ARTIFACTS OF THOUGHT: EVIDENCE OF METACOGNITION IN TWELFTH

GRADE STUDENTS' REFLECTIVE JOURNAL

WRITING

by
KENDRA L. HEARN
DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Graduate School
of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
2005

MAJOR: CURRICULUM AND

INSTRUCTION

UMI Number: 3198667

Copyright 2005 by
Hearn, Kendra L.
All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3198667

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

 COPYRIGHT BY
KENDRA L. HEARN
2005
All rights reserved.

DEDICATION
This and everything for D3.
Also. in loving memory of my parents, George and Yvonne Carter.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One can never pay in gratitude; one can only pay in kind somewhere else in life.
Anne Morrow Lindbergh

There are many who have believed in me and who have supported me in
all of my endeavors, including the completion of this work. To them all I owe my
purest thankfulness and a payment in kind somewhere else in life.
First, I thank the Divine for His mercy and grace in every passing moment
of my life.
The faith and belief that my husband, Donald, has in me have been my
daily source of strength as we toiled together on this project.

To him I am

grateful for the great and small things that he has done to help me reach this
goal: driving me to class and picking me up so that I would not have to walk
across campus alone at night, being the resident chef, reading my drafts,
sacrificing his to-do list to be the parent on-duty while I was studying or writing,
and always lending me his empathetic ear and shoulder for crying. My
accomplishments are equally his.
I thank my sons, Donny and Dylan, for sharing my lap with my notebook
computer on many occasions. I appreciate their innocence in taking their father
and me at our word that, Mommy is working on something very important, when
I was forced to divide my attention. This is as much for them as it is for me.
Because of this, I know they will go further, do more, and be more.

iii

Andrea Lewiston, my consummate friend, cheerleader, and expert rater - I

am convinced we must have been sisters in another life and time, for I have
come to rely on her encouragement, advice, and love in this life and time.
I am also thankful to each of my other family, friends, and colleagues who
gave encouragement to me in words or by example.
Special thanks is certainly due to the teacher and students who
participated in this study, as well as to the schools principal for her permission.
The opportunity to peer into their classroom life and their minds was essential to
the completion of this work.
Finally, when I asked Dr. Feathers to serve as my adviser and dissertation
committee chair, I knew that I would benefit from her background and experience
in similar academic and research interests. I also was certain that she would
hold me to an impeccable standard. She unwaveringly met these expectations.
To her I am eternally grateful for her perspective and advocacy. Likewise, I owe
thanks to my other committee members, Drs. Tilles, DeBlase, and Marback, for
the expertise they leant to me as caring members of the academic community.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication..ii
Acknowledgements..iii
Table of Contents..v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.....1
Problem..........5
Background...11
Purpose.19
Questions..20
Suppositions.....20
Definition of terms....20
Metacognition.21
Writing.....21
Oral Discourse...22
Observable Classroom Behaviors..22
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory..22

Rationale..23
Assumptions....23
Limitations.......24
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE....25
Defining the indefinable......25
Metacognition, cognition, and age....33
Teaching for metacognition.35
The development of metacognition in the learner.......35
Metacognition and the affect...40
Difficulty in teaching for metacognition.....45
Assessing metacognition..48
How has metacognition been investigated and assessed?..49
Difficulties with assessment...54
Journal writing as a tool for assessing metacognition60
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.....67
Rationale.....67
Population and Sample.75
Materials..79
Data Collection Procedures............82
Making focused observations..83
Making selected observations.84
Data Analysis............87

vi

Text Analysis..87
Domain Analysis90
Taxonomic Analysis..91
Componential Analysis.92
Discovering Cultural Themes..92
Conducting a Cultural Inventory and Writing the Description....92
CHAPTER 4: THE METACOGNITIVE CULTURE OF THE CLASSROOM94
Overview and General Description of the Selected Site.94
Academic Foci...95
Opportunity of Locale and the Written and Enacted Curriculum...96
The Participants....99
Rituals and Patterns...101
Time on Task101
Independent Research...102
Small Group Discussion.....104
Large Group Discussion.....111
Writing113
Teaching Style and Instructional Techniques..119
Motivation..121
The Participants Perceptions of Metacognition and Journaling.122
Students Perceptions from the MAI.....122
Students Perception from Interviews...127

vii

Teachers Perceptions128
CHAPTER 5: METACOGNITIVE ARTIFACTS..132
Description and Examples of the Observed Types of Metacognition.137
No metacognition...137
Low metacognition.138
Medium metacognition..139
High metacognition....141
MAI Scores and Artifacts of Metacognition Found in
Students Writing.145
Relationship of journal units to prompts.145
Students Perceptions of Metacognition and their Journals.149
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS.154
Discussion156
Identifying and describing metacognition
in students journal writing...156
Delineating awareness as a component of metacognition.159
Executive control...164
Implications..166
Creating a metacognitively supportive climate.....164
Exploiting extrinsic motivation.168
For Further Study....172
APPENDIXES......176

viii

Appendix A: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory.176

Appendix B: Informed Consent/Assent Forms......179
Appendix C: Journal Prompts184
REFERENCES........186
ABSTRACT...197
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT..199

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1

Chart of Concepts from Theorists and Researchers....26

Comparison of Key Characteristics of Ethnographies

and Artifacts of Thought.....74

Percentage of Time Devoted to Learning Tasks....101

Number of Journals Submitted by the Sample ......115

Journal Prompt Analysis ....116

Group Sub-Categorical Means of MAI Scores....125

Frequency of High and Low MAI Scores..126

Types of Metacognition Observed in Journal Entries.133

Levels of Metacognition..........136

10

Number of Types of Journal Responses......146

11

Levels of Metacognition and Types of Journal Responses...148

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1

Theoretical model of Artifacts of Thought......19

Percent of Metacognitive Units per Week..136

Weekly Means of Types of Journal Responses..........147

Rubric for Assessing Metacognition in Students Journals...170

xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
She entered orderly and effortlessly into her 12th grade classroom, an
homage to everything literary. Her segue into the room was such a part of her
normal routine that she did not even think about it consciously; she was on
melancholy auto-pilot, with nothing to particularly look forward to with either
eager anticipation or restless anxiety. She took her seat among her table-mates
in her oddly shaped classroom in its relatively odd location on locale at a
museum with open grounds devoted to everything American. She was in no way
amazed at how unusual her class and school surroundings are.
become customary.

It had all

With hands tucked inside her blue sweatshirt bearing the

schools logo, she tried to insulate herself from the sinking outdoor temperatures
that seemed to seep indoors, and what lie ahead another hour and 30 minutes
of discussion in small groups, in large groups, with the teacher, with her
groupmates, and in her mind with herself.
Her parents were elated at her opportunity to attend this school as her
inner-city neighborhood high school was a seemingly bleak option.

At least

school shootings, high rates of teen pregnancy, and low rates of student success
were not an option that delighted or encouraged either of them. She does have
high hopes for her future. She wants to go to college. She wants to become an
engineer. When the flyer announcing the lottery admissions to the school arrived
in her mailbox during her 8th grade year, she was thrilled about the opportunity

for escape. Not to mention, the school touted a focus on math and science that
was sure to help her in her quest to become an engineer.
Today, though, she waited patiently to be ushered from literature circle
groups to talk about a book in which she was not too terribly interested, but read
out of a sheer sense of responsibility. She waited again to be ushered to another
group to write a prcis (a fancy word for summary) of the same book in which
she was not too terribly interested. But, she dutifully submitted. She did not
engage. She did not resist. She just plain submitted. Her polite nature would
not permit her to do anything but follow the teachers numerous commands, most
of which did not apply to her (Sit down, Be quiet and listen, etc.), and listen
politely to the teacher and her groupmates as they talked. She is no academic
slouch, however. Many had simply mistaken her quiet and polite nature, her
good grades, and her stellar test scores for brilliance. She never felt as though
she had the chance to show her true genius the genius that emerged, for
instance, from the journal she kept daily since the sixth grade.
Hers was no ordinary journal of an adolescent girl. She stayed away from
rote accounts of the days events, or ponderings about boys.

Instead, she

probed the dimensions of her own mind and the world around her (including
school and its curricular content in which she so dutifully engaged) by
contemplating political rhetoric, posing societal solutions, questioning the
prevailing rationale, establishing her stance, and meticulously documenting her

own process of thought about it all. If only she could do this in her unique,
though rather ordinary classroom.
Her chance did emerge occasionally via the journal question her teacher
would write on the board to which she and her classmates were expected to write
an impromptu but thoughtful response. Every now and then it happened to be a
question that really caused her to think and even question her own thinking.
Most often, though, the topics were standard, boring and school-like. Again,
though, she wrote out of duty. In either case, she seemed to get the same
response from her teacher - a check-plus.
But then, it emergeda heated discussion at her table about the book she
and her groupmates had been reading. Someone at her table questioned a
characters motive by posing, Why would someone like her, so depressed,
become a teacher? She responded, with a flash of brilliance, a laundry list of
reasons backed with quotes from the book that she had recorded in her
annotated notes and in her personal journal. The volley bounced and dangled
and sparked for all of two minutes where everyone, including her, had leaned in
and moved to the edges of their seats to get their words in edgewise. With true
television-law-drama finesse, she interjected her position, supported it with
evidence, and made her stance, revealing to her groupmates the thinking
process she engaged in while reading that led her to her conclusions. It lasted
all of two minutes before the tenor turned back to the norm of her classroom life.
Her two minutes of intellectual stimulation had ended, virtually undetected.

This student has learned the system of education.

She exercises

acumen in knowing and delivering what her teachers ask of her, which often is
surface knowledge, rote skill, and inconsequential detail.

But, she is also

exceptional in that of her own volition she seeks deeper knowledge and
understanding by challenging herself to look and think critically at her world, as
well as the content that she is exposed to throughout the school day. She is
auto-didactic with regard to posing questions to herself and by tracing her
thinking through her annotations and reflective journal writings. In many ways
she is metacognitive; she thinks about her own thinking and actively seeks to
monitor and control it. However, she is rather frustrated that her education does
not regularly or routinely seek to honor, promote, or support these habits of mind
and thinking. Again, while she knows exactly what is being asked of her as a
learner, she does not really know why it is being asked of her, except that it is the
custom of school. She is quite aware that mastering these customs will result in
the traditional definition of academic success and will likely deliver her long-term
professional dreams.
Importantly, though, her schooling is full of seeming best practice
pedagogy.

She and her classmates are regularly engaged, for instance, in

cooperative learning situations, such as literature circle groups.

Her teacher

does invite them to explore and learn content through writing. She receives
individualized instruction and differentiated learning exercises appropriate to her
skill level.

Often, questions that evoke critical thinking are posed to her.

However, her educational experience does not routinely invite or demand her to
acknowledge, control, or monitor her own paths of thought to be metacognitive.
Consequently, the knowledge that seems to be valued via classroom grades and
test scores does not match the interests and ways of thinking that occupy her
own mind. Ironically, it could be her metacognitive nature that accounts for her
ability to succeed in the customs and norms of school.

But, because

metacognition is not among the attributes of an expert learner that is assessed,

monitored, or systemically supported, hers goes virtually undetected and her
classmates who are less metacognitive are not systemically encouraged or
taught how to think metacognitively.
Problem
While the student featured in the anecdote is highly reflective and accepts
with regret that her exhibition of metacognition goes undetected, most of her
peers often follow instructions or tasks without wondering why they are doing
what they are doing. They seldom question themselves about their own learning
strategies or evaluate the efficiency of their own performance (Costa, 1984, p.
57-58).

Berardi-Coletta, Buyer, Dominowski, & Rellinger, (1995); Bransford,

Brown & Cocking, (1999); Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann and Glaser (1989); and
Lin and Lehman (1999) also state that metacognition is not automatic or a
spontaneous way of thinking for most students. According to them, in many
learning situations, students often seek to please their teachers by relaying

content or demonstrating skill without really understanding themselves as

learners.
Moreover, according to Flavell (1979), metacognition not only is not an
automatic process, but a result of extensive development of the cognitive system.
This further suggests that students like the one featured in the vignette do not
become highly metacognitive accidentally.

In other words, students who

routinely think about their own thinking and do so expertly have likely been
shown, encouraged, or taught how through both formal and informal
developmental experiences. Additionally, because metacognition is associated
with cognitive development, it is linked with the age of the child, as explained in
the subsequent review of literature. Younger children have a smaller repertoire
of metacognitive ability than older children, much like other aspects of their
development that are associated with cognitive growth, such as language
acquisition and motor skills. Importantly, though, all children have metacognitive
capacity and potential. (Though this study does not deal specifically with children
with disabilities, some studies, including those authored by Butler (1994), De La
Paz (1997), and Erez & Peled (2001) have even shown the benefit of
metacognitive instruction in children with cognitive disabilities.)
One of the first hurdles in developing the metacognitive ability of children
is to be able to clearly identify metacognitive behavior when it occurs. While
thinking skills are often difficult to evaluate, thinking about thinking is even more
esoteric and abstract.

Though some researchers have managed to observe

discrete, isolated metacognitive behaviors, metacognition as a part of a complex

cognitive system is complicated to ascertain and, therefore, support.
Yet another major hurdle in supporting the cognitive development that
begets metacognition is integrating metacognitive instruction and strategies into
content-area teaching and learning. Providing opportunities for metacognitive
thinking requires probably the most elevated attention to the needs of the
individual learner, as no two paths of thought or ways of controlling thinking will
ever be the same. Such a change toward the best interest of each individual
learner requires an abandonment of many traditional teaching methods which
emit from common sense pedagogies that do not promote the transfer of
learning control to the learner.

Mayher (1990) posits common sense schooling

as a myth couched in the belief that students learn what teachers teach (p. 57).
He further advocates a shift toward uncommon sense teaching which places the
child central to the learning, by acknowledging that there is no knowledge
without a knower (Mayher, 1990, p. 79). Mayher adds that the challenge of
shifting from common sense to uncommon sense constructs of language
education is to help students develop ways to understand the whys of school
activities in ways which make sense to them (Mayher, 1990, p. 176).
In my experience as an educator who has valued metacognitive ability in
my students, I have experienced first-hand these hurdles.

I came to value

metacognition early in my career while engaging my high school English

Language Arts students in reflective writing, a skill included in our states

curriculum framework and assessed on our state-wide examination. Many of my

students struggled to compile appropriate and well-written selections to bring to
the examination; and, virtually all of them had never been asked to think (in
writing) about their thinking (they had done in their other writings), a task required
by the self-assessment on the examination.
In my quest to teach them how to write and think in these ways, I
borrowed from and incorporated into our classroom routines some of my own
learning habits, including journaling and keeping learning logs. I also bridged
some of our regular classroom learning structures, including scaffolded
instruction and reciprocal teaching, by explicitly stating and modeling for them
how to pose questions and trace the thinking of their classmates and of
themselves. I also built into my assessment system recognition of, praise for,
and support of metacognitive thinking. For example, in the margins of the journal
entries they wrote daily, I turned from making my own directive statements to
posing

more

questions,

and

highlighting

exemplary

instances

of

reflective/metacognitive thought. Even the rubrics I used to evaluate their work

and anecdotal notes that I used while observing them in small and large group
discussion (and which were later converted into participation grades)
demonstrated a focus on their ability to think about their own performance, their
own writings, and their own thinking.
In virtually every instance, whether teaching in an inner-city high school or
a highly affluent suburban high school, my students struggled when first

presented with these self-evaluative tasks. They could not understand why I was
not completely content with their ability to spew out the details of an authors life
or plot events in a chapter of a novel. These were among the customs of school
that they had mastered in their attempts to satisfy their teachers. That is, until
over the course of time their confidence and ability to think about their own
thinking - to be metacognitive - improved and they experienced the benefits that
extended outside the demands of our classroom work and into other learning
situations.
Together, my students and I witnessed first-hand the benefits of increased
metacognition. With the interjection of metacognitive strategies into our
classroom, their ability improved to better understand their strengths and
challenges in learning situations. They also were clearer about their motivations
for learning. They became more able to apply the strategies that worked best for
them in various learning situations, and integrate various content and skill into
their schema, which in turn resulted in broadened schema. If such benefits of
metacognition that I have witnessed among my own students are to come to
fruition for more students, more support for metacognition is needed in
classrooms.
While I was able to rely on my own intuition and classroom actionresearch to develop classroom systems to identify and support metacognition,
broad use of metacognitively supportive strategies have been hampered by a
lack of refined measures for assessing metacognition. Researchers, assessors,

10

theorists, and practitioners have struggled to operationalize the common

definition of metacognition as thinking about ones thinking.

Some of the

literature, however, does outline characteristics of student behavior that can be

deemed metacognitive.

For instance, Dirkes (1985) identifies some basic

metacognitive strategies that can be characterized as thinking about thinking.

They are: (1) connecting new information to former knowledge, (2) deliberately
selecting thinking processes, and (3) planning, monitoring, and evaluating
thinking processes.
Beyond mere identification of metacognitive strategies, however, is the
important recognition by much of the literature for more attention to factors that
contribute to self-regulatory thought. Reeve and Brown also acknowledge this
need in their implications for further study (1984). In other words, while the
literature identifies observable metacognitive behaviors, it also acknowledges the
work that remains to clearly identify when and how these behaviors occur.
In summary, this study examined an aspect of this problem by
investigating whether student metacognition could be identified through their
reflective writing. It further sought to describe any identified metacognition within
the context of their normal classroom discussions, interactions, and learning
activities so as to inform the field of any relationship between the observed
pedagogies and the metacognition they might elicit.

11

Background
According to Brown, students can be identified as metacognitive to the
point at which they think reflectively about themselves as learners, the learning
tasks in which they engage, and the social contexts in which they engage in
those tasks (1987). Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (1999) also define those with
metacognitive skills or awareness of their strengths and limitations, and who are
able to self-monitor and correct their thinking processes as more effective at
successfully completing learning tasks.
Metacognition is not a novel concept and is at the core of many
pedagogical best practices. My professional observation is that classroom
practice often neglects or reduces the importance of metacognition by giving it
only secondary or coincidental attention.

I have, however, come to believe that

metacognition is a primary element in the understanding equation the students

own awareness and control of their learning styles, strategies, and abilities. The
literature terms this awareness and control as metacognition. To stimulate such
awareness on the part of the student would transform the teacher-learner
relationship and bridge the cognitive and affective domains. In doing so, the
teacher would relinquish control of the learning situation, task, and context to the
learner,

thereby

exhibiting

the

ultimate

teaching/learning

paradigm

as

summarized by in a quote by Khalil Gibran, the teacher if he is indeed wise does

not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold
of your own mind. If the relinquishment of learning from the teacher to the

12

learner for her/his ultimate learning independence in the classroom and beyond
is indeed the aim of education (as avowed in numerous school mission
statements), we must admit and honor through our classroom constructs that the
student has the majority of control over how much learning can be achieved
(Jacobson, 1998).

