Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/279193147

MetacognitionandTeachingHigher-OrderThinking(HOT)inScienceEducation:Students'Learning,Teachers'Knowledge,andInstructionalPracticesCHAPTERJUNE2015

DOWNLOADS37

VIEWS24

2AUTHORS:

AnatZoharHebrewUniversityofJerusalem53PUBLICATIONS1,164CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

SaritBarzilaiUniversityofHaifa12PUBLICATIONS27CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:SaritBarzilaiRetrievedon:29June2015

1

Metacognition and Teaching Higher-Order Thinking (HOT) in Science Education:

Students' Learning, Teachers' Knowledge, and Instructional Practices

Anat Zohar

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Sarit Barzilai

University of Haifa

Citation:

Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in

science education: Students' thinking, teachers' knowledge, and instructional practices. In R.

Wegerif, L. Li & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of research on

teaching thinking (pp. 229-242). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

2

Introduction

Before participating in the teachers' workshop, I used to address HOT in my teaching

intuitively. But now I realize that doing so without explicitly addressing metacognition

means that I had accomplished only a very small part of the job.

(a participant in a teachers professional development workshop)

Since the early days of studying metacognition, metacognitive training and instruction were

shown to have positive effects on children's performance in diverse fields. As we shall see in

what follows, metacognition has both domain-general and domain-specific features.

Therefore, it makes sense to study metacognition in general contexts as well as in the context

of specific school disciplines and even in the context of more specific learning goals.

Accordingly, the goal of this chapter is to present an overview of the role of metacognition in

teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science classrooms.

What is metacognition?

Of the numerous definitions of metacognition, we adopt, with slight adaptations, the one

proposed by Flavell and his colleagues (Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 2002). These scholars

distinguish between two major components of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge and

metacognitive monitoring and self-regulation. The latter component is also referred to by

many researchers as metacognitive skills. A third aspect of metacognition that is mentioned

by Flavell et al. is metacognitive experiences.

Metacognitive knowledge (MK) refers to knowledge, beliefs, ideas and theories about

people as "cognitive creatures" and about their diverse interactions with cognitive tasks and

strategies (Flavell, 1979). MK includes three sub-categories: knowledge about persons, tasks,

and strategies. In the context of teaching HOT, knowledge of tasks and strategies is

particularly significant. Kuhn (1999) views strategy and task knowledge as interrelated sub-

components of metastrategic knowledge. Metastrategic knowledge, as defined by Kuhn,

3

entails knowledge about what thinking strategies can accomplish, about when, why, and how

to use these strategies, and about the goals and requirements of tasks (Kuhn, 1999; Kuhn &

Pearsall, 1998). Metacognitive skills (MS) are the skills and processes used to guide, monitor,

control and regulate cognition and learning. For example, Schraw and Moshman (1995) point

out three essential skill categories: planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Another significant

component of metacognition that had traditionally received less attention from researchers is

metacognitive experiences (ME) (Efklides, 2006). Flavell and his colleagues define ME as

"cognitive or affective experiences that pertain to a cognitive enterprise" (2002, p. 154).

The role of metacognition in teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education

We use the term HOT to delineate cognitive activities that are beyond the stage of recall and

comprehension/understanding, according to Bloom's (1956) taxonomy and according to more

recent revised models (e.g., Krathwohl, 2002; Leighton, 2011). Applying, analyzing,

evaluating, and creating are the key educational objectives at the HOT level. Examples of

cognitive activities that are classified as HOT include constructing arguments, asking

research questions, making comparisons, dealing with controversies, and establishing causal

relationships (Zohar, 2004). These cognitive activities are used for carrying out processes

such as scientific inquiry, problem solving, decision making, argumentation, and critical

thinking.

Many methods for teaching HOT embrace metacognition as a crucial component of

instruction. In order to understand the importance of metacognition in teaching HOT, let us

consider a successful execution of a HOT strategy in science education, for example

variable control. When designing an experiment, students need to know that the task requires

variable control, to understand why variable control should be used (e.g., that without it

inferences will be invalid), and to know how to control variables (e.g., to change only one

variable at a time while keeping the other variables constant). These are components of

4

metacognitive knowledge regarding the when, why, and how of performing the strategy, or,

using the terminology presented earlier, this is MSK about variable control. However, in

order to actually control variables during their experimentation students also need to carefully

plan their actions, to monitor their actions in order to see if things are going according to

plan, and to evaluate whether they have indeed controlled variables correctly and if their

inferences are valid. This evaluation may lead the students to conclude that they need to

design a new and better experiment. That is, successful execution of a HOT strategy also

requires MS such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, and regulating. In the next sections we

will take a deeper look at why MSK and MS are so important for competent and efficient

HOT.

