Metacognition

Nayana Karia May 2007

Metacognition and Classroom Practice A discussion about the impact of the study of metacognition on classroom practice

Table of Contents Self Regulated Learning......................................................................................................2 Studies in Metacognition.....................................................................................................3 Metacognition: Knowledge of Self, Task and Strategies.................................................3 Metacognition and Successful Learning..........................................................................4 Experts and Novices........................................................................................................5 In the Classroom: Teaching Metacognition.........................................................................6 1.Explicit Teaching of Strategies: Multiple Strategies, Practice and Feedback .............6 2.The Reflective Practitioner: Self Evaluation, Feedback and The Community of Inquiry..............................................................................................................................7 3.Group Work, Naïve Conceptions and Cognitive Conflict, Peer Tutoring and Reciprocal Tutoring.........................................................................................................9 4.Authentic experience: Stories, Role Play, Scenario / Game-Based Learning, Simulations....................................................................................................................10 5.A Video Clip: Learn physics by watching Spider-Man fail........................................11 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................12 References..........................................................................................................................13

Page 1 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007

Self Regulated Learning There is a growing movement in education today towards developing students’ metacognition and helping them become autonomous, self-regulated learners. “There is a growing consensus that learning to learn is …the ultimate life skill for the 21 st century…” (Carr & Claxton, 2002)

Today, in keeping with social-constructivist theories, learning is considered a constructive, cumulative, self-regulated, goal-oriented, situated, collaborative, and individually different process of knowledge building and meaning construction (De Corte, 2000, cited in deJager, Jansen, Reezigt, 2005 at p. ). “Education is no longer expected to focus solely on the transfer of knowledge, but also on the development of metacognition.” (deJager, Jansen, Reezigt, 2005)

Metacognition and the use of learning strategies are considered to be components of selfregulated learning. Other generally accepted elements of self regulated learning include background knowledge and experience, motivation, and epistemological beliefs (Sperling et.al, 2004). It is generally suggested that those with better self-regulation skills typically learn more with less effort and report higher levels of academic satisfaction.(Schraw et al, 2006 ). According to Carr and Claxton (2002), ‘capabilities and dispositions’ are both necessary for effective learning. These dispositions or “habits of mind, tendencies to respond to situations in certain ways” include resilience, playfulness and reciprocity. “Capabilities are the skills, strategies and abilities which learning requires: the tool kit of learning – but they are not of themselves sufficient. One has to be disposed to learn, ready and willing to take learning opportunities, as well as able.”

Research into interventions directed at enhancing students’ metacognition has found that improving students’ metacognition can improve their learning outcomes (e.g. Baird et. al, cited in Thomas 2002, at p.176). “An overarching principle emerging from such research is that metacognition is malleable

Page 2 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 and responsive to interventions that are well conceived and skillfully implemented. (Thomas, 2002)”

Studies in Metacognition

Metacognition: Knowledge of Self, Task and Strategies

Metacognition, a term first formally used by Flavell in 1976, is often discussed in terms of its components, knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Pintrich, 2002). Monitoring and regulation of cognition involve self-interrogation and introspection (Brown 1978). Knowledge of cognition (Pintrich, (2002) includes,

•

knowledge of self,

•

knowledge of tasks and the extent to which strategies can be used effectively, and,

•

strategic knowledge or knowledge of contexts, such as when to employ specific strategies.

Regulation of cognition involves planning for the task, selecting strategies, monitoring and evaluating progress, and debugging or strategy correction. (Sperling et al., 2004 at p.3). Successful learning requires an understanding of context and the ability to use the right strategy at the right time. Ashman & Conway (1997) suggest that flexibility involves “setting of goals, making decisions, setting priorities, using strategies to advantage and changing tactics if the problem is not being resolved.” In similar vein, Zimmerman (1998) suggests three aspects of self-regulation which incorporate metacognition.

•

Forethought: Here, learners identify their goals, define success criteria, their plans for achieving them, and consider how likely it is they will achieve their goals (selfefficacy).

•

Performance or volitional control: Here learners focus on and attempt the learning tasks and monitor what they are learning.

Page 3 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 •

Self-reflection: Learners students evaluate their performance against the predefined criteria, modify their perceptions relating to self-efficacy, establish causal connections and adapt for future learning.

