Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons

Abstract

The quality of teachers’ knowledge about how people learn influences students’ learning outcomes. Similarly, the quality of students’ knowledge about how they learn influences their engagement in self-regulated learning and consequently, their learning achievement. There is a gap between research findings that support these two premises and teaching–learning practices in classrooms. In this paper we describe attempts to reduce this gap. In Study 1 we surveyed early adolescent students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and demonstrated that students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy knowledge has substantial room for improvement. In Studies 2 and 3 we collaborated with teachers to embed explicit cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction, using learning protocols, into regular class lessons. Studies 2 and 3 showed that the learning protocols slipped readily into teachers’ typical lesson designs, scaffolded teachers’ delivery of strategy instruction, and scaffolded some students’ acquisition of strategy knowledge, although progress was sometimes slow. Recommendations are presented for supporting teachers and students to engage with cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Year 7 students were temporarily attending the secondary schools as part of the transition program.

  2. 2.

    The Index of Educational Disadvantage was developed using a combination of Education Department and Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It groups all schools into one of seven ranks of educational disadvantage based on four measures: parental income; parental education and occupation; Aboriginality; and student mobility.

References

  1. Abdel-Khalek, A. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behaviour and Personality, 34(2), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ACARA (n.d.). The Australian curriculum: Cross curriculum priorities. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved 12 June 2011 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/English/Cross-Curriculum-Priorities.

  3. Alexander, P. A. (2005). Teaching towards expertise. In P. Tomlinson, J. Dockrell, & P. Winne (Eds.), Pedagogy–teaching for learning (pp. 29–45). Leicester, UK: England British Psychological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 559–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson, J. R. (2010). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Askell-Williams, H., & Lawson, M. J. (2005a). Representing the dynamic complexity of students’ mental models of learning in order to provide ‘entry points’ for teaching. New Horizons in Education, 113, 16–40.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Askell-Williams, H., & Lawson, M. J. (2005b). Students’ knowledge about the value of discussions for teaching and learning. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 83–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M. J., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2007a). What happens in my university classes that helps me to learn? Teacher education students’ instructional metacognitive knowledge. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M. J., & Tran, T. A. T. (2007b). Learners’ mental models about learning are multidimensional, temporally changeable, and situationally acute. In V. N. Galwye (Ed.), Progress in educational psychology research. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organisers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brodzinsky, D. M., Elias, M. J., Steiger, C., Simon, J., Gill, M., & Clarke Hitt, J. (1992). Coping scale for children and youth: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given; Studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cannon, C. (2006). Implementing research practices. The High School Journal, 89(4), 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. de Boer, A. G., van Lanschot, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F., van Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B., de Haes, J. C., et al. (2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13, 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Hulle, C. A. V. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ewing, R. (2011). The arts and Australian education: Realising potential, Australian Education Review No 58. Melbourne: ACER. Retrieved 21 June 2011 from www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER-58.pdf.

  27. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Manual: The adolescent coping scale. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gough, J. (1997). Exploring constructivism(s): The gaps between philosophy, psychology, praxis and common sense(s). In S. Groves, J. B. Jane, I. Robottom, & R. Tytler (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research in mathematics, science, health, and environmental education (pp. 77–87). Burwood: Deakin University Centre for Studies in Mathematics, Science and Environmental Education.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 20–24). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge: Oxon.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hattie, J., Biggs, J. B., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of student learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Herzog, C., Price, J., & Dunlosky, J. (2008). How is knowledge generated about memory encoding strategy effectiveness? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20, 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19, 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hürny, C., Bernhard, J., Coates, A., Peterson, H. F., Castiglione-Gertsch, M., Gelber, R. D., et al. (1995). Responsiveness of a single-item indicator versus a multi-item scale. Medical Care, 34, 234–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Joram, E. (2007). Clashing epistemologies: Aspiring teachers’, practicing teachers’, and professors’ beliefs about knowledge and research in education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kalyuga, S. (2006). Rapid cognitive assessment of learners’ knowledge structures. Learning and Instruction, 16, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kerr, D. H. (1981). The structure of quality in teaching. In J. F. Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy and education (Vol. 1, pp. 61–93). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kiewra, K. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory into Practice, 41, 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learner’s sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 34, 959–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Koskey, K. L. K., Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Bonney, C. R., & Dever, B. V. (2010). Cognitive validity of students’ self-reports of classroom mastery goal structure: What students are thinking and why it matters. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 254–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lawson, M. J. (1984). Being executive about metacognition. In J. Kirby (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and educational performance. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lawson, M. J., & Askell-Williams, H. (2001, July). What facilitates learning in my university classes? The students’ account. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

  49. Lawson, M. J., & Askell-Williams, H. (2002, September). What learners know about what their teacher is doing. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Administration International Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

  50. Lawson, M. J., Askell-Williams, H., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2009). The quality of teacher’s knowledge. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), The new international handbook of teachers and teaching. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Luyten, L., Lowyck, J., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2001). Task perception as a mediating variable: A contribution to the validation of instructional knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mattick, K., & Knight, L. (2007). High-quality learning: harder to achieve than we think? Medical Education, 41, 638–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McLeod, L. (2008). History teachers’ reading of professional journals. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide.

