Mighty Metacognition

For nearly four decades, research has documented the importance of metacognition in the learning process, however little attention has been devoted to providing a means for students and teachers to access tools that explicitly teach metacognitive skills. “Metacognition is an essential, but often neglected, component of a 21st-century education that teaches students how to learn” (Wilson & Conyers, 2016, p. 7). Coined by Flavell (1979), metacognition can be defined as “one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them” (p. 232). Put more simply, it involves thinking about thinking as one plans, monitors, and evaluates their learning (Baker, 2002; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). As a lifelong learner and passionate educator, I believe metacognition is the greatest gift you can give your students; it allows them to take ownership of their learning journey.

Although metacognition and the concepts related to it can be deeply complex, the action of using the skills is somewhat common, even among young children (Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009; Kuhn, 2000). In fact, many students use metacognition without knowing it. Those who can use metacognition, regardless of their awareness, have a good understanding of how they learn. For example, students with high metacognitive skills are aware and reflective of what they know and do not know well (i.e. strengths and areas for improvement). Metacognition helps students propel through their learning experiences and ultimately drive their brains (Gomez, 2018). However, metacognition, like most skills, requires some time to develop, practice, and improve.

So, the first question we must ask becomes: How can we consistently embed metacognitive skills into modern-day classrooms?

Well for starters, teachers can model their own thinking process, scaffold their students' thinking processes, and provide opportunities for students to notice their thinking (Tarrant & Holt, 2016; Wilson & Conyers, 2016). Students can start to avoid using ineffective approaches when they begin to “monitor and direct their own progress, ask questions such as ‘What am I doing now?’, ‘Is it getting me anywhere?’, or ‘What else could I be doing instead?’ This general metacognitive level [or ability] helps students avoid persevering in unproductive approaches” (Perkins & Salomon, 1989, p. 1). Teaching students to ask questions and have a love for curiosity is a great way to start. In fact, it is my belief that our students should ask twice as many questions as their teachers.

Metacognition can most definitely become part of all students' daily routines. Though explicit and complete curriculum has yet to be created, there are many great tools to promote deep thinking in the classroom. Some involve hierarchical levels of knowledge (i.e., Bloom’s Taxonomy, Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Depth of Knowledge), while others include routines or habits involved with deep thinking (i.e., Metacognitive Teaching Framework, Habits of Mind, Depth and Complexity Icons). Gomez (2018) developed an intervention, the Drive My Brain Model, to help make students' metacognition visible to students. Click here for a free sample/download. Whatever teachers choose to use, metacognition in the classroom setting should encompass “children knowing themselves as learners, having an understanding of how they learn, and being more aware of the process and actions that they use during learning to achieve the outcome of a lesson” (Tarrant & Holt, 2016,p. 1).

Once we find our system for integrating metacognition in the classroom, what do we do next? In other words, how can teachers measure students' metacognitive skills? More importantly, how do we know what we are doing is working (i.e. improving students' metacognition)?

Thankfully, with the amount of research that has been conducted, there are tools we can use to measure metacognitive skills. My favorite is called the Jr. Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, or MAI for short.

The original Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) was created by Schrew and Dennison in 1994. This assessment was mostly administered to college-level students. Sperling et al. (2002) created a children's version, which they named the Jr. Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). It was intended to use as a pre-and post-assessment to determine change (hopefully an increase) in students' metacognitive awareness and regulation. Generally, this was used alongside the implementation of a metacognitive intervention program (Sperling et al., 2002).

There are two versions of the Jr. MAI, one for Grades 3 through 5, the other from Grades 6 through 9. Both versions, as you can see below, contain a set of statements that students respond to using a Likert scale. Some statements relate to metacognitive awareness (i.e. awareness of what you know and how you think or process information), while others relate to metacognitive regulation (i.e., control over monitoring and regulating the thought process). To date, over 100 students have used these. It is fairly easy to administer and a valid assessment of metacognition (Sperling et al., 2002). You can access the two versions here.

Metacognition can help students grow through their learning, rather than just going through the steps. The best strategies lead students to discover what they know (i.e. declarative knowledge), how they use what they know (i.e. procedural knowledge), when they use what they know (i.e. conditional knowledge), and even why they use what they know. It gives students a deeper and clear purpose as a student and as a lifelong learner!

 

References

Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In Block, C. C., Ed, & Pressley, M., Ed. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices solving problems in the teaching of literacy (pp. 65-79). New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.

Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gomez, K. (2018). Drive My Brain Model. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181.

Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1989) Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. doi: 10.1007/BF02212307

Sperling, A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L.A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27. Tarrant, P. & Holt, D. (2016). Metacognition in the primary classroom: A practical guide to helping children understand how they learn. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2016). Teaching students to drive their brains: Metacognitive strategies, activities, and lesson ideas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

---

Dr. Gómez de Cervantes

Biography

Always wanting to be in education, Dr. Gómez de Cervantes earned her Bachelor of Arts and Multiple-Subject Teaching Credential from CSUN in 2011. She continued her education at Concordia, where she earned a Master of Arts in Education, Curriculum and Instruction in 2105, a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership in 2018, and a second Master of Arts in Education, Administration, postdoc in 2021.

Dr. Kaylie M. Gómez de Cervantes is currently an Assistant Principal in Los Angeles. Prior to going into administration, she taught for 10 years in both elementary and middle schools. In addition to her TK-12 work, Dr. Gómez de Cervantes has served as Adjunct Faculty for Concordia University Irvine and California State University, Northridge. She has also served as an induction coach, on dissertation committees, and as a researcher for the University of California Irvine’s Writing Project. Gómez de Cervantes has always been passionate about deep thinking and her dissertation research revolved around metacognition. You may read her full dissertation here.

Dr. Gómez de Cervantes lives in Los Angeles with her husband, Jose, and their dog, Bagheera. They are expecting their first child this November.