Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explicit Teaching of Metastrategic Knowledge: Definitions, Students’ Learning, and Teachers’ Professional Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Metacognition in Science Education

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 40))

Abstract

This chapter describes a comprehensive research program addressing metastrategic knowledge (MSK), i.e., general conscious awareness of the thinking strategies applied during instruction and knowledge of their general characteristics. A series of three consecutive studies investigated the effects of explicit instruction of MSK. The findings of all three studies showed dramatic developments in students’ strategic and metastrategic thinking following instruction. The effect of the treatment was preserved in delayed transfer tests. Explicit teaching of MSK had a particularly strong effect on low-achieving students. The findings show the significance of explicit teaching of MSK for teaching higher-order thinking to all students and in particular to LA students. The final sections of this chapter report two additional studies concerning teachers’ knowledge in the context of teaching MSK. These studies showed that teachers’ initial metastrategic knowledge was lacking and insufficient for teaching purposes. Following professional development, considerable progress was made in teachers’ knowledge of MSK and in their pedagogical abilities to use this knowledge in the classroom. These findings show that a professional development course can indeed help teachers make considerable progress with respect to the knowledge that is required for applying MSK in the classroom. MSK, which is the metacognitive component applied in this chapter, consists of knowledge about tasks (referring to task characteristics that call for the use of a strategy or “when” to use a strategy) and knowledge about strategies (referring to “why” and “how” to use a strategy).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abd-El-Khalicka, F., & Akerson, B. (2009). The Influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 2161–2184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 633–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P. S., & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school pupils. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P. S., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). The contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (ed.), Handbook of child psychology; Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77–155). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought. Cambridge: The Mit Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of teaching metacognitive skills to students with low mathematics ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocharn, K. F., & Jones, A. L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science ­teachers. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707–718). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Science for public understanding. http://www.qca.org.uk/index.html. Retrieved 2005.

  • Feurstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. New York/London: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–­developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1992). Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics. Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational studies in mathematics, 49, 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramersky, B., & Michaslky, T. (2009). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20, 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues. Ann Arbor: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2000a). Metacognitive development. Current developments in psychological science, 9, 178–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2000b). Why development does (and doesn’t) occur: Evidence from the domain of inductive reasoning. In R. Siegler & J. McClelland (eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Neural and behavioral perspectives. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2001a). How do people know? Psychological Science, 2001, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2001b). Theory of mind, metacognition and reasoning: A life-span perspective. In H. Hartman (ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction (pp. 301–326). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development, 13, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Anderson, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge ­acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (MSRCD) , 60, 1–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Katz, J., & Dean, D. (2004). Developing Reason. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leat, D., & Lin, M. (2007). Developing 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1985). Thinking skills fostered by philosophy for children. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). Improve: A multidimensional method for reaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: The MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf. Retrieved November 2010.

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. London: Kings College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauls, R. (1992). Critical thinking. Santa Rosa: The Foundation for Critical thinking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools – From training memories to training minds. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1993). Creating a culture of thinking. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 98–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998) Promoting general metacognitive awareness, Instructinal Science, 26, 113–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Voss, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, E., & Torff, B. (2005). The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3). doi:10.1007/s11409–010–9062–4, retrieved December, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (ed.), Exploring teacher thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teachers’ Education, 15, 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ thinking and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ meta-strategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 331–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18, 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., Vaaknin, E., & Degani, A. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teachers’ Education, 17, 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Anat Zohar

Authors
  1. Anat Zohar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anat Zohar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel

    Anat Zohar

  2. Dept. Education in Science &, Technology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, 32000, Israel

    Yehudit Judy Dori

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science +Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit Teaching of Metastrategic Knowledge: Definitions, Students’ Learning, and Teachers’ Professional Development. In: Zohar, A., Dori, Y. (eds) Metacognition in Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation