¬Ý
Metacognition
¬Ý
¬Ý
Susan Sunny Cooper Weber State University Penˆ©e W. Stewart Weber State University Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, October 2005 and at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, 2006. Abstract Metacognition includes knowledge and regulation of one’Äôs thinking processes. Although there has been abundant research into the development of childrens’Äô metacognition, relatively little research has focused on the development of adult metacognition. This study examined the metacognitive skills of adults as they develop naturally with age. The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory was completed by 214 pre-service and experienced teachers. Results indicated that metacognition improves significantly with age and with years of teaching experience. Male and female respondents showed no significant difference in metacognition, and teachers of grades from preschool to post-secondary showed no significant difference in metacognition. Numerous suggestions for future research emerged from this study. Introduction Over the last 35 years, many definitions have been proposed for the word metacognition, or ’Äúthinking about thinking’Äù. A recent definition describes metatcognition as ’Äúone’Äôs knowledge and beliefs about one’Äôs own cognitive processes and one’Äôs resulting attempts to regulate those cognitive processes to maximize learning and memory’Äù (Ormrod, 2006). Metacognition plays an important role in communication, reading comprehension, language acquisition, social cognition, attention, self-control, memory, self-instruction, writing, problem solving, and personality development (Flavell, 1979). Metacognition is a special type of knowledge and ability that develops with personal experience and with schooling. It is in a recursive loop with cognitive development in that it both produces and is a product of cognitive development. (Paris and Winograd, 1990). Influence of Metacognitive Skills A variety of studies have examined the influence of metacognitive skills on adult performance. Everson and Tobias (2001) report that research shows there is a difference in the metacognition of effective learners and ineffective learners. The effective use of metacognition has been shown to predict learning performance (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Students with higher metacognitive skills outperformed those with lower metacognitive skills in problem-solving tasks, regardless of their overall aptitude. In a study comparing self-regulated learning in college undergraduates and graduate students (Lindner, Harris, and Gordon, 1996), research showed a strong correlation between metacognition and degree completion. Research has consistently shown that students who are high achievers in academic learning domains such as reading, writing, math and science also exhibit higher levels of metacognitive knowledge about that domain, and have developed greater abilities in self-regulation (Baker & Cerro, 2000). Studies of adults in the work force have also shown a positive influence of metacognition on performance. Nurses and electronics technicians considered excellent at their jobs were found to have greater megacognitive awareness and strategy use than workers who were average performers (Baker, 1989). Development of Megacognitive Skills A major trend in the 1980’Äôs was research into children’Äôs knowledge about their mental world. This body of work stretched over approximately fifteen years and produced more than 800 publications known as ’Äútheory-of-mind’Äù research. Many of these studies examined pre-school children’Äôs understanding of mental processes and the age-related developmental changes that occur in this understanding (Schneider & Lockl, 2002). Most theorists believe that the development of metacognitive knowledge begins at a young age, and continues at least through adolescence (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). A tacit assumption in much of the research has been that metacognitive skills are fully developed by adulthood. This assumption can be questioned, since there have been a few studies examining age-related changes in metacognition after adolescence (Rasnak, 1995; Justice and Dornan, 2001) Instead, most of the research on adult metacognition focuses on the specific metacognitive processes used by adults. (Flavell, 1979; Kluwe, 1982; Sternberg, 1990; Narens, Graf & Nelson, 1996) Schraw, Wise, and Roos (2000) summarized research about metacognition in adults. They concluded that adults typically monitor their own performance with a moderate degree of accuracy, and that accuracy of monitoring improves when tests are easier and cover more factual information. They also concluded that proficiency of monitoring seems to be independent of intellectual ability, domain knowledge and ease-of learning judgments and that monitoring ability appears to improve with practice. The purpose of this study was to determine whether metacognitive awareness and skills increase naturally with age during adulthood. Pre-service and professional teachers were the subjects in this study. The following research questions provided focus for this study: 1. Is there a difference in metacognitive awareness between undergraduate education majors and Master of Education students? 2. Does metacognitive awareness increase with age during adulthood? 3. Does metacognitive awareness increase with years of teaching experience? 4. Is there a difference in metacognitive skills between males and females? 