Control of this kind is facilitated through metacognition

awareness and control of ones own thinking.

Students and educators could see a potential rise in understanding, and
thus, achievement, through a curricular and instructional focus on improving
metacognitive skills. Kincannon, Gleber, and Kim (1999) in a study of university
students found that those who were given practice in the use of metacognitive
strategies increased their metacognitive awareness and their accomplishment of
learning objectives.

The relationship between an increased focus on

improvement in metacognition and achievement is also claimed boldly in

Jacobsons assertion that metacognition is vital to the renovation of the current
educational system (1999, p. 4). Jacobson acknowledges the broad purpose of
virtually all educational institutions is to help students achieve (affectively and
cognitively),

while

simultaneously

acknowledging

the

importance

of

metacognition for optimal student achievement.

Educators live this broad purpose by continually searching for the best
methodologies and strategies for student instruction.

The quest for best

practices has brought forth curricular and instructional innovations, such as

constructivism, multiple intelligences, brain-based teaching and learning,

13

differentiated instruction, cooperative learning, and the like. The aim of all such
instruction is to promote student understanding of content, concepts, and skills.
The affective domain has likewise been a focus of these teaching and learning
endeavors.
Many educators even employ many metacognitively supportive strategies
and classroom activities, including self-assessments, student-created portfolios,
reciprocal teaching, think-alouds, and self-explanation, to name a few.

As a

practitioner, I have frequently observed classrooms and witnessed first-hand that

the bridge between these activities and their metacognitive value continues to
remain a mystery to most teachers and students, alike. For instance, portfolios in
many classrooms are often little more than storage warehouses.

Students

simply collect their work in a folder, but are not always invited to revisit or
evaluate their work or their progress, much less their thought processes. I have
even known teachers to ask students to self-assess their work or progress by
assigning it a letter grade. However, they frequently fail to ask their students to
give a rationale for the grade, a task that would employ more metacognitive
faculties.

Some even engage their students in think-alouds, but without

scaffolding the process to help them probe more deeply to reveal their logic and
any fallacies therein. It is as if the act of thinking aloud is sufficient, without any
attempt at guiding students in controlling, correcting, or even validating the
thoughts that are articulated so openly.

14

Consequently, through my observational experience, strategies with

metacognitive characteristics and promise are often not employed in a cognitively
systemic fashion, and often fail to fully realize their potential for student learning
within a metacognitive framework. Besides, cognitive strategy instruction alone
will not result necessarily in increased metacognition. As later detailed in the
review of literature, strategy instruction often results in comprehension gains, but
these gains are often only specific to the task or context in which the strategy
was taught. Additionally, these gains are often short-lived.

It is as if even with

regard to metacognition strategies, students fall into the same pattern of

attempting to deliver the surface knowledge they believe the teacher wants,
without fully understanding the usefulness of the strategies in broader contexts.
Again, I have witnessed throughout my career and even in my own
practice attempts to teach students a metacognition strategy that resulted in
temporary or minimal gains. In my estimation, the collapse of the far-reaching
effect of metacognitive strategy instruction occurs at least in part when the
teaching role is not completely transferred to, understood or executed by the
learner. One such example is reciprocal teaching where students and teachers
discuss segments of a text by summarizing it, generating questions regarding it,
clarifying it, and making predictions. Ultimately, the roles in reciprocal teaching
are transferred from the teacher who begins usually by working with one to two
students, and then progresses to small cooperative groups often allowing a
member of the group to assume the teachers traditional responsibilities of

15

facilitating the discussion. Eventually, the teaching and learning responsibility is

turned-over to the independent learner by implementing reciprocal teaching in an
even larger group or whole-class situation, and ultimately allowing the learner to
apply the reciprocal teaching technique on her/his own while reading a text. In a
study of the effects of reciprocal teaching, Palinscar and Brown (1985) found that
middle school students identified as expert text decoders, but deficient in their
comprehension skills (assessed at two years below their appropriate grade level)
who worked with adult tutors first in pairs and then in small groups of
approximately five students were able with the exception of one student to
achieve the pre-established criteria of proficient performance (70% accuracy on
comprehension questions) after twenty consecutive days of instruction. This is
compared to the control group who did not engage in reciprocal teaching and of
whom, none were able to reach the performance criteria.

Notably, when

extended to larger class sizes, denoting a greater shift of role and responsibility
to the student for reciprocal teaching, the percentage of students able to reach
the performance criteria in the experimental group decreased to 71%, albeit
higher than the 19% in the control group who were able to reach the same
benchmark.

Again, this exemplifies the power of metacognitive strategy

instruction, but its temporary or partial efficacy when its truest purpose control
by the learner over her/his learning is not fulfilled.

This is reiterated by

McCrindle and Christensens study of the effect of learning journals on

metacognition and learning, that led them to conclude that instruction in

16

cognitive strategies has led to gains in learning, but has not usually led to
generalizable skills (McCrindle & Christensen, 1995, p. 172).
As it pertains to reading, metacognition has specific implications for
student comprehension and achievement. There is an established correlation
between reading comprehension and metacognition.

This correlation is

established by two confounding results from replicated studies, one of which was
conducted by Baker and Brown (1984), that revealed that younger children and
struggling readers seem to lack an overall awareness that the purpose for
reading is to draw sense and meaning from the text, instead these readers focus
largely on decoding. The second often found result, summated in Garner and
Krauses (1981) study, correlates reading comprehension and metacognition by
establishing that young children and struggling readers also lack awareness of
when they do not understand a text.
Writing, too, has some established links to improved thought processes,
if not metacognition.

For instance, a curricular movement with potential for

improving student metacognition is the writing-across-the-curriculum educational

initiative, a rather recent cross-curricular strategy that has been widely promoted
and employed throughout Americas schools.

Educators have come to realize

that writing in every subject helps students learn the subjects content (Maxwell,
1996, p. 2). Writing is also touted as a prime activity to shape thinking (Langer &
Applebee, 1978).

17

Specifically, reflective journal writing, a metacognitive intervention,

possesses the key characteristics of metacognitive activities with the greatest
potential for student learning. Reflective journal writing requires some strategy
training.

More importantly, though, it draws from students content-specific

knowledge and skills while simultaneously encouraging the writer to think about
self as learner.

Reflective journal writing deserves additional attention as a

potential source for investigating students metacognition.

Particularly, the journal can be a record of a students inner speech or
dialogue.

Anson and Beach refer to this inner dialogue as an exercise in

extension and exploration of thinking (1995). The power of reflective journal

writing is that it requires the writer to articulate thoughts. In doing so the writer
must think and rethink original thoughts acts of metacognition. Anson and
Beach believe that expressing these thoughts in writing is the learning of
thinking, because journaling makes more skilled, astute, and creative thinkers of
our students (1995, p. 23). Parker and Goodkin (1987) found that reflective
writing was a means to promote metacognition in that when students kept a
learning journal to reflect on their thought processes, their metacognitive
awareness and control increased.
Harris (1990) indicates that inner speech, or self-verbailizations, help
students self-regulate their learning. Because the journal has the potential to
document students inner dialogues and is a vehicle for reflective thought, it was
chosen in this study for its potential to capture said dialogues and thought which

18

are at the heart of metacognition. This study theorizes that evidence of students
metacognition should be tangible in their journal writing as a written record of
their inner speech. In other words, literacy involves cognitive processing, and
when metacognitive strategies, such a journal writing, reciprocal teaching, or
think-alouds are interjected into a students cognitive process, evidence of their
metacognitive awareness and control should then be evident in their written, as
well as their oral products. Such evidence then should correlate to their fluency
in expression and/or their reading comprehension (see Figure 1). The literature
reveals such a relationship between metacognition and reading through
investigations that link younger children and struggling readers with a diminished
awareness of the general purpose of reading, as well as an overall obliviousness
as to when they do not understand a text (Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner & Kraus,
1981).
In essence, a lack of metacognition in a young or struggling reader
according to the theory of my study will be apparent in their performance on
comprehension measures (reading tests, outer-speech, etc.) or through their
inner speech.

19

Figure 1
Theoretical model of Artifacts of Thought
Writing/
Inner Speech

0HWDFRJQLWLYH
6WUDWHJ\

Cognitive
Processing

Comprehension/
Skill

Evidence/
Artifacts of
Metacognition

Oral Discourse/
Outer Speech

This study assumed that a relationship exists between metacognition and

writing, but sought to identify and describe it because few, if any, other studies
have apparently investigated the relationship in such a manner.

If such a

relationship was found to exist, this study seeks to describe it in relationship to

students metacognitive awareness (as reported on a self-inventory) and the
classroom behaviors (i.e. outer-speech as observed through classroom
discussions) of students and their teacher.
Purpose
This study, therefore, first searched for evidence of metacognition in
students writing.

Secondly, the study then related and described any found

evidence of metacognition in students writing to self-reports of metacognition as

measured through a metacognitive inventory and through students oral
classroom discussions and interactions. Thirdly, the study attempted to describe

20

and characterize the classroom discussions, interactions, and activities that may
impact the metacognition found in students writing.
Questions
The over-arching questions for this investigation are:
x

Is there evidence of metacognition in students writing?

If there is evidence, how is it characterized in relationship to students

metacognitive behaviors as self-reported on a metacognition inventory
and through oral discourse?

What kinds of observable classroom behaviors impact metacognition

found in student reflective journal writing?
Suppositions
This study began with a hunch that students with more awareness of their

metacognition will exhibit metacognitive statements in their writing.

Given this

supposition, this study questioned whether or not students with greater

metacognitive awareness (as self-reported) will exhibit greater evidence of
metacognition in their journal entries.
Definition of terms
To explore these questions, this study engaged in a descriptive, qualitative
investigation of the metacognition of a sample of twelfth grade students.
Specifically, the study sought to use a variety of data collection methods,
including a text analysis of students reflective journal writing and a metacognitive
inventory. This data are supported with classroom observations aimed at the

21

nature of students oral discourse to help corroborate the metacognition identified

in their writing, or inner discourse.
To operationalize the study, the terms are defined as follows:
Metacognition
The literature and this study define metacognition as students awareness
of their own thoughts, ability to monitor and control those thoughts, as well as the
implications of the learning task on their thought processes (Brown, Bransford,
Ferrari & Campione, 1983; Flavell 1979).

For the purposes of this study,

metacognition included the exhibition in student writing that characterizes

students thinking about their thinking, such as (1) making a connection between
new ideas and former knowledge or schemata, (2) consciously and deliberately
choosing journeys of thought, and (3) preplanning, watching and self-assessing
ones journeys of thought (Dirkes, 1985).
Writing
For the purposes of this study, writing is defined as reflective writing done
by students in their normal classroom environment that:
creates a window into [students] worlds, a glimpse at their belief
systems and the cultural norms that have helped shape their
identitiesis an act of taking care of oneself by encouraging
personal and cognitive growthrelates personal thoughts and
experiences to literature, as if to validate those experience,and
promotes a greater sense of self-knowledge. (Slifkin, 2001, p. 5)
Such writing in classrooms often takes the form of metacognitive or
reflection journals, learning logs, response journals or self-assessment essays.

22

Specifically, for the purposes of this study, writing will be constituted by any
student-writing done before or after encountering text in which students react
recursively and reflectively to the text, noting feelings, emotions, thoughts,
connections to personal or historical events, and memories of similar texts or
similar content in different texts, or their strategies for reading and understanding.
This writing will be investigated when prompted by the instructor with a particular
topic for composition, as well as student-writing composed absent any specific
prompt.
Oral Discourse
Any speech spoken aloud during the classroom observations slated for
this study, such as would be characteristic of large and small group discussions
between students and their teacher will be documented through fieldnotes as oral
discourse. Observing and noting oral discourse will work in this study to
substantiate the inner speech exhibited in students writings.
Observable Classroom Behaviors
These include the verbal and non-verbal actions and interactions among
and between teachers and students as a part of the natural proceedings of the
classroom activity of the selected sample.
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) is a
measure of knowledge of cognition and control of cognition in adolescents and
adults. The questionnaire contains 52 items which are self-reported by subjects.

23

Rationale
The findings of this study and resulting answers to the investigative
questions have the potential to contribute further understanding to a dense
theoretical body of knowledge regarding metacognition by contributing some
ideas and direction for practical application and assessment. Such a contribution
could further convince educators of the merit of reflective or writing-across-the
curriculum strategies as tools for thinking and understanding.
Processes for identifying metacognitive competence in students continues
to evolve and more tools for helping practitioners identify, describe, and support
students metacognitive competencies are needed. This study could contribute to
the formulation of such a process, specifically one that seeks to use students
writings.

This study could also give critical guidance to educators as they

formulate curricula and lessons, and design metacognitive instructional activities.

In doing so, this study could help educators to identify and characterize evidence
of metacognitive thought evidenced in reflective writing produced during the
course of natural classroom instruction. Moreover, this study could help change
(or at least convince educators of the need for change of) current paradigms
about curriculum and instruction to focus more closely on the importance of
students roles in their own learning.
Assumptions
This study recognizes metacognition as a developmental product of formal
thought directly related to students cognitive development and age. It, therefore,

24

assumes that the participants are representative of others their age and
developmental levels. It also assumes that the study participants have not been
uniformly instructed in metacognitive skills or strategies, especially metacognitive
journal writing. By administering the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw
& Dennison, 1994) as a pre-test, however, this study will be able to ascertain
students self-perceptions of their metacognitive abilities and experiences, and
subsequently correlate this to the other collected data (see Appendix A). The
study further assumes that students writings, self-reports of metacognitive skill,
and oral discussions will adequately represent their thoughts and their
metacognitive skills and abilities. Also, while this study focuses on writing and
oral discourse as metacognitive tools, it recognizes the potential for other
metacognitive activities (e.g. mapping, one-on-one interviews, etc.) to also
capture students thoughts and metacognition.
Limitations
Generalizability is

limited, because the study used a sample of

convenience as students were drawn for participation from a grade twelve

classroom of a public school academy near a large, urban, midwestern city.
Also, metacognitive journal writing and oral discussion are just two of many
metacognition-building activities.

Therefore, the data analysis and impending

results of the study will be limited to their relationship to these two strategies.

25

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The ability to chart ones own journey of mind, monitor that journey, and
mediate the path when it drifts away from the intended goal is the ultimate sign of
a proficient learner.

Such a learner has accomplished the ultimate aim of

education to foster independence of the learner who can, then, in any situation
know enough of self in relationship to the task to apply efficient strategies for
completing the task successfully.

This is the promise of proficiency of

metacognition. Most educators would agree to the promotion of such an aim in

education and said qualities in learners. Relatively, however, metacognition and
its development in learners, unlike the passive dissemination of content
knowledge and isolated skill, is a highly abstract concept. While virtually all that
have researched metacognition agree that at its core metacognition is thinking
about ones own thinking, most would also agree that to clearly identify when and
how this thinking about ones own thoughts occurs is a much more complex task.
Defining the indefinable
Metacognition is commonly acknowledged as fuzzy concept (Flavell,
1981) confounded by research inquiries from a variety of disciplines for a variety
of disciplinary purposes to address a range of problems and questions (Brown,
A. L., & Smiley, S.S., 1978; Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Paris, S. G., & Winograd,
P., 1990). Of further note is that these inquiries and subsequent contributions

26

overlap and are relatively recent in comparison to other fields of inquiry (see
Table 1).

Table 1
Chart of concepts from theorists and researchers
Theorist/

Date

Major concepts

Researcher
Plato

B.C.

Believed reflection occurs through dialogue.

Dewey

1910

Introduced reflective thought.

Flavell, et al

1977,

Stated that metacognition is a function of learning.

1978,

Identified metacognitive ability as a composite of the

1979,

learner, the learning task, and the learning strategies.

1981

Established four components of metacognition: (1)

knowledge of metacognition, (2) experience with
metacognition, (3) learning goals, (4) and learning
behaviors.

Brown

1978,

Introduced executive control to concept of

1983,

metacognition.

1987

Categorized metacognition under two domains: (1)

learners reflection on cognitive abilities and (2) selfregulation engaged during a learning task.

27

Table 1
Continued
Theorist/

Date

Major concepts

Researcher
Kluwe

1982

Added that metacognition includes learners

knowledge of own thinking and the thinking of
others. Added that metacognition includes the
ability to control paths of thought.

Stewart & Tei

1983

Distinguished cognition from metacognition

Wittrock

1986

Contributed idea that teaching affects student

thinking and student thinking affects learning and
achievement.

ONeil and

1996

Abedi

Defined metacognition as self-checking progress

towards goals and ability to select and use new
strategies as necessary

Hacker

1998

Distinguished metacognitive skill from

metacognitive experience. Identified metacognition
as a byproduct of a persons internal
representations of reality.

Bransford

1999

Established expert learners as metacognitive.

They question their levels of understanding and
mastery and push to move beyond them.

28

There are, however, some commonalities often yielded by the manner in

which metacognition has been investigated across fields and disciplines that
have direct implications for education in general and this study in particular.
First, metacognition is founded in ideas related to reflective practice and learning.
This foundation is borne from metacognitions roots among philosophy and
philosophers attempting to characterize discourse and thought.

Plato, for

instance, is acknowledged for having underscored how important reflection

through discussion truly is (Annenberg, 2003).

John Dewey introduced the

related concept of reflective thought in 1910 while crediting contemporaries in

philosophy, such as William James and Charles S. Pierce (Dewey, 1933).
Dewey defined reflective thought as active, persistent, and careful consideration
of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that
support it and the further conclusion to which it tends (Dewey, 1933, p. 8).
Reflective thought is not exactly the same as metacognition, because it does not
inherently contain the concept of executive control of ones thought processes.
Reflective thought does, however, represent the part of metacognition that deals
with awareness of ones thought processes.
Definitions of metacognition also resonate from the work of Flavell and his
associates who proposed some of the most seminal frameworks for identifying
and defining metacognition based on empirical investigations of cognitive
development and cognitive strategies that promoted memory and learning

29

(Flavell, 1978; Flavell, 1979; Flavell, 1981; Flavell, Green, Flavell, & Grossman,
1997; Flavell & Wellman, 1977). Flavells model of metacognition maintains four
classes of phenomena: (a) metacognitive knowledge, (b) metacognitive
experiences, (c) goals (or tasks), and (d) actions (or strategies) (1979, p. 906).
Alternatively stated, the most foundational studies of metacognition offered by
Flavell and others view it as a function of learning where the learner exhibits
knowledge about self as a learner, the learning task, and the applicability of
various strategies that will help acquire the learning goal. Additionally, Flavells
studies highlighted the concerted import of the learner, the learning task, and the
learning strategies to paint a more definitive portrait of the learners
metacognitive ability. In essence, it is not enough in an attempt to understand
when and how metacognition occurs in a learner to look in isolation at either of
the three dynamics at play. Instead, all three must be examined in relationship to
each other.
While the centrality of Flavells work on the characteristics of the
metacognitive learner have lead to greater disciplinary understanding, his work
omitted the intricacies of how metacognition is executed as a key component of
the evolving definition. Brown and her associates through their work, interjected
the concept of executive control, which has become foundational in disciplinary
understanding of how metacognition occurs (Brown, A. L., 1987; Brown, A. L., &
Smiley, S.S., 1978; Brown, A. L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione,
J.C., 1983).

