ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
Are they thinking what we think they should be thinking?
Donna McElveen
Coastal Carolina University
December 2012
1
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
2
Are they thinking what we think they should be thinking?
Purpose
The goal of this study was to determine if there is a correlation between an elementary
students' reading level and their awareness of metacognitive strategies they may use in the
process of reading. With this knowledge teachers can teach the reading strategies that students
need to be successful.
Justification
Educational theorists stress the importance of metacognition for regulating and supporting
student learning. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has identified self-directed learning as
one of the life and career skills necessary to prepare students to compete globally in this century.
In SC as we move towards Common Core Standards students in even earlier grades will be
required to understand why and how they arrived at a solution to a problem. Research has shown
that metacognition develops at different ages and in varied degrees depending on the student.
Knowing what metacomprehension strategies students are using or not using will yield valuable
instructional information for teachers.
Research question and hypothesis
Are students who are aware of their metacognitive strategies throughout the reading process
more effective readers? Is there a correlation between their knowledge and reading level? My
hypothesis is that there will be a positive correlation.
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
3
Definitions
Metacognitive: "cognition about cognition", or "thinking about thinking “. Metacognition refers
to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them, the
learning-relevant properties of information or data.
Metacomprehension: an awareness of your own level of understanding for some given material
and the conscious knowledge and use of strategies to achieve understanding
Reading strategy: Plans or methods that can be used or taught to facilitate reading proficiency.
Reading comprehension: the meaning gained from what is written on the page
Overview
There has been much research demonstrating that metacognition develops at different ages
and in varied degrees depending on the student. The connection however between reading with
understanding and what strategies students use to be successful is not so well defined. Therefore
this research will address the question if students who are aware of their metacognitive strategies
throughout the reading process are more effective readers? A secondary question will be
considered. Is there a correlation between their knowledge and reading level? The knowledge of
what metacomprehension strategies students are using or not using will yield valuable
instructional information for teachers. With this information teachers can identify and teach the
reading strategies that students need to be successful.
Background and review of literature
Going back to the roots of the Educational theory of Piaget researchers have established
the basis for understanding a young child’s metacognitive ability. Literature and subsequent
research on the metacognition of preschool and elementary-aged children, has shown that
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
4
metacognitive capacities appear, develop, and improve over time with age. In the discussion of
the development of metacognition Kuhn (2000) describes the process as a gradual movement to
replace deficient cognitive strategies with more effective ones. Several researchers have
concluded that metacognitive abilities appear to improve with age (Cross & Paris, 1988;
Hennessey, 1999; Kuhn & Dean, 2004; Schneider, 2008; Schneider & Lock, 2002) They agree
that metacognitive development progresses through stages with cognitive knowledge appearing
first, with children as young as age 6 able to reflect on the accuracy of their cognition, and
consolidation of these skills typically evident by 8-10 years of age. Ability to regulate cognition
appears next, with dramatic improvements in monitoring and regulation appearing by 10-14
years of age in the form of planning. Monitoring and evaluation of cognition are slower to
develop and may remain incomplete in many adults. Lastly, the development of metacognitive
theories if they are present, appear. Contemporary theorists such as McLeod (1997) felt that
children are unable to use formal thinking processes that are needed for metacognition.
Early studies on the metacognitive capacities of young children concluded is a latedeveloping skill (Flavell, 1979; Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Whitebread et al., 2009). Analyzing
the results of early studies, Flavell (1979) argues that young children have difficulty appraising
their own ability to memorize a set of objects and identifying what they do and do not understand
about a set of written instructions. Schraw and Moshman (1995) note that young children have
difficulty monitoring their thinking during task performance and constructing metacognitive
theories frameworks that integrate cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation. However, more
recent empirical studies suggest that the conclusions of earlier studies may be inaccurate.
A contrasting study included 250 children in upper elementary grades in Macedonia and the
Greek Islands of the Agean. It focused on the differences between how learning disabled
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
5
students do use metacognitive skills, but with less depth than non- learning disabled students.
Padeliadu, Botsas and Sideridis (2000) found that learning disabled students have skills in
specific areas such as planning strategies. Where some problems arise for these students is being
able to discern which strategy to use when. This is especially noticeable in the anticipation
before reading sequencing, and self-monitoring of comprehension.
