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 self-
regulated 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 (self-
efficacy).

• 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 world-
class 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 self-
regulation 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
• Emphasising order, predictability, system, sequence and strategies

3. 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, 857-
867.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: Routledge-

Falmer.

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.