Wilson & Bai (2010)

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

1/20

The relationships and impact of teachers metacognitive

knowledge and pedagogical understandingsof metacognition

Nance S. Wilson & Haiyan Bai

Received: 18 December 2008 / Accepted: 28 September 2010# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract We know that metacognitive students are successful in school (Sternberg

Instructional Science 26:127140, 1998). However, despite the recognition of the role of

metacognition in student success, limited research has been done to explore teachers

explicit awareness of their metacognition and their ability to think about, talk about, and

write about their thinking (Zohar Teaching and Teacher Education 15:413-429, 1999).

Therefore, the current study investigates teachers understanding of metacognition and their

pedagogical understanding of metacognition, and the nature of what it means to teachstudents to be metacognitive. One hundred-five graduate students in education participated

in this study. The data analysis results, using mixed research method, suggest that the

participants metacognitive knowledge had a significant impact on his/her pedagogical

understanding of metacognition. The results revealed that teachers who have a rich

understanding of metacognition report that teaching students to be metacognitive requires a

complex understanding of both the concept of metacognition and metacognitive thinking

strategies.

Keywords Metacognition . Metacognitive thinking . Teachers . Instruction . Learning .

Pedagogical understanding

The demands of the twenty-first century require students to know more than content

knowledge; they must know how to learn. Learning is an active process that requires

students to think about their thinking, or be metacognitive. Metacognition is a persons

knowledge about the cognitive processes necessary for understanding and learning (Flavell,

Metacognition Learning

DOI 10.1007/s11409-010-9062-4

N. S. Wilson (*)

School of Teaching, Learning and Leadership, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd.,P. O. Box 161250, Orlando, FL 32816-1250, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

H. Bai

Department of Educational and Human Sciences, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd.,

P. O. Box 161250, Orlando, FL 32816-1250, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

2/20

1976). It is not only about the strategies that students use, but also about students knowing

when and how to use them. When a person is metacognitive, he/she demonstrates an

awareness and regulation of his/her mental processes (Griffith & Ruan, 2005). A person

who is metacognitive knows how to learn because he/she is aware of what he/she knows

and what he/she must do in order to gain new knowledge.Metacognitive people exhibit the qualities of good readers (Griffith & Ruan, 2005;

Randi, Grigorenko & Sternberg, 2005) and are successful in school (Sternberg, 1998).

However, despite the recognition of the role of metacognition in student success, limited

research has been done to explore teachers explicit awareness of their metacognition and

their ability to think about, talk about, and write about their thinking (Zohar, 1999). Therefore,

it is important to study teachers understandings of the act of teaching metacognition, the

challenges they face in doing so, and the relationships between their metacognitive

knowledge and pedagogical understanding of metacognition. Gaining the knowledge could

improve our ability to plan staff development and teacher education programs.

A necessary condition for teaching students to be metacognitive is a pedagogical

understanding of metacognition. Pedagogical understanding refers to teachers knowledge

regarding effective instruction for helping students achieve a goal, in this case becoming

metacognitive. The present study investigates participants pedagogical understandings of

metacognition, the nature of what it means to teach metacognition, and the relationships

between the participants knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition.

The following sections begin with a discussion on metacognition in general. Next, is a

discussion on pedagogical understandings of metacognition. The discussion that follows

addresses why and how we evaluate teachers knowledge. The methods used for this study

and the findings of the research are presented in the following section. Finally, teachers

pedagogical understandings of metacognition from the perspective of this study and

limitations of current study are discussed.

Theoretical framework

Metacognition

The concept of metacognition gained prominence in the 1970s with Flavell (1976). It has been

defined as having knowledge (cognition) and having understanding, control over, andappropriate use of that knowledge (Tei & Stewart, 1985, p. 47) and involves both the

conscious awareness and the conscious regulation of ones learning. A metacognitive person

checks for understanding and regulates his/her understanding by using a metacognitive strategy.

In reading, metacognition has been the focus of many research studies (Carrell,

Gajduske, & Wise, 1998; Wenden, 1998) because reading comprehension is a complex

cognitive process that requires thinking about what the reader knows and the application of

the reading processes (Baker, 2002; Zhang, 2001, 2008). That is, metacognition refers

specifically to the knowledge that readers have regarding the specific tasks for

comprehension. Metacognitive readers monitor their understanding of text and controltheir understanding through the application of reading strategies and the evaluation of the

effectiveness of the strategies. Research on reading strategies has focused on both specific

strategies and the collection of strategies that readers use for comprehension. Research

studies have recognized the importance of metacognition in differentiating between skilled

and unskilled readers (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). According to Snow, Burns & Griffin

(1998), skilled readers use their knowledge of the world to comprehend text literally as

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

3/20

well as to draw valid inferences from texts, in their comprehension of words, and in their

use of comprehension monitoring and repair strategies (p. 62). Their success most likely

stems from their ability to recognize when comprehension breaks down and their ability to

use strategies and/or techniques to improve/repair comprehension.

Since metacognition is the key to comprehension, it must be a valued component inliteracy instruction. Such instruction must address student background knowledge,

knowledge and practice of metacognitive strategies, and knowledge regarding implemen-

tation of the strategies (Griffith & Ruan, 2005). Such instruction includes long term direct

explanation and modeling of strategies followed by guided student practice with the

strategies (Pressley, 2002). Students must understand the what, how, and when of the

strategies to be applied (Paris, Lipson & Wixson, 1994). In other words, students need to

know what the strategies are, how to implement them, and under what conditions to

implement them. For instance, a reader who comes upon a confusing phrase needs to do

something. If he/she simply keeps on reading despite a breakdown in understanding, he is

not being metacognitive; if the student stops to ask a question and/or reread, he/she is

applying a particular strategy for a particular purpose when it is needed.