Researchers feel there is a strong correlation between the effects of metacognition on
comprehension and therefore this researcher feels it is important to understand the definition and
theories behind metacognitive awareness. One study included four tests of comprehension
which suggested that good readers may not be better in their awareness of metacognition. Perry
(1998) He believes the differences are due more to language acquisition. This study recommends
that struggling readers should be provided with acquisition based reading curriculum that allows
students to reflect on their reading process. This approach is found in programs that are literature
based and include all types of genres. Proponents of this curriculum feel that these types of
works naturally provide opportunities for students to communicate and construct meaning.
A few researchers have offered general suggestions for measuring or assessing metacognition.
For example, Schraw and Moshman (1995) favor verbal report methods because they allow
researchers to access aspects of thinking that are not directly observable. On the other hand,
Whitebread et al. (2009) argue that observational methods have advantages over self-report and
think-aloud methods. Observational approaches record actual learner behaviors, which enables
nonverbal behaviors to be taken into account. Further, observational techniques can record social
processes that may be important in acquisition of metacognitive skills. Kramarski and Mevarech
(2003) recommend using instructional tasks that are complex, allow multiple representations of
concepts, and afford students opportunities to identify and resolve conceptual conflicts. Finally,
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
6
Perry (1988) notes that writing activities, especially those involving students in all stages of the
writing process (planning, drafting, editing, and revising) offer ample opportunities for selfregulated learning. Sperling et al. (2002) developed and administered a self-report instrument for
measuring general metacognitive knowledge and regulation in children in grades
3-8.
Researchers have noted challenges in assessing metacognition. First, Whitebread et al. (2009)
argue that self-report methods, such as the use of rating scales or questionnaires that ask
respondents to describe their use of particular strategies, rely too heavily on verbal ability. Thus,
self-report and think-aloud techniques may be especially likely to underestimate the abilities of
young children. Another common method for capturing metacognition is the use of self-report
questionnaires or rating scales. Kramarski and Mevarech (2003) used a metacognitive
questionnaire, assessing both general metacognition and what they called domain-specific
metacognition (math strategies). Students were presented with a range of strategies and asked to
indicate whether and how often they used the strategies. The Burke Reading Inventory is another
instrument that assesses the use of student’s metacognitive strategies. It will be used in this
research study, along with a metacognitive picture protocol. (Cobb and Ellerbe 2011). Using
tools such as these will allow teachers and students to know strengths and weaknesses. (Moore
et al, 1997.) Teachers can then chose appropriate strategies to meet the needs.
In curriculum application best practice research suggests a gradual and total inclusion method
of instruction of metacognitive skills. The reasoning behind the authors’ suggestion correlates
with the fact that early readers are focused on decoding and not comprehension. This will include
making the child aware that metacognitive knowledge exists; it will then go on to consolidate
comprehension as a reading objective and eventually aim at the acquisition of new strategies and
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
7
their association with specific cognitive tasks. Other researchers recommend a number of
specific instructional strategies, including providing explicit instruction in both cognitive
knowledge and cognitive regulation, using collaborative or cooperative learning methods, using
tasks and activities that make student conceptions and beliefs visible, promoting awareness of
metacognition through teacher modeling, and attending to the affective and motivational aspects
of metacognition.
The most effective instructional strategies included the textual-dissonance approach, selfquestioning, and backward-forward search strategies. Researchers have recommended a number
of specific instructional approaches to teaching metacognition. For example, Cross and Paris
(1988) recommend providing explicit instruction in declarative, procedural, and conditional
knowledge. While Schraw et al. (2006) urge educators to provide explicit instruction in cognitive
and metacognitive strategies.
In addition to providing instruction on cognitive knowledge, educators should also assist
students in developing their abilities to monitor and regulate their cognition. Kuhn (2000) points
out that instruction for metacognition should be delivered at the meta-level rather than the
performance level. Schraw (1998) recommends providing explicit prompts to help students
improve their regulating abilities. Kramarski and Mevarech (2003) provided students with sets of
metacognitive questions, including comprehension questions, strategic questions, and connection
questions, to be completed during the task.
Teachers also need to promote general awareness of metacognition by modeling
metacognitive skills during instruction, perhaps by thinking aloud¨ (Kramarski & Mevarech,
2003; Martinez, 2006; Schraw, 1998.
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
8
To be successful higher level thinkers students must understand why and how to think about
thinking. Researchers differ in their opinions as to when and to what level these abilities develop.
Although individual developmental models vary, in general, an area of agreement is that
metacognitive ability is present during the first 6 years of life, with the most dramatic changes
occurring between the ages of 3 and 4. Metacognition improves with both age and appropriate
instruction, with substantial empirical evidence supporting the notion that students can be taught
to reflect on their own thinking. Researchers recommend a number of specific instructional
strategies, including providing explicit instruction in both cognitive knowledge and cognitive
regulation, using collaborative or cooperative learning methods, using tasks and activities that
make student conceptions and beliefs visible, promoting awareness of metacognition through
teacher modeling.
