Instructional Science

, Volume 26, Issue 1–2, pp 81–96 | Cite as

Metacognition in basic skills instruction

  • Annette F. Gourgey


Metacognition is increasingly recognized as important to learning. This article describes self-regulatory processes that promote achievement in the basic skills of reading and mathematical problem solving. Self-regulatory behaviors in reading include clarifying one's purpose, understanding meanings, drawing inferences, looking for relationships, and reformulating text in one's own terms. Self-regulatory behaviors in mathematics include clarifying problem goals, understanding concepts, applying knowledge to reach goals, and monitoring progress toward a solution. The article then describes the author's experiences integrating metacognition with reading and mathematics instruction and highlights students' reactions to learning to think metacognitively.


Mathematics Instruction Mathematical Problem Basic Skill Skill Instruction Monitoring Progress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aldridge, M. (1989). Student questioning: A case for freshman academic empowerment. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 5(2): 17‐24.Google Scholar
  2. APA Division 15 Committee on Learner-centered Teacher Education for the 21st Century (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for the teaching of educational psychology in teacher education programs. NEP/15 Newsletter for Educational Psychologists(1), November, 4‐5, 8.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, L. and Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, J.L. Kamil and P. Rosenthal, eds., Handbook of reading research.New York: Longman Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Vye, N. and Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving: Research foundations. American Psychologist(10): 1078‐1089.Google Scholar
  5. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J. and Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science: 121‐152.Google Scholar
  6. Davey, B. and McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 256‐262.Google Scholar
  7. Ehrlich, P.A. and Ehrlich, A. (1991). The population explosion.NewYork: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist(10): 906‐911.Google Scholar
  9. Hartman, H.J. (1994). From reciprocal teaching to reciprocal education. Journal of Developmental Education(1): 2‐8, 32.Google Scholar
  10. Hartman, H. and Sternberg, R.J. (1993). A broad BACEIS for improving thinking. Instructional Science: 401‐425.Google Scholar
  11. Long, J.D. and Long, E.W. (1987). Enhancing student achievement through metacomprehension training. Journal of Developmental Education(1): 2‐5.Google Scholar
  12. Palincsar, A.S. and Brown, A.L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L.B. Resnick and L.E. Klopfer, eds., Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook.Google Scholar
  13. Palincsar, A. S. and Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction (2): 117‐175.Google Scholar
  14. Paris, S.G. and Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior3 (1): 5‐22.Google Scholar
  15. Paris, S.G., Wixson, K.K. and Palincsar, A.S. (1986). Instructional approaches to reading comprehension. Review of Research in Education3: 91‐128.Google Scholar
  16. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L.B. Resnick and L.E. Klopfer, eds., Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook.Google Scholar
  17. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A.H. Schoenfeld, ed., Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Silver, E.A. (1987). Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem solving instruction. In A.H. Schoenfeld, ed., Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Silver, E.A. (1979). Student perceptions of relatedness among mathematical verbal problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 10: 195‐210.Google Scholar
  21. Stahl, N.A., Simpson, M.L. and Hayes, C.G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education6 (1): 2‐10.Google Scholar
  22. Sternberg, R.J. (1981). Intelligence as thinking and learning skills. Educational Leadership 39(1): 18‐20.Google Scholar
  23. Sternberg, R.J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing your intellectual skills.York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  24. Wagner, R.K. and Sternberg, R.J. (1984). Alternative conceptions of intelligence and their implications for education. Review of Educational Research(2): 179‐223.Google Scholar
  25. Whimbey, A. and Lochhead, J. (1986). Problem solving and comprehension.EHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette F. Gourgey
    • 1
  1. 1.Upsala CollegeEast OrangeU.S.A

Personalised recommendations