Despite the case for metacognitive literacy instruction, research over the last three

decades has not demonstrated wide spread application (Pressley, 2002). This kind of

instruction is complex and requires that teachers make metacognition the goal for literacy

instruction (Baker, 2002). Contrary to this knowledge, Pressley, Wharton-McDonald,

Mistretta-Hampston & Echebarria (1998) and Durkin (1978-1979) found that teachers are

more likely to test comprehension than teach comprehension. These tests require that

students process text after reading rather than being metacognitive during reading. The

assumption of the teachers seemed to be that if their students simply read, read, and read,and then were tested, tested, and tested, they would become good comprehendersthey

would become self-regulated readers who used comprehension strategies (Pressley, 2002,

p. 303). The disconnection between the research which clearly indentifies the instructional

models that make students metacognitive and the instruction in classrooms led us to wonder

if teachers understood the pedagogical issues surrounding the teaching of metacognition.

Teachers pedagogical understandings of metacognition

The pedagogical understanding of metacognition refers to teachers understanding of what

is necessary for the teaching of metacognition. Pedagogical understandings in general referto the teaching strategies and/or instructional techniques that will be implemented in

particular situations to achieve a teaching goal. Successful metacognitive literacy

instruction addresses student schema, knowledge of strategies, and knowledge of the

conditions for implementing strategies (Gourgey, 1999; Griffith & Ruan, 2005). A teachers

pedagogical understanding of metacognition requires that they understand what is needed to

successfully teach students to be metacognitive.

The literacy research regarding metacognition clearly delineates the structure of

instruction. Students need models of strategies in action, guided practice as they implement

those models, and independent practice with the strategies (Clark & Graves, 2005). Inaddition, students need to see that strategies are flexible and that good readers implement

different strategies depending on the purpose of the reading and the demands of the text

(Pressley, 2002). The explicit instruction described above is the part of teachers

pedagogical understandings of metacognition that includes instructional strategies. Yet,

the implementation of those instructional strategies requires that teachers create a learning

environment in which students are (1) explicitly required to apply metacognitive activities

Pedagogical understandings

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

4/20

and (2) asked to reflect on their thinking processes (Leat & Lin, 2007). The explicit application

means that students need time during reading to apply strategies. In addition, students need

time to reflect on their thinking to determine the appropriateness of the strategy application.

Instructional strategies that help teachers implement explicit instruction and provide students

time for reflecting on the processes include: think alouds (Isreal & Massey, 2005),opportunities to practice thinking strategies (Schreiber, 2005), active discussions (Zohar,

2006), and the use the language of thinking (Tishman, Perkins & Jay, 1995). However,

despite the strong theoretical studies, in practice many teachers lack sufficient knowledge

about metacognition (Veenman, van Hout-Wolters & Afflerbach, 2006).

Measuring teachers metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings

of metacognition

Teachers understanding of what is necessary for teaching and learning has a strong impact

on their practice (Aguirre & Speer, 1999; Borko & Putnam, 1996; Zohar, 2006). This

impact affects students learning. Metacognition is not just a skill to be taught, but a

disposition of what it means to think and learn (Harpaz, 2007). Thus, an analysis of

teachers understandings of how to guide students in being metacognitive and the

relationships between teachers pedagogical understandings of metacognition and their

knowledge of metacognition could inform professional development. However, a robust

review of the literature could not find an instrument designed to assess teachers

metacognitive knowledge and the instructional strategies teachers valued in guiding their

students to be metacognitive. Therefore, the authors created a Teacher Metacognition

survey which is designed to assess a participants perception of his/her knowledge of

metacognition, his/her pedagogical knowledge of metacognition, and his/her beliefs about

practices that encourage students metacognition.

The instrument was created based on the three components of the metacognition

knowledge: declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge (Schraw, 2001) and

pedagogical approach for metacognitive strategies (Baylor, 2002). A teachers instruction

of metacognition may be influenced by his/her individual understandings of what it means

to teach metacognition (Baylor, 2002). This includes the use of reflection or debriefing

techniques, think alouds, problem-solving activities, small and whole group discussions

about process and explicit strategy instruction. A detailed study of teachers pedagogical

understandings of metacognition requires that teachers have declarative, procedural, andconditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is a teachers knowledge of what they

should teach. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how a teacher teaches something.

Conditional knowledge is the understanding that the teaching of metacognitive strategies is

dependent on the situation and that particular situations require the use of particular

strategies.

The research questions under investigation for this study are as follows:

1. How are the participants understandings of metacognition related to his/her

perceptions of the instructional strategies that assist students in becoming

metacognitive?

2. What instructional routines do participants value in teaching students to be

metacognitive?

3. What are the causal relationships among participants conditional knowledge,

declarative knowledge, and perceptions of procedural knowledge as parts of their

pedagogical knowledge of the metacognition?

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

5/20

Methods

This study examined what can be inferred regarding participants pedagogical under-

standings of metacognition in terms of reading instruction and how that relates to

metacognitive theory. The study utilized mixed method, which involved both quantitativeand qualitative techniques to explore the answers to our research questions. Mixed method

research is particularly useful for gaining a better and complex understanding of this

particular topic. Qualitative methodology is utilized to explore the themes raised from the

survey data and investigate how these themes influenced each other to answer the research

questions from qualitative perspectives. Quantitative research is employed to discover the

relationships among the factors revealed by the qualitative study and using statistical

analysis to assess the direct and indirect effects of teachers metacognitive knowledge on

their pedagogical understanding of metacognition; thus responding to our third research

question.