The summary of literature suggests that the assessment of metacognition is not clearly
defined. A variety of methods for measuring metacognition include self-report methods such as
questionnaires or rating scales, think-aloud approaches that attempt to make student thinking
visible, and methods based on teacher observation of student learning.
So, what can educators do to improve their student’s metacomprehension abilities?
Researchers recommend a number of specific instructional strategies, including providing
explicit instruction in both cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation, using collaborative or
cooperative learning methods, using tasks and activities that make student conceptions and
beliefs visible, promoting awareness of metacognition through teacher modeling. A good start
might be using a reliable metacognitive scale as a means to assess metacomprehension skills in
learners. Then after analyzing the results teachers need to instruct students in the research based
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
9
strategies designed to increase reading comprehension. As a learner, knowing your own strengths
and weaknesses as well as the strategies that best fit your needs is critical to metacomprehension.
Procedures
Research Design
This research is a correlational study with data gathered by a student survey. The analysis will
be qualitative in nature, however there will be other quantitative gathered in the study that will
not be correlated to this data. The sample is a purposive one as teachers in each second grade
classroom selected students they felt need additional reading support and were are not receiving
other services.
Sample
Twenty six pre-service teachers at Coastal Carolina University administered a battery of reading
assessments to 26 second grade students at Socastee Elementary in Horry County, South
Carolina. The students were enrolled in six different second grade classes. The Literacy Pals
Project creates a one to one relationship of selected second graders with their University Partner.
Instruments
Standard measures of early reading skills along with a Metacomprehension Picture Protocol
survey designed by Cobb and Ellerbe at Coastal Carolina University ( 2011 ) were given. The
MPP was designed by Dr. Jeanne Cobb as part of a grant. Dr. Cobb consulted with Mary Beth
Schmidt who developed a similar inventory for older students. She made some recommendations
to revise the rather lengthy instrument to a shorter one that included pictures. Dr. Cobb designed
an easier picture based protocol for younger elementary students. Then Dr. Marcie Ellerbe
revised this instrument and added some additional pictures to represent a more diverse
background of students. The Burke Reading Inventory was also administered. It is an inventory
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
10
that is student survey driven . The data that will be measured is how the second graders perceive
themselves and others as good readers and if they are aware of strategies they use in the reading
process. This study will also include a discussion of the reading levels of each student as
compared to their ability to use metacognitive strategies.
Procedures
The study began with the preservice teacher meeting with their “ Literacy Pal” during one
session to establish rapport and then during the second visit the Metacognitive Picture Protocol
was administered. Students were shown a picture of a “good reader “. Pictures of children of
different gender and ethnicity were selected by the examiners to closely represent the student.
While viewing the picture students were asked a several questions regarding their perception of
themselves as “good readers “ and what strategies good readers use before, during and after
reading. The data from both instruments measured was if second graders perceive themselves as
good readers and the strategies they use in the reading process. Burke Inventory Question #10Do you think you are a good reader ? The question on the Metacognitive Picture Protocol was
Question #4- What strategies do you use ? The responses will be discussed in the findings
section of this paper. The student’s descriptions were analyzed, categorized, and compared.
Validity
With regard to internal validity there are areas that may not be able to be controlled
for but will be discussed. First, these are second grade students who had only met their preservice teacher for 2 days prior to testing. There may be an attempt to “please the teacher” and
supply the answers to the survey questions that they feel is wanted. On the other hand students
may also have anxiety with someone they are not familiar with. Because the responses are based
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
11
on the student’s reflection, honesty may also be a concern. The strategy the student may also not
be their own but one they have heard others use. The student may know the name of the strategy
but is not able to demonstrate it. Language may also be a limitation for some students due to the
fact that prior teachers may have used a different name of a strategy than used in the test setting.
The test administrators have been given guidance on how to attempt to overcome these
challenges to the best of their ability. As far as external validity and the ability to generalize this
study the setting is a title one school with over 90% free and reduced lunch population. There are
many schools in Horry County and across the country that closely resemble the makeup of the
population of this school. We can generalize this study to other second grade elementary student
who are struggling readers. There also needs to be some internal validity testing with the
instrument itself due to its unique nature and the fact there are no other picture protocols for
lower elementary students.