30

Executive control includes the ability to command planning, monitoring,

checking, and revising during task execution. Brown summarized this control by
identifying two distinctive categories. The first are the learners ability to reflect
on her/his cognitive abilities in a very conscious and intentional manner, and the
second are the ways in which the learner regulates herself/himself during a
learning activity. Hennessey further delineates the two categories by supporting
that Browns work helps differentiate what people know about their thinking
processes and the application of a set of heuristic[s] as an effective device for
helping people organize their methods of attack on problems in general
(Hennessey, 1999, pg. 5).

Or, as Kuhn, Amsel, and OLoughlin (1988)

summarize, learners are metacognitive when the focus of their cognitive process
is their own thoughts.
Kluwe (1982) extended Flavells and Browns contributions further by
infusing the discipline and research related to metacognition with two common
attributes of metacognitive activities. Namely, the subject has knowledge of his
own thinking and the thinking of others, and can regulate his own journey of
thought. In other words, a person who is metacognitive knows enough about
thinking and cognition to understand how her/his mind is working, but also how
the minds of others may be working as they are engaged in a cognitive task.
Kluwe furthered the former attribute by linking it to declarative knowledge or the
knowledge that we store as retrievable data in our long-term memory, and by
linking the latter to procedural knowledge or the knowledge that we store as

31

systemic processes. These kinds of knowledge, according to Kluwe, are found

at both cognitive and metacognitive levels. For instance, knowledge of thinking
is declarative in that students could learn and simply restate the physiological
processes that occur in the brain as they pertain to cognition. Though complex,
to learn and restate these processes is merely declarative. Whereas, to know
enough of self, the learning task, and the learning context to control your own
processes of thought requires more than an acquisition and retelling of
physiological processes. It requires an understanding of ones own cognition in
relationship to the greater system (i.e., classroom, world, etc.) in which it is
processing thought.
Such an understanding equates to Kluwes definition of the metacognitive
knowledge of systemic processes, also termed procedural knowledge, as that
which monitor[s] the selection and application as well as the effects of solution
processes and regulate[s] the stream of solution activity (Kluwe, 1982, p. 204).
This procedural knowledge, also termed executive monitoring processes is akin
to Flavells (1979) and Browns (1978) metacognitive strategies and skills,
respectively. When we gain executive monitoring processes of this sort, thinking
is not incidental or automatic, but a very intentional act of a thinking person
(Kluwe, 1982). Similarly, in an evaluation of a metacognitive inventory, ONeil
and Abedi defined metacognition as the conscious and periodic self-checking of
whether ones goal is achieved and when necessary, selecting and applying
different strategies (1996, p. 3).

32

As the definition of metacognition and its operation continue to evolve,

most agree that it encompasses the basic concept of thinking about ones own
thoughts.

Thinking about thinking can be explained as self appraisal and self-

management of ones own cognitive processes (Winograd, 1992, p. 225).

According to Hacker, such appraisals and management can be of either what a
person knows about what s/he is currently doing or what her/his current cognitive
or affective learning state is (Hacker, 1998).
Hacker conducted a meta-anlaysis of existing research on metacognition
looking for recurring findings. Among the recurring findings or themes found
through Hackers work is that metacognitive thought does not spring from a
persons immediate external reality. Instead, metacognitive thought emits from
the persons own internal mental representations of that reality, which can
include what one knows about that internal representation, how it works, and how
one feels about it (1998, p. 2).

In other words, metacognition cannot be

generated by external forces or stimuli alone, as is the case with many other
cognitive strategies. Metacognition, however, is a complex process propelled by
intrinsic views of external stimuli. Therefore, it would be expected to observe
metacognition when students are internally driven or compelled by personal
interest to think about their thinking.

In essence, metacognition is how the

introspective learner synthesizes new content, processes, or skills through the

lens of her/his own understanding of self, thinking abilities, motivation, and goals
for successful completion of a task or understanding.

33

It is metacognitions complexity that proves challenging for researchers

and theorists to define and identify. These fundamental challenges translate to
difficulties for practitioners who rely on the best of research-based theory to apply
effective strategies in their classrooms.

In the case of metacognition, as

presented in the problem of this study, a morphing definition and a slowly

mounting body of research may account for the seeming lack of focus in school
curricula for the development of metacognition in students.
Metacognition, Cognition and Age
There is a fine line between knowledge about cognition and cognitive
regulation, both critical aspects of metacognition. Stewart and Tei (1983)
summarize the differences between cognition and metacognition by first
establishing cognition as having skills, and metacognition as having awareness
of and conscious control over those skills. Brown (1987) delineates the two by
offering to the field the idea that knowledge about cognition is relatively stable,
though erroneous, and develops with the age of the individual, but then remains
relatively consistent.

Brown goes further to state that cognitive regulation,

however, is highly dependent upon the age of the individual and is

characteristically unstable.
Essentially, according to Brown, a person may demonstrate ability to
regulate thinking in one particular instance, but not another. For instance, a
young child may be able to regulate thought by responding appropriately to
reflective questions posed by the teacher when engaged in a guided reading

34

activity during a classroom exercise, but fail to regulate thought in a similar

manner when asked to complete a mathematics problem requiring addition and
subtraction. Conversely, a persons knowledge about her/his cognition or her/his
actual cognition, in general, will likely remain constant regardless of the task. In
this case, a child might know that she/he has mastered common monosyllabic
words or simple mathematics facts. This knowledge of her/his skill will likely
remain unchanged regardless of the context.

Further, Piagets work on human

development, places older teens at a cognitive stage he referred to as formal

operational thought. During this stage, which occurs between the ages of 11 and
15, Piaget believed that childrens minds were more like adults and more capable
of conceptual reasoning, abstract thought, and logic (Opper and Ginsburg, 1997).
It may also be tempting, though often unintentional, to automatically
associate high and low levels of cognitive ability (thinking) with high and low
levels of metacognition (thinking about thinking) respectively. Though related,
they are two distinct entities worth teasing apart. Declarative knowledge, a type
of cognition, where learners are able to recall textbook facts or restate rote
details or lists drawn from data in their stored memories, though often a desirable
learning outcome, is not evidence of metacognition.

Hacker (1998) also

separates procedural knowledge, another type of cognition, from metacognition.

He states that procedural knowledge is exemplified, for example, when learners,
in an automatic and unconscious fashion, apply memorized (or given)
mathematical formulas to calculate functions. On the surface, learners in these

35

cases may demonstrate many of the learning outcomes of todays classrooms.

They may not necessarily demonstrate one of the ultimate aims of education
self-reliance as a learner who can in any situation know enough of self in
relationship to the task to apply and control strategies efficiently for completing
the task successfully.
Based on Piagets, Hackers, Browns and Steward and Teis assertions of
the type of metacognition capable at certain ages, this study sought to examine
the writing of adolescents over the course of a brief period of time (8 total
weeks), it can be expected that the subjects are old enough to exhibit knowledge
of their cognition and that this knowledge should be rather consistently displayed
in each of the writing samples collected.
However, the nature of the prompt and/or the context in which they
produce the writing may affect the exhibition of cognitive control in their writing
samples.

This study seeks to describe the metacognition made evident in

students reflective writing. Therefore, the variations in cognitive control that can
be expected will also be described as they relate to the context of the writing (i.e.,
student-generated prompt, teacher required prompt, before or after oral
discussion, etc.).
Teaching for Metacognition
The Development of Metacognition in the Learner
Like other aspects of learning, metacognition is a byproduct of cognitive
growth, which is affected by age and even metacognitive experience. The age

36

and related cognitive development of the learner must also be taken into
consideration when examining metacognition.

In an attempt to more clearly

characterize the delineation between cognition and metacognition, Hennessey

(1999) focused on the nature of higher-level cognition. Hennessey challenged
common conjecture of higher level cognition as mere acquisition of content
knowledge and skill. Instead, she hypothesized that higher-levels of cognitive
ability and skill also include a second facet - organizing ones own intellectual
resources efficiently - or metacognitive ability and skill. Specifically, Hennesseys
study aimed to describe higher-order metacognition, outline the process people
use to change their metacognition, and identify the role of teaching in helping
metacognitive change occur. In doing so, six cohorts of students in grades one
through six participated over three years in her naturalistic study which observed
the students performance in three learning activities designed purposefully to
enhance their metacognition as it relates to their ability to conceptualize scientific
ideas. The first learning activity was a poster presentation of scientific concepts
in which the researchers specifically observed students conceptualizations of the
scientific phenomena they were presenting. The second learning activity in the
study was a model or diagram designed by the students to present their
conceptualizations of the scientific concepts they were studying. Finally, the third
learning activity of the study was the integration of word processing, graphing,
and audio and video technology used by the students to help capture and display
their conceptualized ideas about the content under study.

37

Using leveled categories of higher order metacognitive thought,

Hennessey transcribed and categorized the discourse of about 140 students who
participated in the study.

To substantiate the findings, the investigators also

recorded conversations with the students as they worked on their learning tasks.
These conversations or records of oral speech were also analyzed using
discourse analysis of rich text features to describe the applied metacognition.
She found that students were indeed able to describe their metacognitive
state, though at times their vocabularies were somewhat limited to the tangible,
and not the complex mental events the students wished to describe (pg. 42).
Those with more developed metacognitive processes were astonishingly able to
recognize and articulate that the words they were choosing to describe their
thoughts were the best devices at their disposal as limited as they were.
Hennessey also found that there are two gradations of metacognition.
Students either had an inner awareness of their metacognitive thoughts that they
revealed through their oral speech, writings, drawings, or conceptual models.
This level Hennessey terms representational. The other is an evaluative level
where students were able to make inferences about their own thought processes.
In these cases, students were able to challenge their own logic, identify fallacies
in their thinking, and refer to declarative knowledge about cognition as they
contemplated their own states of mind.
The third finding of Hennesseys study was that metacognitive skill does
change over time. From the point of the first phase of her study to the second

38

phase, Hennessey noted increased metacognition among her sample.

She

questioned whether this could be explained by the natural development that

occurred in the studys participants. Instead, she asserted her firm belief that
these changes are more likely a result of childrens changing view of learning.
She admits that her study was too limited to fully support her assertion, and
challenged the field to pursue the possible reasons in future research.
The study concluded that young children do have metacognitive ability,
that it is multi-faceted, and that its parts can be witnessed in separation. The
study also concluded that metacognitive skills can be gained or improved by
participating in metacognitive processes, and changes in metacognitive ability
are likely more closely associated with a students concepts of knowledge and
learning than with a particular teaching or learning strategy.
Hennesseys study occurred within the context of science instruction,
where the units of study were written specifically for the investigation. Much like
this study, however, she was seeking to identify metacognition using students
natural literacy products, including their oral speech and writings. Unlike this
study, she was seeking to identify metacognitive change and did engage in her
investigation over an extensive period of time. Her study informs this one of the
potential to find evidence of metacognition in student writing and that variations
based on student metacognitive ability and task contexts are likely to be found.
An additional example of the development of metacognitive knowledge is
evident in a 1997 study by Flavell, Green, Flavell, & Grossman to assess four-

39

year-old preschoolers knowledge of inner speech or verbal thought as compared

to that of five-year-olds, seven-year-olds, and college-aged students. Preschool
aged children were shown examples of everyday inner speech, such as silent
reading, mental mathematics, and a person recalling items from a shopping list.
They were asked whether the persons engaged in these activities were thinking,
but just quietly to themselves.

The study confirmed its original hypothesis that

the four-year-olds were usually unable to infer that silent-thought activities were
indeed examples of people talking to themselves. Flavell, et. al. concluded that
preschool children have little cognitive knowledge and awareness of inner
speech. Importantly, though, Flavells research does not conclude that young
children are incapable of metacognitive thoughts or that they were unable to
engage in inner speech.
A second, similar study further illustrated that four-year-olds and five-yearolds were less proficient than adults at detecting their own inner speech (Flavell
et al., 1997). Again, studies such as this one are demonstrative of the formation
of cognitive awareness (a critical function of metacognition). More importantly
this study is an exemplar of the formation of Flavells framework of metacognition
to include characteristics of the person (i.e. age, prior experience), the task (i.e.
identifying inner speech), and the strategy (i.e. observing others while engaged
in silent-thought tasks).
Likewise, each of these studies further establishes the conceptual
framework of this study as it pertains to the age of the students selected to

40

participate. Importantly, Flavells studies did not explicitly include adolescents,

leaving to question the abilities of teens to identify and/or use examples of inner
speech as a part of their metacognitive systems.
Contradictory to Hennesseys supposition, Flavells work does support the
aforementioned notion that metacognition is likely associated with cognitive
development.

In keeping with Flavells findings, the subjects of this study as

adolescents, were expected to have a developed proficiency in detecting and

using their inner speech, albeit variably. Said inner speech in this study was
documented through their metacognitive/reflective journal entries.
Metacognition and the Affect
Recognizing students metacognitive potential based on age, cognitive
ability, and other developmental factors are among a number of considerations.
Boosting metacognitive ability also is just one part of a systemic approach to
centralizing and empowering the learner to control her/his own learning. I submit
that without full consideration of and attention to every aspect (the learner, the
learning task and context, and the strategy) only marginal or temporary learning
gains may be reached. There is also another key component to consider - selfefficacy - which is summed in Kluwes sentiment of the power of the individual to
control her/his learning (1982). This notion as it pertains to metacognition is
grounded in an expanded conceptual framework of metacognition formulated by
researchers interested in motivation and its assistive power for learning and
achievement.

41

Motivation for learning and achievement are connected. The connection

is often influenced by the teacher (Wittrock, 1986). According to Wittrock, there
is a link between teaching and student achievement, and there is also a link
between student cognition and learning or achievement (Wittrock, 1986, p.
297). The way in which teachers teach influences the ways in which students
think. Also the ways in which students think influences the ways in which they
learn and achieve (Wittrock, 1986).
Students respond to the epistemological stance of their instructors, their
motivational techniques, their passions, and their various pedagogies. Students
often do what pleases their teachers. This is a byproduct of the customs of
common sense schooling.

This works in positive and negative ways.

Negatively, what often pleases teachers, especially those teaching in common

sense frames, is the regurgitation of rote detail or demonstration of
inconsequential skill.

More positively, a teacher who shows appreciation of

metacognitive acumen through all systems of her/his interactions with her/his

students may also expect her/his students to increase their metacognitive
proficiency. I maintain, however, that such an extrinsic motivation to increase
metacognitive awareness and control will likely result in a temporary or
insignificant gain, as the drive with such a motivation is usually toward task
completion. Conversely, the drive with intrinsic motivation is toward selffulfillment. Learners who are motivated from within are more likely to enjoy the
process of learning (Winograd & Gaskins, 1992).

42

Generally, the literature that promotes the concept of motivation in

learning has identified a few types of teaching goals that motivate students and
thereby affect their learning and achievement. They are ego goals, extrinsic
goals, intrinsic goals, and social goals (Covington, 1983; Maehr, 1983; Nicholls,
1983; Winograd & Gaskins, 1992). Maehr defines ego goals as those that are
met when a student succeeds in a competition. He establishes extrinsic goals as
those that result in some sort of symbolic award, whereas intrinsic goals are
reached when students feel satisfaction by engaging in the task, itself (Maehr,
1983). When intrinsically motivated, a student will seek to please herself/himself
by accomplishing a self-determined goal. Extrinsically motivated students seek
primarily to please their teachers or other adults who control the system and
customs of school by acquiring desirable grades or other outward signs of their
academic success.
The importance of motivational goals is explicated by Winograd and
Gaskins who state:
The domination of ego and extrinsic goals damages our
attempts to develop independence of thought. These goals
adversely affect motivation and metacognition in at least three
ways. First, because of the competitive nature of ego and
extrinsic goals, success and failure have serious implications for
the way students are seen by their peers and the way they see
themselves. Second, ego and extrinsic goals focus attention on
the products of task completion rather than the process of
learning. The third problem with ego and extrinsic goals is that,
in a sense, these goals disempower students. When ego and
extrinsic goals are the means of motivation, teachers hold the
power over judgements of success and failure. Emphasizing
intrinsic and social goals rather than ego and extrinsic goals is
essential in cultivating thoughtful students. (1992, p. 228)

43

The affective dimensions of the learner affect her/his learning ability and
are important aspects of defining metacognition, as research has provided
evidence of the influence affect has on students thinking (and learning) about
concepts and themselves as learners (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley,
1990). This is significant because students self-perceptions have an impact on
their ability to engage in metacognitive behavior. (Winograd & Gaskins, 1992, p.
227)
The relationship between metacognition and the learners affective domain
is exemplified in Dowson and McInerneys (1998) investigation of the relationship
between middle school students motivational attitudes towards their learning
goals and their use of multiple cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Their
study also examined the relationship between motivation and cognition and
students academic achievement in Mathematics and English.
Using a survey, they studied 602 participants in four middle schools in
Sydney, Australia to determine their motivational goal orientations and their use
of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The data were analyzed to describe
the correlation between subjects motivational goals, the strategies they actually
used, and their achievement as measured by the subjects performance on final
examinations in their Mathematics and English courses. Dowson and McInerney
found that student achievement is positively related to students motivations and
their thinking processes, and subsequently their achievement. The study also
concluded that systematic training in and application of a variety of strategies

44

improved in the studys participants over time. They further concluded that the
reasons or motivations, both academic and social, that students have for
achieving, impacts the strategies that they use (Dowson & McInerney, 1998).
Interestingly, these findings highlight other research mentioned in a
succeeding section of this chapter regarding strategy instruction. Here, Dowson
and McInerney establish the usefulness of strategy instruction for skill acquisition
and subsequent achievement on classroom assessment measures.

Their

findings also support the relationship of motivation to strategy usage.

Importantly, though, their study does not claim a relationship between direct
instruction in strategy usage and increased metacognition.
The importance of students affective domain as a facet to consider while
defining and conceptualizing metacognition is underscored in a case study
conducted by Case, Gunstone, and Lewis (2000).

In their investigation, the

primary investigator, a lecturer for a college course in which the study occurred,
set out to address the traditionally high failure rates and low levels of retention of
fundamental concepts in a second-year chemical engineering course by
introducing her students to metacognitive strategies and skills.

The study

focused on a particular student, David, who was highly characteristic of the

broader problem, and who became the case of study.

Through interviews,

methodological examination of Davids work, and observations of David while in

class, the investigators concluded that there is an important link between a
students perceptions of self and learning and his metacognitive development.

