u06d1 The Difference Between Metacognition and Self-Regulation

Self-regulated learning and metacognition are intertwined constructs; you cannot have one without the other. Self-regulated learning is made up of processes that learners use to focus their thoughts, feelings, and actions to attain their goals. To be a self-regulated learner, metacognition must play a role. Review the article you read in Unit 5 and elaborate on how you believe metacognition and self-regulated learning are related. What inferences can you make on their impact on learning and achievement? What do you think is the relationship between metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning? Response Guidelines Respond to the posts of two of your peers by discussing the differences or similarities in your analyses. Provide examples of how you have used self-regulation and metacognitive skills in your own life or education to support your learning. What processes or approaches have worked for you? 1.Review the article you read in Unit 5 and elaborate on how you believe metacognition and selfregulated learning are related. What do you think is the relationship between metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning? Self regulation is the cognitive process of learners employing metacognitive analysis of their learning process and reflects a triadic contextual interaction of personal, behavioral and environmental factors that influences the instructional process and learning outcomes (Hodges, 2005). Bandura (2007) argued that self regulation is essentially an ability that must be persistently developed, despite the presence of stressors and competing distractions. It emerges from several subfunctions to enact proximal goals for exercising control over learning outcomes. Schraw et al. (2006) contend that self regulated learning is a distinct form of self regulation and consists of three main components: cognition, metacognition and motivation. Given the interconnectedness of these concepts, it is readily apparent that self regulated learning; metacognition and self regulation are intertwining and correlating concepts yet may be considered functionally and mutually distinct conceptualizations. Self regulated learning involves not only regulating behaviors, but also the cognitive and affective variables applicable to either generalized goal setting or specific learning tasks (Schunk, 2012). Malpass et al. (1999) suggest that self regulated learning conjoins two major constructs: metacognition and the administration and control of mental effort. Metacognition involves enabling learners to comprehending cognitive knowledge while engaging in self monitoring and regulation of cognitive processes. It is essentially thinking about thinking, and is critical to the use of task relevant cognitive strategies, problem solving and learning. Therefore, although the above explanations of various constructs appear permeable, one might infer that the interdependent relationship of the conceptualizations of self regulation,

metacognition and self regulated learning are subtypes of a broader abstract concept of self regulated action. Kaplan, (2008) concurs that self regulation, metacognition and self regulated learning are indeed orthogonal in nature, yet interrelated to form a multi-dimensional conceptual space of self regulated action. This multidimensional space legitimizes and permits the conceptual diversity of self regulated actions without compromising the distinct meanings of these inherent constructs. For example, a learner engaging in a learning task may implement a variable sequence of diverse aspects of these three subtypes of self regulation, metacognition and regulated learning under the general abstract phenomena of self regulated action dependent on the purpose of engagement (i.e. learning vs. achievement). 2. What inferences can you make on their impact on learning and achievement? There is little doubt that metacognition and self regulated learning are key elements that impact high order thinking to enhance learning and achievement. However, in regards to a learners purpose of engaging self regulated action, learning and achievement should be considered distinctly different goals. Kaplan, (2008) elaborates on learning and achievement as objects of self regulation by stating that unfortunately many students do not adopt learning as their main purpose of engagement in school. Under certain situational and sociocultural contexts, learners may opt or perhaps even feel coerced to pursue self regulated achievement as a primary educational goal. Its important to note at this juncture that the purpose of engagement in cognitive tasks may determine the extent to which high order metacognition and self regulated learning are positively or negatively correlated, and consequently enhance or diminish overall learning outcomes. For example, social constructivists contend that sociocultural contexts exhibit significant influences on metacognition and self regulated learning. They argue that contextual educational settings play a significant role in the development or inhibition of metacognition and self regulated learning skills (Thomas, 2006). Zimmerman (1995) concurs and argues for an expansion of self regulated learning beyond metacognitive trait formations to include the acknowledgment of the complex interactive process of social, motivational and behavioral components to assist educators in understanding why learners sometimes fail to engage in self regulated learning. This is no more distinctly apparent than in a comparison of the different learning approaches within Western and Asian educational contexts. In traditional Asian educational classrooms, academic success is equated with effort, competition, achievement and rote learning as common themes (Thomas, 2006). By comparison, innovative and contemporary Western educational counterparts seek to enhance metacognition and self regulated learning by providing various instructional tools and methodologies that scaffold individuality, creative thinking and problem solving. A key impetus of this stress on academic achievement vs. learning in Asian educational contexts is the concept of filial piety which instructs students to be obedient to their teachers as

passive participants, irrespective of whether demands are reasonable or not (Thomas, 2006). Teachers stress high expectations for academic performance measured by an overemphasis on examinations for gaining entry to university to achieve a well paying job position after graduation which is culturally representative of achieved success, acceptance and honor in virtually all Asian cultures. In summary, the roles of metacognition and self regulated learning are critical components that enable individuals to engage in monitoring, planning and allocation of learning resources with optimum efficiency to influence both learning and achievement goals. However, high motivation and cognitive strategies are insufficient in producing positive learning outcomes. Sociocultural contexts, innovative curriculum design and multiple instructional strategies are also imperative to improve metacognition and self regulated learning skills, thus collaborating to promote higher order learning and achievement. Anthony Rhodes General Psychology PhD. References Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal Of Social & Clinical Psychology, 26(6), 641-658. Hodges, C. (2005). Self-Regulation in web-based courses: A review and the need for research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 6(4), 375-383. Malpass, J. R., O'Neil, J. F., & Hocevar, D. (1999). Self-Regulation, goal orientation, selfefficacy, worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 21(4), 281. Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying Metacognition, Self-Regulation, and Self-Regulated Learning: Whats the Purpose?. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 477-484. doi:10.1007/s10648-0089087-2 Zimmerman, B. (1995). Regulation involves more than metacognition: a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist. 30(4), 217-221 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(1/2), 111-139. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education). ISBN: 9780137071951.

Thomas, G. P. (2006). An Investigation of the Metacognitive Orientation of Confucian-Heritage Culture and Non-Confucian-Heritage Culture Science Classroom Learning Environments in Hong Kong. Research In Science Education, 36(1/2), 85-109. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3915-x