Participants

The participants were 105 graduate students who were K-12 teachers majoring in

different areas in education in the College of Education in a large southeastern

university in the United States. Ninety-eight percent of the participants were female,

which reflects the current gender composition of K-12 teachers across the nation. The

participants had a range of teaching experiences, with 56% of participants having

taught fewer than three years, 22% of participants having taught four to six years, and

22% of participants having taught more than six years. 13.3% of the participants had amasters degree, 34.4% had a bachelors degree, and 13.3% had certificates in teaching

or other degrees. Fifty percent of the participants were elementary education graduates

with English as a Second Language Endorsement. This training included two courses in

ESOL training and field work with students for whom English is not their first

language. Secondary education majors from a variety of disciplines made up 22% of

the study sample, including 15% English Language Arts majors. Three percent of the

participants had received Bachelors degrees in Exceptional Education. Twenty-five

percent of the participants had undergraduate degrees in areas other than education. The

demographic mix of the participants generally mirrored that of the general population in

the public school district in the southeast area of the United States. The majority of theparticipants were under the age of 35, 81% of the total sample. Seventy-three percent

of the participating teachers were students in the M.Ed. in Reading program for K-12

(Table 1).

Table 1 Participant demographics

Area of undergraduate studies Area of master degree Age of the participants

Elementary Education 50% Reading Education 73% Under the age of 35 85%

Secondary Education 22% Educational Leadership 10% Between 3545 13%

Exceptional Education 3% Mathematics Education 7% Over the age of 45 2%

A degree in an area other than education 25% Science Education 5%

Social Science

Education

5%


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

6/20

Instrumentation

The data for this study were collected using the researcher-created instrument. The survey

includes two parts. Part One contains demographic questions followed by the two open-

ended questions. Part Two is the Teachers

Metacognition Scale (TMS) with 20 Likert-Scale questions. In order to assess the participants general understanding of the construct

of metacognition, the participants were asked two open-ended questions before beginning

the Likert scale section. The open-ended questions begin the section with the directions

This section of the questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the

kinds of things that you do to teach students thinking skills and strategies. The questions

included:

1. What is metacognition?

2. What are metacognitive thinking strategies?

The questions served two purposes. One assures that teachers who participated in the

study had a declarative understanding of metacognition. The first question, What is

metacognition? determined if the participant had enough familiarity with the concept to

define it. If the participants could identify a definition of metacognition derived from ideas

in educational theory and research, they were included in the study. Ten cases were

excluded from study because they left the question blank, wrote, I dont know, or

responded to the question with a comment such as something a teacher does. The second

open-ended question asked the participants What are metacognitive thinking strategies?

This question gathered more detailed declarative knowledge from the participants regarding

his/her understanding of metacognition in teaching. Five more participants were excludedfrom the study because they left the question blank or wrote, I dont know. Thus, the

short answer questions led to the disqualification of fifteen participants. We also used these

questions to attain a deeper understanding of the participants interpretations, thus allowing

for some qualitative data analysis of the participants beliefs regarding the key concepts

studied with the survey.

TMS is designed to assess the participants self-perceptions regarding his/her

understanding of metacognition and their pedagogical knowledge of the metacognition.

In this section, each question asked participants about his/her modeling/demonstration of

thinking processes, opportunities for practicing thinking processes, students sharing

thinking processes, questioning strategies, providing feedback/debriefing practices, group-ing practices, and the use of active discussions (See Table 2). The questions in this section

deal with classroom structure and teaching actions. The questions use knowledge gained

from Leat and Lins (2007) analysis of how teachers might encourage metacognition and

transfer, Clark and Graves (2005) literature review of effective metacognitive literacy

instruction, Torff and Warburtons (2005) and Zohars (1999) research on teachers use of

higher order thinking strategies during instruction, Desautels (2009) perspectives on a

thinking classroom, and Cummins, Steward and Blocks (2005) description of teaching

strategies that help students use multiple strategies during reading.

Questions for participants to evaluate students

metacognitive processing are also includedin TMS. The questions ask participants to rate the level of metacognitive thinking if students

described actions during learning, planned a project, or wrote an essay (see Table 2). This

section also addresses the types of teaching activities that as teachers, the participants believed

required students to think about their thinking. The evaluation of activities is important in

establishing the participants beliefs regarding the types of activities necessary for transfer of

metacognition from explicit instruction activities to general use. Teachers will not take up

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

7/20

research-based ideas, such as those regarding the teaching of metacognition, if they are

presented as general principals that require them to turn them into specific practice (Black &

Wiliam, 1998); thus this section addresses specific practices in which the participant believes

he/she is requiring students to be metacognitive.

Table 2 Likert-scale items

Items Questions

Item 1 You are evaluating students metacognitive processing. Rate the level of metacognitive thinking

if they spent most of their time planning the logistics of their final presentations before fullydeveloping their models.

Item 2 A teacher is modeling for students. Rate the modeling script regarding its helpfulness in guiding

students metacognitive thinking. Watch me think out loud while I try to predict what this story

is going to be about. The title is Twisted, by Laurie H. Anderson. There is a picture of one of

those flexible pretzel pencils on the cover. The pencil makes me think that this book will take

place mostly in a school because pencils are used in schools.

Item 3 You are evaluating students metacognitive processing. Rate the level of metacognitive thinking if

they are able to describe how and why they plan to use each of the six simple machines to

create a roller coaster.

Item 4 You are evaluating students metacognitive processing. Rate the level of metacognitive thinking

if they are aware of the reasoning involved in completing a Venn Diagram.

Item 5 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should recognize that strategies

are general and thus do not worry about the task for which we implement the strategies.


they are asked to complete an essay that describes the events of Sherman s March on Atlanta

including who, what, where, when and why.

Item 7 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies the problem-solving activities are

more important than time for students to talk about the activities.

Item 8 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies the teacher should spend most of

her time telling students how to fill out the strategy worksheet.