The contribution of meta-strategic knowledge (MSK) to higher-order thinking

The significance of MSK in learning to think is based upon the observation that children at

any given time hold a variety of thinking strategies that they use with different relative

frequencies (Kuhn, 2000a; Kuhn, Garcia-Mila, Zohar, & Andersen, 1995; Siegler, 1996).

Therefore, development is seen as the increasing ability to choose effective strategies from a

large repertoire of strategies with varying degrees of effectiveness. According to Kuhn (1999,

2000b), it is at this point that MSK becomes important, because it is a necessary factor in the

increasing ability to choose more accurate strategies.

The claim that increasing students' MSK enhances strategic thinking implies that it

may be fruitful to try and teach that knowledge rather than wait until it develops

spontaneously. Addressing MSK in the classroom often amounts to helping students see the

general thinking structures embedded in the "messy" domain-specific situations they are

dealing with. For instance, students may not see any connection between an inquiry activity

they are doing in class in the subject of seed germination and an inquiry activity they did a

month earlier in the topic of force and motion. The teacher, however, can explicitly point out

5

that both activities share the same features of the inquiry cycle and that the rule they had

learned regarding the need to control variables applies in both cases. Using explicit general

knowledge pertaining to MSK in teaching thinking is therefore a type of "bridging" activity

that may enhance transfer (Adey and Shayer, 1993).

The contribution of metacognitive skills (MS) to higher-order thinking

In order to control and regulate their thinking, learners' employ MS that draw on their MK

regarding cognitive processes (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). MS can be viewed as the

procedural or executive component of metacognition (Brown, 1987; Paris & Winograd,

1990; Veenman, 2005). MS are critical for managing thinking processes and provide the link

between meta-level knowledge of strategies and tasks and cognitive performance

(Borkowski, Chan, & Muthukrishna, 2000; Schraw, 1998; Veenman, 2011). For example,

learners need to plan which HOT strategy to use, based on task demands, and then to

monitor and regulate the use of that strategy.

Current evidence suggests that although MS have both domain-general and domain-

specific aspects, they are predominantly domain-general (Schraw, Dunkle, Bendixen, &

Roedel, 1995; Veenman, 2011). Developmental studies indicate that after the age of 15

metacognitive skills are largely general (Van der Stel & Veenman, 2010, 2013; Veenman &

Spaans, 2005; Veenman, Wilhelm, & Beishuizen, 2004). The domain-general aspects of

metacognitive skills suggest that they might more readily transfer to new tasks and domains.

However, MS development occurs gradually and some learners may not spontaneously

acquire competent MS (Brown & DeLoache, 1978; Veenman, Kok, & Blte, 2005).

Veenman (2011) pointed out that those learners who have metacognitive skills at their

disposal but fail to produce them appropriately can be assisted by cues and reminders. But

learners who do not have available MS may not equally benefit from cues and reminders.

Learners with such availability deficiencies need to be instructed in employing MS in

6

order to effectively acquire them (Veenman, 2011). Veenman refers to the informed

instruction of metacognitive skills using the WWW&H rule: meaning that learners should

be instructed, modeled and trained when to apply what skills, why and how in the context of

a task (2011, p. 210). That is, MK about MS plays an important part in the acquisition of

MS. This call brings us full circle back to the importance of MSK in promoting HOT by

proposing that learners may benefit from MSK not only about HOT strategies but also about

the MS required for successfully executing these strategies.

Teachers' knowledge regarding metacognition has unique characteristics

It is not easy for teachers to take up research-based ideas about metacognition and translate

them into practical classroom recommendations (Leat & Lin, 2003). This challenge is

particularly large in the area of teaching HOT and metacognition. Like in any other field, in

order to teach successfully teachers need familiarity of whatever it is they attempt to teach as

well as sound knowledge of how to teach it. HOT and metacognition have both domain-

specific and domain-general features. Therefore, neither the term pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK) that is subject-specific (Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987), nor the term

general pedagogical knowledge that is domain-general, are appropriate to describe teachers'

knowledge in this area. In order to delineate the unique nature of HOT and metacognition,

Zohar (2004, 2008) thus suggested that teachers' knowledge in this context can be addressed

using the terms: "knowledge of elements of HOT and/or metacognition" and "pedagogical

knowledge in the context of teaching HOT and/or metacognition". These terms highlight the

fact that teachers' knowledge in this field has unique characteristics (for a more detailed

explanation see Zohar 2004; 2008).

