by Aaron S. Richmond, *Anastasia M. Bacca, *Jared S. Becknell,  *Mary P. Mancuso, *Ryan P. Coyle, and *Eric Klein

Metropolitan State University of Denver

(*) Undergraduate students

Much of the literature regarding metacognition has focused on awareness of metacognitive processes (Antonietti, Ignazi, & Perego, 2000; Metallidou, 2009; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Topcu & Ubuz, 2008), defining metacognitive skill sets (Nelson & Narens, 1994; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006), and how to accurately measure metacognition (Pieschl, 2009; Schraw, Kuch, & Gutierrez, 2013). While researchers have gained understanding about the components of metacognition and the importance of this skill for academic and professional success, few have examined effective ways to teach metacognition to students (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001).

Brownlee et al. (2001) examined the effectiveness of an experimental program designed to increase cognitive reflection and development of more advanced epistemological beliefs (i.e., beliefs about knowing). The experimental group received an intervention that encouraged students to consider their epistemological beliefs. This group was asked to relate their knowledge about thinking to their own process of thinking and reflect on this interaction in the form of journal entries. Students who were asked to reflect demonstrated increased advanced epistemological beliefs when compared to the control group.

In another study aimed at increasing metacognitive skill in college classrooms, Was, Beziat, and Isaacson (2013) had educational psychology students engage in monitoring practices (e.g., calibration) over the course of a semester. Specifically, Was and colleagues assessed students 13 times via short exams. Prior to each assessment, students were asked to predict their scores. After each exam, teaching assistants would discuss the students’ predictions and actual scores. Was et al. found that students’ monitoring improved over the course of the semester, in that they become better judges of their learning and performance as a result of the intervention.

Seeking to learn more about effective strategies for teaching metacognition, Richmond and Richmond (2012) compared active learning instruction to direct learning instruction of the topic of metacognitive theory. The active learning condition was characterized by group work and interaction with the instructor, and discussing effective learning strategies with one another to enhance awareness of best learning practices. In contrast, the direct learning condition was characterized by lecture presentation of metacognitive theory and rewriting information from PowerPoint slides presented. Richmond and Richmond (2012) found that active learning instruction increased higher level learning of metacognitive theory over that of students who received direct instruction.

As demonstrated by the above preliminary studies (e.g., Brownlee et al., 2001; Richmond & Richmond, 2012; Was et al., 2013), there are promising interventions but there is still a great need for more research on implementing effective instructional strategies to increase metacognitive skills in higher education courses. Specifically, What type of instruction is best suited for increasing metacognitive skills in the regular higher education classroom? Is metacognitive development best  accomplished through experience and reflection (e.g., Brownlee et al. 2001; Was et al., 2013),  or are there other effective instruction methods, such as Socratic or inquiry-based instruction? We believe that metacognitive instruction should be embedded into the content beginning at the start of the semester and continuing throughout the semester, similar to that of Was et al. (2013). However, more research is needed to see if this really is the most effective approach. Additionally, research should focus on higher and lower level learning and how these instructional strategies may differentially affect level of learning (e.g., Richmond & Richmond, 2012). Finally, instructional strategies should be designed so that students can transfer the metacognitive strategy across higher education courses.

Although the above suggestions for future research are not a comprehensive list, we believe that they represent an important start. As such, we are asking our fellow colleagues to spread the word and to begin conducting important research that seeks to answer these questions. The preliminary results invariably suggest that our students will greatly benefit from such endeavors as will the quality of faculty instruction.

References

Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S., & Perego, P. (2000). Metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 1-16. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709900157921

Metallidou, P. (2009). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 76-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.002

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition. In J. Metcalf, & A. P. Shimamura (Eds), Metacogntiion, knowing about knowing (pp. 1-25). Cambridge: MIT.

Pieschl, S. (2009). Metacognition calibration—an extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition Learning, 4, 3-31. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9030-4

Richmond, A. S. & Richmond, A. (2012, October). Teaching metacognition to preservice educators: A focus on transfer and retention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Park-City, UT.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.

Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Gutierrez, A. P . (2013). Measure for measure: Calibrating ten commonly used calibration scores. Learning and Instruction, 24, 48-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.007

Topcu, A., & Ubuz, B. (2008). The effects of metacognitive knowledge on the pre-service teachers’ participation in the asynchronous online forum. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 1-12.

Veenman, M. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning; Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3-14. doi:10.1007/s11409-0066893-0.

Was, C. A., Beziat, T. L. R., & Isaacson, R. M. (2013). Improving metacognition in a college classroom: Does enough practice work? Journal of Research in Education 23(1). Retrieved from http://www.eeraonline.org/journal/files/v23/JRE_v23n1_Article_5_Was_et_al.pdf