Item 9 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should ask inferential

questions and check the accuracy of student answers.Item 10 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should explain the

mental processes used to answer inferential questions.

Item 11 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should increase their

awareness of the strategy and understanding of its power by relating it to specific task objectives.

Item 12 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should debrief them

after a lesson to review the thinking processes that helped students learn the content.


they were able to describe their actions as being able to explain what was learned.

Item 14 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should provide time for

students to talk about how they solved problem-solving activities.

Item 15 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should allow students toshare their thinking.

Item 16 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should facilitate

discussions on how problems are solved.

Item 17 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should model her

thinking processes.

Item 18 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should allow students to

generate questions regarding content.

Item 19 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should provide

problem-solving activities for students.

Item 20 When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should ask students to

explain how they came up with their answers.


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

8/20

The original survey questionnaire had 27 items on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Through a pilot study and expert examination,

seven items were found to measure student knowledge of the metacognition instead of

measuring teachers knowledge of metacognition or their pedagogical knowledge related to

the metacognition; therefore, the seven items were deleted from the survey. The finalversion of the questionnaire is a 20-item survey. The instrument was evaluated for both

validity and reliability.

Validity of the instrument The content validity of the instrument was examined by experts

in metacognitive theory and the literature review; therefore, the face validity of TMS was

first achieved. To examine the construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was

conducted. According to the metacognitive and pedagogical theory, the instrument was

designed to measure four hypothetical constructs: declarative knowledge, conditional

knowledge, procedural knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge. To confirm the construct

validity measured by TMS, CFA was used by loading the twenty items on the four factors

identified by the literature, namely, Conditional (conditional knowledge), Declarative

(declarative knowledge), Procedural (procedure knowledge), and Pedagogical (pedagogical

knowledge) (see Table 3). Table 3 revealed that the factor loadings for the four factors

ranged from.24 to.54 for the factor of pedagogical, from.26 to.77 for the factor of

conditional, from.34 to.56 for the factor of declarative, from.58 to.71 the factor of for

procedural, and (see Table 3).

Table 3 Factor loadings of TMS using principal components (n=105)

Items Pedagogical Conditional Declarative Procedural

Item 1 .540*** -0.504 0.419 0.044

Item 2 .528*** -0.052 0.484 0.427

Item 3 .507*** 0.19 0.288 0.417

Item 4 .439*** 0.075 0.286 0.213

Item 5 .240** 0.063 0.096 0.139

Item 6 0.202 .770*** 0.002 0.08

Item 7 -0.543 .494*** 0.143 0.18Item 8 -0.179 .412*** 0.156 0.186

Item 9 -0.266 .255** 0.271 0.288

Item 10 0.513 -0.245 .564*** -0.112

Item 11 0.269 0.038 .455*** 0.099

Item 12 0.337 -0.379 .454*** 0.363

Item 13 -0.057 0.041 .336*** 0.302

Item 14 0.087 -0.128 -0.156 .714***

Item 15 -0.17 -0.124 -0.072 .665***

Item 16 0.04 -0.045 -0.04 .622***

Item 17 -0.318 0.011 -0.16 .651***

Item 18 -0.345 -0.168 0.064 .608***

Item 19 0.063 -0.024 -0.103 .580***

Item 20 -0.401 -0.311 -0.121 .576***

**p

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

9/20

The loadings were significant with all p-values larger than.05. Sixty-one percent of the

total variance was explained by the measurement model. This process confirmed the four

hypothetical constructs measured by the 20-item TMS and provided strong evidence of the

construct validity for TMS.

Reliability of the instrument The internal subscale reliabilities were Cronbachs Alpha

value of.76 for the pedagogical knowledge,.74 for declarative knowledge,.75 for the

conditional knowledge, and.76 for the procedural knowledge. The internal reliabilities of

the subscales were acceptable. The internal consistency of TMS was Cronbachs Alpha

value of.75. Table 4 illustrates four factors and their coefficient alphas.

Data collection procedures

Data for this study were collected through online survey questionnaires using web-based media

(Zoomerrang). Demographic data and two open-ended questions for collecting qualitative data

concerning teachers deep understanding of their pedagogical and metacognition knowledge

were administered as Part One of the online survey. The quantitative data were collected using

TMS as Part Two of the survey. All teachers participated in the study voluntarily with the

understanding that they were given extra credit as an incentive. The survey questionnaire was

designed to measure K-12 teachers self-perceptions of their metacognitive knowledge and their

perceptions of their pedagogical knowledge of metacognition. All participants were asked to

complete the survey during anytime in the Fall Semester 2008.

Data analysis

Qualitative analysis Data analysis occurred in multiple phases. First, the qualitative data

was analyzed using an iterative approach. It was a recursive process in which the data were

reviewed to determine the major themes in the written responses. The analysis involved

discovering patterns, themes, and categories in the data (Creswell, 1994; Patton, 2002).

Therefore, open coding of the participants responses to the open-ended questions was the

first step to identifying themes and patterns in the data. We used Teschs (1990) systematic

process of analyzing textual data by reading all textual data by (1) identifying topics; (2)

clustering together similar topics; (3) abbreviating topics as codes; (4) developingcategories; (5) looking for overlaps and interrelationship of topics; (6) assembling data in

each category; (7) performing preliminary analysis of findings; and (8) confirming findings.