Findings
Data for 24 students collected yielded a positive correlation between students’ self-awareness
of metacognitive strategies and their perception of themselves as good readers. An independentsamples t-test was conducted to compare student strategy awareness and perception of
themselves as good readers. Results were 0.003121 which is a significant correlation that
suggest students who feel they are good readers use and are aware of strategies they use. This is
in support of the original hypothesis of this study. The data gathered from the student survey as
to if the students perceived themselves as a good reader revealed eighteen students thought they
were good readers, four were unsure and two reported they were not good readers. This data is
summarized in Table 1. It was interesting that of the two students who did not perceive
themselves as a good reader, one of them scored significantly above grade level on the San
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
12
Diego reading assessment. The other was significantly below grade level. This is a test of word
recognition only. Data also revealed that students use a variety of strategies before, during and
after reading. The most common strategies students described were phonics based. They were
“sound out the word “, “blend,” and “try to break the word down.” The next most popular
strategy was to use the pictures or “take a picture walk “.
Discussion
Reading levels of each student as compared to their ability to use metacognitive strategies
suggest high correlation. Students may not know what strategies are called but can describe
them. Students who perform at or above grade level perceive themselves as good readers along
with those who are not a grade level. The most common strategy described was to sound it out
which may suggest that at the second grade level these students are still focused on word
decoding and have not moved to comprehension yet. Another strategy students used was looking
at the pictures. Evidence good readers move from text to pictures and back to text to make sense
of what they are reading (Rusted & Colt heart). Pictures then become invaluable tool for teaching
comprehension. Successful metacognitive literacy instruction should address the following
components: student background knowledge and schema development, knowledge and practice
of a set of developmentally appropriate metacognitive strategies, knowledge of the conditions for
the deployment of compensatory strategies, teacher modeling and scaffolding. There were also
several off target comments as to the strategies used such as “ask the teacher, or parent,
shrugging of shoulders, “nothing special “, and no response. These students seemed to have a
lack of language skills as well as being below reading level on the word recognition tests.
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
13
Further Research
More research is needed to determine to what extent educators should promote metacognitive
instruction. Researchers differ on the types of instructional recommendations they feel would be
effective. Trying to isolate the best strategies and analyzing how does a reader decides what
processes to use and under what circumstances would be valuable to elementary teachers. One
interesting piece of information that came to light in this study was that some teachers had more
students who were very aware of the strategies they used and were better readers. It would be
interesting to research if teachers who teach cognitive strategies explicitly produce better readers
in the classroom. Additional research is also needed to determine if the age of the learner
influences what strategy they use. Additional data in terms of larger samples are needed to see
if there a correlation between strategies and reading level as shown on tests of comprehension,
and word recognition. More information is needed on this topic with upper elementary students,
special needs and ELL learners. Finally tests of comprehension rather than simply word
recognition would be valuable to include in this study.
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
14
References
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.
Carlson, S. M. & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children¡¦s
theory of mind. Child Development, 72(4), 1032-1053.
Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2): 45-49.
Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children¡¦s
metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2),
131-142.
Eisenberg, N. (2010). Self-Regulation and School Readiness. Early Education and Development,
21(5), 681-698.
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational
Leadership, 43(2), 44-48.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525- 538.
Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A
quantitative synthesis of metacognitive studies. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.
Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual
change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Kramarski, B. & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom:
The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational
Research Journal, 40(1), 281-310.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9(5), 178-181.
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice.
Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking. What can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38-43.
Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 696-699.
McLeod, L. (1997). Young children and metacognition: Do we know what they know they
know? And if so, what do we do about it? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(2),
6-11.
Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional
children. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 7-15.
Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children¡¦s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715-729.
Ray, K, & Smith, M. C. (2010). The kindergarten child: What teachers and administrators need
to know to promote academic success in all children. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 38(1), 5-18.
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
15
Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and
adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education,
2(3), 114-121.
Schneider, W. & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children
and adolescents. In Perfect, T. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Applied metacognition. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2),
113-125.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education:
Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36,
111-139.
Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review,
7(4), 351-371.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children¡¦s
knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51-79.
Tindal, G. & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools:
Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7), 1-22.
Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad,
Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing
metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1),
63-85.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 819.
ARE THEY THINKING WHAT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ?
16
Table 1
Burke Inventory Question #10 revealed out of the 24 students tested there were 8 students Four
students said they were unsure and 2 stated they were not good read
Burke Inventory Question #10 revealed out of the 24 students tested there were 8 students who
thought they were good readers. Four students said they were unsure and 2 stated they were not
good readers.