5. Do teachers working with different aged learners differ in their metacognitive skills? Methodology The purpose of this study was to discover whether adults’Äô metacognitive awareness and skills naturally increase with age subjects were volunteers. Experienced teachers who were working toward their Master’Äôs degrees at a Utah university were compared to undergraduate teachers-in-training using a paper-and-pencil self-evaluation instrument (MAI) to assess metacognition. Age, years of teaching experience, and grade levels taught were also variables of interest. Sample size was 91 participants from the undergraduate group and 123 participants from the graduate student group. Participants Research subjects were undergraduate and master’Äôs students in the college of education at a public university. The survey packet was mailed to each of the 235 students registered in the Master of Education program. The investigator also visited several classes of undergraduate teacher candidates and invited them to participate in the study. Ninety one undergraduates and 123 graduate students completed the survey. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that data was anonymous. Instrumentation The survey used in this study was the Metacognitive Awareness Inventor (MAI) designed by Schraw and Dennison (1994) While most metacognitive instrumentss have been designed for use with children and adolescents; the MAI was designed for use with adults. This instrument continues to be used in studies of adult metacognition (Hammann & Stevens, 1998; Sperling, 2004). The MAI instrument consists of 52 statements to which participants respond by marking a Likert scale with numbers from 1 (’Äúnot at all true of me’Äù) to 5 (’Äúvery true of me’Äù). Average completion time is approximately ten minutes (Schraw and Dennison, 1994). The MAI statements represent two component categories of metacognition, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Within the knowledge component are statements of declarative knowledge (knowledge about self and strategies), procedural knowledge (knowledge about strategy use), and conditional knowledge (when and why to use strategies). The regulation component covered planning (goal setting), information management (organizing), monitoring (assessment of learning and strategy), debugging (strategies to correct errors) and evaluation (analysis of performance and strategy effectiveness). Procedures The survey packet was given to each of the participants. The survey packet contained three items: 1. A letter of introduction explaining the purpose of the study and the voluntary, confidential nature of participation. 2. A demographic survey requesting information about the participant’Äôs age, gender, graduate or undergraduate status, years of teaching experience and grade levels taught. 3. The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Graduate students were provided with a self-addressed stamped envelope for returning the completed survey to the investigator. For each respondent, three scores were generated. Scores for metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation, and total MAI score were used in the data analysis. Data from the questionnaire was analyzed using nonparametric statistical tests, since data was ordinal scale and could not be assumed to be normally distributed. Spearman’Äôs Rho was used to look for correlations between MAI scores and age and MAI scores and teaching experience. Mann-Whitney U was used to look for differences between pre-service and experienced teachers, between male and female respondents, and among teachers of different grade levels. Alpha was set at 0.05 for all statistical tests. Results Descriptive Statistics for the Sample Groups Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the undergraduate and graduate participants in the research study. Results for the research questions will follow. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Groups Variable Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum Undergraduate Students (N = 91) Age 26.7 8.0 19 58 MAI Knowledge score 70.3 7.5 43 88 MAI Regulation score 121.6 17.4 76 163 MAI Total score 192.1 23.3 126 251 Graduate Students (N = 123) Age 39.1 9.5 22 57 Years teaching 8.5 6.5 0 31 MAI Knowledge score 75.8 7.1 58 94 MAI Regulation score 133.6 16.7 89 166 Total MAI score 209.5 22.1 147 255 Pooled Undergraduate and Graduate Students (N = 214) Age 33.8 10.8 19 58 MAI Knowledge .score 73.5 7.7 43 94 MAI Regulation score 128.5 18.0 76 166 MAI Total score 202.1 24.1 126 255 Metacognitive Awareness: Undergraduate vs Graduate Students The first research question looked for a difference in metacognitive awareness between undergraduate pre-service teachers and experienced teachers. The scores for metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation, and total MAI score were compared to detect differences between the two groups. In all three sets of scores, there were significant differences between the undergraduates and the graduates who participated in the study. Results are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Comparison of MAI Scores for Undergraduate and Graduate Students (Mann-Whitney U) Comparison for Metacognitive Knowledge Scores Group: 1 (Grads) Group: 2 (Undergrads) Cases Mean Rank Cases Mean Rank U 123 125.8 91 82.7 7848.5 ** Comparison for Metacognitive Regulation Scores Group: 1 (Grads) Group: 2 (Undergrads) Cases Mean Rank Cases Mean Rank U 123 124.6 91 84.4 7698.5 ** Comparison for Total MAI Scores Group: 1 (Grads) Group: 2 (Undergrads) Cases Mean Rank Cases Mean Rank U 123 126.1 91 82.3 7886.5 ** * Significant result (p < .05) (2-Tail) ** Significant result (p < .01) (2-Tail) Correlation of Age with MAI Scores The second research question asked whether metacognitive awareness increased with age during adulthood. The ages of respondents ranged from 19 to 57. For both pre-service and experienced teachers, the pattern of results was