The connection between metacognition and other elements of cognitive teaching methods
Dasha Bunks
Liberty University
PSYC 775 - Teaching of Psychology
Dr. Winn
2022
The connection between metacognition and other elements of cognitive teaching
methods
Metacognition was part of the increased emphasis on "Teaching Thinking" (Jones & Idol,
1990, pp. 2-6), which also included self-regulated learning [SRL], and critical thinking. The
following sections describe how metacognition relates to these and other aspects of cognition-
focused pedagogy.
Novice/Expert Differences
Explicit, flexible metacognitive functioning appears to be a strong component of expert
thinking. Experts monitor their own understanding as they work so that they are explicitly
aware when their own knowledge limits are reached, and additionally verify and analogize new
information within their existing knowledge set in order to adaptively grow their understanding
(NRC, 2000). For example, models of writing expertise contrast the "knowledge telling" writing
style of novices vs. the "knowledge transforming" mode of experts, each being largely
influenced by metacognitive functioning; additionally, in problem solving, appropriate
metacognitive functioning can provide the executive control required for "expert" modes of
thought and analysis (McCormick 2003).
Critical Thinking
There are striking parallels between metacognition and critical thinking as topics for
instruction; metacognitive regulation could even be conceived to be critical thinking about
one’s own thinking. Using a think-aloud protocol, Ku & Ho (2010) found a strong correlation
between university students’ use of metacognitive planning, monitoring, and evaluating
strategies and their performance on critical thinking tasks. This is probably not surprising. If
critical thinking is centered around being aware of the larger context of a given piece of
knowledge or content and how to take into account that context when thinking analytically
about it, then metacognition is similarly about being aware of the context of one’s own thinking
about the content and how to take that into account. Both are fuzzy concepts usually measured
indirectly by performance, and both have fostered debates regarding whether to teach them
generally or within a content-driven disciplinary context. In terms of teaching, the latter view
seems to have prevailed; Willingham (2007) argued that, from an assessment perspective, it is
nonsensical to teach critical thinking devoid of content, and Redish (2003) pointed out that in
order to learn metacognitive thinking skills, students must think metacognitively about
something other than metacognitive thinking skills, which may as well be course content.
Executive Function and Self-Regulated Learning
An unsettled question is how metacognitive regulation of cognition (as it is framed by
developmental research) relates to one's "executive function" that oversees mental
information processing (from the information-processing research perspective): are they
identical aspects of the mind (McCormick, 2003)2 , or are they merely related in that it requires
a conscious decision to initiate the "meta" way of thinking and the resulting metacognitive
thinking can't be "forced" (i.e., controlled) without potentially being counter-productive (Zull,
2011)? To paraphrase a colleague, even if for most advanced physics problems one can define
an ideal solution procedure, for some specific problems the best advice to give a student is “put
down your pencil and go for a walk” (J. Barandes, personal communication, June 2013).
Pintrich et al. (2000) identified self-regulated learning (SRL) as a way of describing
metacognitive control and executive function in the context of learning. However, again
considering the informationprocessing perspective, Gitomer and Glaser (1987) considered SRL
to be analogous to metacognitive awareness, not control, and Schraw, Crippen and Hartley
(2006) presented SRL as a conceptual umbrella over cognition, metacognition, and motivation.
This presents another case of fuzzy concepts overlapping without clear definitional or
functional boundaries; for cognitive research it is clear that better linking of the two areas of
study is needed (Slavin, Hurley & Chamberlain 2003). For the practicing instructor, however, the
salient point may be as stated by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1992): Although all learners
use regulatory processes to some degree, self-regulated learners are distinguished
metacognitively by their awareness of strategic relations between regulatory processes and
learning outcomes and their use of specific strategies to achieve their academic goals.
Thus, self-regulated learning involves the awareness and use of learning strategies,
perceptions of self-efficacy, and a commitment to academic goals. (p. 187). Given the conflated
nature of the research, it is fortunate that executive function vs. metacognitive control vs. self-
regulated learning may be a distinction without much of a difference for the instructor, at least
at the level of gleaning implications from current research. And unless we are willing to
consider “meta-metacognition”, knowing when to put down that pencil and go for a walk is
definitively a metacognitive function.
References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How do
students become self-directed learners? How learning works: Seven research-based
principles for smart teaching (pp. 188-214). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2013). Metacognitive monitoring in university classes: anticipating a
graded vs. a pass-fail test affects monitoring accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 8,
121-143. doi:10.1007/s11409-013-9098-3
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. Center for Faculty Excellence, University of North Carolina (2006). Student
Learning Groups. Retrieved from http://cfe.unc.edu/publications/fyc23.html
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science:
faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 524-
535. Retrieved from http://ww.lifescied.org/content/9/4/524.full doi:10.1187/cbe.10-
01-0005
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are
unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105, 98-121.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature
of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Oxford: Erlbaum
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Gallucci, K. (2006). Learning concepts with cases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 16-20.
Gitomer, D. H., & Glaser, R. (1987). If you don't know it works on it: Knowledge, self-regulation
and instruction. In R. E. Snow & M. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction:
Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 301-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a
classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160-170. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.92.1.160
Hoffmana, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting
on math problem-solving efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 875-893.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.002