45

They also concluded that assessment, an extrinsic motivator, is the most

important determinant of students perceptions.
Again,

these

studies

highlight

the

complexity

identification, characterization, and assessment.

pedagogy.

of

metacognition

All have implications for

The abstract nature of metacognition and the many methods for

developing a view of any one aspect of a students metacognitive ability make it,
at best, a difficult concept to integrate into the teaching and learning process.
Importantly, this study uses the literatures findings on motivation and
metacognition by determining participants motivations for learning through
questions that are included on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Shraw
and Dennison, 1994; see Appendix A). Additionally, observing the context in
which students write their reflective pieces will also give insight into their
motivations (i.e., teacher-directed prompt versus student-generated prompt) and
any resulting evidence of metacognition found in their writing.
Difficulty in Teaching for Metacognition
Often in education, the goal is for students to become independent, lifelong learners. Richmond (1990) informs us that educators should be encouraged
that children can be assisted to think and talk about how they are learning. Also,
according to Bransford, et al (1999), though metacognition is very abstract,
educators can distinguish metacognitive behaviors in learners, because expert
versus novice learners exhibit the ability to monitor their current levels of
understanding.

46

Quicke and Winter (1994) argue, though, that for children to become more
proficient and successful learners, teachers need to make them aware of the
psychological processes entailed in learning. Unfortunately, the isolated strategy
instruction that is often a staple of many classrooms, does not promote students
concept of themselves as thinkers of their thinking abilities, or of their control
over their thought processes. Norman (1980) supports this argument as follows:
It is strange that we expect students to learn yet seldom teach them
about learning. We expect students to solve problems yet seldom
teach them about problem solving. And, similarly, we sometimes
require students to remember a considerable body of material yet
seldom teach them the art of memory. It is time we made up for
this lack, time that we developed the applied disciplines of learning
and problem solving and memory. We need to develop the general
principles of how to learn, how to remember, how to solve
problems, and then to develop applied courses, and then to
establish the place of these methods in an academic curriculum (p.
97).
This study theorizes that isolated strategy instruction without the presence
of metacognitive awareness, knowledge, and control is insufficient to transfer the
accomplishment of many learning basics, to external, authentic situations. In
laymens terms, if we fail to teach students full awareness and control over their
own thinking processes, and focus only on teaching them strategies, when away
from our classroom constructs they will likely not know when to apply the very
strategies that we have taught. For this reason also, this study theorizes that to
reduce metacognition to a set of discreet strategy and skill-building exercises will
result in the same.

Moreover, to attempt to develop metacognition through

isolated strategy instruction in metacognitive behaviors contradicts the

47

fundamental purpose of metacognitive development in learners. Fisher (2002)

also admits uneasiness with the current move towards the teaching of thinking
skills and warns of a danger in oversimplification of complex processes (Fisher,
2002). Fisher believes that some of the devices, such as rubrics, may be useful
aides memoire. Although, she warns if they take precedence over conscious
understanding of the processthey will be at best, useless and, at worst, a
impediment to thinking (2002, p. 64). It is also commonly accepted that strategic
learners self-regulate.

Similarly, adaptive expert learners those who can

flexibly approach new learning situations use what they have learned, and are
metacognitive and continually question their current levels of expertise and
attempt to move beyond them (Bransford, 1999, p. 42).
It

behooves

the

educational

system

to

clearly

understand

the

characteristics of such expert learners and their metacognitive behaviors and

habits. Such understandings are the underlying motives of this study. While this
study includes a heterogeneous sample of students, and is not exclusive to
expert learners, describing metacognition as it appears in students reflective
writing could contribute more descriptors of expert and novice learners to the
field.

These descriptors could prove beneficial to aiding all students

metacognitive abilities.
Jacobson also admonishes the current educational system to undergo
significant modification to keep pace with the current technological advancement
of society (Jacobson, 1998). Jacobson relies on Tishmans suggestion to look at

48

the process of thinking for a more full view of students than a mere test score
(Jacobson, 1998).

Costa warns further that, if we wish to develop intelligent

behavior as a significant outcome of education, we must work to incorporate

instructional strategies purposefully intended to develop childrens metacognitive
abilitiesinto our teaching methods (Costa, 1984, p. 58). The reward for the
systemic and purposeful incorporation of metacognitive instructional strategies
will occur when a student displays a learning scheme and can construct a
mental map of her/his personal arrival at understanding, both the teacher and
student may be exhilarated scholastically by this metacognitive act of selfawareness (Langreher & Palmer, 2001, p. 5).
Assessing Metacognition
As nebulous as metacognition seems and as difficult as it is to define and
to teach, so too is it just as complex to assess. Not unlike other aspects of
student learning, the assessment of metacognition has historically followed suit
through various modes, including observational and anecdotal assessments
during authentic learning tasks, self-reports, and examination and analysis of
student work by-products. These ways of assessing student metacognition in
classroom settings are virtually identical to the methodology used in research
investigations.

Each is also mired with its own benefits and deficiencies for

painting a clear portrait of a particular students metacognitive knowledge,

awareness, and control.

49

How Has Metacognition Been Investigated and Assessed?

In what Winograd and Gaskins (1992) refer to as the first and second
generations of metacognition research, they note a shift from descriptive and
correlational in the first to experimental in the second. The first generation of
metacognition research reviewed by Paris, Wasik, and van der Westhuizen
(1988) focused on the relationship between subjects metacognitive awareness
of their learning processes and their performance on learning tasks. One such
example of first generation research on metacognition is that conducted by
Garner and Krause (1981) that investigated the correlation between readers
knowledge of comprehension strategies and their actual reading performance. In
their comparative investigation of good and poor readers, Garner and Kraus
interviewed thirty seventh graders from a suburban school. Using their scores on
a reading measure, the group was divided equally (15:15) into good
comprehenders, those with the top scores, and poor comprehenders, those with
the lowest scores. Each subject was interviewed to determine what they knew
about reading. The subjects were later given two narrative passages with both
inter- and intra-sentence consistency errors to determine how well they were able
to regulate reading.

They were then asked to rate the passages based on how

easy they were to understand and if they did not need any changes. The study
found that more proficient readers were more able (though only moderately so) to
detect the errors in the passages. Likewise, the analysis of interview comments
revealed that good readers were more aware of reading strategies than their less

50

proficient counterparts.

While this error-detection method has led to many

consistent discoveries regarding the metacognitive behavior of good versus poor

readers, Winograd and Johnston (1980) interject the critical question that errordetection methodology raises Did the children fail to detect the errors or did
they just fail to mention them? (pg. 14).
In their own error-detection study, another example of first-generation
metacognition research, Winograd and Johnston (1980) compared the
differences between twenty sixth grade readers abilities to find errors in what
they were given to read. They, too, divided their subjects into two groups skilled and less skilled readers based on their scores on a reading measure.
All subjects were screened for their ability to proficiently decode words. Over the
course of two sessions, the subjects were presented four paragraphs, ten
sentences in length, and asked to determine the passages comprehensibility
either with preparation or without.
contained an inconsistency.

The eighth sentence in each passage

The subjects reactions to the passages were

observed, with the investigators noting if and when they detected the error.
When needed, subjects were interviewed using probing questions aimed at
prodding their acknowledgement of errors in the passages.

Winograd and

Gaskins findings resulted in an inconclusive correlation between measures of

students awareness and their performance. They discovered that even the most
expert readers in the sample failed to detect major errors and concluded that
their methodology was too limited to fully measure metacognition.

51

Yet another example of metacognition research in the first generation, is

Morse, Smith-Mallette, and Talento-Millers study of perceptions of smartness of
adults and children (2000). Theirs was a qualitative study using metacognitive
protocols to examine undergraduate students perceptions of their own thought
processes and cognitive control.

By coding the subjects responses to the

Swanson Metacognitive Questionnaire for themes, the study found that people
believe children learn through observation, by asking questions, and by trying
things out and making mistakes. The study also found that smartness was
described by the subjects as having academic knowledge, common sense, and a
genetic component.
Second generation metacognitive studies are identified by Winograd and
Gaskins as research dominated by experimental and quasi-experimental studies
in which interventions were introduced to the subjects to measure metacognitive
change (1992). One such study that falls into this category is Kincannon, Gleber,
and Kims (1999) investigation of The Effects of Metacognitive Training on
Performance and Use of Metacognitive Skills in Self-Directed Learning
Situations.
Kincannon, et al. set out in this study to examine how the teaching of
metacognitive strategies affected performance in learning situations where 60
university students enrolled in a beginning photography course worked via selfdirection on projects using metacognitive strategies introduced during the study.
As a pre- and post-test, the investigators measured awareness of metacognition

52

in the participants, using an inventory. The use of metacognitive strategies was

also measured, but through a survey administered to participants after the first
and last project.
The study concluded that the teaching of the metacognitive strategies did
have a positive impact on learning outcomes.

An increase in metacognitive

awareness in the subjects of the study suggests that metacognitive strategy

instruction while learning disciplinary content does, indeed, improve the
awareness and application of the skills and, ultimately, student performance.
The study did not, however, measure the continuity of those improvements and
applications of those skills beyond the context of the study. It is left to wonder if
the students were able to retain their performance gains and apply their new skill
acquisition to contexts and learning tasks in authentic learning situations outside
of the study.

Furthermore, Kincannon and her associates study involved

university-aged students who, because of their age, likely have advanced levels
of cognitive development and consequently, metacognitive development, in
comparison to the adolescents who are the focus of this study.
Another such example of second generation research is a study
conducted to determine which metacognitive strategies work best to improve
reading comprehension (Gil, Osiecki, & Juarez, 2001).

In the investigation,

students in grades two through ten (with the exception of grade 4) responded to
a metacognitive questionnaire. Their responses were compared to a framework
of metacognitive behaviors and their reading comprehension scores. The major

53

findings of the study that resulted from the comparative data analysis also
summed that metacognitive strategies proved effective in improving reading
comprehension.
As with the methodology of this study, much practical or classroom-based
assessment of metacognition has taken its cues from the research.

Each

method of classroom assessment relates either to qualitative descriptions of

classroom metacognitive culture and students metacognitive skills and abilities
or to the effect of strategy instruction on students academic performance.
Rhodes and Shanklin (1993) cite three ways to assess students metacognition:
(1) through written questionnaires, (2) through oral interviews, and (3) through
group discussions.

However, all of these ways of assessing students

metacognitive skill, ability, and awareness fall short of ascertaining a learners full
range of metacognition.

They only capture students perceptions of their

metacognitive control and awareness, not their actual execution of metacognitive

control or awareness, particularly during a learning or problem-solving task.
Additionally, Baker and Brown (1984) note the difficulty younger children have
explaining their learning hurdles or why they encounter trouble during reading or
literacy events.
With so much assessment in classrooms today, the purpose of assessing
metacognition may be questioned. In reference to literacy in particular, Harp and
Brewer cite the benefits as the gain in understanding of how the learner views
the process and makes use of self-monitoring strategies (1996). He goes further

54

by stating that above all, the added benefit of assessing metacognition is defining
instructional goals specific to students metacognitive abilities. Such a benefit
supports one of the aims of this study which is to suggest to practitioners how
student reflective journal writing can be used to distinguish students
metacognition, and employ appropriate instructional assistance for increased
learning.
Difficulties with assessment.
Rhodes and Shanklin admit to some inherent difficulties teachers need to
consider with regard to assessing metacognition, pointing exclusively to the
commonly used self-report methodology (1993, p. 116). In self-reports, students
may not actually use the metacognitive skills or perform the metacognitive
behaviors they say they do. Similarly, students may underestimate their use of
metacognitive skills (Rhodes & Shanklin, 1993; Harp, 1996).

Other difficulties in

assessing student metacognition through self-reports, according to Rhodes and

Shanklin (1993), are misinterpretations of questions, the self-report task or tool
may not give them true reason or purpose to be metacognitive, and automated
literacy behaviors often suppress metacognitive awareness. Brown (1987) warns
that assessing students metacognition through self- or verbal reports is, at best,
limited because students may not be able to completely articulate their
knowledge or regulatory behavior (Brown, 1987, p. 71). Students might also
overstate their abilities. [That] what students say and what they do are
imperfectly related is not particularly surprising, but nonetheless has important

55

implications for measuring metacognition (MacLeod, Butler, & Syer, 2003, pg.5).
Consequently, Brown advocates for researchers to comprise assessment
strategies that access behavioral measures.
Similar difficulties have occurred in or have informed empirical research
studies of metacognition.

For instance, Wilsons (2001) study claimed the

assessment of metacognition as a new frontier and sought to clarify some of the

parameters of metacognition that make it a fuzzy concept and inhibit effective
assessment. Likewise, Wilsons work purposed to offer more than the highly
criticized self-report methodology for assessing metacognition. Wilson, like so
many others, questioned the confidence which can be attached to what
students report about their metacognitive thinking. The results raise doubts and
questions about using students out of context verbal reports without
corroborating evidence (2001, pg. 8).
The study, Methodological Difficulties of Assessing Metacognition:

New Approach, offered a multi-method interview technique for assessing

student metacognitive behavior which drew on and combined the strengths of
the many commonly used strategies (Wilson, 2001, p. 5). Through real-time and
video-taped observations; audio recordings; and interviews that included selfreporting, think-alouds, and card sorting tasks, the principal investigators
establish the unreliability of questionnaires or interviews when used in isolation
as a suitable tool to measure a childs metacognitive repertoire (Wilson, 2001,
pg. 8).

The study also stated, however, that when self-report data is cross-

56

checked against data from other sources, results become more reliable and
trustworthy. Again, this study proposes students journal writings as a record of
their inner speech, and therefore, an alternative source of data to their selfreports.
Another such example of the unreliability of verbal reports alone comes
through the work of Butler (1994), who discovered that students verbal reports of
their metacognitive behavior did not translate into observable self-regulatory
behavior in the classroom.

Interestingly, Butler found that adult students with

disabilities who had an abundance of training in various academic and study

skills could fluently describe a myriad of strategies for task or assignment
completion.

However, when observed for task performance, they were often

unable to apply their declared knowledge to the actual tasks.

There is merit in verbal reports of metacognitive knowledge and ability as
they enhance students abilities to talk about their understandings to researchers
and teachers (Butler, 1994).

Others have even defended self-reports via

questionnaires or interviews as a means to peer into the minds of those who are
markedly shy or unable to speak (Jacobs & Paris, 1987). For example, the Index
of Reading Awareness, a multiple choice measure of metacognition in reading, is
intended to identify dimensions of knowledge about metacognition during reading
and actual metacognitive processing during reading (Jacobs and Paris, 1987).
Nonetheless, questionnaires such as the Index of Reading Awareness, are

57

critiqued as are verbal reports for their seeming inability to capture a holistic
picture of the various facets of metacognition.
Many

assessment

schemes,

comparably,

attempt

to

extrapolate

relationships between student achievement, strategy training, and metacognitive

skill and knowledge as a means of assessing the former. In a quest for more
than measures of student achievement to determine the efficacy of strategy
training as a means of delineating improvements in processing from achievement
gains, MacLeod, et al hypothesized that to deem an intervention model effective,
it is not competent to simply measure students performance on a specific task or
strategies (2003).

Instead, their study rationalized more coherent and

streamlined measurements of a more vast set of desired student outcomes that

included motivational beliefs, construct of metacognitive knowledge, and
cognitive control.
With further regard to strategy instruction and achievement, a particular
model of self-regulated learning promoted by MacLeod, Butler and Syer (2003)
permits the assessment of student outcomes that are usually associated with
strategy training to determine if the strategies truly promote students selfregulation during learning tasks. In other words, to the extent that effective selfregulation leads to improved task performance, effective strategy instruction
should lead to achievement gains (MacLeo, Butler, & Syer, 2003, p. 3). While
developing this model, MacLeod, Butler, and Syer argued that effective
assessment of metacognition, requires us to attend to the place where

58

metacognitive skill and strategic processes used to complete learning tasks

intersect.
Another proposed assessment strategy attempts to use students private
speech to assess how they exercise metacognition (Harris, 1990). This private
or inner speech is equivalent to reflective journal writing which is a key focus of
this study. Through her meta-analysis of existing research on inner speech,
Harris categorized researchers data on private and collaborative or social
speech during task completion and problem solving. Harris concluded that inner
or private speech does indeed function in cognition as a self-regulatory factor.
Harris does, however, admit to numerous challenges in methodology and
assessments used to gauge students uses of inner speech. She also calls for
further studies, particularly those that are developmental so as to contribute to a
greater understanding of how inner speech evolves in children and ultimately
affects their self-regulatory behavior.
MacLeod, Butler, and Syer argue, however, that behavioral measures
though promising, alone do not shed enough light on metacognitive processing,
stating further that behavior measures fail to illuminate how students abstracted
metacognitive understandingsmutually interact so as to influence their
performance in tasks (2003, p. 6). They argue for a combination of self-report
and behavioral measures to effectively assess metacognition, so as to evaluate
the interplay between knowledge about learning and students strategic

59

approaches to tasks (2003, p. 6). Consequently, such combined measures are

used as the methodology of this study.
Additionally, a list of recommended guidelines for assessing metacognition
has been proposed by MacLeod, Butler, and Syer, for measuring metacognition
and strategic processing as they interpret them from the literature. They suggest
that any tools should:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

link students conceptual knowledge with their actual

actions.
indicate how students perceive learning strategies in
relationship to their metacognitive knowledge and
executive control
measure students executive control across tasks and
contexts, as these will cause variability using recursive
thinking activities that are parts of cyclical learning
processes or situations
incorporate students individual learning styles and routines
measure student motivation as well as their cognition
(MacLeod et al., 2003)

MacLeod, Butler, and Syer also developed categories for observing and
scoring students metacognition.

They are (1) students understanding about

tasks, (2) students understanding about strategies, and (3) students

management of the learning process (MacLeod et al., 2003). The first category,
students understanding about tasks, relates to students ability to describe what
a particular task is asking of them, including its purpose and elements, and
students abilities to articulate the criteria and benchmarks indicating proficient
performance of the task. The second, students understanding about strategies
also includes two subcategories:

(a) students ability to describe strategies that

can be used to effectively approach the task and (b) the degree to which the

60

chosen approaches are appropriate to them and the task. The third and final
category proposed by MacLeod, Butler, and Syer involves the assessment of
how well students monitor or reflectively track their progress and also revise their
approaches to achieve desired outcomes. This category also seeks to measure
students articulation and control of motivational and emotional problems and
their abilities to describe effective control strategies to manage their engagement
in tasks. Artifacts of Thought is based on the proposal that each of these
categories

for

observing

and

scoring

students

metacognition

can

be

accomplished through students writing.

Journal writing as a tool for assessing metacognition.
This study examined students reflective journal writing as a means to
describe their metacognition. Journal writing can provide a window into learners
minds that would be helpful for assessing their metacognitive ability, because of
the nature of journaling to be reflective. Likewise, the act of journal writing can
also be characterized as talking with oneself or inner speech. This is especially
true of journaling in initiated by the writer, where s/he is writing out of personal
interest and not, necessarily, as an assignment. Unlike other self-reports of
metacognition, the journal is a primary resource of the students thoughts and
thought processes.