Implicit in self-regulation is that goals are identified based on the value ascribed by learners to the task. Motivational beliefs (Pintrich 2002) are considered to have a bearing on learning: “There is a fairly substantial body of literature emerging that shows important links between students' motivational beliefs and their cognition and learning...”

Metacognition and Successful Learning Metacognition enables high-quality learning and problem solving (Brown, 1978; Flavell, 1979; Schraw & Moshman, 1995 cited in Thomas, 2002 at p.175). Schraw and others (cited in Sperling et al., 2004 at p.4) suggest that “knowledge of cognition is a prerequisite to regulation of cognition” and that those with high knowledge of cognition were more likely to demonstrate greater regulation of cognition. Swanson (1990) suggests that metacognitive knowledge and intellectual aptitude are unrelated and that metacognitive skills help children of lower aptitude compensate on problem-solving tasks. Recent research on college students with Learning Disabilities (LD) also suggests that metacognition and self-regulated behavior is a strong predictor of academic success (Trainin and Swanson, 2005)

Learning strategies are the many ways by which learners take in (encode), store and retrieve (decode) information (Ashman & Conway, 1997 p.43). Kardash and Amlund, (1991 cited in Sperling at p.123) distinguish between Covert and Overt strategies.

•

Covert strategies are the internal processes for information processing (for example, mental visualization, forming mental associations and drawing conclusions and making inferences).

•

Overt processes are observable strategies (for example, underlining, writing summaries, using diagrams and charts, rehearsal, elaboration)

Page 4 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 “The key to the success of metacognitive strategies is that when they are taught appropriately, they assist learners who are dependent on high levels of teacher support to become independent learners.” (Website of College of Education, James Madison University, accessed April 30, 2007)

Early studies showed that students with a mild intellectual disability can make significant gains in recall through training in specific strategies such as cumulative rehearsal, clustering, rote recall and self interrogation (Ashman & Conway, 1997). However, several issues were raised in these studies: •

Some strategies had limited relevance to classroom lessons

•

Teaching students only one strategy led to a limited and rigid application to the particular task only (welding) and constrained strategy application on other tasks

•

Students continued to use inefficient strategies even after learning more efficient ones

•

Students discontinued using the strategies after the training

•

Students were unable to apply the strategies in other contexts (there was a failure to transfer training)

“…a major issue that arises when developing students’ metacognition is the extent to which students are empowered to be autonomous” (Thomas, 2002).

Experts and Novices One of the earliest studies (DeGroot 1965) of expert and novice chess players found that worldclass chess masters are able to consistently out-maneouvre their opponents because they are able to recognize meaningful patterns in chess configurations that are not so apparent to less experienced players.

“We know that increasing experience and knowledge in a specific field (chess, for instance) has the effect that things… which, at earlier stages, had to be abstracted, or even inferred are apt to be immediately perceived at later stages…To a rather large extent, abstraction is replaced by perception… ” (De Groot 1965:33-34, cited in Bransford et.al )

It may be suggested from this that repeated use of a strategy leads to internalization and automation in its selection and application in the relevant context. It is also suggested that it is the knowledge of multiple strategies applicable in different situations and contexts that further distinguishes expert from novice learners.

Page 5 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 Pressley, Borkowski and Schneider, (1989), in their Good Information Processing Model also recommend teaching “a rich repertoire of strategies” and making learners aware of the similarities and differences between multiple strategies. Metacognitive knowledge of all these different strategies seems to be related to the transfer of learning; that is, the ability to use knowledge gained in one setting or situation in another (Bransford et al., 1999, cited in Pintrich, 2002).

In the Classroom: Teaching Metacognition

1.

Explicit Teaching of Strategies: Multiple Strategies, Practice and Feedback

Metacognition, associated with higher order thinking skills, was thought to be a skill to be developed later in the later years of schooling. “…higher order thinking skills are seen as part of upper school curricula, or worse still, optional extras. We argue that this is absurd; thinking and reasoning should be part of the curriculum from the earliest years…” (Brown and Campione, 1996)

There is however, a growing recognition of the need to explicitly teach metacognition. “…many teachers assume that some students will be able to acquire metacognitive knowledge on their own... Of course, some students do acquire metacognitive knowledge through experience and with age, but many more students fail to do so. In our work with college students…we are continually surprised at the number of students who come to college having very little metacognitive knowledge; knowledge about different strategies, different cognitive tasks, and, particularly, accurate knowledge about themselves. (Pintrich, 2002)