First participants who did not answer the questions or who provided incomplete responses

were excluded from the study. Then the open-ended questions were coded for patterns in

responses. The responses were placed in a number of themes developed from the words of

the participants including but not limited to thinking, awareness, strategies, and

Table 4 An illustration of four factors and coefficient alpha

Factor # Variables Alpha

Factor 1: Pedagogical Item 1, Item 2, Item3, Item 4, Item 5 .76

Factor 2: Conditional Item 6, Item 7, Item 8, Item 9 .74

Factor 3: Declarative Item 10, Item 11, Item 12, Item 13 .75

Factor 4: Procedural Item 14, Item 15, Item 16, Item 17, Item 18, Item 19, Item 20 .76


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

10/20

comprehension. These themes were then analyzed by the researchers to determine more

global patterns. The global patterns represented two large themes (1) metacognition is a

construct that must be taught including declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge

with pedagogical knowledge and (2) metacognition is something for which teachers make

students aware focusing on declarative knowledge as part of their pedagogicalunderstanding of metacognition. Once themes were established, the data was sent to five

teachers who had detailed knowledge regarding metacognition and metacognitive thinking

strategies. The teachers were given the two themes as well as the open-ended responses for

them to categorize the responses into the two large themes. The teachers were asked to

apply a label of one of the two themes to each participants open-ended response. They

coded the data independently and returned the information to the researchers through email.

When the independently coded data was received from the teachers, the researchers used

the information to determine inter-rater reliability for the open-ended responses. The

agreement of the teachers assigning the responses to each theme was calculated using a

mean score to find the inter-rater reliability as.89, which was the average value of

agreement from each pair of raters.

The final stage of qualitative analysis contextualized the results of the quantitative

analysis of the responses on the Likert Scale questions. Using the factors established by the

quantitative analysis the data was first grouped under the two global themes. Then using the

factors as determined by the quantitative analysis explanations were reached using content

analysis of the data focusing on the questions in each factor using the wording of the

questions as well as participant responses; thereby contextualizing the quantitative analysis.

Quantitative analysis The quantitative data were collected from the Likert scalequestionnaire of TMS. The data were coded and entered by two trained research assistants

into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences V16.0 (SPSS) (SPSS Inc., 2007).

The current research study used a structural equation modeling (SEM) with quantitative

measurement to avoid misleading of regression estimates and secure correct conclusion about the

relationship between the explored factors. SEM is employed to take measurement error into

consideration. According to the theory and qualitative analysis results, the hypothetical structure

equation model was constructed to explore the causal relationships among the hypothetical

constructs in this study: Declarative (declarative knowledge), Conditional (conditional

knowledge), Procedural (procedural knowledge), and Pedagogical (pedagogical knowledge).

According to the literature on metacognition theory (Hartman, 2001) teachersunderstanding of metacognition is complex and depends on an interaction between

declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. The metacognition theory assumes that

teachers conditional knowledge influences procedural knowledge, which in turn also

affects declarative knowledge, and further alters their pedagogical knowledge in

metacognition. Procedural knowledge directly affects declarative knowledge and pedagog-

ical knowledge. Declarative knowledge builds upon conditional and procedural knowledge

and directly influences pedagogical knowledge. Based on the literature and theory, the

Hypothetical Structural Model of Metacognition (See Fig. 1) was constructed.

The four variables measured by TMS involved in this study were defined as follows:

& Pedagogical: participants pedagogical understanding of metacognition included his/her

understanding of what it means to teach students to integrate declarative and procedural

knowledge in solving problems of learning.

& Conditional: participants understanding regarding the conditions under which certain

strategies are implemented

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

11/20

& Declarative: participants declarative knowledge of metacognition reflect an under-

standing of the definitions of metacognitive strategies or making students aware of

metacognitive strategies

& Procedural: participants providing assignments that require students to apply particular

metacognitive strategies

Two stages of the SEM model were analyzed. For the first stage, data were analyzed to fit the

Hypothetical Structure Equation Model of Metacognition to fit the quantitative data collectedby the TMS. T-test, and ANOVA were conducted to test for independent variables. Because

no significant group differences were found in terms of gender, teaching experience, or the

educational degrees of teachers, these variables were excluded in the hypothetical model. The

analyses were conducted using the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) (Arbuckle,

2007). The second stage was to explore the best fitted SEM model using the quantitative data

to study the relationships between the identified latent variables, Declarative, Conditional,

Procedural, and Pedagogical to answer the third research question.

Analysis results

The analysis sought to gather an understanding of the participants pedagogical

understanding of metacognition; or what her/she believed was necessary for teaching

students to become metacognitive. There were two themes uncovered by the analysis of the

data qualitatively and quantitatively. The themes were informed by the qualitative analysis

Declarative

Conditional Procedural

Pedagogical

Item 4

Item 3

Item 6

Item 8

Item 9

Item 7

Item 17

Item 20

Item 18

Item 11

Item 12

Item 16

Item 15

Item 19

Item 13

Item 5

Item 1

Item 2

Item 10

Item 14

Fig. 1 Hypothetical structural model of metacognition


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

12/20

whose results were consistent with the previous research on metacognition and learning.

The first theme demonstrated an understanding that teaching metacognition was an active

process of engaging students in sharing thinking processes through the teaching of

declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge while making students accountable for

using metacognitive skills. The second theme was the awareness of metacognition.

Theme one: an active process requiring engagement

Theme one was included two significant factors concerning when to teach students

metacognitive thinking strategies. The theme was aligned with the qualitative data in which

the participants described metacognition as thinking about their thinking and knowing how

to think about solving a problem. This theme was matched with qualitative responses that

involved active learning, such as teaching students to think about how you think/learn,

teaching students strategies to improve understanding and task completion, and teaching

students how to control ones cognitive processes. The common thread in this theme was

teaching students that metacognition was an active process of thinking to solve a problem

or learn something. The specific factors that compose this theme included: (1) teaching

metacognition to students requires visible problem solving and (2) teaching conditional

knowledge is key to teaching students to be metacognitive.

