects of Cooperative Learning and
Metacognitive Training, Kramarski and Mevarech, 2003

384 eighth grade students from 12 schools

All students studied linear graphs
Two interventions-metacognitive training and cooperative learning
Metacognitive training-used three sets of self-addressed metacognitive questions printed in
their worksheets:
o comprehension questions-prompt students to reflect on a problem before solving it,
e.g., what does the x-axis represent? What is the trend of the graph?
o strategic questions-prompt students to consider which strategies were appropriate for
solving or completing a given problem, e.g., why is the strategy the most appropriate to
carry out task? Some strategies could be adding steps to find the slope, using data
tables, and the algebraic representation.
o connection questions-prompt students to focus on similarities and differences between
immediate problem or previous problems they had completed, e.g., compare different
intervals on the same graph, find similarities and differences between graphs
cooperative learning vs individualized learning- included three parts (teacher introduction,
cooperative or individualized seatwork, and teacher review with the whole class)
o cooperative groups in teams of four-one high achieving student, two middle achieving
students, and one low achieving students
o each student read a problem aloud and tried to solve it
o the team discussed the problem until they reached a final consensus and wrote down
the solution on their answer sheets
Four groups:
o Cooperative learning + metacognitive training
o Individual learning +metacognitive training
o Cooperative learning only
o Individual learning only
The assessments included
o a pre/post test of graph interpretation
o mathematical explanations
fluency-number of correct arguments
flexibility-provision of more than one kind of correct argument
o graph construction test (transfer task)
o metacognitive questionnaire

Results

The COOP+META group scored the highest on the graph interpretation test (24.4/36) as
opposed to the other groups (around 20/36)
The COOP+META group gave more correct arguments (8.9) than the other groups (around 5-6.5)
o logical formal: based on logical mathematical arguments
o Numerical computational: based on numerical comptations or algebraic formulas
o Visual: based on intuitive, visual analysis of the graph
o Drawing: based on drawings that students added to the graph
More students from the COOP+META group gave more than one kind of correct argument
The COOP+META group and IND+META scored slightly higher on the transfer test as opposed to
other groups
Being more flexible and fluent can help students see that math is not a rigid subject where there
is just one path to one right answer, but that there are many ways to reach the same answer.
Also, when elaborating on solutions, students can enhance their understanding.
They reason that because the metacognitive questions were internalized by both groups to such
an extent that students interactions could have only a small additional impact on transfer
performance (graph construction).

COOP+META outperformed IND+META on the graph interpretation test because learning in

small groups provides a natural setting for students to formulate and discuss questions that they
used in the study (comprehension, strategic, and connection)
It is possible that by explicitly giving students comprehension, strategic, and connection
questions to ask within the group, it directed the group in the right direction. In the COOP
group, the students may have just done the problem and moved on without further questioning
(perhaps the high achieving student just did the problem and everyone else agreed without
questioning).
IND+META outperformed COOP students because just placing students in cooperative learning
groups is not sufficient for enhancing mathematical reasoning. Groups need structure, practice,
and reinforcement in metacognitive skills.
I think this is important for us because we expect that students who work in groups engage in
metacognitive dialogue. This might not be the case, maybe one student is doing all the work
and others just agree with him. As Schraw article pointed out, the metacognitive knowledge
and skills need to be made explicitly clear.

Metacognitive Teaching Interventions

Teachers metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking, Zohar, 1998

In-service training for Teaching in Science curriculum

Do teachers need to have metacognitive knowledge of thinking skills (e.g., identifying a research
question, formulating hypotheses, planning experiments controlling variables)? Yes, because
o Essential for introducing metacognitive activities in class
o Essential for DESIGN of high quality learning activities because it requires thinking about
thinking skills as explicit goals of the learning activity
o Essential for systematic teaching of higher order thinking. Teaching the same skills over
and over again in different scientific contexts requires that teachers can plan their
teaching for both content and thinking goals. Thinking skills are explicit goals of
instruction.
Data analysis-audiotapes of the in-service courses, notes were taken by the leader, elements
from teachers written work that referred to metacognition were collected.
They found that teachers were teaching for thinking in an intuitive way. After the in-service,
they were conscious of teaching higher order thinking as a distinct educational goal.
Teachers did not have declarative knowledge of thinking skills, e.g., they could not articulate
thinking objectives or thinking skills as a goal of a lesson plan. They were unable to discuss
thinking skills in general terms using names, rules, and definitions and to think of them as
explicit instructional objectives. Once thinking skills were made explicit, the teachers could
effectively design their learning activities.
Discrepancy between procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge- teachers may
intuitively teach for thinking, but they have trouble articulating the skills and making them
explicit goals of lessons.
If teachers have difficulty articulating these skills, they may not necessarily teach them or make
them explicit to their students. They may also have difficulty teaching them across different
contexts in science.

In 1995 teachers were asked to create learning materials which will apply the goals and
instructional means of the TSC project to new science topics (less teachers addressing thinking
skills in 1995). In 1996, teachers reviewed of thinking skills in several TSC learning activities and
given a written page of guidelines including a request to define the thinking skills in each item
they wrote.
Shulman-absence of focus on subject matter among the various research paradigms for the
study of teaching as the missing paradigm
Thinking skills should be a goal of teaching. When teaching pedagogical knowledge of thinking
skills, teachers need to be taught the subject matter, e.g., thinking skills, before learning HOW
to teach thinking skills to students.
We learn physics before learning how to teach physics effectively. Likewise, teachers need to
learn about thinking skills before learning how to teach thinking skills effectively.
I think this is important for us because we want teachers/professors to teach metacognitive
skills within the context of physics. First, we need to have a coherent vocabulary that describes
and defines the metacognitive strategies we are talking about to ensure that teachers are on
the same page. Then we can talk about the pedagogy-how to teach these strategies,
implement them in the context of physics, and help students generalize metacognitive
knowledge and strategies.