Lipman (1991) also suggests that “we should teach directly and immediately for higher order thinking” and focus not on the acquisition of information but on the grasp of relationships. For this, a Reflective paradigm must be evolved, where education is the outcome of participation in a teacher guided community of inquiry, whose goals are the achievement of understanding and good judgement. In the standard paradigm, teachers question students; in the reflective paradigm, students and teachers query each other. In the standard paradigm, students are considered to be thinking if they learn what they have been taught. In the reflective paradigm, students are considered to be thinking if they participate in the community of inquiry. In the classroom, it is suggested that learners be made to understand the purpose of a metacognitive strategy, how to use it, and under what circumstances it should be used and also be provided with opportunities to practice the strategies (Lenz, Ellis, & Scanlon, 1996). When

Page 6 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 learners are made to reflect on the outcomes, and recognize the benefits of using strategies, they learn to attribute successful learning outcomes to their strategy selection efforts.

2.

The Reflective Practitioner: Self Evaluation, Feedback and The Community of Inquiry

Tobias and Everson (2000, 2002) found that learners generally excel if they are able to recognise when they know and when they do not know, suggesting a correlation between knowledge monitoring and academic performance. According to Zimmerman (1998), adjusting goals, expectations, and self-efficacy over time is a critical skill in self-regulated learning. Hacker, et.al (2000) support the view that high achieving students are better at evaluating their learning. Isaacson and Fujita’s (2006) study also supports the idea that students who are skillful at selfregulation modify what they expect based on the feedback they receive from self-monitoring and external input (tests). They also adjust their goals and self-efficacy based on these results. “The weekly class test format in our study allowed students to set and readjust goals and expectations before each test during the course of the semester. “

However, they note a different pattern for low achieving students, who, faced with continual failure, do not adjust their goals and expectations and their attributions for success and failure, falling into “learned helplessness”, a phenomenon which requires further study. Several educationists highlight the role of dialogue and the community of inquiry in facilitating self-evaluation and feedback. Lipman advises: “…converting the classroom into a community of inquiry in which students listen to one another with respect, build on one another’s ideas, challenge one another to supply reasons for otherwise unsupported opinions, assist each other in drawing inferences from what has been said, and seek to identify one another’s assumptions…A dialogue that tries to conform to logic, it moves forward indirectly like a boat tacking into the wind, but in the process, its progress comes to resemble that of thinking itself….” Lipman (1991, at p. 15, 16)

Oakshot (cited in Lipman, 1991 at p. 18) speaks of conversational apprenticeship as the process of initiation and acquisition by children of appropriate intellectual and moral habits. Other writers (Buber, 1947 cited in Lipman at p. 19) also recognise dialogue as an arbiter of learning. Middleton and Edwards (1990) suggest that conversations create an environment for the formulation and justification of thoughts and conceptions.

Page 7 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 “…There seemed in these data to be evidence of a social-discursive basis for metacognition itself, of the sort hypothesized by various theorists (Mead, 1934, Piaget, 1928), such that the very notion of mind, of mental life, of memory and experience as objects of reflective awareness is given shape and occasion by discursive practices in which versions are being compared, conjoined and disputed….

Class discussion is also central to the CASE methodology developed by Adey and Shayer (Adey 1999) “The teaching methodology involves specific management of classes so that every child participates in constructing ideas while working on task in small groups; listening while these ideas are shared in whole-class discussion; justifying and explaining the ideas, events and concepts met in the tasks. By allowing for this to happen there are opportunities for the teacher to continually challenge children’s' present ideas, concepts and events experienced.”

In Lipman’s words, “…Ideally the relationship between teacher and students has this character of face to face dialogue…”

Broadfoot (1996) records that teachers in Britain have found that motivation and the quality of student classroom learning improves by: •

Sharing and discussing curriculum goals with students

•

Encouraging students to set their own learning targets and action plans

•

Self-assessment

•

Reviewing progress together “The opportunity for one-to-one discussion in particular made an enormous impact on many students who had never before had the chance of a sustained, individual conversation with their teacher about their learning.”