In other words, journal writing is a discreet, observable

behavior through which a snapshot of students metacognition can be captured.

Moreover, relatively few (Feathers and White, 1987; McCrindle and Christinsen,

61

1995) have used students own journal entries as a record of their metacognitive
processes.
Feathers and White (1987), used student journal entries while examining
students metacognitive development as a means of getting into their heads (p.
264). To support the choice for using writing, and journal writing in particular,
Feathers and White cited a review of methodological options that included thinkalouds, observations, and questions used by many investigative predecessors.
These methods were not employed in Feathers and Whites study because of
their inadequacies in portraying a full metacognitive portrait of an individual as
outlined in the preceding section of this review labeled, difficulties with
assessment.

Journals were chosen for their study of college freshmen and

their knowledge about reading, strategy usage, and process control because of
their ability:
to provide insights into students perspectives on class
instruction, schooling activities, and students own
learningas a recording procedure for research in hopes
that the journals might also promote metacognitive
understanding of the reading process. (Feathers and White,
1987, p. 264)
Seemingly undaunted by the fields difficulty in merely defining metacognition,
Feathers and White, too, believed in the potential of journals to help outsiders
peer ever so momentarily into the fuzzy and abstract landscape of the
metacognitive mind of students. In this case, the journal became a record of
their subjects inner speech as it pertained to the very multi-layered paths of their
schooling.

62

Specifically, Feathers and White, analyzed the journals of six college

freshmen enrolled in a remedial or developmental reading course. The subjects
selected for study represented a balanced cross-section of races (black and
white), ages (18-40), and achievement (grades A-C).

The subjects were

asked to write four journal entries weekly. Three of the journal entries were
related to course content and readings, and the fourth was a personal entry on
any topic of interest to the subject. For the entries that were related to the course
content and readings, students were instructed to focus on problems that arose
as they were reading, strategies they used to complete the reading, and other
matters that led to a description of what occurred while they were reading. The
course instructors did respond to their journal entries, but without giving direct
instruction as to how to overcome reading hurdles.

The resulting 290 journal

entries from the six subjects were then analyzed upon completion of the course
for comments that pertained to reading or school, in general. These comments
were then sorted and categorized based on similarities, resulting in eleven
general strategies employed by the subjects: (1) group feedback, (2) putting
things in own words, (3) notes, (4) summaries, (5) maps, (6) text features, (7)
active reading/prior knowledge, (8) focus on process, (9) studying, (10)
scheduling, and (11) test-taking (pg.267-268).

Additional analyses of the

comments and categories were performed to detect patterns that recurred in

multiple categories, as well as patterns representing longitudinal growth in the
participants.

63

Among the many results of Feathers and Whites study, there were some
directly related to this study. The most profound is that the journal entries did
exhibit students metacognitive awareness. Also the language of their journal
entries was rich enough to detect patterns that repeated in various categories
and that showed students metacognitive growth. The number of comments in
the journal entries increased over the three month data collection period. Also,
the journal entries occurring in the later weeks of the study revealed related
demands of their coursework and their adaptability to the pedagogies that were
used by their instructors.

Their journal entries seemed to increase in their

sophistication by focusing more on processes, specific learning tasks, and the

characteristics of their assigned readings and how reading strategies they were
learning were or were not helping them navigate those readings.
The discriminating difference between Feathers and Whites study and
this one is that theirs used a sample of college-aged students. The subjects of
their study as adults ranging in age from 18-40 and the young adolescent
subjects of this study may be at significantly different cognitive and metacognitive
developmental stages. To this end, a comparison of the findings of Feathers
and Whites study and this one could further contribute to an understanding of
the

development

of

metacognition

in

the

learner.

Furthermore,

the

epistemological and motivational stances of collegians that have, assumedly,

chosen to extend their learning may differ significantly from high school twelfth
graders at school for compulsory reasons or parental demands, at the very least.

64

Also, this study hopes to cross-reference its subjects motivations as divulged

through the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory and their journal entries.
Alternatively, Feathers and Whites study did not set-out to explicitly examine the
motivations of their subjects, one of the many factors established in the literature
as having an impact on metacognition. Instead, their subjects motivations/affect
were occasionally revealed through their journal entries, lending additional
credence to the possibility of detecting such motivations through journals.
Inasmuch, the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory called for in this study will
provide the additional data set that many prior researchers have called for to aid
trustworthiness of the results.
Yet another example of the power and potential of journals for observing
students metacognition is the 1995 study conducted by McCrindle and
Christensen. Theirs was a quasi-experimental study of forty college students
enrolled in a university biology course. In their study, writing in a journal was the
treatment assigned to the experimental group, while the control group completed
a more traditional report. The members of the experimental group were asked to
keep a written record in their journals of their learning processes throughout the
course, including what content they were studying and how they learned the
course material. They were also given explicit instructions on how to complete
the journals which were also to include a self-assessment of their learning
processes. The experimental group was allowed to practice their journal entries
and received feedback. The control group was asked to write a weekly scientific

65

report (for which they received the same academic credit as the experimental
group), and given a workbook that included a template of how to write the
reports. Explicit instruction and feedback were also given to members of the
control group. Both, the journal entries and the reports, were assessed for the
amount of cognitive and metacognitive learning that they exhibited.
Upon completion of the journaling or report writing portions of the
experiment, each subject was given a learning strategies task in which they were
asked to carefully study a passage and make any notes they deemed necessary
to help them remember the main ideas. They were then interviewed and asked
to articulate the processes and strategies they used while reading the passage.
Thirdly, the subjects were asked to complete a Learning Strategies
Questionnaire developed by the principal investigators which required them to
rate a list of metacognitive and cognitive strategies for how important they were
to them for completing the learning strategies task using a five-point Likert scale.
Fourthly, the subjects were interviewed in-depth to ascertain their
concepts about learning.

An interview protocol that began with, What does

learning mean to you?, and ended with discretionary probing questions was
used to get a clear account of each subjects learning processes.

Finally,

subjects performances on the course final examination were used to measure

their understanding of the course content.
Citing the use of a taxonomoy of learning conception, this multi-method
study found that subjects who wrote journal entries of their learning processes

66

reported more sophisticated conceptions of learning (pg. 176). Also, while both
groups reported use of metacognitive strategies during the learning strategies
task, those in the experimental group reported the use of more than those in the
control group.
These findings serve to inform my study of the potential to capture
students metacognitive acts in their journal entries. Though, again, McCrindle
and Christensens study involved collegians as subjects whereas my study
involves high school adolescents. Furthermore, the quasi-experimental nature of
McCrindle and Christensens study sought to establish a relationship between
journals and metacognition, whereas my study acknowledges the existence of
such a relationship and seeks to describe it.
The potential to describe such a relationship between journals and
metacognition is supported by Anson and Beach (1995) who tout journal writing
as an avenue for exploring the minds inner landscape as they are a space for
inner dialogue in which students engage in conversation with themselves. Such
inner dialogue, according to Anson and Beach, occurs through dialectical
thinking, or thinking that is open to exploring alternative perspectives for the
sake of continuing the discussion itself (p. 36).

Further, Anson and Beach

espouse that the ability to carry on a conversation with oneself in writing

requires the ability to reflect on ones own thinking (p. 36) - this is metacognition.

67

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Rationale
This study aimed to identify evidence of students metacognition in their
reflective journal entries (i.e. inner speech). It also proposed to characterize any
found evidence in relationship to students self-reports of metacognitive
awareness as reported the Metacognition Awareness Inventory, a tool designed
to measure general metacognitive awareness with specific questions pertaining
to reading and others related to general learning processes.

Also, this study

aspired to characterize evidence of student metacognition in their journals

through naturalistic inquiry involving their normal classroom procedures,
interactions, and discussions.
Naturalistic studies fall under the category of ethnographies. LeCompte
and Schensul (1999) define naturalistic studies as a scientific approach to
learning about the social and cultural life of communities, institutions and other
settings (p. 1). LeCompte and Schensul go further to describe the purpose of
such research as a means of creating:
locally appropriate aides to data collection or instruments
that are effective in building a picture, narrative, story, or
theory of local culture that is predictiveand produces
hypotheses that can be applied to the same situation or to
other similar situations using the same research methods
and data collection techniques. (p. 3)
In keeping with this research purpose, this study aimed not only to identify
metacognition, but to also build a picture of the characteristics of metacognition

68

in student writing within the context of their normal classroom activities. This
study proposed to engage in this inquiry in a specific twelfth grade English
Language Arts classroom. The metacognitive descriptions and characteristics
are particular to this culture, though the findings may be extended and
extrapolated to similar cultures.

As such, a naturalistic methodology was

befitting, because it heeded the call discussed in the review of literature for multimodal studies that join qualitative and quantitative techniques.
The theoretical framework of this study espouses that all literary acts,
specifically reading, writing, and oral discourse, are cognitive processes. When
these cognitive processes are intersected with metacognitive strategies (either
innate or introduced through strategy instruction), evidence of metacognitive
thought leaves footprints, evidence, or artifacts. These artifacts are observable
in either their social speech/oral discourse, their performance on measures of
comprehension, or their writing or inner speech.

Much research on

metacognition has investigated the two former pools of artifactual evidence of

metacognition. However, this study sought to add to the relatively fewer studies
(Feathers & White, 1987; McCrindle & Christensen, 1995) that involve
metacognition and reflective writing by identifying and describing any evidence of
metacognition found in students reflective journal writing. Reflective writings
authentic nature, broad uses in cross-curricular instruction, and ability to capture
students inner speech make it a prime tool for such a purpose.

69

Taking further cues from the review of literature, this investigation begins
with existing concepts or ideas of metacognition that might be found in student
writing.

However, I remained open to the new theories that naturalistic

methodologies would lend more readily than other methodologies as indicated by

LeCompte and Schensul in the prior quotation. Also, the guiding questions of the
study virtually required systematic observation of a culture where high schoolers
are writing in order to attempt description of the human discourse and interaction
that contributes to any metacognition found in their writing.
Cultural immersion as a critical component of naturalistic inquiry demands
certain conditions. Among the ten possible conditions LeCompte and Schensul
(1999) list that call for naturalistic research, this study meets two. They are as
follows:

(1) to explore factors associated with the problem in order to

understand and address them, or to identify them when they are not known; and
(2) answer questions that cannot be addressed with other methods or
approaches (p. 30).
One of the primary purposes of this study meets the first listed condition
rather directly (i.e., exploration of factors related to the problem). This study has
identified the problem as the abstract nature of metacognition, the difficulty in
identifying and assessing it as it occurs naturally, and the difficulty in supporting it
through classroom instruction. In an attempt to address these problems, this
study seeks to identify and characterize metacognition as it occurs in students
writing. I propose to do so by exploring the factors and elements as they occur in

70

the normal routines of the selected classroom and through the natural artifacts of
students writing. To further fulfill this condition of naturalistic research, my study
aims as outlined in the introduction to help educators better understand and
identify students metacognition through their reflective writings.
The second condition for naturalistic inquiry met by this study is
documented best through the review of literature, which reveals an overwhelming
need for additional assessments and methodologies for metacognition. Most
prior studies of metacognition have involved either quantitative error-detection
and strategy training methods, or qualitative studies that relied heavily on student
self-reports of metacognitive behaviors.

While both methodologies have

contributed new understandings to metacognition, both are wrought with

shortcomings which have been detailed in the literature review. A more complete
picture of metacognition according to MacLeod, Butler, and Syer (2003) will
come with more studies that use a combined approach of self-reports and
behavior measures.

This study used such a combined approach.

The

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory and interviews are self-reports by students of

their metacognition.

The behavioral aspects of this study were derived by

performing a text analysis of students reflective writing and an analysis of the

classroom behaviors and discussions that constitute the context of that writing.
LeCompte and Schensul (1999) also identify key characteristics of
naturalistic inquiry which are all met by this study and are outlined in Figure 3.1.
First, they state that such studies are conducted in natural cultural settings. My

71

study meets this criterion as it will be carried out during the normal operations of
a twelfth grade English Language Arts class at a public high school academy
located in a suburb of a major mid-western metropolis.
Secondly, LeCompte and Schensul note that naturalistic studies require
the researcher to interact with the participants of the study rather intimately. My
study meets this criterion because, as the English Language Arts Curriculum
Writer for the school, I entered this particular study as an extended member of
the school community. I have formed significant relationships with the staff and
administration and have visited classrooms and interacted with students to
observe the curriculum in action for the purpose of curricular renewal and
revision.

Likewise, though I remained an objective, non-participant observer

throughout the course of the study, my standing six year relationship with the
members of the school community constitutes one of trust and rapport that has
garnered me great cultural access in the past and continued throughout the
study. Also, I expect that I will be invited by the staff and administration to use
the findings of my study to provide feedbackand to participate in other
developmental efforts (LeCompte and Schensul, 1999, p. 12).
Thirdly, it is a requirement of naturalistic studies to present accurate
reflections of the cultures participants, their beliefs, and their behaviors. I met
this requirement by using anecdotes and direct quotes from students reflective
writings, classroom observations, and interviews to portray accurately with words
the things I witnessed in the classroom community of study.

72

LeCompte and Schensul further state that it is necessary for naturalistic

studies to use inductive, interactive, and recursive data collection and analytic
strategies to build local cultural theories (pg. 9). Accordingly, I began with my
hunches, guesses, initial hypotheses, models, and concepts (pg. 9), which are
all outlined in Chapter 1.

However, I followed LeCompte and Schensuls

requirement for elaboration and retesting through continued collection of data

using the same or different methods or bothuntil new information confirms a
stable pattern and the model appears to be complete (pg. 15).

This came

through classroom observations over the eight week period of the study,
interviews

whose

questions

were

largely

informed

by

the

classroom

observations, and coding and analysis of students writing in conjunction with

their self-reports on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory.

I engaged in

inductive and deductive processes by using the data drawn directly from the
selected classroom community to suggest further theories, while also applying
existing data and theories from the literature to the data collected from the
selected site.
To meet the fifth requirement outlined by LeCompte and Schensul for
multiple sources of data that are both quantitative and qualitative, my study used
the triangulated data of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (a quantitative
measure), teacher interviews, students writing, student interviews and classroom
observations to address its problems and questions.

73

Further, to describe the behavior of the participants within the frame and
context of the sociopolitics and history of their culture, the sixth criteria, I followed
information suggested by the literature.

Specifically, the review of literature

revealed that the context in which metacognition occurs is as important as the

metacognition itself for understanding metacognitive awareness and control. For
this reason, I studied the contexts of the selected classroom, for addressing the
problems of this study. These contexts or behaviors and beliefs included but
were not limited to the routines and patterns of the classroom, belief statements
listed in school and classroom publications, and oral discourse that revealed the
perspectives and beliefs of the participants as a means of explaining the
metacognition that resulted in the students writing.
Finally, the seventh criterion is to use the culture in which the study occurs
as the lens for interpretation of the results. This study delved into the classroom
culture through classroom observation of the selected population to characterize
the patterns of behavior and social interaction of its collective membership as a
means to explain the metacognition that resulted in the writing of individual
members of the culture.

74

Table 2
Comparison of key characteristics of ethnographies and Artifacts of Thought
LeCompte and Schensul

Artifacts of Thought

1. It is carried out in a natural setting, Study will occur in a 12th grade English
not in a laboratory (p. 9).
Language Arts classroom.
2. It involves intimate, face-to-face Principal Investigator is already an
interaction with participants (p. 9).
extended member of the school
community with a rapport with the staff
and experiences observing students
that affords great cultural access.
3. It presents an accurate reflection of Direct quotes and anecdotes from
participants
perspectives
and observations will be used.
behaviors (p. 9).
4.
It uses inductive, interactive, Data (interviews, observations, coding
and recursive data collection and and analysis of student writing) will be
analytic strategies to build local cultural collected and analyzed in cycles.
theories (p. 9).
5.
It uses multiple data sources, Data including the Metacognitive
including
both
quantitative
and Awareness
Inventory,
teacher
qualitative data (p. 9).
interviews, students writing, and
classroom observations.
6. It frames all human behavior and The context is the behaviors and
belief within a sociopolitical and activities of participants in the selected
historical context (p. 9).
classroom.
7. It uses the concept of culture as a The culture of the selected classroom
lens through which to interpret results is the lens for interpreting the
(pg. 9).
metacognition of its students.
I followed Spradleys (1980) twelve steps for developmental research to
actually collect and analyze the data for this study. The twelve steps are as
follows:
1.

Locate a Social Situation

75

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Conduct Participant Observations

Make an Ethnographic Record
Make Descriptive Observations
Make a Domain Analysis
Make Focused Observations
Make a Taxonomic Analysis
Make Selected Observations
Make a Componential Analysis
Discover Cultural Themes
Take a Cultural Inventory
Write the Ethnography
For the purpose of clear correlation of my study to Spradleys steps, I have

grouped all elements of my study and linked them to Spradleys steps beginning
with Population and Sample representing Step 1 - Locating a Social Situation
and including the description of the place (population) and actors (subjects). I
then grouped steps 2, 4, 6, and 8 together as data collection procedures. Steps
5, 7, and 9 are explained in the succeeding section on data analysis. Making an
Ethnographic Record, Step 3, is described throughout each section. Finally,
Steps 10 through 12 are individually and briefly described.
Population and Sample
The study occurred in a grade twelve English Language Arts classroom of
a public school academy in a large mid-western metropolitan area.

The school

serves approximately 416 students in grades nine through twelve from various
municipalities throughout the county in which it is located.

One of those

municipalities is a large, urban city. While students choose to attend this school,
and submit an application, they are placed for enrollment based on an
independent lottery conducted by an external accounting firm, assuring random

76

and equitable selection. The school is held accountable to all of its states public
charter school laws which prohibit selective admissions. Each year, the school
receives approximately eight hundred applications for admissions. Even so, over
sixty percent of the schools students reside in the countys large, urban city and
would have ordinarily attended that citys traditional public schools in their own
neighborhoods.

Students from the city comprise the majority of the schools

African American (64%) and Hispanic populations (5.5%). Many of the remaining
student body reside in the suburban townships within the county.

It is this

segment that constitutes much of the other ethnic demography of the school,
including Asian (.9%), Native American (.9%), and White (27.7%). Twenty-eight
percent (28%) participate in the federal governments free and reduced-price
lunch program and thus are characterized as economically disadvantaged.
Special education services are provided for nearly five percent (4.8%) of the
schools students far fewer than most other schools in the surrounding urban
area. Male students comprise 48.8% of the study body and female students are
51.4%.
There are thirty-five staff members at the school, and teachers comprise
78.9% of the total staff. With a student-teacher ratio of 14.8:1, the school prides
itself on relatively low class sizes.
Of further note is Standard and Poors School Evaluation Services report
that the students of the school have consistently met or exceeded their charter
school peers in participation, passing rates, and scores on state and national

77

standardized measures.