7

Teachers' knowledge of elements metacognition for fostering HOT

In order to use metacognition successfully when teaching HOT, teachers need robust

knowledge of elements of metacognition, that is, of the pertinent metacognitive knowledge

and skills related to HOT (e.g., Seraphin, Philippoff, Kaupp, & Vallin, 2012; Zohar, 2006).

A pre-condition for teachers' metacognitive knowledge in this area is their familiarity with

thinking strategies and processes on the cognitive level. Research shows that teachers are not

always proficient with this knowledge (Zohar, 2004). Moreover, the domain-specific aspects

of MSK suggest that teachers may need diverse types of MSK for the diverse thinking

strategies they would address in class. Teachers obviously also need to be proficient with

MS that are relevant for planning, monitoring, evaluating and regulating thinking processes

in the area of HOT. Such complex knowledge of metacognition is a pre-condition for sound

pedagogical knowledge in this area. Indeed, research suggests that knowledge of

metacognition and pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching metacognition are

related to each other (Wilson & Bai, 2010).

Teachers' pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching metacognition for fostering

HOT

Teachers' pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching metacognition for fostering

HOT should include underlying principles and instructional practices for teaching

metacognition. In this section, we will four several key underlying principles, as well as

point to examples of their connections with particular instructional practices. A more

systematic review of instructional practices that emerge from empirical studies is described

on pages 13-16.

Principle #1- Deliberate attention to general thinking structures and skills

As they engage with a variety of specific topics that are often "messy" in terms of their rich

science contents, teachers need to be able to clearly maintain in their minds the relevant

8

general thinking structures (e.g., MSK and MS). Such awareness contributes to teachers'

ability to treat metacognition in the classroom in an intentional and planned way, rather than

intuitively. It is also a pre-requisite for fostering an explicit awareness of metacognition (see

below). The main teaching practice based on this principle refers to the design of lessons or

even larger teaching units. It enables teachers not to think exclusively about content goals,

but to also include metacognitive goals and activities in their lessons and assessments in a

deliberate way.

Principle #2- Fostering explicit awareness of metacognition

Although when metacognition develops spontaneously it may be either implicit or explicit

(Schraw & Moshman, 1995), it is always explicit when addressed during instruction and has a

strong verbal component. Fostering metacognition requires students' explicit awareness of the

type of cognitive and metacognitive procedures being used (Zohar & Ben David, 2008; Zohar

& Peled, 2008). Making metacognition explicit helps make learners thinking visible, an object

for reflection, discussion , and evaluation (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011). In terms of

teaching practices, the construction of MSK regarding HOT can be mediated by explicit

discussion of the generalizations and rules that are relevant to a thinking strategy, by naming

the thinking strategy, by discussing explanations as to the when, why and how the thinking

strategy should be used, and by discussing what task characteristics call for the use of the

strategy. Teachers therefore need to be proficient in the "language of thinking" (i.e.,

vocabulary terms such as "argument", "reason", or "conclusion") in order to introduce

metacognition routinely into classroom discourse (Swartz, Costa, Beyer, Reagan, & Kallick,

2008; Tishman, Perkins, & Jay, 1995). Similarly, MS can be acquired by explicit discussion of

the MS that are relevant to the performance of science learning strategies and tasks, by naming

the MS, and by discussing explanations as to what, when and how MS need to be used.

9

Principle #3 - Teaching in a meaningful way

It is important to note that although we promote explicit instruction of metacognition, this does

not mean that metacognition should be taught through a "transmission of knowledge" approach.

Our general educational belief is that knowledge must be actively constructed by knowers in

order to be meaningful. This belief extends not only to the learning of concepts and strategies

(Zohar, 2004) but also to the learning of HOT and metacognition. Thus, the explicit teaching of

metacognition should be designed to trigger and facilitate active thinking and experiences that

fosters deep understanding. In fact, resourceful metacognitive teaching requires teachers'

understanding of both social and personal processes of knowledge construction. The social

exchange of ideas encourages learners to expand, challenge, and deepen their understandings

(e.g., Molenaar, van Boxtel, & Sleegers, 2010). Furthermore, recent studies suggest that there

are important connections between individual and socially-shared aspects of metacognitive

regulation (Efklides, 2008; Grau & Whitebread, 2012). Social aspects of metacognitive

learning can include student-led small group discussions, teacher-led whole class discussions,

scaffolding and modeling.