similar. For the undergraduate students, age was significantly correlated with metacognitive regulation but not with metacognitive knowledge or with total MAI score. Within the group of experienced teachers, age was significantly correlated with metacognitive regulation score and with total MAI score, but not with knowledge score. For the pooled group of 214 subjects, metacognitive knowledge, regulation, and total MAI score were all strongly correlated with age. Table 4. Correlation of Age with MAI Scores (Spearman’Äôs Rho) N Age Metacog. Metacog. MAI Total Range Knowledge Regulation Score Undergraduates 91 19 - 58 r = 0. r = 0.22* r = 0.19 Graduates 123 22 ’Äì 57 r = 0.15 r = 0.38 ** r = 0.34** All Participants 214 19 ’Äì 58 r = 0.31 ** r = 0.42** r = 0.41** * Significant result (p < .05) ** Significant result (p < .01) Correlation of Years of Teaching Experience with MAI Scores The third research question queried whether metacognitive awareness increases with years of teaching experience. Metacognitive knowledge did not show a significant correlation with years of teaching experience, but metacognitive regulation and total MAI score did show significant correlation with years of teaching experience. Metacognitive regulation appeared to be the component that contributed to increased metacognitive awareness among the experienced teachers. Metacognitive knowledge tended to remain stable, even with increased years of teaching. See table 3. Table 3. Correlation of MAI Scores and Years of Teaching Experience (Spearman’Äôs Rho) N r t-value Metacognitive Knowledge 123 0.07 0.72 Metacognitive Regulation 123 0.26** 3.00 Total MAI Score 123 0.22* 2.49 * Significant result (p < .05) ** Significant result (p < .01) MAI Scores for Males vs. Females The fourth question examined differences in metacognitive skills between males and females. No significant gender differences were detected among the undergraduates, the graduate students, or the pooled group. Results are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Gender Differences in MAI Total Score (Mann-Whitney U test) N1 = males N2 = females U Undergraduates 12 79 517.5 Graduates 21 102 1355.5 All Participants 33 181 3481 * Significant result (p < .05) ** Significant result (p < .01) Comparison of MAI Scores for Teachers of Different Grade Levels The final question compared the metacognitive skills of experienced teachers working with different aged learners. The graduate student participants were mostly experienced professional teachers. Only 7 of the 123 respondents either had no teaching experience or did not report the grade levels taught. A few of the teachers had taught at several grade levels. Six categories were created to cover the range of grade levels from preschool to post-secondary. One of the categories represented graduate students without teaching experience. No significant differences were found among the teachers from different grade levels. This indicates that for this group of 123 graduate students, most of whom were experienced teachers, metacognitive skills were similar across the entire range of grade levels from preschool to post-secondary. Results are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Comparison of Total MAI Scores for Teachers in Six Grade Levels (Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA) Group Grade Level Size (n) Rank Sum Mean Rank 1 Pre-school 10 769.5 76.9 2 Grades 1 ’Äì 6 52 3450.0 66.3 3 Grades 7 ’Äì 9 17 1078.0 63.4 4 High School 26 1367.5 52.6 5 Post Secondary 11 582.0 52.9 6 No Classification. 7 379.0 54.1 Chi-Square: 5.4222 (DF: 5 ) ’Ä¢ Significant result (p < .05) ** Significant result (p < .01) Discussion The results of this study tend to challenge previous views that development of metacognition is complete by adolescence or early adulthood. This study suggests that metacognition, as measured by the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) tends to increase with age and with teaching experience. Metacognitive regulation and total MAI, in particular, increase as a function of age and teaching experience. It is interesting that metacognitive knowledge did not increase with age in either group (undergraduates of graduates), but did show significant correlation with age in the pooled group. This is probably a result of the larger sample size for the pooled group. The increase in metacognitive regulation skills, however, seems to be a critical shift that occurs as people age and as they work with the learning process in others as professional teachers. Another interesting result was the finding that teachers of all grade levels from preschool to post-secondary have similar MAI results. While the complexity and detail of content may increase with higher grade levels, it appears that the teachers’Äô awareness of learning strategies is as robust among those who teach younger students as it is for those teaching in high school and college. For teachers, it may be as challenging and require as much metacognitive awareness to teach simple arithmetic as to teach calculus. . If experienced teachers have higher metacognitive awareness than those who are preparing to become teachers, it may justify further research into metacognitive development in the practicing teacher. It may also support the inclusion of metacognitive awareness courses in college teacher training curricula and in a variety of other fields. Promoting metacognitive awareness and skills could be a valuable method for improving learning and performance at all ages. Professional teachers work with the process of learning in their everyday activities. Curriculum development and classroom instruction implicitly involve working with metacognitive processes. As teachers plans classroom learning activities, delivery of course content, handouts and other learning materials, homework, and evaluation of students’Äô progress, they consider how their students will learn. ’ÄúThinking about other people’Äôs thinking’Äù may indeed be another category of metacognition. As teachers gains experience throughout their career, they develop an excellent sense of what works best for their students in the grade level and content area that they teach. This may represent a part of the process of increasing one’Äôs metacognitive awareness. Suggestions for Future Research The following topics may be productive to further understanding metacognition in adults. 