Offering cognitive coaching, via direct explanations, modeling, mutual dialogue, ongoing assessment and feedback can help students adjust expectations and strategies on an ongoing basis till the process is internalized. Feuerstein’s Mediated Learning Experience (1980, cited in Ashman and Conway, 1997 at p. 138, 140) describes five mechanisms of mediated teaching: •

Process questioning to provide metacognitive challenge (asking how questions)

•

Bridging (providing a cognitive links so that students work out broader applications of the learning)

•

Requiring justification (for both correct and incorrect answers and considering alternatives)

•

Teaching rules (generalisation)

Page 8 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 •

3.

Emphasising order, predictability, system, sequence and strategies

Group Work, Naïve Conceptions and Cognitive Conflict, Peer Tutoring and Reciprocal Tutoring

Howe’s research (1996) suggests that group work between children whose initial understanding differs can be beneficial to conceptual knowledge, and that different competencies of children can actually become a teaching resource. This offers a positive outlook for integrating students with disabilities into mainstream education. This is also consistent with change involving Piaget’s concept of equilibration - the reconciling of conflict between existing and new conceptions sets the stage for higher synthesis and learning. Adey and Shayer’s CASE program (Adey 1999) was based on this concept of cognitive conflict or cognitive challenge and bridging or providing cognitive links to other situations so that learners see other contexts for application of the learning. Cooperative and collaborative learning environments are increasingly being recognized as highly conducive to developing metacognition. Collaborative settings facilitate overt reasoning and the emergence of a variety of thinking models (Brown and Palincsar, 1989, cited in Brown and Campione, p. 125). Collaboration is central to Vygotsky’s (1978) model of socially constructed learning: …”Functions are first formed in the collective in the form of relations among children and then become mental functions for the individual…Research shows that reflection is spawned from argument….Vygotsky, 1978, p.86, cited in Slavin, 1993, at p. 284

With the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (1978), 86), he suggests that learners’ potential is determined by what they are capable of achieving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. This guidance (scaffolding) must transition from directive help to suggestion and encouragement; “optimum assistance adapts itself to the learner’s successes and failures” (Meadows 1993, p.176) Thomas (2002) supports the view that students’ metacognition is socially mediated and influenced by the nature of the classroom learning environment. He cites (at p. 177) situated learning theorists including Lave and Wenger (1991) who ascribe to cognitive development the character of an apprenticeship that occurs via guided participation in social activity with other individuals. It is generally agreed that learning is “deeply embedded in, or are, in fact, part of

Page 9 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 the sociocultural processes and structures of the classroom” (Nuthall, 1999, cited in Thomas, 2002 at p. 177) Slavin (1993) also discusses how explaining a subject to others (cognitive elaboration) is an effective learning strategy. He outlines research on peer tutoring that “has long found achievement benefits for the tutor as well as the tutee “. Peer Mediated Instruction and Intervention (PMII) is used to build both academic and social skills and involves students instructing one another in a systematic manner, eliciting responses and offering feedback. “Effectiveness of PMII on the whole has been positive. Researchers have focused on varying outcomes over a range of studies and years. These include achievement, higher-level reasoning, retention, on-task behavior, generalization and transfer of skills knowledge, social and cognitive development, interpersonal interaction, social support, self-esteem, social competencies, internalization of values, and many other outcomes” (Hall and Stegila, 2003)

Palinscar and Brown (1984 in Ashman & Conway, 1997, p. 140) suggest Reciprocal Teaching as another method of scaffolding. Studies on Reciprocal Teaching have generally supported its effects on student achievement (Slavin, 1993). Reciprocal teaching employs four strategies: summarizing, questioning, clarifying and predicting.

4.

Authentic experience: Stories, Role Play, Scenario / Game-Based Learning, Simulations

Vygotsky wrote that human learning is mediated by cultural tools and that learning and change is the result of social and intellectual interaction with others and the tools available in the culture and context (Vygotsky, 1994 cited in Russsel, D., 2002, p.310). Stemming from the view that learning is a product of activity, culture and context, Dobrovolny (2006) discusses the importance of creating authentic experiences for learning. Various different models for such learning suggested by different writers include cognitive apprenticeship; problem based learning, anchored instruction and situated cognition. An interesting analogy about how context affects concept formation is used in Fish Is Fish (Lionni, 1970, cited in Bransfort et.al,) a children’s fable described on Amazon.com as follows: “A tadpole and a minnow are underwater friends, but the tadpole grows legs and explores the world beyond the pond and then returns to tell his fish friend about the new creatures he sees. The fish imagines these creatures as bird-fish and people-fish and cow-fish and is eager to join them.”