Because metacognitive knowledge about HOT strategies and about MS is highly

abstract, it is unlikely that most students will be able to understand it deeply without engaging

in an extended series of practical experiences. In this sense, addressing rules, generalizations

and principles of good thinking always needs to be connected to students' concrete experiences

in which they use thinking strategies and metacognitive skills. The teaching practices of cueing

and prompting learners during the task are often necessary in order to remind learners to

activate their MK and MS and in order to help them connect their understandings and skills to

the current context. Providing practice and training also offers learners opportunities to acquire

first-hand experience with metacognitive thinking. This might also be achieved through

10

reflective writing and through visual representations that assist students in exposing,

transforming, and communicating their thinking.

Principle # 4- Thinking across and beyond specific contexts

As mentioned earlier, metacognition has both context-specific and context-general aspects.

This introduces a serious challenge to educators since they need to pay attention to domain,

task, and strategy specific aspects of metacognition as well as to assist learners in forming

generalizations that will enable them to extend their metacognitive knowledge and skills to new

contexts. We would claim that when teaching HOT this challenge is greater in the case of MSK

than in the case of MS. MSK relates to specific tasks and thinking strategies and it has a

considerable degree of context-dependence. Consequently, it needs to be taught separately for

each type of thinking. This creates considerable challenges in the classroom because unique

learning activities need to be designed for the teaching of each type of thinking (e.g., the

knowledge relevant to teaching how to construct good arguments is very different from the

knowledge of teaching how to control variables or how to ask good research questions). Yet,

MSK and MS also have general aspects. For instance, MSK regarding argumentation that is

taught in the context of a dilemma in human genetics would also apply to an environmental

dilemma.

In light of these considerations, teachers need to know how to use metacognition to

enhance transfer by "bridging" or "transfer" activities designed to highlight the underlying

common thinking elements embedded in multiple specific cases (Adey & Shayer, 1993; Swartz

et al., 2008; Tishman et al., 1995; Zohar, 2006). In terms of teaching practices, using

metacognition for bridging (or transfer) can be accomplished in several ways: (a) After

explicitly discussing the general characteristics of a thinking strategy, a thinking task or a

metacognitive strategy, teachers can explicitly ask students to raise additional instances (both

school-related instances and instances from everyday life) in which the same kind of thinking

11

can be applied. (b) When a thinking strategy or a metacognitive skill that had been learned in

the past is embedded once again in the course of teaching a new subject, teachers can point out

(or ask students to point out) the general meta-elements that are common to the new and old

cases. (c) In order for such activities to be effective they need to recur in multiple contexts over

extended periods of time. Therefore, a third significant teaching practice for transfer is long-

term and systematic planning of large units of instruction that will provide students with

opportunities to encounter the same metacognitive principles in multiple science contents. (d)

A fourth teaching practice may involve using similar structured checklists and prompts

repeatedly in multiple science contexts (see, for example, Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003;

Schraw, 1998).

Research about teachers' knowledge

To what extent are teachers in fact familiar with knowledge of metacognition and

with principles and practices of metacognitive instruction? Veenman et al. warned that many

teachers lack sufficient knowledge of metacognition and of how to use metacognition in their

teaching (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006). These findings are confirmed

by several studies documenting science teachers' lack of adequate knowledge about

metacognition and its teaching (e.g., Ben-David & Orion, 2012; Seraphin et al., 2012; Zohar,

2006). Therefore, research findings indicate that a serious gap exists between research-based

recommendations and the actual state of teachers' knowledge in this area. Because teachers'

knowledge is a pre-requisite for classroom practice, this gap is also reflected in actual

classroom practice (Georghiades, 2004; Thomas, 2012).

12

An overview of research on metacognition in science education

In order to examine how metacognition is currently conceptualized and studied in the

field of science education we have recently conducted a systematic analysis of 178 studies on

metacognition and science education published in peer-reviewed journals in the years 2000-

2012 and indexed in the ERIC database (Zohar & Barzilai, 2013). The review revealed

several major trends:

There has been a dramatic growth in the volume of research throughout the past decade.

Metacognition is mostly studied in disciplinary contexts and is well-integrated in core

objectives of science education.

Metacognition is studied more among older students than among younger ones.

Teachers' knowledge about metacognitive instruction is under-researched.

How important and central is research concerning metacognition and HOT in science

education? We re-examined the corpus of studies and found that many of them addressed

HOT skills and processes such as: general thinking skills (e.g., reasoning) (23.6% out of 178

studies); problem solving (22.5%); inquiry learning (21.9%); specific thinking skills (e.g.,

variable control) (15.2%); problem-based learning (5.1%); argumentation (3.9%); critical

thinking (3.4%); scientific thinking (2.8%); and thinking dispositions (2.8%). This list

indicates that metacognition is studied in relation to multiple and varied aspects of HOT.