1) The study indicates that metacognition increases in college educated individuals. A similar study could be conducted on adults in the general population to determine if a similar trend holds for those who have not experienced college education. 2) Is there a difference between teachers who elect to return to graduate school and those who do not? Perhaps those who return for advanced degrees are more comfortable with the formal education process, more committed to a lifelong career in teaching, or have stronger metacognitive skills. 3) What natural processes cause metacognition to increase with age? Does everyone do it the same way? What factors, situations, or experiences foster or impede metacognition? Understanding the natural processes could be used to create training in metacognition. This would be prime territory for qualitative research to develop a grounded theory for the mechanisms by which metacognition changes with age. 4) Why does metacognitive regulation appear to increase with age and teaching experience, but metacognitive knowledge does not? Qualitative research using interviews, field observation of practicing teachers, case histories and other methods could produce penetrating insights into the development of metacognitive skills. 5) Is it possible to teach metacognitive skills to adults and to children? How much time is necessary to practice new skills and incorporate them into one’Äôs learning strategy repertoire? Designing curriculum for a workshop in metacognition, and then following up with performance monitoring, surveys, and qualitative inquiry could lead to greater understanding of how metacognition changes in the adult. 6) What are the effects of stress, fatigue and anxiety on adult metacognition? This could have practical implications for performance in a variety of situations including testing, job interviews, job performance, and communication. 7) Do graduate students in education (mostly experienced teachers) tend to have better metacognitive skills than graduate students in other fields such as business, science, medicine, law, or the arts? Comparison of undergraduates and graduate students in these fields could help discern if the patterns are similar to teachers, or if teaching itself helps one develop better metacognition. 8) Is metacognition correlated with grades and grade point average in undergraduate students? Research with younger students indicates that academic performance is better in those with better metacognitive skills. Similar studies with college students could contribute to the understanding of these processes after adolescence. References Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38. Baker, L. & Cerro, L. C. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In: G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99-146). Lincoln NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Everson, H. T., and Tobias, S. (2001). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis. In: H. J. Hartman (Ed), Metacognition in learning and Instruction (pp. 69-83) Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906 - 911. Hammann, L.A., & Stevens, R.J. (1998) Metacognitive awareness assessment in self-regulated learning and performance measures in an educational psychology course. Ed424249. Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3): 236-249. Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind, human mind (pp. 201-224). New York: Springer-Verlag. Lindner, R. W., Harris, B. R., & Gordon, W. I. (1996). Are graduate students better self-regulated learners than undergraduates? A followup study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396638) Narens, L., Graf, A. & Nelson, T. O. (1996). Metacognitive aspects of implicit/explicit memory. In L. M Reder (Ed.). Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 137-170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ormrod, J.E. (2006) Educational Psychology:Developing Learners.(5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education, Inc. 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). Hilldale, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self ’Äìregulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82: 33 ’Äì 40. Rasnak, M. A. (1995). Metacognitive dimensions of the selection and use of learning strategies by adult college students and traditional-age college students. Retrieved May 23, 2003 from Digital Dissertations database. Schneider, W. & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In: T. Perfect & B. Schwartz (Eds), Applied metacognition (pp 224-257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schraw, G. and Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-125. Schraw, G., Wise, S. L., & Roos, L. L. (2000) Metacognition and computer-based testing. In: G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 223-260) Lincoln NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Sperling, R.A. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation,10(2), 117-130. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metacognitive Development in Professional Educators
¬Ý