For instance, for the 2001-2002 school year, the

students passing rate on the statewide assessment of mathematics, reading,

writing, science, and social studies was 28.4%, compared to 17.4% of other
charter schools in the state. Students at the school also scored an average of
880 on the SAT as compared to an average score of 775 of other charter schools
in the state. Likewise, the school graduates 93.3% of its students who enter in
grade 9, as compared to 61.4% of its charter school peers and 86.4% of other
schools in the state. Only 1.9% of students drop-out of the school, whereas the
statewide drop-out rate is 3.6% and other charter schools in the state experience
a drop-out rate of 8.5%.
To gather data from students writing, a sample of students was drawn
from students within the twelfth grade English class (n = 16).

Attempts were

made to balance the gender, race, and academic performance of those students.
Inevitably, the sample consisted of 8 Caucasian students, 5 African-American
students, 1 Hispanic student, and 2 Mixed-race students. Eleven members of
the sample were female and 5 were male. The teachers informed consent and
parental informed consent were garnered for all study participants before the
investigation began (see Appendix B). All students in the class were asked for
written assent, as well. Consent and assent was attained when I, the principal
investigator, briefly described the study to the class and distributed the consent
forms with a specified date for their return. On the date that the forms were due,

78

I collected them outside of the classroom doors (so as to conceal consent from
the participating teacher).
The consent form and my brief oral description explained the purpose and
benefits of the study. Notably, there were no known benefits of participation in
this study, except a potential increased awareness by students of their
metacognition by participating in the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory.
Students who participated in the interview segment of the study received a gift
worth $5 for their participation.

Furthermore, students, the participating

classroom teacher, and the school administration were given only summary
results of the class scores on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory measure
at the completion of the study. Individual students scores and ratings will only be
reported to the students upon completion of the study. The greatest benefit to
the participating teacher was access to summative data for professional
reflection and future instructional purposes at the conclusion of the study. Also a
stipend of $100 was paid to the teacher of the study as an incentive for
participation in the study and compensation for the minor inconveniences
associated with the studys protocol (i.e. interview time, unavailability of students
work while being photocopied, etc.).
The study did not assume that the students have been instructed in
reflective writing or metacognitive strategies.

Inevitably, some students may

have had more experience with either or both of these learning mechanisms. As
a naturalistic study, my investigation did not make any attempt to control this.

79

Instead, I aspired to describe and characterize any phenomena that arose from
the variable metacognitive experience of the participants using the data collection
tools described within, including the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory.
Comparably, the experience, mastery, skill, and pedagogical technique of
the participating teacher were indeterminable. This teacher was selected out of
convenience and because of an established rapport with me as an implementing
teacher and teacher advisor for one of the English Language Arts curricula that I
wrote for the school. This friendly rapport facilitated the intimate relationship and
trust that LeCompte and Schensul (1999) characterize as a critical aspect of
naturalistic studies. The participating teacher participated in a brief introductory
session in which I explained the protocol of the research study. All content,
pedagogy, and matters of rapport and interaction with students were the source
of interest of this study, and were not discussed with the teacher prior to or
during the study so as not to taint or influence them from their most natural state.
Much of the interaction between teacher and students is described in the study
through quotes from the interviews with the participating teacher and fieldnotes
taken during classroom observations.
Materials
The methodology of this study entailed administering the Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory as a self-reporting measure of metacognitive knowledge
and awareness to all students in the class. The Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) is a measure of two overarching aspects of

80

metacognitive awareness in adolescents and adults. These are knowledge of

cognition, which includes declarative knowledge and knowledge of thinking
processes, and control of cognition which includes awareness of the need for
planning, monitoring, and modifying thought processes.

This instrument also

contains items specific to reading (e.g., I stop and reread when I get confused.)
and motivation (e.g., I have control over how well I learn.).
The participating teacher was also interviewed as a part of this study at
the end of the eight week data collection period. The questions of the interview
were largely formulated after observing the classroom interaction and were as
follows:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x

What does metacognition mean to you?

Can you give me some examples of metacognition happening in
your classroom?
Do you have metacognitive goals for your students and are they
reaching them through those various activities?
With your metacognition goals being intrinsic, how do you know
when and how to adjust?
How often would you say you are very purposeful and intentional
about asking them to think about their thinking?
How often would you say they engage on their own in this type of
thinking without you prompting them?
Do you see a correlation between the levels of student
achievement and students ability to think metacognitively?
If so, why do you think that is?
Can metacognition be developed; if a student did not have
exposure to metacognition earlier on, can someone like you, say in
the 12th grade of a students life, ignite it?
When is metacognitive behavior more likely to occur in your
classroom?
In what ways do you provide feedback to them about their
metacognition?
This question is specifically about something I observed. During
the Socratic Seminar you were keeping a record of the

81

contributions. Other than indicating that they did contribute, was

there anything else that you were recording in your notes?
When you are reading their journal entries, what is the focus of your
assessment attention?

During the course of the eight week data collection period, I began by
implementing the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory to the consenting and
assenting students of the class. Each week, I planned to collect one journal
entry from each of the students in the targeted sample and analyze them before
and after the teacher gave any written feedback on the journal entries. Not all
subjects submitted journal entries each week, however. According to the written
curriculum for the course, the journal entries were all to be in response to the
literature and content that the students were studying throughout the course. I
observed the classroom on 11 separate occasions throughout the eight week
data collection period for the entire 90 minute class period and kept field notes of
my observations. No observations occurred or journals were collected during the
fifth week, because the week was shortened for a holiday break, a class
assembly occurred, and no journals were written or collected. At the end of the
eighth week, I interviewed the participating teacher.
At the end of the study, I also formally interviewed six students from the
targeted sample. Selection of students to interview was based on findings that
arose from the classroom observations and journal analyses.

I aimed to

interview students who exhibited variable levels and types of metacognition in

their writing, who had varying scores on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory,

82

and who represent both genders and the racial demographics of the class. The
questions for the student interviews were as follows:
x
x
x
x

Tell me about yourself as a thinker and learner. How do you learn

best?
Does writing about what youre learning help you learn it? If so,
why? If not, why not?
How about the journal entries youre asked to write? Do you enjoy
writing them? If so, why? If not, why not?
Does writing the journal entries help you learn? If so, how? Why?
If not, why not?

The students were also asked about a specific journal entry that exhibits
interesting characteristics of her/his metacognition and that was collected and
analyzed. Questions for this portion of the interview were as follows:
x

x
x
x

I was particularly interested in one of your journal entries (allow

student to re-read it if necessary). Can you tell me why you wrote
this journal entry?
What were you thinking as you were writing?
Was there anything else you were thinking about?
Do you think you were thinking about your thinking in this journal
entry? If so, how and why? If not, why not?
Data Collection Procedures

The first observation of this study was quantitative in nature.

The

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory is a self-reporting measure of metacognitive

knowledge and awareness, and was administered by the principal investigator to
all students in the class at the beginning of the study. Non-consenting and nonassenting students MAI scores were reported to them and other copies of their
score reports were then destroyed. Only the assenting and consenting students
MAI scores were retained for the purposes of this study. Likewise, only the
results of the MAI of those subjects selected for full investigation were compared
to the analysis of metacognition made evident in their writing.

83

Making Focused Observations

The curriculum at the school calls for reflective journaling in every core
subject at every grade level. Specifically for the classroom under investigation,
the journal entries were done in response to the texts and other content that the
students were reading and studying.

As such, the study also required

transcribing and coding the reflective journal writing of the selected subjects.
The sixteen students selected for study of their reflective journal writings were
blind participants to the teacher and to the members of the entire class. Doing so
ensured unilateral pedagogical techniques and content-area instruction.

All

students were invited to write in their reflective journals at least one time per
week over an eight week period with the exception of the fifth week.

Only the

targeted students journal entries were transcribed and coded looking for
emerging patterns of metacognitive thought.
The regular classroom practices, environment, student behavior and the
teachers pedagogical practices were also observed on eleven occasions for the
entire 90 minute class period throughout the study. Using passive participation
techniques in which the ethnographer is present at the scene of action but does
not participate or interact with other people to any great extent (Spradley, 1980,
p. 59), the oral discourse of the students while participating in learning activities
was carefully observed.

I was careful to move throughout the room to observe

all students working independently and in groups so as not to call attention to the
smaller sample of students whose reflective journal entries were the targeted

84

source of data. The teachers presentation of writing prompts, the imbedded

teaching practice and context, and the teachers monitoring of student writing and
oral discourse (especially the teachers immediate oral and/or written feedback)
were monitored to triangulate the other data.

These observations occurred one

to two times per week throughout the eight week study. Attempts were made to
have one weekly observation occurring on the same days that the students were
prompted to complete a journal entry that was subsequently transcribed and
coded. The sporadic submission of students journal entries and the fact that not
all students wrote at the time they were prompted diminished efforts to observe
regularly at the point of writing. All observations were, however, recorded in
handwritten fieldnotes, which were also transcribed and analyzed.
Making Selected Observations
The participating teacher was formally interviewed at the end of the study.
As a part of the ethnographic record, these interviews were tape recorded,
transcribed and analyzed. Questions for the interview were formulated largely
from data of interest collected during the classroom observations.
questions

inquired

about

the

teachers

perspectives

regarding

These
specific

interactions or exchanges with individual students and the entire class, her
teaching goals and intentions, and her views about metacognition. In addition,
informal conversations took place after classroom observations regarding what
occurred during the observation. These informal conversations occurred on two
occasions as needed and as the teachers time permitted. Fieldnotes of these

85

informal conversations were taken in my research notes soon after they occurred
so as to accurately capture them, as they were not tape recorded.
Data from the interviews was analyzed using the techniques outlined in
the forthcoming data analysis sections of this Chapter. This data was used to
triangulate the classroom observations, and to help create trustworthiness of the
complete data set. Care was taken not reveal fieldnotes to the teacher, to not
ask questions that might reveal the identity of the targeted student sample, and
to not otherwise discuss specific students in ways that were not related to the
context of this study.
The reflective journal entries which were to be written one time per week
over an eight-week period in response to the texts and content that the students
were reading and studying occurred within the context of normal classroom
instruction. The data, as expected, were affected by a variance in reflective
journal writing prompts, content matter, normal classroom interruptions and
interactions. It was, though, a serendipitous purpose of this study to capture and
analyze students metacognition as it was revealed in their reflective journal
writing entries in their most natural environment, especially since the literature
states that metacognition will vary depending on the context and the task. In
doing so, this study aspires to describe to educational practitioners in the
discussion section the observable classroom behaviors (i.e. teacher instructions,
writing prompts, student behaviors, classroom customs and procedures) and how
they relate to the characteristics of student metacognition as made apparent in

86

their writing to further enhance educators ability to identify, promote, and guide
metacognition through effective pedagogy.
At the end of each instructional week, all students were asked to place
their journal entries in a collective bin. The entire bin was turned over to the
principal investigator.

Without the witness of the participating teacher I, the

principal investigator, retrieved the journals of the targeted students. The journal
entries for the week from those students were photocopied by me and their
names obliterated and replaced with a unique number that identified the subject
only to me and connotes the gender (F= female, M=male), race (C=Caucasian,
B=African-American, D=Hispanic, M=Mixed-Race), and MAI score. Photocopying
was completed expeditiously so as not to hinder timely feedback and return of
the journals to the students. The entire collection of class journal entries was
immediately returned to the participating teacher, so as to minimize interruption
of her ability to read them and give students feedback.
At the end of the study, six students from the targeted sample were
selected for formal interviews. Selection of these students was informed by the
other data that were collected.

I used the data to select students to be

interviewed who exhibited variations in their metacognitive awareness as

measured

by

the

Metacognitive

Awareness

Inventory,

whose

writing

demonstrated varied types or quantities of metacognition, and who represented

the gender and racial demographics of the class.

These students were

interviewed within 3 days of the completion of the final journal entry collected for

87

this study. They were also interviewed individually. The interviews occurred in a
secluded section of the classroom, one-one with me, the principal investigator.
Also, the interviews occurred during a time that was arranged with the classroom
teacher where they would not miss classroom instruction.

Each interview

required approximately 7-10 minutes of each students time.

Data Analysis
Text Analysis
Students writing was evaluated for metacognitive statements.

This

evaluation began with a categorical framework provided by Hennessey. This

framework called for a delineation between the two types of metacognition: (1)
knowledge about cognition, and (2) regulation of cognition (Gil, 2001).
focus of this study is on Type Two metacognition.

The

The objective is to use

students reflective journal writing entries to identify their awareness of their

cognition, their ability to regulate their journeys of thought, and their strategy
usage in relationship to the task to acquire the desired learning goal.
Five categories are identified in the literature (Hennessey, 1999) to
characterize the facets of metacognitive thought that appear in student work.
Hennesseys categories were developed to assess student metacognition in oral
presentations, visual diagrams, and poster projects judged largely through their
oral discourse. However, this study maintains that similar metacognition should
be evident in students inner speech or metacognitive journal writing.
categories are as follows:

The

88

Category 1: Conceptions/Application includes metacognitive statements

in which the student is engaged in stating his or her ideas about the content
Category 2:

Reasoning/Analysis the student includes metacognitive

statements that refer to the students rationale that supports his or her ideas,
including relating those ideas to prior knowledge, experiences, or existing
schemata
Category 3: Implications/Synthesis includes statements that are
metacognitive in nature where the student explicitly contemplates the
implications or limitations of his or her ideas
Category 4: Thinking Process/Evaluation includes metacognitive
statements in which the student writes about his or her thinking processes and
strategies used
Category 5: Status/Evaluation includes metacognitive statements that
weigh the plausibility or validity of ideas that the student has developed
It proved problematic to apply Hennesseys categories, however, in this
story, because they did not fully describe the observed metacognition in the
students journal entries. Firstly, imposing these predetermined categories on
the writing resulted in poor categorical fits of many of the writing units. Secondly,
these categories did not seem to help delineate the various levels of
metacognitive thought that were apparent.

Finally, Hennesseys categories

seemed better suited for her study of students metacognition through the

89

examination of their oral, graphic, and written representations of scientific

concepts.
Fortunately, I remained open to new patterns and categories that indeed
emerged. Consequently, I applied procedures for context-sensitive text analysis.
These procedures called for the following steps (Huckin, 1992):
1. Selection of a beginning set of texts: In this instance, the initial set of
texts was the targeted students first writing samples.

The

transcriptions of these texts were reviewed carefully looking for any

emerging linguistic patterns.
2. Identify patterns: Subsequent sets of reflective writing samples from
the target students were also scanned looking for reiteration of
patterns from the beginning set or for newly emerging patterns.
3. Determining Interestingness:

Huckin states that at this point I

should ask, Is there anything in this pattern that might be of interest to

composition teachers or researchers? (1992, pg. 91)

I asked this

question within the context of the classroom culture I was observing

and through the lense of metacognitive behaviors and attributes.
4. Selecting a study corpus: At this point, a stratified sample of reflective
writings was selected that represented the score levels on the MAI (or
other stratification criteria of interest that emerges from the study) for
further investigation of patterns.

90

5. Verifying the pattern:

the patterns that emerged in step two were

verified against the more stringent stratified sample in step four.

6. Conduct a functional-rhetorical analysis:

This step required that I

examine all of the data and build the most faithful interpretation [I] can,
revising [my] earlier hypothesis if necessary (Huckin, 1992, pg. 92).
Again, all names of students were removed from their writing samples and
replaced with identifying codes before they were given to the transcribers and
raters. Each sample was rated by two of the raters on independent occasions
who highlighted metacognitive statements made in the writing and noted the
category of those statements. (I, the principal investigator, was one of the raters.)
When, however, the two raters did not achieve the same categorizations, the
writing was given to a third reviewer for independent and blind review (he or she
did not know which categories the other two raters assigned to the metacognitive
statements). The prevailing categorizations were the ones considered for further
data analysis. If, however, the result was non-agreement on the part of all three
raters, the writing underwent a process of round-table review in which the three
raters met to discuss the rationale of their categorizations and to come to
consensus.
Domain Analysis
Similarly, a domain analysis was conducted on the fieldnotes taken during
the classroom observations and interviews with the participating teacher and
students.

In these cases, the data were not all recorded rhetoric, but a

91

combination of quotes from the actors, descriptions of classroom activities,

characterizations of body language and gestures, and more. For this, Spradley
(1980) states to review these fieldnotes for domains or categories specific to the
culture under observation and the semantic relationship that links them to any
other related terms included in the notes. The domain analysis revealed areas of
interest that I observed more closely for emerging patterns as I continued to
collect data and keep fieldnotes.

Of initial interest were the patterns that

emerged from the domains set by students scores on the Metacognitive

Awareness Inventory. Other domains, described in detail in Chapters 4 and 5,
however, emerged from the collected data throughout the investigation.
Taxonomic Analysis
I extended each domain and text analysis by conducting a taxonomic
analysis of the fieldnotes gathered from the classroom observations and the
interview transcriptions using Spradleys (1980) techniques.

According to

Spradley, a taxonomic analysis differs from a domain in only one respect: it

shows the relationships among all the included terms in a domain (1980, p.
113).

During this step, I looked for any emerging patterns and relationships

among all of the included terms that came from the domain and text analyses.
For instance, during my classroom observations, I kept track in my fieldnotes of
the various types of instructional techniques used by the teacher. During the
domain analysis I reviewed the types of instruction used by the teacher and all

92

their related terms. Here, though, during the taxonomic analysis, I looked at all
terms I had listed under each type of instructional technique.
Componential Analysis
It is at this phase that I searched for characteristics of categories that were
specific to the culture under investigation. It was during this phase of analysis
that I sorted my data for contrasts.

These contrasts were then grouped by

paradigms. In the case of my earlier example of instructional techniques, during

this phase, I contrasted the kinds of behaviors or statements associated with a
particular instructional technique. These behaviors, statements, and utterances,
were then grouped together according to the prevailing idea that they expressed
or reflected. These contrasts and paradigms were furthered verified by ongoing
text analysis, observations and interviews.
Discovering Cultural Themes
Once all data had been collected and analyzed, it was further reviewed
looking for principle statements (i.e. Its important to think about your thinking.)
that recurred across domains, and that seemed to link the students, teacher,
learning activities, oral discourse, and metacognition of the classroom culture
chosen for this study.
Conducting a Cultural Inventory and Writing the Description
All of my fieldnotes, coding, domains, analyses, interpretations, and
themes were carefully reviewed and lists made so as to make all of the data
accessible to facilitate including them in the writing of the results. Salient quotes

93

and writing samples were flagged to include in my writing as exemplars of

themes or conclusions that I have drawn.
As with most studies of this nature, the data of this story are primarily
descriptive and, therefore, are presented largely through descriptive means
(Wolcott, 2001). Quotes from student writing, interviews, and fieldnotes taken
during classroom observations serve to identify and describe any evidence of
metacognition found in the students writing. Tables of subjects Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory results and tabulations of metacognition examples found in
their writing are also used.