Taken together, 51.1 percent of the studies of metacognition in science education that were

indexed in ERIC between 2000- 2012 are related to HOT. We may, therefore, conclude that

HOT is one of the central educational issues that interest researchers of metacognition in

science education.

Papers in which metacognition played a central role were chosen for a deeper

analysis. Of the 66 studies chosen for deep analysis, 24 focused specifically on HOT. Our

next analysis addressed two questions: Which metacognitive aspects are being studied? What

13

types of instructional approaches are used to foster learners metacognition? We found that

studies of metacognition in science education largely address the two major components of

metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills. However, we were somewhat surprised to

find that metacognitive skills were studied much more often than metacognitive knowledge

(86.4% versus 37.9% among all studies, 83.3% versus 50.0% in the HOT studies). It is

interesting to note that all of the HOT studies that addressed learners MK specifically

targeted MSK. This provides another indication of the centrality of MSK in HOT instruction.

Metacognitive experiences (ME) were rarely addressed in the studies we reviewed.

The studies revealed a rich repertoire of instructional practices for engaging learners in

metacognitive thinking. Figure 1 provides the frequencies of the metacognitive instructional

practices employed in all studies and in HOT studies and examines the relations between the

metacognitive components studied (MK and MS) and the instructional practices employed. In

the next paragraphs we provide an overview of these practices, specifically focusing on their

relevance to the teaching of HOT:

Metacognitive prompts - The most frequently recurring metacognitive instructional

practice was use of metacognitive prompts. These prompts were metacognitive cues,

questions, or checklists that students were asked to use during activities such as problem

solving and inquiry learning, in order to remind them to utilize metacognitive skills.

Alternatively, they were used to support the activation of metacognitive knowledge

regarding HOT strategies (e.g., Fund, 2007; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010). These prompts

were also used as scaffolds in group and class discussions, in written assignments, and in

inquiry software.

Explicit instruction - This category included practices whose goal was to visibly and

explicitly teach metacognitive knowledge or metacognitive skills. In HOT studies,

explicit instruction took on multiple forms, such as explanations and demonstrations by

14

the teacher regarding HOT (e.g., Duncan & Arthurs, 2012; Zohar, 2006), knowledge

construction activities which require learners to build their metacognitive understandings

of HOT (e.g., Ben-David & Zohar, 2009; Kaberman & Dori, 2009), and learning

materials that offer models and explanations regarding HOT.

Practice and training - Following instruction, learners were sometimes asked to apply

and practice what they learned as they solved various problems and tasks. The pertinent

studies provided learners with opportunities for activating and applying their

metacognitive knowledge and skills over prolonged periods of time and in extended

contexts.

Metacognitive discussions - Whole class and group discussions of HOT provided

opportunities for students to articulate the cognitive and metacognitive processes they

apply. In teacher-led discussions teachers talked with their students about their thinking in

order to make it visible, thereby supporting learners developing understandings of their

thinking (e.g., Wu & Pedersen, 2011). Student-led discussions were conducted in

structured or semi-structured ways which were intended to facilitate metacognitive talk

among peers. These discussions were scaffolded using cues and prompts that evoke

cognitive and metacognitive processes (e.g., Peters & Kitsantas, 2010) or analysis of

scenarios and case studies (e.g., Conner, 2007; Zohar, 2006).

Reflective writing - These practices included writing of journals, responses to

metacognitive questions, reports, or short reflections in which learners have opportunities

to reflect on, describe, and analyze their thinking in writing. For example, learners wrote

diaries or journals about their thinking and learning (e.g., Nielsen, Nashon, & Anderson,

2009) reflective essays (e.g., Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008), or short written responses to

reflective prompts (e.g., Lewis et al., 2011; Morgan & Brooks, 2012).

15

Visual representations - We also found studies which employed visual representations

in order to help learners and teachers represent and share their thinking, such as graphs

that helped students monitor their scientific inquiry strategies (Peters & Kitsantas, 2010)

or a diagram of an inquiry process that helped teachers form connections between

metacognitive inquiry activities and the inquiry cycle (Seraphin et al., 2012).

Metacognitive modeling - Metacognitive modeling entails activities in which the teacher

demonstrates how she activates and applies metacognitive knowledge and skills in order

to scaffold these practices for students. We found several studies in which teachers or

animated computerized agents were used to model thinking and comprehension strategies

(e.g., Ben-David & Orion, 2012; Graesser, McNamara, & VanLehn, 2005).