There is a general acceptance today of the need for learners to play an active role in knowledge construction and the importance of prior experiences and the need to link or make connections across experiences.

Page 10 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 To this end, it is suggested that the approaches using stories, role play, problem-based learning, game based learning, and simulations can be used to provide authentic contexts for learning. There is a large volume of research that indicates that simulations and gamebased learning can be used to enhance learning in the classroom. The Teaching with Games project (Sandford et. al, 2006) comprised surveys of over 1,000 teachers and students, and 10 exploratory case studies of teachers’ use of Commercial off the shelf (COTS) games in four schools with over 300 children. These were used in ‘traditional’ lessons and in diverse competency and content-based curricular environments. The survey covering how teachers plan and implement games-based learning within existing curriculums, aimed to provide recommendations for future games-based learning in schools for teachers, developers and policy makers. The study found that (COTS) computer games have a potential to be used meaningfully to support learning in both formal and informal settings. (Sandford et al, 2006) “Using games in a meaningful way within lessons depended far more on the effective use of existing teaching skills than it did on the development of any new, game-related skills. Far from being sidelined, teachers were required to take a central role in scaffolding and supporting students' learning through games.” (Sandford et.al, 2006)

5.

A Video Clip: Learn physics by watching Spider-Man fail

The following link depicts a classroom scenario in which strategies that facilitate metacognition are subtly infused in the teaching. Please copy and paste the link below in your browser address bar. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=645 The strategy adopted by Dr. Jim Kakalios in this video clip demonstrates the use of the following strategies:

1. Clearly stating goals. 2. Using a story that learners are familiar with (for meaningful connections). 3. Addressing naïve conceptions and prior knowledge. 4. Making connections between the learning and the real world context, thereby establishing relevance and rationale for the learning. 5. Offering avenues for generalization of learning.

Page 11 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007

Conclusion We are living in an era of paradigm change. Ellis (2002) speaks of the need for a “watered-up” curriculum, with greater emphasis on students constructing knowledge. Broadfoot (1993) calls for a corresponding change in current assessment practices, which strongly influence how students engage in education and perceive its rewards. She discusses the “myth of measurement” and ventures to state that educational assessment “can never be scientific” and that there is a need to use assessment to promote rather than to measure learning. Several issues arise in designing assessments for this new paradigm. How are individual contributions to be acknowledged in the assessment of group work? What are optimal designs for peer review and self assessment schemes and what checks and balances can be provided? A move to newer models of assessment necessarily implies a change in teacher focus from content to strategy instruction. To this end, teachers must be offered training to enable them to accurately perceive student aptitudes, preferences and motivational beliefs. Students must be encouraged to individualize strategy knowledge and teachers must instruct for both far and near generalization (Maccini and Gagnon, 2006). Changes in instructional strategy must be preceded by changes in teacher training offerings. There are also inherent weak links in a system that allows young learners to formulate their goals based on perceived task value. Today’s teachers must be all the more sensitive of the need to scaffold learners in the formation of goals, strategies and self-evaluation. And, they must be aware that: “The key factor at the heart of successful scaffolding is not only the ability of the more able learner/teacher to offer appropriate help, but also their ability to withdraw or fade the support they offer when the learner is ready.” (Luckin & Hammerton, 2002)

Word Count (not including References) - 3930

Page 12 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007

References Adey,P. (1999), The Science Of Thinking, And Science For Thinking: A Description of Cognitive Acceleration Through Science Education (CASE), International Bureau Of Education. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/innodata/inno02.pdf Aitkin, A.L. (October 2004). Playing at Reality, Exploring the Potential of the Digital Game as a Medium for Science Communication. Retrieved May 10, 2007 from: http://www.gamasutra.com/education/theses/20050802/playingreality.pdf

Ashman, A. & Conway, R. (1997). An Introduction to Cognitive Education Theory and Applications. Routledge.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. National Academies Press. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6160

Broadfoot, P. (1993) Educational Assessment: The myth of measurement. In Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning, Woods, P. ed.(1996, pp.203 – 230). RoutledgeFalmer.

Brown, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology ,Vol.1 (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cited in Cooper, S.S. (2004) Metacognition in the Adult Learner. Retrieved April 30, 2007 from: http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/metacognition.htm

Brown A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1996). Communities of Learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning, Woods, P. ed. (pp. 120 – 126). RoutledgeFalmer.