94

CHAPTER 4
THE METACOGNITIVE CULTURE OF THE CLASSROOM

One of the primary objectives of this study is to describe any evidence of

metacognition observed in the samples reflective journal writing within the
context of their classroom interactions. Initially, the proposed contextual focus
was centered on oral discourse among and between teacher and students.
Through the course of data collection and subsequent analysis, however, other
patterns and areas of foci emerged. These include the general features of the
classroom, student and teacher demographics, the ebb and flow of the normal
routines and rituals of the classroom, and the larger context of the academic
values of the school.
These elements lend descriptive understanding to the larger portrait of the
classroom and the strengths and weaknesses of its metacognitive culture and
climate.

They contribute to an explanation of the metacognition observed in

students reflective journal writing by illustrating the ways in which metacognitive

thought was cultivated.
Overview and General Description of the Selected Site
It is important in working towards an understanding of the general culture
and climate of the selected site to consider its uniqueness as an educational
institution. Specifically, the school is a public school academy. One of the many
purposes for the formation of public school academies in the state in which this

95

study was conducted was to spur innovations in educational practice that did not
seem to exist within traditional public schools (Michigan Education Report, 2004).
The school selected for this study has many written and enacted innovations,
which include flexible scheduling, access to primary historical resources, and
project and performance-based learning activities to name a few.

These

innovations can provide unique opportunities for authentic, student-centered

learning that can engage deep, reflective thought. The observations of this study
also revealed, though, that it has many of the norms and customs associated
with formal schooling and traditional schools. Many of these norms and customs,
such as a focus on grades or points, could detract from the opportunity of deep,
reflective thought afforded by the schools innovations.
Academic Foci
The selected school highlights in its annual brochure its attention to
student development by citing five developmental areas; academic content,
technology, communication, thinking and learning, and personal development.
The one developmental area of greatest relation to this study is thinking and
learning, which reads,
Thinking and Learning are skills that [name of school] students not
only use, but also constantly develop and refine. They identify
problems, gather and analyze information, and select effective
solutions. Students will develop cognitive strategies to enable
them to be logical, reflective, creative and open to many diverse
people, opinions and experiences.
On the surface, this goal reflects many of the values held by educators in most
any school. Other informational documents about the school explain that this

96

developmental area and the others are supported and reinforced through
performance assessments, project-based learning, use of technology, traditional
and alternatives measures, and community involvement.

These strategies for

reinforcing the Thinking and Learning goal are probably more unique than they
are standard in many schools. Furthermore, these open and explicit statements
of the schools academic goals exhibit the staffs advocacy of a thinking climate
- one in which metacognitive thought could occur and possibly thrive.
Opportunity of Locale and the Written and Enacted Curriculum
One of the more obvious innovations of the school is its location on the
grounds of a historical museum.

As such, the staff and students have

unprecedented access to one-of-a-kind artifacts, expert historians, interactive

exhibits, and a research collection devoted to the museums focus.
Other grade levels and content areas of the schools curricula were
explicitly written to integrate these resources into the learning process.

The

twelfth grade English Language Arts curriculum, written in 2000, also has a
clearly stated objective pertaining to the English Language Arts. The introduction
to the twelfth grade English Language Arts Curriculum reads:
Contemporary Issues in Life and Literature is a course devoted to
the exploration through classic and contemporary literature of
important topics facing individuals and society. The course uses
the literature topically to delve students into the issues that they
themselves, American society, and people everywhere are
currently facing.
These topics are highly debatable and
controversial. In exploring these topics, students will create a
variety of texts, embark on personal investigations, present their
findings, and even propose solutions to the central questions
related to the topics.

97

More specifically, one of the issues of study in the twelfth grade English
Language Arts curriculum is Affirmative Action/Discrimination. (This unit was one
that was implemented during the observation period of this study.) This unit and
the entire curriculum calls for much of the standard fare of any English
classroom, including reading of novels and news articles, essay and journal
writing, large and small group discussion, and direct instruction. The potential for
innovation exists, however, in the opportunity to enhance these normal English
Language Arts teaching and learning activities by examining archived documents
of hiring practices in American corporations, corporate recruitment documents
and photos, and exhibits devoted to Slave life and another on the Civil Rights
movement, all stored in the museums collection.

However, these primary

sources were not incorporated into the teaching and learning processes
observed during the data collection period of this study.

These integration

enhancements also were not written explicitly into the twelfth grade curriculum
(and one of the museums prominent Civil Rights exhibits did not even exist at
the time the curriculum was written).
Other school documents explain that the, Exhibits in the [name of
museum] help students better understand how innovations have shaped the
world around them and how they, too can effect positive change through creative
problem-solving and the implementation of new ideas.

Conceivably, creative

problem-solving and the mental faculties required to implement new ideas would
require metacognition. If so, the lack of observed integration of the museums

98

resources might constitute missed opportunities to provoke additional student

thought including thought that may have been metacognitive.
The curriculum and the actual observed classroom behavior were not void
of opportunities for metacognition, however.

For instance, the curriculum

written and enacted uses research-based best practices in the English

Language Arts, many of which are metacognitive in principle and nature. The
curriculums introduction document reads:
an integrated model of instruction gives charge to teachers to
create the context and the rest will follow (Short, Harste, & Burke,
1996). Thus, the curricular design of this course proposes such
contexts in which students will regularly be encouraged to connect
the course topics to society and their personal lives to create
highly relevant learning experiences. According to the Standards
for the English Language Arts, all language learnerslearn
language by using it purposefully and negotiating with others.
To bring this particular standard to life in the class, the role of the teacher
will be to teach reading and writing as processes by, (1) modeling effective
reading and writing; (2) providing pre-reading, during reading, and after-reading
activities to activate prior knowledge, set purposes for reading, and make
predictions; (3) providing daily opportunities for children to share what they have
been reading and writing; (4) guiding student choice in reading selections and
writing topics to encourage student ownership and responsibility; (5) encouraging
student reflection and assessment of their own learning processes and growth;
(6) providing daily class time for reading and writing practice; (7) finding real
audiences for student writing; (8) using portfolios and conferences to provide

99

immediate constructive and efficient evaluation (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde,

1998).
Throughout the observation period many of these types of pedagogical
techniques and learning activities were employed by the participating teacher.
Standard were daily opportunities for writing, student self-assessment, and
student choice of literature. As such, metacognitive thought did occur in the
classroom. A subsequent section of this chapter entitled, time on task explains
the observed instructional techniques used by the teacher and how much time
was devoted to each.

Descriptions of the metacognition that occurred during

these tasks also follow.

The Participants
There were a total of 16 students who assented and received parental
consent to participate in this study. (The total classroom population was 21). Of
the participating students 5 (31.25%) were male and 11 (68.75%) were female.
With regard to ethnicity, 8 (50%) were Caucasian, 1 (6.25%) was Hispanic, 5
(31.25%) were Black, and 2 (12.5%) were of Mixed-Race. All of the participating
students were age seventeen at the time of data collection. Four students were
17 years and 5 months or younger. The other ten students were age 17 and 5
months through 17 years and 10 months old.

The fact that there was little

variation in age limited the comparison of observed metacognition in their writing

based on that variable.

The literature supports that metacognition is

developmental in association with age and related cognitive abilities (Brown,

100

1987). Essentially, however, there was not enough of a differential in the age of
the participants of this study to identify a variance in their metacognition based
on age.
The participating teacher is a Caucasian female in her early thirties with
six years of teaching experience. Four of those years have been at the current
school. In those four years, she has taught English Language Arts at the tenth
and ninth grade levels. All of her twelfth grade students were also her students in
their tenth grade year. At the time of data collection of this study, it was her first
year teaching twelfth grade English Language Arts.

Systematic cultivation of

deep, metacognitive thought in students requires modeling and possibly the skill
of an expert teacher (Costa, 1984; Fisher 2002). The fact that the participating
teacher is relatively new to the profession, has had numerous changes in her
teaching assignment, and was brand new to teaching the grade and course that
were observed during this study could impact her ability to effectively model and
support metacognition in her students.
Also, though I was a non-participant observer, I have a unique working
relationship with the schools faculty and administration as the English Language
Arts curriculum writer.

As a part of the curriculum creation process, I also

supported the primary teacher for the first implementation of the tenth grade
English Language Arts curriculum approximately two years prior to this study.
Though my relationship with the administration and teacher can be characterized
as a professional and trusting one, it could have had an impact.

101

Rituals and Patterns

As with any culture, the classroom selected for observation in this study
ebbed and flowed with various rituals and patterns. These took the shape of the
most traditional and fundamental classroom management structures, as well as
the dynamics of the teachers style and the interaction among the students.
Time on Task
An analysis of time devoted to various learning tasks throughout the eight
week observation period of this study reveals the amount of time devoted to
various learning tasks (Table 3).

Table 3
Percentage of Time Devoted to Learning Tasks
Type of Learning Activity

# of
Minutes
345

% of
Time
35%

Small Group Discussion

297

30%

Large Group Discussion

198

20%

Independent Writing

110

11%

Independent Reading

20

2%

Direct Instruction

20

2%

Research (Using Internet Connected Computers)

The school runs on a 4 x 4 block schedule where classes meet every day
for 90 minutes for 1 semester. The length of each class period lends itself to
substantive teaching and learning, and is an asset for promoting time to reflect or

102

to be metacognitive.

Throughout the eight week data collection period, the

selected classroom was observed for the full 90 minute class period on 11
occasions for a total of 990 minutes. While this span of time allowed me to
ascertain patterns of behavior, a more longitudinal study would be required to
observe how metacognition in the culture changed or developed over time.
Independent Research
The vast majority of time (35%) was devoted to students working
independently to complete research-based projects and writing assignments
using wireless Internet-connected laptop computers.

This was highly

demonstrative of the aforementioned Thinking and Learning goal of the school

to have students gather and analyze information, and select effective solutions.
Furthermore, this independent work often resulted in exchanges between
the teacher and her students where she was able to course-correct, provide
motivation, give clarification, question students thinking, or deliver additional
guidance. It was during independent work time that I observed the only instance
of the teacher modeling metacognitive thought processes.
For example while working independently on the Poster Presentations of
their I-SEARCH findings, the teacher instructed students not to just say youll
cut and paste your paper onto a board, because that wont work. I am trying to
find out your plan. She then moved to a particular table to help further explain
the Poster Presentation project.
At this table a girl asks her, Can I do a video?

103

A boy at the table says, So we dont have to say nothing.

The teacher responds, Yes. Something you dont have to explain. Well
set-up the posters and rotate and your classmates will evaluate your
presentation.
Another girl at the table states, So mine was on gene therapyso, I
would take some of my questions and put them on a slide and then maybe some
quotes or paragraphs.
The teacher nods her head.
Another boy at the table then asks the teacher, How many slides should
the PowerPoint be?
The teacher points to the rubric.
A third girl seated at the table asks the teacher, What can I type into
Google to get stuff on fashion in 1988 in England?
The teacher gives her suggestions. Girl #3 types the suggestions into the
computer and proclaims, I only got something about a band called Duran
something.
Girl #2 asks the teacher to assist her with her computer research when
she comes across a startling web page devoted to her research topic abortion.
The teacher explains to her after leaning over her shoulder to look more closely
at the computer screen, I suspect that you are on a web page that isnt giving
you completely accurate information. Remember some sources use extremely
shocking info and pictures to persuade.

The teacher then suggests as she

104

begins to navigate the controls on the girls computer how to look at a web page
to determine if an Internet site is credible. She explains to her further how to
scrutinize the sources that are after shock value.
A female student at another table calls the teachers attention for help
navigating the computer. The teacher tells her from across the room what to do,
to which the girl replies, I dont know how to do that. The teachers goes over to
her, leans over her and navigates the computer while thinking aloud and asking
her probing questions about what she is looking for.
It was this act of thinking-aloud that was the sole observed instance of the
teacher modeling metacognitive thought for her students. Pointing to the rubric
and stating that she was trying to find out the students plans of work were
among five observed instances where the teacher made metacognitive gestures
or references.
Small Group Discussion
Another significant portion of time was devoted to small group discussion
(30%). This usually occurred as Literature Circle discussions. Each unit of the
curriculum focused on a contemporary, controversial issue. Students were given
choices of fiction and non-fiction literature related to the controversial issue,
which they later discussed with their literature circle groupmates who had chosen
the same book. For instance, for a unit on Crime and Punishment, students
could choose to read, Monster by Walter Dean Myers, A Lesson Before Dying by
Ernest Gaines, or Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Subsequently,

105

approximately once per week, students met in literature circle groups to discuss
pre-assigned portions of their chosen novel.
During an informal interview, the teacher explained that many students
were not coming prepared for deep conversation in their literature circle groups
(prior to the data collection period of this study) or had only prepared to discuss
the novel from one limited Literature Circle role. She, consequently, revised the
process outlined by Harvey Daniels in Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the
Student Centered Classroom (1994) though still relying on teacher-generated
roles and prompts.
The written curriculum encourages the implementing teacher to rely less on
formal literature circle roles and accompanying role sheets, because the students
have used Literature Circles in grades nine through eleven and should be familiar
with the general process and assumedly be more able to engage in authentic,
self-prompted discussion.

The teacher, however, required each student to

prepare for the discussion by responding to the following questions which she
presented to them on a literature circle preparation sheet:
x Summarize: What happened in this section of the novel, as you understood

it? (This can be done in words or in pictures.)

x Language Watch: What language was unclear to you (include page number

so you can find it again)? What language was particularly interesting?

x Connect: How does this section of the novel connect to anything in your life

(could be a movie, could be your family)?

x Big Picture: What is the overall point of the story so far? What do you think
the author is trying to get you to understand or believe? Why do you think
that?
x Predict (not for the last section of the book): What will happen next? What
makes you think so?

106

x Investigate (last section of the book): What supplemental information can you

find out about the book or the author?

Her modification of the process demonstrated her expression of license to make
curricular adjustments to help students be more successful.

Importantly, the

language watch, big picture, and predict prompts are metacognitive in nature.
The language watch prompt requires students to examine their own
understanding of the use of language. By asking why do you think that and
what makes you think so in the big picture and predict prompts, she is actively
inviting students to examine their own thinking. This suggests that the teacher
did have the intention for metacognitive thinking to occur and is able to compose
prompts that require metacognitive thought.
Moreover, Literature Circle discussions did ignite some of the most
poignant oral discourse with evidence of metacognitive thought. For instance, in
a Literature Circle discussion regarding Doris Lessings Fifth Child that occurred
during the second of the eleven observations, an oral exchange between three
African American female students gathered for Literature Circles showed their
ability to engage existing schemata while reading their chosen novel, make
predictions, identify the lack of information available to perform a complete
analysis, and question and answer their own questions by referring to evidence
from the literature:
Girl #1: I can relate this story to my friends mother who is about to have
her sixth child.
Girl #2: I would go crazy.

107

Girl #3: The big pictureI think the author is trying to build a foundation
for the book and show how she is not connecting with the child.
Girl #1: But how are you not going to like your child?
(Girl #3 responds to Girl #2 by paraphrasing an explanation given by the
character in the book for not liking her own child.)
Girl #2: How can they afford that?
Girl #1: I think she is going to go crazy. I think she and David are going
to get a divorce.
During this conversation, as was typical with all small group and
independent activities throughout the period of observation, the teacher moved
about the classroom quietly observing and listening in to the conversations. On
this occasion, she stopped to comment, Its a very interesting book.
Girl #2: Very interesting.
Girl #3: The mother is the one creating the problem.
Teacher: What do you think is the mothers motivation?
Girl #1: We dont have enough information yet to tell.
The teachers question at the end of this exchange required some
metacognitive thought and reflection about the content. Also, Girl #1s response
demonstrates her ability to think about her thinking as it relates to the content to
establish that more information was needed to answer the teachers question.
Another example of metacognition that emerged during a small group
discussion is one that occurred when students were working in small groups to

108

provide peer feedback on drafts of essays another class ritual that occurred on
two occasions throughout the observation period of this study.
In this instance, two African American female students and one African
American male student were gathered in a peer response group. During their
exchange, the students demonstrated their ability through oral discourse to selfcorrect, set goals for successful task completion, assess and self-assess their
work.

Here, too, the teacher provided more guidance by prodding their

conversation with questions.

Girl #1 reads her I-SEARCH paper on cloning to her peer response group.
While reading, she reads aloud a grammatical error in her writing. She stops and
then re-reads the sentence correcting the grammatical error. After the reading:
Girl #2 (when Girl #1 is done reading): I think you did a good job.
Teacher: What makes it a good job?
Girl #1: I know I have to annotate this.
Teacher: What else do you want to get from them?
Boy #1: Wasnt this supposed to be your basic five paragraph essay?
Teacher:

If it were five paragraphs, you probably couldnt hit all the

points I wanted you to. Section four [of the paper] is probably the key.
Girl #1: Do you think.,
Boy #1: One paragraph you just went on. It was super long like it didnt
have a period.

109

Girl #1: I worked on that. That was a prize sentence for me. Do you
think I shouldtalk more about the embryo?
No one responded to her question, however, during this exchange
students displayed their abilities to critically assess their own and their peers
work. This ability to look reflectively at ones performance and the performance
of others and critically evaluate it is among the attributes of metacognitive
thinking.
Also, during cooperative learning tasks where students were required to
work together toward a common goal or completion of one product, students
thinking processes were sometimes evident.

For example, for one project

students were split into two teams and asked to prepare to debate the
controversial topic that was the focus of the unit.

While each student was

expected to prepare for a spoken role in the debate, the teams also had to work
together to produce an opening and closing statement.

As with many

cooperative groups, natural leaders emerged and students engaged in the task
at various levels. The following exchange also illustrates how one student, Girl
#1, guided many of the thinking and working processes for her group:
Boy #1: What are we doing?
Girl #1: I think well write today.
Girl #2: I think weve done enough research.
Girl #1 (to Girl #3): We need to write two speeches for the debate and
decide who will give them.

110

Teacher (when passing by): Good job, way to keep the group together.
Girl #1 (to a member of the group who has passed her a piece of paper
with writing on it): The introduction should cover the alternate, but most of that
should be saved for the second speech.
(Girl #2 passes some research with statistics that she found to other
members of the group.)
Girl #3: Has anyone found any information that I could put on a pie
chart?
Girl #1: I am starting on the Intro speech, does anyone have something
they want me to include?
Boy #1 (holding up the article that he is reading): I am highlighting
everything because every sentence has an important statistic.
Girl #4: Am I supposed to be highlighting stuff?
Girl #1: Yeah; if its good. Be careful what youre highlighting; some of
this stuff is supporting affirmative action and were supposed to be against it.
Girl #2 (reads a couple of quotes she has found to Girl #1):

Are

these

good quotes?
Girl #1 replies, Yeah.
The group stagnates for seven minutes and the conversation trails to
discussions about volleyball, at which point, Girl #1 says, Help! I have only
managed to write two paragraphs of the introductory statement so far.