ICT use for metacognitive instruction - We found that information and communication

technologies (ICT) were predominantly used in order to provide metacognitive scaffolds

that support activation of HOT strategies, monitoring, and reflection during computer-

based inquiry learning (e.g., Fund, 2007; Graesser et al., 2005; Zhang, Chen, Sun, &

Reid, 2004).

As can be seen in Figure 1, the component of metacognition employed for fostering

HOT (MK or MS) and the metacognitive instructional practices are sometimes related.

Notably, metacognitive prompts were more frequently employed in studies that address

learners MS than in studies that address MK (in all studies, 2 (1, N = 55) = 6.66, p =

.010 , in HOT studies, 2 (1, N = 32) = 3.14, p = .076). Explicit instruction recurred more

often when MK was taught than when MS were taught (in all studies, 2 (1, N = 55) =

5.24, p = .022, in HOT studies, 2 (1, N = 32) = 3.69, p = .055).

16

Figure 1. Recurring metacognitive instructional practices: A comparison of the practices used for fostering metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills.

Note: The percentages represent the proportion of studies that used each instructional practice within each of the two metacognitive categories (i.e., MK and

MS). Studies could appear in more than one category.

17

Studies addressing teachers' knowledge and PD

Only 5 out of the 178 (2.8%) studies in the corpus we analyzed had addressed teachers'

knowledge and PD in the area of teaching metacognition. Interestingly, 4 of these studies

were in the area of teaching HOT. Those studies showed that teachers' intuitive knowledge of

metacognition (i.e., before encountering metacognition during PD) in the context of teaching

HOT is quite poor, that it can be developed through PD, but that in order to be effective such

PD needs to be relatively lengthy and requires subsequent long-term support (Ben-David &

Orion, 2012; Greenleaf et al., 2011; Seraphin et al., 2012; Zohar, 2006).

Examples of successful metacognitive instruction

In this section we analyze in some detail two examples of successful instructional programs

for fostering metacognition and HOT. The examples were chosen because they demonstrate

how the instructional principles and practices, described above, can be effectively employed

in authentic classroom instruction in order to foster both MK and MS.

The ThinkerTools Inquiry Curriculum

In the computer-enhanced ThinkerTools Inquiry Curriculum, White and Frederiksen (1998,

2000) aimed to teach scientific inquiry and modeling in the context of teaching force and

motion. Metacognitive knowledge was taught as the steps of the Inquiry Cycle (question,

predict, experiment, model and apply) were explicitly presented to students. The meta-level

knowledge presented to students about the steps of the Inquiry Cycle corresponds well with

our previous definition of MSK. Metacognitive skills were taught through a reflective self-

assessment process in which prompts directed students to monitor, reflect, and evaluate their

own and each other's research. This process employed a carefully chosen set of explicit

metacognitive criteria such as "Being Systematic", "Understanding the Process of Science",

and "Reasoning Carefully".

18

White and Frederiksen employed many of the metacognitive instructional practices

mentioned throughout this chapter. In addition to metacognitive prompts, metacognitive

knowledge of the various stages of the inquiry cycle was explicitly taught. Rather than simply

presenting the relevant information, deep understanding of the nature and purpose of the

inquiry stages was developed by a set of scaffolded activities that guided students as they

actively engaged in real-world experiments. Students' understanding was further expanded

and deepened as they talked about, evaluated, and reflected on the characteristics of each

inquiry step. Practice and training were provided in the form of repeated inquiry cycles;

Reflective writing took place as students were repeatedly required to answer in writing

metacognitive questions (that included the need to criticize their work); Metacognitive

discussions took place as both small groups and the whole class were engaged in intense

discourse about the various metacognitive components of their work. This combination of

talking and writing about MK and MS while using them during repeated practice

demonstrates the mutual dependence between the growth of metacognitive knowledge and

metacognitive skills. White and Frederiksen's evaluation of their approach included carefully

designed controlled experiments to determine the impact of their curriculum. Overall,

students' performance improved significantly on both physics knowledge and inquiry

assessments. The curriculum was particularly beneficial for low-achieving students

Explicit construction of MSK

The second example demonstrates how explicit teaching of MSK can be designed to help

learners construct deep understanding of thinking strategies such as controlling variables,

asking research questions and formulating hypotheses (Ben-David & Zohar, 2009; Zohar &

Ben David, 2008; Zohar & Peled, 2008). In order to achieve this goal, Zohar and her

colleagues used guided discovery, originally designed to teach science concepts, for teaching

meta-level knowledge of thinking strategies. For instance, in the case of variable control

19

(COV), instruction started by creating a cognitive conflict between students' initial pre-

instructional faulty reasoning strategies and formal thinking strategy. This was followed by a

45 minutes teacher-centered lesson with a variety of instructional means such as

demonstrations, using examples from everyday life, building on students' intuitive knowledge

and classroom discourse. Using a set of leading questions, the teacher actually led students to

think about, construct and articulate various aspects of the MSK pertaining to the COV

strategy. This intervention was followed by several lessons in which students' engaged

(individually and in small groups) with a computer simulation that requested them to actively

use the COV strategy in a variety of circumstances, thereby providing practice and training.

