Metacognitive Development in Professional
Educators
Susan
Sunny Cooper
Weber
State University
Penée
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,
April 2006.
Abstract
Metacognition
includes knowledge and regulation of one’s thinking
processes. Although there has been abundant research into
the development of childrens’ 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 “thinking about thinking”. A recent
definition describes metatcognition as “one’s knowledge and
beliefs about one’s own cognitive processes and one’s
resulting attempts to regulate those cognitive processes to
maximize learning and memory” (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’s was research into children’s
knowledge about their mental world. This body of work
stretched over approximately fifteen years and produced
more than 800 publications known as “theory-of-mind”
research. Many of these studies examined pre-school
children’s 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’
metacognitive awareness and skills naturally increase with
age subjects were volunteers. Experienced teachers who were
working toward their Master’s 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’s 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 (“not at all true of me”)
to 5 (“very true of me”). 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’s 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’s 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’s 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 – 57 r = 0.15 r = 0.38 ** r = 0.34**
All Participants 214 19 – 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’s
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 – 6 52 3450.0 66.3
3 Grades 7 – 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 )
•
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’ 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’ progress, they consider how their students will
learn. “Thinking about other people’s thinking” 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’s
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’s 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 –regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82:
33 – 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.