Teaching students to be metacognitive requires visible problem solving (Pedagogical)

Metacognition requires that the teacher guide students to help them become metacognitive

while providing them with time to share their own thinking processes. Teachers

participating in this survey identified a factor of pedagogical understandings ofmetacognition in which the teacher was key in providing a classroom where thinking

about how you solve problems was visible. Participants demonstrated that when instructing

students on the declarative and procedural aspects of metacognition they must be explicit

and that students were held accountable for using metacognitive skills. In this theme, talk

was central to learning. Participants indicated that in a classroom that encouraged students

to use metacognitive thinking strategies; thinking was visible and shared by teachers and

students. The following questions from the survey fell into this theme:

& When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should

provide time for students to discuss their problem solving.& When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should

allow students to share their thinking.


facilitate discussions on how problems are solved.


model her thinking processes.


allow students to generate questions regarding content.

&

When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher shouldprovide problem-solving activities for students.

& When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should ask

students to explain how they came up with their answers.

Throughout this factor talk about thinking in which the teacher was the facilitator

is central to the understanding of metacognition according to the participants. The

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

13/20

res po ns es o f the p articipa nts ind ic ated the tea ch er a s a g uide to b uild in g

metacognitive thinking strategies for students. This was identified as both teachers

and students shared thinking through talk as they generated questions, explained how

they responded to questions, and interpreted how they solved problems. The

participants acknowledged the importance of explicit modeling in teaching studentsto become metacognitive. This included explaining the mental processes, not simply

telling about the processes. This concept went beyond teachers teaching for

conditional knowledge or building talk in the classroom in that the participants

identified the students as being able to be describe their metacognition as the key to

teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies. The participants responses

aligned with the literature on metacognition as an integration of declarative,

procedural, and conditional knowledge.

Pedagogical understanding of conditional knowledge (Conditional) The second factor

discovered through the data analysis was related to the teacher as guide; but went further. In

this theme, the participant described the importance of demonstrating how, why, and under

what conditions to use metacognitive teaching strategies. Participants identified the strategy

of debriefing as a tool for increasing student awareness of which strategies were helpful

when working to achieve an objective.

The following questions from the survey fell into this theme:


explain the mental processes used to answer inferential questions.


increase their awareness of the strategy and understanding of its power by relating it tospecific task objectives.


debrief them after a lesson to review the thinking processes that helped students learn

the content.

& You are evaluating students metacognitive processing. Rate the level of metacognitive

thinking if they were able to describe their actions as being able to explain what was

learned.

In this factor the act of debriefing about strategy was central. The participants rating of this

factor demonstrated a pedagogical understanding of metacognition that described metacogni-tive thinking strategies as evaluating and revising as you go, strategies to regulate and direct

thinking and learning; and picking the best strategy for the task at hand. What made this theme

unique was that it highlighted the understanding that metacognition requires an evaluation of

the task and choosing the correct strategy in which to complete the task.

Theme two: touching the surface of metacognitive thinking strategies

The second theme indicated that despite the robust identification of teaching metacognitivethinking strategies as an active process, which is also awareness of cognition. Awareness is

different from active learning because it only asks students to know what or when a

problem occurs. This theme had two factors that contributed to its development: (1)

teaching metacognitive thinking strategies makes students aware and (2) teaching

metacognitive thinking strategies was providing students with assignments that could lead

to strategy use.


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

14/20

Making students aware (Declarative) The topic dealt with telling students what to do and

making them aware of processes. The participants responses in this theme were more about

the recognition of metacognition rather than a teaching of how to be metacognitive. This

theme was closely aligned with the qualitative responses, which identified metacognition as

an awareness of thinking, rather than an active process of thinking about ones thinking.

The questions that make up this factor were:


thinking if they spent most of their time planning the logistics of their final

presentations before fully developing their models.

& A teacher is modeling for students. Rate the modeling script regarding its helpfulness in

guiding students metacognitive thinking. Watch me think out loud while I try to

predict what this story is going to be about. The title is Twisted, by Laurie H. Anderson.

There is a picture of one of those flexible pretzel pencils on the cover. The pencil makes

me think that this book will take place mostly in a school because pencils are used inschools.


thinking if they are able to describe how and why they plan to use each of the six

simple machines to create a roller coaster


thinking if they are aware of the reasoning involved in completing a Venn Diagram.


recognize that strategies are general and thus do not worry about the task for which we

implement the strategies.

This factor puts the teacher at the center in making students aware of their actions. The

teacher was not having students talk about their thinking but simply had them recognize

that they were thinking.

Providing assignments (Procedural) This topic described activities or the values of certain

activities that helped students gain metacognitive thinking strategies. The assignments

required the students be metacognitive, but the processes did not guide students in

metacognitive thinking. In this case, the framework was present, but factors such as

debriefing and discussing thinking processes were absent. The questions that made up this

factor were:


thinking if they are asked to complete an essay that describes the events of Shermans

March on Atlanta including the who, what, where, when and why.

& When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies the problem-solving

activities are more important than time for students to talk about the activities.

& When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies the teacher should

spend most of her time telling students how to fill out the strategy worksheet.

& When teaching students to use metacognitive thinking strategies, the teacher should ask

inferential questions and check the accuracy of student answers.

This theme isolated declarative knowledge in that students were told about metacog-

nition and to do it; but not told how or under what conditions they should be metacognitive.

The results of this theme demonstrated that participants highly valued making students

aware of metacognitive thinking processes and providing a framework in which they could

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

15/20

be metacognitive. Yet, what was missing in this theme was the teaching of metacognition.

Throughout the study, responses indicated that participants juggled the need for integrating

declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge through active teaching and making

students aware.