CASE Network Website, Retrieved May 7, 2007 from: http://www.case-network.org/index.html

Carr, M., & Claxton, G. (2002).Tracking the Development of Learning Dispositions, Assessment in Education, Vol. 9, No.1, 2002. In Daniels H., & Edwards A., eds.(2004) The Routledge Farmer Reader in Psychology of Education (pp. 106 -131). RoutledgeFalmer.

Page 13 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 College of Education, James Madison University, Website, Retrieved April 30, 2007 from: http://coe.jmu.edu/mathvidsr/metacognitive.htm

Cooper, S.S. (2004). Metacognition in the Adult Learner. Retrieved April 30, 2007 from: http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/metacognition.htm Daniels, H. & Edwards A., (2004). The RoutledgeFarmer Reader in Psychology of Education. RoutledgeFarmer.

de Groot, A.D. (1965). Thought and Choice in Chess. (pp. 33,34.) Cited in Bransford et.al,(1999) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School, at p.20. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6160

de Jager, B. Jansen,M. and Reezigt, G. (2005). The Development of Metacognition in Primary School Learning Environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 179 – 196

Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How Adults Learn from Self-Paced, Technology-Based Corporate Training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers, Distance Education Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2006( pp. 155–170).

Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Perspectives on instruction in learning strategies. Cited in College of Education, James Madison University, Website, Retrieved April 30, 2007 from: http://coe.jmu.edu/mathvidsr/metacognitive.htm

Ellis, E.S. (2002). Watering Up the Curriculum for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities, Part I: Goals of the Knowledge Dimension. LD Online Website. Retrieved May 10, 2007 from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/5743

Flavell, J.H. (1999). Cognitive Development: Children’s Knowledge about the Mind. In Annual Review of Psychology 1999. 50:21.45.

Page 14 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 Hall, T., & Stegila, A. (2003). Peer mediated instruction and intervention. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_peermii.html

Howe, C.J. (1993) Piagetian theory and primary school physics. Abridged version. Early Child Development and Care, 95: 23-39. In Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning, Woods P. ed. (1996). The Open University

Isaacson, R.M and Fujita,F. (2006) Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring and Self-Regulated Learning:Academic Success and Reflections on Learning, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 6, No. 1, August 2006, pp. 39 - 55. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from: http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl/VOL_6/NO_1/v6n1Isaacson.pdf

Kardash, C.M., & Amlund, J.T. (1991). Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 117–138. Cited at p. 8 in Sperling,R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley,R., & DuBois, N. (2004), Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning Constructs. In Educational Research and Evaluation, 2004 - 10 - 2 – 117, Taylor & Francis Group

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning – Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cited in at p. 177 in Thomas, G.P. (2002).Conceptualisation, Development And Validation Of An Instrument For Investigating The Metacognitive Orientation Of Science Classroom Learning Environments: The Metacognitive Orientation. In Learning Environments Research, 2003 - 6 - 2 – 175, Springer VDI Verlag GmbH & Co KG.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press.

Luckin R., & Hammerton, L. (2002). Getting to Know Me: Helping Learners Understand Their Own Learning Needs through Metacognitive Scaffolding. In S. A. Cerri & G. Gouarderes & F. Paranguaca (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems ITS 2002, LNCS 2363, pp. 759–771, 2002. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Maccini, P. & Gagnon, J.(2006) Mathematics Strategy Instruction (SI) for Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. LD Online. Retrieved May 12, 2007 from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/14919

Page 15 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 Meadows, S. (1993). Models of Cognition in Childhood, Metaphors, achievements and problems. In Daniels, H. & Edwards A. (2004). The RoutledgeFarmer Reader in Psychology of Education, RoutledgeFarmer

Middleton, D. and Edwards, D.Conversational Remembering, A social psychological approach, , Collective Remembering, London, Sage, 1990, in Daniels, H. & Edwards A., (2004). The RoutledgeFarmer Reader in Psychology of Education, RoutledgeFarmer

Nuthall, G. (1999). Learning how to learn: The evolution of students’ minds through social processes and culture of the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 139–140. Cited at p. 177 in Thomas, G.P. (2002).Conceptualisation, Development And Validation Of An Instrument For Investigating The Metacognitive Orientation Of Science Classroom Learning Environments: The Metacognitive Orientation. In Learning Environments Research, 2003 - 6 - 2 – 175, Springer VDI Verlag GmbH & Co KG.