A set of written probes, as well as teacher's questions to individual students who failed to

control variables reminded students during numerous points of their experimentation to apply

metacognitive skills such as monitoring and evaluating their work (e.g.,Do you think that

you are using the rule that we had studied in the previous lesson?) and regulating their

thinking ("What can you do to improve your current investigation?). This example

demonstrates once again how the metacognitive learning environment integrates explicit

instruction with metacognitive prompts, practice and training, reflective writing and

metacognitive discussions. In this learning environment, MSK was used to improve MS and

MS were used consolidate MSK. A set of controlled studies designed to evaluate this

instructional approach showed dramatic developments in students' strategic and meta-

strategic thinking following instruction. The effect of the treatment was particularly large for

low-achieving students and was preserved in delayed transfer tests.

20

Conclusions and implications

There is strong evidence that successful HOT in science education requires both

metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills. Nevertheless, the findings from our

review point to several areas of missed potential. First, despite the theoretical and evidence-

based significance of MSK for teaching HOT, this knowledge was addressed in only 50% of

the HOT studies in which metacognition had a central role. Metacognitive experiences were

only addressed in one study. These findings imply that researchers, and probably also

practitioners, may not be paying enough attention to all the metacognitive components which

can potentially improve students' strategic and metacognitive thinking. Future studies may,

therefore, benefit from a more comprehensive inclusion of the various metacognitive

components, in particular MSK.

It is, of course, theoretically possible that not all metacognitive components have an

equal contribution to the goal of improving students' thinking and therefore should not be

addressed equally in future studies. However, the choice of which components should be

addressed in metacognitive interventions needs to be evidence-based. Future studies may,

therefore, aim to compare the effectiveness of addressing various metacognitive components

in teaching HOT in diverse educational contexts in order to enable researchers to make

informed decisions as to which metacognitive components they should use.

The findings also show that metacognitive prompts were more frequently employed in

studies that address learners MS than in studies that address MK, and that explicit instruction

recurred more often when MK was taught than when MS were instructed. As Veenman

(2011) noted, cueing and prompting metacognition may remind learners to activate

metacognition but cannot compensate for deficiencies in metacognitive knowledge or skills.

Learners who do not have appropriate metacognitive knowledge about thinking strategies

and/or about metacognitive skills at their disposal, need to be explicitly informed and

21

instructed regarding the why, what, when, and how of using both HOT strategies (i.e., MSK)

and MS (Veenman, 2011; Zohar & Ben David, 2008, 2009). It seems that studies of MS that

create opportunities for metacognitive reflection through the use of prompts, reflective

writing, or collaborative learning, sometimes fall short by not combining explicit, informed

instruction, thereby missing an opportunity to construct robust and generative understandings

of HOT and of metacognition. On the other hand, explicit teaching of MSK sometimes lacks

the opportunity to make that knowledge more useful by combining it with prompts and cues

embedded in practice and training.

In sum, the main implications of these findings are that MK and ME need to be used

more often in metacognitive studies aiming to foster students' HOT, that MS need to be

taught explicitly more often, and that acquisition of MK requires more training, prompting

and cueing.

Finally, this chapter, which focuses on HOT, supports conclusions from previous

studies, conducted in additional areas of teaching metacognition (Georghiades, 2004;

Thomas, 2012), that have highlighted a concerning theory-practice gap in relation to teachers'

knowledge and professional development. Charting the complex knowledge required for

utilizing metacognition for teaching HOT against (a) the considerable gaps in relevant

teachers' knowledge found in the studies we reviewed; and, (b) the scarcity of research about

how to foster teachers' knowledge in this area - reveals a worrying state of affairs. What

makes this picture even more troublesome is the fact that teachers' pedagogical knowledge in

the context of teaching metacognition must be based on constructivist theories, so that it can

go beyond the transmission of instructional strategies and techniques (Van Driel & Berry,

2012). Professional development in this area must go beyond training teachers in

metacognitive practices to include deep understanding of knowledge of metacognition for

fostering HOT and of the teaching principles described above. Because research about how to

22

address these issues in professional development is practically at its infancy, future studies

should focus on these issues in a systematic and profound way.