  55. Mevarech, Z. R., & Amrany, C. (2008). Immediate and delayed effects of meta-cognitive instruction on regulation of cognition and mathematics achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Retrieved 11 June 2011 from http://www.umich.edu/~pals/pals/PALS%202000_V13Word97.pdf.

  57. MindMatters. (2010). Leading mental health and wellbeing. Retrieved 11 June 2011 from http://www.mindmatters.edu.au/about/about_landing.html.

  58. Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: The epistemological vee diagram. In J. J. Mintzes, J. D. Novak, & J. W. Wandersee (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 41–69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 273–306.

    Google Scholar 

  63. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. OECD. (2009). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  65. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pearsall, N. R., Skipper, J. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational psychology review, 16, 385–407.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, R. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Pressley, M. (1995). Introduction: good thinking, good teaching, and alternative ways of studying good thinking and good teaching. In M. Pressley & C. McCormick (Eds.), Cognition, teaching, and assessment (pp. 1–11). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pressley, M., Van Etten, S., Yokoi, L., Freebern, G., & Van Meter, P. (1998). The metacognition of college studentship: A grounded theory approach. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 347–366). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Rijavec, M., & Brdar, I. (1997). Coping with school failure: Development of the school failure coping scale. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Rowe, K. J. (2002). The importance of teacher quality. Retrieved 11 June 2011 from http://www.cis.org.au/issue_analysis/IA22/IA22.HTM.

  74. Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1989). Self regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Shucksmith, J., Philip, K., Spratt, J., & Watson, C. (2005). Investigating the link between mental health and behaviour in schools. A report to the Scottish Executive Education Department, Pupil Support and Inclusion Division. Retrieved 11 June 2011 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/11/29105508/55110.

  79. Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Slee, P. T., Murray-Harvey, R., & Wotherspoon, A. (2008). Coping with bullying (DVD and booklet). Adelaide, SA, Australia: Flinders University.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2009). Fostering the reading comprehension of secondary school students through peer-assisted learning: Effects on strategy knowledge, strategy use, and task performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 289–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, 165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Tran, T. T., & Lawson, M. J. (2007). Students’ pedagogical knowledge about teachers’ use of questions. International Education Journal, 8, 417–432.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Veenman, M. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In C. M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  89. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Winne, P. H. (1987). Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognitive processing and learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postelthwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 5739–5745). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Implications of cognitive approaches to peer learning for teacher education. In A. King & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 257–283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant 2007–2009. Partners in the grant included Flinders University, the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services, Aberfoyle Park High School, Blackwood High School, Christies Beach High School and Flagstaff Primary School. Approval for this project was granted by the Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee and the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Askell-Williams.

Appendix

Appendix

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the cognitive and metacognitive factors

Missing values were replaced using normal expectation–maximisation in PASW 17.0. Split-half analysis provided support for each of the one factor congeneric models. CFA of the Cognitive factor suggested that two items, q.14 & q.15 (i.e. “I draw pictures or diagrams to help me understand this subject” and “I make up questions that I try to answer about this subject”) had poor loadings on the latent factor and would probably be reflective of another sub-factor. While a re-specification of the model with q.14 & q.15 loading separately onto a separate factor suggested that this would be a better model, the reliability of each of the two sub- factors was inadequate for further statistical analyses using these factors as two composite variables (two-item factor Coefficient H = .60; three-item factor Coefficient H = .71). A decision was made to keep the more reliable (Coefficient H = .76) 5-item cognitive factor for use in further statistical analyses. Each of the composite variables were calculated using factor score coefficients and rescaling them to sum to 1 before using them to weight participant responses for each item. Weighted item responses were then summed accordingly to obtain a composite factor score for use in subsequent analyses. Further details about the CFA can be obtained from the authors.

Confirmatory factor analysis of metacognitive items

I think about my thinking, to check if I understand the ideas in this subject.
When I don’t understand something in this subject I go back over it again.
I organise my time to manage my learning in this subject.
I make plans for how to do the activities in this subject.
I make a note of things that I don’t understand very well in this subject, so that I can follow them up.
When I have finished an activity in this subject I look back to see how well I did.

Coefficient H = .82 (adequate reliability)
Chi-square (7, 1388) = 23.9, p < .0012
CFI = .991, TLI = .981, RMSEA = .042

Confirmatory factor analysis of cognitive items

I draw pictures or diagrams to help me understand this subject.
I make up questions that I try to answer about this subject.
When I am learning something new in this subject, I think back to what I already know about it.
I practise things over and over until I know them well in this subject.
I discuss what I am doing in this subject with others.

Coefficient H = .74 (adequate reliability)
Chi-square (4, 1388) = 8.6, p < .07
CFI = .995, TLI = .989, RMSEA = .029

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M.J. & Skrzypiec, G. Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons. Instr Sci 40, 413–443 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9182-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Theory–practice gap
  • Teacher knowledge
  • Cognitive strategies
  • Metacognitive strategies
  • Learning protocols