By Nur Abidin
A. What is metacognition?
Metacognition can be thought of simply as thinking about thinking (Devine et al., 1993) or “the monitoring and control of thought” (Martinez, 2006, p. 696). Since firstly introduced in early 1970’s, the discussion of metacognition and its contribution especially to teaching and learning has been a major concern among educators. The early definition of metacognition was proposed by Flavell (1976, p.232), who defined it as “one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them”. Moreover, he noted that metacognition involves “the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of information processing activities”. Similarly, Metcalfe and Shimamura (1994) defined metacognition as the knowledge people have about what they know, remember, and think. Baird (as cited in Cubukcun, 2008) developed these ideas as the knowledge, awareness and control of one’s own learning. Thus, in pedagogical perspective, metacognition can be viewed as a central part of skilled learning that determines the way learners control their cognitive skills and how they execute these skills appropriately to accomplish particular tasks.
A more comprehensive description was suggested by Brown, Nelson & Narens, Schraw & Dennison, Schraw & Moshman, Zohar & Peled (as cited in Brunning et al., 2004 and Nukles et al., 2008) who categorized metacognition into knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Knowledge of cognition or metacognition knowledge refers to what ones conceptually know about cognition which is also recognized as meta-strategic knowledge. While regulation of cognition is associated with the way ones regulate their cognition. Schraw (1998) affirmed that cognitive skills are necessary to perform a task while metacognition is necessary to understand how the task is performed. Thus, metacognition can conceptually be distinguished from cognition in that it takes cognitive processes or skills as its object (Winne & Hadwin as cited in Nukles et al., 2008).
Most researchers make a distinction between two components of metacognition; knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Schraw, 1998). Knowledge of cognition or metacognitive knowledge includes three important knowledge elements. First, the declarative knowledge refers to knowledge about oneself as a learner and also knowing what factors determine our performance (Brown, Jacobs & Paris as cited in Bruning et al., 2004). For instance, an individual who is aware of his limited cognitive capacity will learn more effectively by selecting essential information required for certain topic or issues. Another example is that a learner who recognizes that he can not easily remember his lesson time table will write his schedule on his notebook or other media. Second, the procedural knowledge concerns to the cognitive strategies possessed by an individual. For example, most expert writers have specific strategies in their writing such as generating ideas by brainstorming or discussion, planning before writing, outlining, writing draft and revising. Good readers also possess practical strategies in their reading such as skimming before reading, scanning for the main ideas, note-taking or highlighting while reading and summarizing after reading. Third, conditional knowledge refers to the ability to recognize when or why to employ the strategies appropriately. One example of this knowledge is that most readers read more carefully and strategically when they are reading for a particular test and read differently when reading newspaper as a daily activity.
The regulation of cognition or regulatory strategy also consists of three important components; planning, regulating, and evaluating (Jacobs & Paris, Kluwe as cited in Bruning et al., 2004 and Schraw, 1998). Planning refers to the selection of appropriate cognitive strategies and allocation of resources in relation to a specific task. This constituent might include determining a specific goal for a particular activity, activating relevant prior knowledge, budgeting or allocating time. Regulating is identified as deliberate monitoring or self-assess required to manage and control ones’ learning. This may involve pausing while reading and making prediction. Evaluation refers to the ability to self-assess the results and effectiveness of ones’ learning process. A specific instance of this component is reevaluating goals and obtained results used to complete particular tasks. Brown (as cited in Bruning et al., 2004) and Martinez (2006) added that regulation of cognition is generally automated for adults and in most cases developed unconsciously.
B. How to Enhance Metacognitive Awareness?
Gunstone (as cited in Cubukcun, 2008) asserted that all learners are metacognitive and that the associated pedagogical goal should be directed to enhance metacognition. He further indicated that in addition to its contribution to learning success, enhanced metacognition is also viewed as the learning outcome itself. Metacognition is an essential aspect of information processing, with wide implications for both educational and organizational settings (Kleitman and Stankov, 2007). A variety of research suggests that metacognition can be developed either through direct instruction or modelling the metacognitive activities (Bruning et al., 2004, Martinez, 2006). Schraw (1998) asserted that metacognition is flexible, multidimensional and domain-general in nature and therefore can be improved in a number of ways including in classroom settings. Hartman and Sternberg (as cited in Schraw, 1998) informed that in instructional contexts metacognition can be developed through four general approaches.
The first is by promoting students’ general awareness which can be performed by raising the students’ profound understanding of the concept of cognition and metacognition as well as awareness of their importance in developing self-regulated learning. In doing so, teachers are expected to allocate adequate time for students to discuss these issues including their valuable roles either with teachers or other students. Promoting students’ awareness also requires teachers to deliberately practice and model their metacognition during their interaction with the students particularly in the classroom (Martinez, 2006). Butler & Winne and Schunk (as cited in Schraw, 1998, p. 118) contended that “the more explicit this modelling, the more likely it is that students will develop cognitive and metacognitive skills”. In addition, peer modelling among students also needs to be encouraged for it sometimes provides a better model than the teachers. Another component to enhance general awareness is by promoting a reflective practice among students (Martinez, 2006). To do so, teachers are suggested to give regular opportunities for students to reflect on their own learning both success and failures (Kuhn, Schauble & Garcia-Mila, Siegaler and Jenkin as cited in Schraw, 1998).
The second attempt is through improving knowledge of cognition which can be carried out using a strategy evaluation matrix (SEM) proposed from Schraw (1998). In line with this, Paris and Winograd (as cited in Xiao, 2008) suggested five key features which teachers should focus their explanations on when they attempt to teach students how to learn metacognitively:
- What the strategy is. Teachers describe critical features of the strategy or provide a definition or description of the strategy.
- Why the strategy should be learned. Teachers explain to their students the purpose and potential benefits of the strategy.
- How to use the strategy. Teachers explain each step in the strategy as clearly as possible. When the individual steps in a strategy are hard to explicate, like the step of getting the main idea, [teachers] use analogies, think-alouds, and other instructional aids.
- When and where the strategy is to be used. Teachers explain to their students the appropriate circumstances under which strategies should be employed.
- How to evaluate the use of the strategy. Finally, teachers regularly explain to their students how to tell whether using the strategy has proven helpful and what to do if it has not. (p.8)
The first four features are devoted mainly the three types of metacognitive knowledge, namely, declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge, while the last feature is about the regulation of one’s cognition which is later developed as a regulatory checklist.
The third approach is by improving students’ regulation of cognition skills. This can be carried out by providing the students a regulatory checklist which calls them to practice self-planning, deliberate monitoring, and self-evaluating (Paris and Winograd as cited in Xiao, 2008 and Schraw, 1998). In doing so, teachers may formulate specific questions or prompts under the three headings above. These prompts are useful to train students to think more strategically and systematically in tackling any problems or tasks. The last effort is by fostering conducive learning atmospheres which promote students’ mastery goal in their learning. Schraw et al., (as cited in Schraw, 1998, p. 122) asserted that “promoting mastery goal in students’ learning may broaden their repertoire strategies and metacognition knowledge about regulating strategy use. Rewarding hard efforts, persistence and creativity in strategy use is valuable for creating a more conducive situation and fostering students’ mastery goal as well.
C. References
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cubukcu, F. (2009). Metacognition in the classroom, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 559-563.
Devine, J., Railey, K., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in Ll and L2 writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 3, 203-225.
Flavell, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problems solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martinez, E. M. (2006). What is metacognition?. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 9, 696-699.
Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A.P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Nuckles, M., Hubner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols, Learning and Instruction, 19, 259-271.
Schraw, G. (1994). Promoting general metacognitive awareness, Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