References

Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended

intervention program in the high school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 11(1),

1-29.

Ben-David, A., & Orion, N. (2012). Teachers voices on integrating metacognition into science

education. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 1-33.

Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry

learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657-1682.

Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of

metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. C.

Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1-43). Lincoln, NE: Buros

Institute of Mental Measurements.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious

mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding

(pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and self-regulation. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.),

Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 3-35). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Conner, L. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year

high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 1-16.

Duncan, D. K., & Arthurs, L. (2012). Improving student attitudes about learning science and student

scientific reasoning skills. Astronomy Education Review, 11(1), 010102-010111.

Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the

learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3-14.

23

Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-

regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277-287.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.

Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fund, Z. (2007). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement

outcomes: A comparative study of support programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

23(5), 410-424.

Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. Research

report. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383.

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies

through point&query, autotutor, and istart. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234.

Grau, V., & Whitebread, D. (2012). Self and social regulation of learning during collaborative

activities in the classroom: The interplay of individual and group cognition. Learning and

Instruction, 22(6), 401-412.

Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., & Schneider, S.

A. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of

reading apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal,

48(3), 647-717.

Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the

case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403-436.

Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of

metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601-

627.

24

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The

effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research

Journal, 40(1), 281-310.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4),

212-218.

Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child

psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259-286). Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology

Press.

Kuhn, D. (2000a). Metacognitive development. Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181.

Kuhn, D. (2000b). Why development does (and doesn't ) occur: Evidence from the domain of

inductive reasoning. In R. S. Siegler & J. L. McClellan (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive

development: Neural and behavioral perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), i-157.

Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic

performance. Cognitive Development, 13, 227-247.

Leat, D., & Lin, M. E. I. (2003). Developing a 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), 383-414.

Leighton, J. P. (2011). A cognitive model for the assessment of higher-order thinking in students. In

G. Schraw & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 151-181).

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Lewis, E. B., van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., Watts, N. B., Baker, D. R., Wilson, M. J., & Lang, M.

(2011). Elementary teachers' comprehension of flooding through inquiry-based professional

development and use of self-regulation strategies. International Journal of Science Education,

33(11), 1473-1512.

25

Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). The effects of scaffolding

metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1727-1738.

Morgan, K., & Brooks, D. (2012). Investigating a method of scaffolding student-designed

experiments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 513-522.

Nielsen, W. S., Nashon, S., & Anderson, D. (2009). Metacognitive engagement during field-trip

experiences: A case study of students in an amusement park physics program. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 265-288.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and

instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction

(pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The

role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27-52.

Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote

engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Franciso, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-

125.

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill

exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 433-444.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4),

351-371.

Seraphin, K. D., Philippoff, J., Kaupp, L., & Vallin, L. M. (2012). Metacognition as means to increase

the effectiveness of inquiry-based science education. Science Education International, 23(4),

366-382.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New

York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26

Swartz, R. J., Costa, A. L., Beyer, B. K., Reagan, R., & Kallick, B. (2008). Thinking-based

learning: Activating students' potential. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon

Publishers.

Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In

B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science

education (Vol. 24, pp. 131-144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer

Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and

teaching in a culture of thinking. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A

longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 220-224.

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young

adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, Advanced online publication.

Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical

content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26-28.

Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from

multimethod designs? In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und metakognition:

Implikationen fr forschung und praxis (pp. 75-97). Berlin, Germany: Waxmann.

Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. E. Mayer & P. A.

Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197-218). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blte, A. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive

skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33(3), 193-211.

Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills:

Age and task differences. Learning & Individual Differences, 15(2), 159-176.

27

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and

learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-

14.

Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and

metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89-

109.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science

accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3118.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making

scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. L. Minstrell & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.), Nquiry into

inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331-370). Washington D.C: American

Association for the Advancement of Science.

Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers metacognitive knowledge

and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 269-

288.

Wu, H.-L., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Integrating computer- and teacher-based scaffolds in science

inquiry. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2352-2363.

Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for

scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 269-282.

Zohar, A. (2004). Higher-order thinking in science classrooms: Students' learning and

teacher' professional development. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Press.

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

teaching higher order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 331-377.

Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S.

Erduran & M. P. Jimnez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:

28

Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:

Springer.

Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current

and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2).

Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic

classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59-82.

Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a

metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177-195.

Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low and

high achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 337-353.