No abstract

ABSTRACT. I describe two aspects of metacognition, knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition, and how they are related to domain-specific knowledge and cognitive abilities. I argue that metacognitive knowledge is multidimensional, domain-general in nature, and teachable. Four instructional strategies are described for promoting the construction and acquisition of metacognitive awareness. These include promoting general awareness, improving self-knowledge and regulatory skills, and promoting learning environments that are conducive to the construction and use of metacognition.This paper makes three proposals: (a) metacognition is a multidimensional phenomenon, (b) it is domain-general in nature, and (c) metacognitive knowledge and regulation can be improved using a variety of instructional strategies. Let me acknowledge at the beginning that each of these proposals is somewhat speculative. While there is a limited amount of research that supports them, more research is needed to clarify them. Each one of these proposals is addressed in a separate section of the paper. The first makes a distinction between knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. The second summarizes some of the recent research examining the relationship ofmetacognition to expertise and cognitive abilities. The third section describes four general instructional strategies for improving metacognition. These include fostering construction of new knowledge, explicating conditional knowledge, automatizing a monitoring heuristic, and creating a supportive motivational environment in the classroom. I conclude with a few thoughts about general cognitive skills instruction. A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING METACOGNITIONResearchers have been studying metacognition for over twenty years. Most agree that cognition and metacognition differ in that cognitive skills are necessary to perform a task, while metacognition is necessary to understand how the task was performed (Garner, 1987). Most researchers also make a distinction between two components ofmetacognition, knowledge of cognition and regulation ofcognition (although see Flavell, 1987, for a alternative view). Knowledge of cognition refers 3 H.J. Hartman (ed.), Metacognition in Learning and lrutruction,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

No abstract

The purpose of this article is to review recent research on self-regulated learning and discuss the implications of this research for science education. We draw on examples of self-regulated learning from the science education literature to summarise and illustrate effective instructional methods and the development of metacognitive understanding 1999a;Rickey & Stacy, 2000;White & Mitchell, 1994). We also focus on the crucial role that metacognition plays in self-regulation (Baird & White, 1996;Nichols, Tippins, & Wieseman, 1997;White, 1998).We divide our discussion into two main parts. The first focuses on three components of selfregulated learning, including cognition, metacognition, and motivation. We relate these aspects of self-regulation to current practices in science education. The second section focuses on six general instructional strategies for improving self-regulation in the science classroom. We focus on the use of inquiry based learning, the role of collaborative support, strategy and problem solving instruction, the construction of mental models, the use of technology to support learning, and the role of personal beliefs such as self-efficacy and epistemological world views. These instructional strategies are selected because they reflect extensive research agendas over the last decade within the science education literature and are essential to metacognition and self-regulation (Butler & Winne, 1995;Gunstone, 1999b).Key Words:Self-Regulated Learning Theory: The Role of Cognition, Metacognition, and MotivationSelf-regulated learning refers to our ability to understand and control our learning environments. To do so, we must set goals, select strategies that help us achieve these goals, implement those strategies, and monitor our progress towards our goals (Schunk, 1996). Few students are fully self-regulated; however, those with better self-regulation skills typically learn more with less effort and report higher levels of academic satisfaction (Pintrich, 2000;Zimmerman, 2000).Self-regulated learning theory has a distinguished history in cognitive psychology, with its origins dating back to the social-cognitive learning theory of Albert Bandura. At the heart of Bandura's theory is the idea of reciprocal determinism which suggests that learning is the result of personal, environmental, and behavioural factors. 112GREGORY SCHRAW, KENT J. CRIPPEN AND KENDALL HARTLEY Personal factors include a learner's beliefs and attitudes that affect learning and behaviour. Environmental factors include the quality of instruction, teacher feedback, access to information, and help from peers and parents. Behavioural factors include the effects of prior performance. Reciprocal determinism states that each of these three factors affects the other two factors.During the past two decades, researchers have applied Bandura's (1997) socialcognitive theory to many settings, including school learning. These attempts led to the development of self-regulated learning theory which contends that learning is governed by ...

The authors conducted a grounded theory study of academic procrastination to explore adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination and to help guide future empirical research. They discuss previous research on the definition and dimensionality of procrastination and describe the study in which interview data were collected in 4 stages, identifying 33 initial categories and 29 macrothemes. Findings were validated by member checks. The authors describe in detail informants' perceptions of procrastination, which were used to construct a 5-component paradigm model that includes adaptive (i.e., cognitive efficiency, peak experience) and maladaptive (i.e., fear of failure, postponement) dimensions of procrastination. These dimensions, in turn, are related to conditions that affect the amount and type of procrastination, as well as cognitive (i.e., prioritizing, optimization) and affective (i.e., reframing, self-handicapping) coping mechanisms. The authors propose 6 general principles and relate them and the paradigm model to previous research. Limitations of the research are discussed, as well as implications for future theory development and validation.