Quantitative analysis results

To study the SME model, we used the commonly-used model-fit indices as Chi-square,

comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), Akaike

information criterion (AIC), parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI), and root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA) (Baggozzi & Yi, 1988; Byrne, 1998; Jaccard & Wan, 1995; Kline,

1998). In the first stage, we fit the Hypothetical Model of Metacognition (Fig. 1) to our study

data. The model fit indices revealed the moderate model fit (2=184.61/df=155/p

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

16/20

The declarative knowledge only determined the pedagogical practice with a weak but

significant correlation (=.11).

The SEM analysis presented causal relationships of the three components ofknowledge of metacognition and their pedagogical knowledge. The SEM results

revealed that the conditional knowledge directly influences the procedural knowledge

developed and self-perceptions of pedagogical knowledge and indirectly affects the

declarative knowledge through the procedural knowledge as a mediator. The

procedural knowledge directly influences the declarative knowledge and the self-

perceptions of pedagogical knowledge. The declarative knowledge directly influences

their self-perception of pedagogical knowledge. The SEM analysis connected with

theory in that understanding when and where to apply metacognitive strategies

(conditional knowledge) may determine what procedures (procedural knowledge) to

follow and in turn what the strategies (declarative knowledge) to apply, and finally

affects how they implement the knowledge of metacognition in practice (pedagogical

knowledge). This finding provided us with empirical evidence of how teachers

knowledge of metacognition related and influenced each other and encouraged us to

explore further on teachers awareness of metacognition and their metacognitive

thinking strategies.

.67

Declarative

Conditional

.01

Procedural

.42

Pedagogical.20

Item 4e4

.31

Item 3e3

.17

Item 6e6

.60

Item 8e8

.07

Item 9e9

.24

Item 7e7.49

.32

Item 17 e17

.43

Item 20 e20

.43

Item 18 e18

.66

.32

Item 11 e11

.21

Item 12 e12

.52

Item 16 e16

.37

Item 15 e15

.36

Item 19 e19

.11

Item 13 e13.27

Item 5e5

d2

d1 d3

.05

Item 1e1

.26

Item 2e2

.26

Item 10 e10

.33

Item 14 e14

.57

.33

.77

.33

-.45

-.35

.28

.26

-.27

-.22

.12

.24

.51

.60

.34

.34

.25

.41

.52

.22

.51

.45

.82

.37.21

.65

.58

.61

.72

.57

.11 .46.56

.10

.44

Fig. 2 Final fitted model with standardized effects at the.05 level

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

17/20

Discussions and limitations

This study examined the pedagogical understandings of metacognition teachers working

towards a Masters Degree in Education. The pedagogical understandings of metacognition

involved the nature of what it means to teach and how students learn strategies thatencourage them to be metacognitive.

Teachers understandings of metacognition appear to be related to their perceptions of

the instructional strategies that assist students in becoming metacognitive. The participants

in this study reported that metacognition was an active process and that teaching students to

become metacognitive also was an active process that required engagement and practice. In

addition, participants also considered metacognition as the awareness of processes and

reported that providing appropriate assignments would assist students in becoming

metacognitive. Thus, data demonstrated that the individual teachers understanding of

metacognition was related to the instructional strategies they perceived to be effective in

helping students to become metacognitive. The research findings indicate that teachers may

benefit from professional development on the differences between engagement and

awareness when guiding students to implement metacognitive strategies.

The second research question sought to understand the instructional routines that

teachers valued in teaching students to be metacognitive. The data indicated that the

participants valued a variety of strategies that aligned with the research on teaching. They

valued demonstration, scaffolding, teaching conditional knowledge, and providing students

time to demonstrate their learning. In addition, the participants recognized value in

providing assignments that assisted students metacognitive thinking and taking the time to

help students to be self-aware of cognitive processes. Teacher professional developmentand teacher education programs should implement practices that support an understanding

in instructional routines that improve students metacognition.

The study results also suggested that there are significant relationships among participants

conditional knowledge, declarative knowledge, and procedural knowledge as parts of their

pedagogical knowledge of the metacognition. As demonstrated in the analysis, participants

pedagogical knowledge of metacognition is a combination between declarative, procedural, and

conditional knowledge. There was a significant impact of participants procedural knowledge

on their declarative knowledge, which affected their pedagogical knowledge of metacognition.

The conditional knowledge significantly impacted on pedagogical knowledge. In addition the

procedural knowledge also directly impacted on the pedagogical knowledge. The causalrelationship between the different knowledge types related to the complexity of the concept of

metacognition and indicated the foundations for teachers to have a pedagogical understanding

of metacognition. In order to assist pre-service and practicing teachers in developing this

complex pedagogical understanding of metacognition teacher educators should focus on the

three factors and how they relate in the application of metacognition.

Teachers rich understanding of metacognition included the concept of a metacognitive

person as someone who monitors his/her understanding and uses strategies to regulate

understanding. This study investigated K12 teachers understandings of metacognition

regarding instruction. Since the participants in this study were predominately seekingadvanced degrees in education, it was assumed that they had some familiarity with the

instructional practices known to improve metacognitive thinking in students. This

instruction includes direct explanation of the what, how, and when of strategies; modeling

of strategies followed by scaffolded student practice with the strategies (Paris, Lipson &

Wixson, 1994; Pressley, 2002). In short, the participants pedagogical understanding of

metacognition included knowledge of how to scaffold and guide students, how to


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

18/20

demonstrate thinking, knowledge of the strategies, knowledge of students, and knowledge

of when to implement strategies (Griffith & Ruan, 2005; Gourgey, 1999). A teachers

pedagogical understanding of metacognition requires that they understand what is needed to

successfully teach students to be metacognitive. Thus teachers should make a point to

include instruction on how to instruct students to become metacognitive.The participants in this study demonstrated that they had a rich pedagogical

understanding of metacognition, but within this understanding there appeared to be

contradiction. For instance, the group identified the teaching of metacognition as an active

process; but also commented on the importance of making students aware of metacognition

and providing assignments that may encourage students to be metacognitive. They identify

the teaching of metacognition as both implicit and explicit.