Palincsar, A.S & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension – fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117-75. Cited in Ashman, A. & Conway, R. (1997). An Introduction to Cognitive Education Theory and Applications, p. 140. Routledge.

Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing, Theory Into Practice. Retrieved from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_4_41/ai_94872708/pg_1 (accessed April 20, 2007)

Pressley, Borkowski and Schneider, (1989), Good information processing: What it is and what education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857867.Cited in Santrock, J.W. (2006), Educational Psychology p. 274.

Pressley, M., Ghatala, E.S.: Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist 25 (1990) 19–33. Excerpt retrieved May 10, 2007 from: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=GGMS2LkCmMPB0LJLf8Lxnm2QRyDn52xd bhyzxYZX5s93CXh9pz6C!-269904942?docId=77521921

Russel, D. (2002) Looking beyond the interface: activity theory and distributed learning, in Daniels, H. & Edwards A., (2004). The RoutledgeFarmer Reader in Psychology of Education, p.309 – 325). RoutledgeFarmer

Page 16 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007 Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M., Facer, K. & Rudd, T. (September 2006), Final report: Using commercial off-the-shelf computer games in formal education, Teaching with Games A one-year project supported by Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Take-Two and ISFE. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/teachingwithgames/report_01.htm http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/teachingwithgames/findings.htm Santrock, J.W. (2006). Educational Psychology. McGraw-Hill Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning, Research in Science Education, 2006 - 36 - 1/2 – 111. Springer VDI Verlag GmbH & Co KG.

Schraw, G. (1998), Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In Instructional Science. Volume 26, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1998,pp.113-125. Springer Netherlands. Sperling,R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley,R., & DuBois, N. (2004), Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning Constructs. In Educational Research and Evaluation, 2004 - 10 - 2 – 117, Taylor & Francis Group

Slavin, R.E. (1993). When and Why Does Cooperative Learning Increase Achievement? Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. In Routledge-Farmer Reader in Psychology of Education, Daniels, H., Edwards, A., editors, (pp. 271- 293). RoutledgeFalmer.

Swanson, H.L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306–314. Cited at p. 6 in Sperling,R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley,R., & DuBois, N. (2004), Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning Constructs. In Educational Research and Evaluation, 2004 - 10 - 2 – 117, Taylor & Francis Group

Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2002). Knowing what you know and what you don't: Further research on metacognitive knowledge monitoring. College Board Report No. 2002-3. College Board, NY. Cited at p. 4 in Isaacson, R.M and Fujita,F. (2006) Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring and Self-Regulated Learning: Academic Success and Reflections on Learning, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 6, No. 1, August 2006, pp. 39 - 55. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from: http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl/VOL_6/NO_1/v6n1Isaacson.pdf

Thomas, G.P. (2002).Conceptualisation, Development And Validation Of An Instrument For Investigating The Metacognitive Orientation Of Science Classroom Learning Environments: The Metacognitive Orientation. In Learning Environments Research, 2003 - 6 - 2 – 175, Springer VDI Verlag GmbH & Co KG.

Page 17 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Nayana Karia May 2007

Trainin, G & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college students with learning disabilities. In: Learning Disability Quarterly. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5060528_ITM

Vygotsky L.S. (1978. Mind in Society. (M.Cole et.al Eds) p. 86. Cited at p.284 in Slavin, R.E. (1993). When and Why Does Cooperative Learning Increase Achievement? Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. In Routledge-Farmer Reader in Psychology of Education, Daniels, H., Edwards, A., eds.). RoutledgeFalmer.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1994), The Vygotsky Reader, (edited by V. der Veer and J. Valsiner). Cited in Russel, D. (2002) Looking beyond the interface: activity theory and distributed learning. In Daniels, H. & Edwards A., (2004). The RoutledgeFarmer Reader in Psychology of Education, p.309 – 325). RoutledgeFarmer

Woods, P. (Ed) (1996). Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning.London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). “Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models.” In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1 - 19). New York, NY: Guilford. Cited p. 4, 12 in Isaacson, R.M and Fujita,F. (2006) Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring and Self-Regulated Learning:Academic Success and Reflections on Learning, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 6, No. 1, August 2006, pp. 39 - 55. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from: http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl/VOL_6/NO_1/v6n1Isaacson.pdf

Page 18 of 18 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.