We propose that participants responses included both implicit and explicit aspects of

instruction on metacognition because there may be discrepancy between what the

participants know they should do and his/her practice. Since this survey did not ask

participants to report what they do in the classroom, but to rate practices for teaching

metacognitive thinking, the results may indicate that the participants know what is right, but

want to give credit to what they do in the classroom. Many teachers are forced to follow

mandated programs that may not reflect a rich pedagogical understanding of metacognition,

or they feel stressed by the amount of material they need to cover. Perhaps the idea of

providing a student with the time and space to discuss his/her thinking sounds good in

theory, but may not reflect what they actually do. Teachers are absolutely willing to invest

effort in the instruction of metacognition within their lessons, but they need the tools for

implementing metacognition as an integral part of their lessons... (Veenman et al., 2006, p.

10). This is significant because previous research has noted that it is easier to transformteachers knowledge about subject area than their knowledge about the nature of teaching

and learning (Borko & Putnam, 1996). These teachers appeared to have an academic

understanding of what is necessary for teaching students to be metacognitive; but they also

seem to value activities that are not highly correlated with helping students to become

metacognitive. Therefore, professional development and graduate course work needs more

emphasis on the instructional strategies that encourage metacognition.

Teachers self-reports presented in this study provided some insight regarding the

complex relationships between the concepts of metacognition and thoughts about teaching

metacognition. We addressed what teachers understood metacognition is, and how they

should teach it. We address procedural knowledge as providing assignments that requirestudents to apply particular metacognitive strategies. Thus this study only studied the

teachers declarative knowledge of the procedures for metacognition but did not directly

measure what teachers actually did in their classroom. This is a limitation of the current

study in that it did not address the actual employment of metacognitive skills during

teaching, but simply presented the planning for them. In the future study, we would like to

explore how to further accurately measure metacognition constructs and select larger

representative samples to investigate the dispositions of metacognition in teaching.

References

Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (1999). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice.

The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327356.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos (Version 7.0.0) [Computer software]. Spring House: Amos Development

Corporation.

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

19/20

Baggozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equation models. Journal of academy of

marketing and science, 16(1), 1421.

Baker, L. (2002). Metacognitve comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),

Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (pp. 7795). New York: Guilford.

Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers metacognitive awareness of instructional planning

through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Design, 50(2), 5

22.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi

Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139148.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of

Educational Psychology. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts,

appli-cations, and programming. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Carrell, P. L., Gajduske, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science,

26(12), 97112.

Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students' comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58

(6), 570580.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cummins, C., Stewart, M. T., & Block, C. C. (2005). Teaching several metacognitive strategies togetherincreases students' independent metacognition. In S. Isreal, C. Block, K. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-

Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: theory, assessment, instruction, and professional

development (pp. 227296). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Desautel, D. (2009). Becoming a thinking thinker: metacognition, self-reflection, and classroom practice.

Teachers College Record, 111(8), 19972020.

Durkin, D. (19781979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction.

Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481533.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. F. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of

intelligence (pp. 231235). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gourgey, A. F. (1999). Teaching reading from a metacognitive perspective: theory and classroom practice.

Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30(1), 85

94.Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what should be its role in literacy instruction?

In S. Isreal, C. Block, K. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning:

theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 318). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Harpaz, Y. (2007). Approaches to teaching thinking: toward a conceptual mapping of the field. Teachers

College Record, 109(8), 18451874.

Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: theory, research and practice. Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Isreal, S. E., & Massey, D. (2005). Metacognitive think-alouds: Using a gradual release model with middle

school students. In S. Isreal, C. Block, K. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in

literacy learning: theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 183189).

Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous

predictors using multiple regression: multiple indicator and structural equation approaches. Psycholog-

ical Bulletin, 117, 348357.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford.

Leat, D., & Lin, M. (2007). Developing pedagogy of metacognition and transfer: some signposts for the

generation and use of knowledge and the creation of research partnerships. British Educational Research

Journal, 29(3), 383414.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249259.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R.

Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 788810).

Newark: International Reading Association.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: a turn-of-the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M.

Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (pp. 1127). New York: Guilford.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J. M., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The nature of literacy

instruction in ten grade 4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159194.

Randi, J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Revisiting definitions of reading comprehension. Just

what is reading comprehension anyway? In S. Isreal, C. Block, K. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch


7/28/2019 Wilson & Bai (2010)

20/20

(Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development

(pp. 1939). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in

learning and instruction: theory, research and practice (pp. 316). Boston: Kluwer.

Schreiber, F. J. (2005). Metacognition and self-regulation in literacy. In S. Isreal, C. Block, K. Bauserman, &

K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: theory, assessment, instruction, andprofessional development (pp. 215240). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

Washington: National Academy Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: what makes an expert student?

Instructional Science, 26, 127140.

Tei, E., & Stewart, O. (1985). Effective studying from text: applying metacognitive strategies. Forum for

Reading, 16(2), 4655.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.

Tishman, S., Perkins, D., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: teaching and learning in a culture of

thinking. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Torff, B., & Warburton, E. D. (2005). Assessments of teachers beliefs about classroom use of critical-

thinking activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(1), 155

179.Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual

and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 314.

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515537.

Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students' metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in

an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10, 268288.

Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: exploring pathways to learner

development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36, 89116.

Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers' metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 15, 413429.

Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers metastrategic knowledge in the context of

teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(3), 331377.

N.S. Wilson, H. Bai

Wilson & Bai (2010)

Documents