111

Various levels of engagement in the task and processes were evident on

the part of the students.

Also, the teacher briefly observed the group

(approximately 3 minutes of the 60+ minutes that they were working together),
when she stopped by to see that they were on-task. It was not observed that she
gauged, assessed, or supported the thinking processes involved in working
together to complete the task successfully by asking probing questions or giving
feedback as she did on other occasions when students were in small group
discussion or working independently. She may not have seen a need for it with
this group at this time, or she may have gauged and assessed the groups work
mentally.
Large Group Discussion
Most often, large group discussion took the form of call and response
questioning from the teacher. Often the teacher would ask for a show of hands
in response to one of her questions, and only a few students would raise their
hands for either indication - yes or no.

Rarely, did this method evoke

metacognitive thought or processes. However, in a couple of instances she

used this call and response style as an opportunity to stimulate existing
schemata the students held pertaining to a topic that they were on the verge of
studying. For example on one occasion, she asked for a show of hands of how
many students had attended a regular public school prior to attending their
current school. This preceded a discussion about affirmative action in education.
Other instances were when she was presenting a new project to the class and

112

was engaging their prior knowledge about how to approach such an assignment.
While somewhat metacognitive in that her questions were intended to engage
existing schema, this call and raise-hand method did not provoke any observable
substantive or sustained thought or reflection.

The purpose in using this

questioning technique may have been to simply pique students interest in the
topic and to prepare them for the impending work related to the topic.
For one large group discussion, the entire class session was devoted to a
Socratic Seminar-type discussion related to the unit topic.

For the Socratic

Seminar, students were asked by the teacher to write a discussion question

related to affirmative action, the unit topic, on a slip of paper. All students quickly
wrote questions which she reviewed before placing them into a hat and saying,
Im impressed with you guys; there are almost no repeating questions.
The seminar proceeded with the teacher moving around the circle having
each student randomly draw a question from the hat to which they were allowed
the first response. Throughout, the discussion was intense and heated, though
respectful, as students stated their opinions and others rebutted.
Approximately five students did not utter a word throughout the entire
discussion. Toward the end of the Socratic Seminar session, the teacher said
there are about 8 minutes left in the session and those who havent been prolific
in the conversation have a little time to get involved. This prompted one student
who had not spoken to make a comment. When he did so, the teacher wrote

113

something on the paper attached to the clipboard that she had been marking on
throughout the entire class period.
During an informal interview immediately following the discussion, I asked
her what exactly was she tracking. She replied, I placed a check next to the
students names each time they made a comment; the checks add up to points
for their participation in the discussion.

I inquired further if there were any

criteria for the types of comments that they made. She answered, No, I just
wanted everyone to make a comment and participate.
assessment was on students participation in a learning task.

The focus of her

It is possible that

focusing attention on students cognitive processes may have caused more of

them to withdraw from the conversation. A research report of students attitudes
towards participating in discussion revealed that students value discussions as a
method for learning (ERIC, 2001). The report also states that while the majority
of students believe they are responsible for participating in discussions, they are
divided over whether participation in class discussion is a matter of personal
choice and on whether or not it is fair for a teacher to base a part of a students
grade on the quality of her or his participation (p. 3).
Writing
Independent writing constituted 11% of all learning activities. On all
occasions this independent writing was the reflective journal writing collected and
analyzed as a part of this study. In each instance, with one exception, the writing

114

was done as bellwork at the beginning of the class period.

Only once was it

done at the end of the class period.

Each time a prompt was given, it (Appendix C) was written on the board
by the teacher as a part of a daily agenda of activities and students were
expected without verbal direction from the teacher to copy the agenda and
respond to the prompt. Students kept their journals in a three-ring-binder with
handouts and other notes from the course. The journals were collected weekly
during the observation period, though the first collection contained entries that
were written in the prior month.
There were no criteria for the journal entries verbalized by the teacher
during the collection period. These may have been expressed to them in the
days and months the course met prior to the commencement of this study. The
students did seem to understand that they were responsible for noticing the topic
and writing a response.

This was evident in that those who did do their journal

entries usually entered the classroom, opened their binders and wrote without
being told directly to do so. Only once did the teacher indicate the length required
for the entries when she wrote the prompt, In a paragraph or two evaluate your
groups presentation for todays trial. Consequently, journal entries varied in
length from just a couple of sentences for some and pages for others throughout
the data collection period of this study.
Also, the subjects of this study (N =16) remitted their journals sporadically
(Table 4). One student, who originally assented and had parental consent to

115

participate in the study did not submit any journals and, therefore, was ultimately
omitted from the sample. The fifth week of the study was abbreviated because of
an assembly, holiday, and school vacation. Students were not asked to write any
journal entries this particular week. Without the consistent submission of journal
entries, however, by each student in the sample, it is nearly impossible to fully
describe each individuals patterns of metacognitive thought for the purposes of
this study. For the same reason, it would seem difficult for a teacher to use them
as a tool for monitoring and assessing metacognition, or other cognitive
processes or developmental goals.

It is possible that the relatively low

submission rate was a result of senioritis, where students often exhibit a lack of
engagement in their senior year of high schools which manifests itself in a
variety of ways:

not doing the schoolwork, coming late to class, staying

distracted in the classroom (Heller, 2001).

Table 4
Number of Journals Submitted by the Sample

Total Journal

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

10

10

11

56%

56%

62.5%

62.5%

50%

68.8%

12.5%

Entries
Submitted

Percentage of
Maximum
Possible

116

Most of the prompts (28.57%) asked students to react to the content that
they were studying or a learning activity that they had previously completed
(Table 5).

Some of these prompts include, Reaction to movie, Dead Man

Walking, Reaction to the Novel, What do you think will happen next in
MacBeth?, and Reaction to Mock Trial. When asked about her use of reaction
prompts, the teacher responded in her interview:
Frequently they are more able to be metacognitive after they have
accomplished something. They are much more able to look back
and say this worked for me, I could have done this differently. It is
much more difficult for them to think about their past experiences,
assimilate them into a common idea about how they best learn and
then make choices and goals.
Table 5
Journal Prompt Analysis
Type of Prompt
Reaction to Content or Learning Activity

Number Percentage
12

28.57%

Planning and Goal Setting for a Project/Learning Activity

21.43%

Ideas about a Topic

11.90%

Learnings

11.90%

Self-Assessment

11.90%

Expectations/Predictions about course, class, or content

9.52%

Strategy Efficacy

4.76%

117

Many of the prompts required students to set goals or plan their work for
the class period.

Nine of the 42 prompts (21.43%) involved goal-setting or

planning of work.

Some of these prompts include, What is your research plan

for the day?, What is your goal for the project?, and What do you need to do
to get ready for the test and binder check? The focus of these prompts tended
to be on assignment or project completion.
Prompts that asked for students ideas about a topic, their reflections
about things they had learned, or a self-assessment of their performance were
the third most frequent type of prompt. These constituted 11.9% of all of the
prompts.

Prompts that asked students to express their ideas about a topic

included, Where do you get your ideas about the death penalty?, How does
society determine the appropriate limits of science and technology?, Are you
responsible for the action of other people undertaken on your behalf?, and
What is your understanding of the idea of a debate?, Where does this idea
come from?
Prompts about students learnings (11.9%) included, What did you learn
from your case study and multimedia project?, What did you learn from your
poster project?, What did you learn from the debate, What have you learned
thus far from your research? What more do you want to find?, and What have
you learned from the research of your workgroup partners?
When prompted to self-assess their preparation, work or performance
(11.9%), the prompts included, Evaluate your performance., Sloppy Copy Peer

118

Edit, How well is your group prepared for the debate?, How pleased are you
with your research question.

Explain., and How well did your research

workgroups function?
On four occasions (9.52%) the teachers prompts asked students to state
their expectations or predictions about the course or the course content. These
prompts were What have you heard about senior English?, What do you
expect from senior year?, What do you think will happen next in MacBeth?,
and How do you think MacBeth will end? Whats the lesson?
Finally, journal prompts that asked students to write about the
effectiveness of a particular strategy were given by the teacher two times
(4.76%). These prompts were, Which of the study skills in the packet would
work for you? and What reading strategies/study skills worked for you in
reading your lit circle novel?
When she collected the journals, the teacher did not write comments or
provide any narrative feedback. Instead, she marked them for completion. In
her interview, she explained her rationale by stating:
I think the point of journals is not so much what they say, but that
they have accomplished. Journals are generally one of those
things that if youve made a deliberate effort and youve done what
Ive asked you to do, then youre getting full points, because thats
what Im trying to accomplish. Basically, journals are assessed for
accomplishment as opposed to what exactly they say. Ive been
known to write some notes on them, but there are some
assignments where the whole point is to finish it, and to do it, and
to go through the whole process of completing it and thats hard for
some of the kids who say you didnt give me a grade you just
gave me credit, but I say the whole point is that you
accomplished; the activity is the end result, not what comes after.

119

Though her admitted purpose for the journals was for students to simply
do them, the completion rate shows that students were not meeting that goal.
Not giving feedback in the form of comments on the journal entries did not seem
to illustrate even a secondary focus of the journals as a tool for monitoring
cognition or metacognition. Of course, monitoring metacognition is not the only
purpose of journals.

Students may have benefited in other ways supported by

the literature to have daily writing practice that was not scrutinized for
characteristics other than completion.

These benefits could be improved

attitudes about writing, growth in writing ability, writing to learn content, or to

experiment, to learn more about themselves as writers, to write for the pleasure it
gives them (Anderson, 1992, p. 305).
This is further supported by one of the students who commented during
her interview about reflective journal writing that it was an activity that she likes
more when it is not required, because its easier if youre just writing to write and
not for a grade.
Teaching Style and Instructional Techniques
Generally speaking, teacher talk was minimal throughout the entire
observation period. Often, the teacher used her platform to organize the class
for the day or otherwise manage it by announcing the daily agenda or giving
instructions for dividing into teams and groups.

Occasionally, her talk was

humorous or sarcastic. For example, one student, complained to the teacher

when she announced another novel to be read for class how much work he had

120

from other classes. She replied to him, but my book is most important. On
another occasion, a student asked the teacher, Why do you give so much
work?, after the teacher announced a new project assignment. The teacher
responded, Its my mission in life to torture you.
When presenting new learning tasks to the class, she most often
conducted mini-lectures, where she briefly explained the concept and gave an
example.

On each of the three occasions that this occurred during the

observation period, the mini-lectures consumed a maximum of six minutes. All

instruction was given orally.
An exemplar of this pattern occurred when the teacher introduced the
structure of the I-SEARCH essay. She began by stating that it is more of a
paper about the process you used to research than the research itself. She
continued by stating, it has four major sections and runs together like a paper
not with a heading like a history text. A focus on the process of research and
writing certainly lends itself toward metacognitive thinking.

In her interview, the

teacher explained her intentions:

A lot of the time when we do as were doing for example, writing a
paper, after the students have written their final draft, the students
are expected to self-assess their own process both the paper and
the process they used to get through that, and there are questions
about what they could have done better, what their plan was. We
frequently do journals during class about setting goals and whether
theyve been successful, or what they need to do differently and
how they plan to get to those goals and so forth.
Such a focus on process was accompanied by a requirement of certain
elements of the paper or prohibiting certain statements in the paper without a full

121

explanation as to why these elements were desirable or undesirable.

For

instance, her mini-lecture continued with her telling the class that, You may not
say in your paper: My question is She explained further what each of the four
sections should contain and added that an annotated bibliography was required
at the end stating, An annotated bib is not a list of web pages.

You have

examples in your packet of bibs. And, several of you did a good job before with
bibs. Some of you didnt.
The teacher did not explicitly model any of the instructions that she
provided to students during the observation period. Instead, her method was
usually to monitor them while they worked independently and provide guidance
when they approached her with questions.
Motivation
Winograd and Gaskins (1992) write of students responding to the
epistemological stance of their instructors. Students have learned through the
customs of school to do what pleases their teachers. Anderson (1992) speaks of
this issue specifically as it relates to journal writing. He states that from his
experience many of his students write for the teacher and that this problem is
also connected to the issue of grading in that I have found its occurrence to be
directly proportional to the number of marks allocated to the journal (p. 307).
However, extrinsic motivators, such as grades, could possibly benefit
metacognitive processes, but only if metacognition is the focus of the teacher
(Winograd & Gaskins, 1992). Essentially, because students are inclined to do

122

what is told to them by their teachers, they would engage in metacognitive tasks
if instructed by their teacher. This is evident in this study by the high percentage
of journal responses that were direct responses (69.92%) to the teachers
prompts and were also highly metacognitive (40.6%) (see Chapter 5).

comment made by one of the students selected to be interviewed at the end of

the study underscores the tendency toward extrinsic motivation. When asked
about herself as a thinker and learner, she replied, I learn best by whatever
directions are given to me.

Whoever may be teaching you like my teacher,

because regardless in life you are gonna be told what to do by someone at some
point in your life, regardless.
Winograd and Gaskins (1992) go further to state that metacognition is
truly rooted in intrinsic motivation.

It is intrinsic motivation that drives the

executive control component of metacognition.

A general lack of observed

intrinsic motivation on the part of students throughout the collection period of this
study may, therefore, account for the general failure of students to realize the
value of their journals for recording their inner speech or to exercise their
metacognitive faculties.
The Participants Perceptions of Metacognition and Journaling
Students Perceptions from the MAI
The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) was the first measure used
in this study to ascertain the students attitudes about their own metacognitive
abilities. It was administered at the beginning of the study prior to the classroom

123

observations, journal analyses, and interviews. Their actual journal entries and
interviews helped to explain what was reported through the MAI. Again, as a
self-reported measure, the MAI gives a glimpse into students perceptions of their
metacognitive faculties. As attested in the review of literature, self-reports are
limited by students over or under-reporting their abilities for a variety of reasons
(Brown, 1987; MacLeod, Butler, & Syer, 2003; Rhodes & Shanklin, 1993; Wilson
2001).
The MAI consists of eight subcategories.

The subcategories are

declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge, planning,

information management strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging
strategies, and evaluation of learning.

The MAI has 52 questions to which

students responded by rating themselves on a scale of 1 to 7. Questions for

each subcategory are interspersed throughout the questionnaire. In other words,
the tool is structured so that students do not know the subcategories or which
questions correspond to the respective subcategories.
Scores on the MAI are reported in two formats a general scaled score,
which is the sum of all responses to all questions, and subcategorical means.
The maximum general MAI scaled score possible was 364. This is the
sum of all maximum ratings for all 52 questions (52 x 7). The subcategories are
reported as means of the ratings on a scale of 1 to 7 (Table 6).
As a collective, the samples mean MAI scaled score was 275.33. There
was variability in the MAI scores of the sample. The lowest MAI scaled score

124

was 226 and the highest was 345. For the purposes of this study, the range was
split in two to establish low and high MAI scores (Table 7).

Importantly, the

published version of the MAI does not establish a norm for the range of scores.
Table 6
Group Sub-Categorical Means of MAI Scores
MAI Category

Mean

General Metacognition (all subcategories combined)

5.29

Declarative Knowledge

5.91

Debugging Strategies

5.85

Conditional Knowledge

5.57

Procedural Knowledge

5.52

Information Management Strategies

5.22

Comprehension Monitoring

4.67

Planning

4.59

Evaluation of Learning

4.47

The low group consists of students who had scaled scores that ranged
from 226 to 285.5. The mean MAI scaled score of the low group was 260.17
(sd=21.83). The high group consists of students whose scaled scores ranged
from 285.5 to 345.

The mean scaled score of the high group was 314.50

(sd=15.79). More students (75%) MAI scaled scores fell into the low range than
the high. This connotes a general low self-concept of their own metacognitive

125

abilities, withstanding the tendency to over or underreport in self-reports and that

there is no established norm for low or high scores on the MAI by its creators. Of
the 11 female students who participated in this study, only 2 (18%) rated
themselves in the high range on the MAI.

Table 7
Frequency of High and Low MAI Scores
High MAI

Low MAI

Male

Female

Male

Female

Caucasian

African American

Hispanic

Mixed Race

X=no subject from this demographic met the high/low MAI criteria

Comparatively, 2 (40%) of the male students participating in the study

placed their metacognition in the high range on the MAI. All of the MAI scores of
the Hispanic and African American students participating in this study fell in the
low range.

Chi square tests were performed and revealed no statistical

difference in the frequency of high and low MAI scores of the Caucasian and
Minority students (F 2(1, N=16) =1.333, p=.2483) or between the scores of the
male and female students (F

(1, N=16) = .873, p=.3501).

126

The study participants rated themselves most highly (M=5.91)

in the

category of Declarative Knowledge which is a self-reported measure of the

factual knowledge a learner must have before being able to use critical thinking
processes pertaining to a topic.

This is aligned with the literatures claim of a

general focus in education on declarative knowledge (Mayher, 1990).

The

second highest category for the sample was debugging strategies (M=5.85),
which is also a self-reported measure of how well students are able to use
various strategies to correct comprehension and performance errors. While the
essence of debugging is more metacognitive in nature than declarative
knowledge, it also has a focus on getting the right answer.
Despite the devotion of significant class time, structures, and processes to
self-assessment, students rated themselves rather low (M=4.47) in the category
of Evaluation of Learning which is a measure of students ability to analyze their
performance and the effectiveness of a strategy that they used during a learning
event. Likewise, though many of the journal prompts were devoted to students
planning their projects and tasks, the samples second lowest rating (M=4.59)
was in the category of Planning, a self-report of students ability to plan, goal set,
and allocate resources before beginning a learning event. Essentially, while the
teacher frequently required the students to write journal entries that asked them
to plan their work, this did not transfer to their own concept of themselves as
planners.

127

Student Perceptions from Interviews

Those students interviewed at the end of the study (n=6) most often
viewed writing as a useful tool for learning. Their reflections, generally, showed
that writing was a mechanism to support declarative knowledge or to be able to
remember facts. They reflect the customs and focus of schools to be on recall
and retell of factual information instead of deep, reflective thought processes,
such as those required for metacognition. One student said of writing, It helps
me to memorize facts and stuff. Normally, when I write down facts, I dont even
need to look at them again. Another commented:
When your head is overfilled, sometimes, you can put your
thoughts off to the side and that way youll have them for later. If
you feel particularly strongly about an opinion and youd like to
keep it for later in case of lessons over time, then its always good
for that, to record and help.
Yet, another student said that writing helps me memorize. Sometimes you
read something then you write it out and then you can understand it better.
When asked specifically about journal writing, there were mixed reactions.
The same student who commented that writing helped him to memorize facts
said that journaling, seems kind of pointless to me, especially when I can keep it
all up in my brain. The same student who said that writing things down helped
her understand them better said about the reflective journal entries they are
asked to write in class that, I dont like doing them, but I think they help me
remember things. I forget to do them sometimes, and its kind of a hassle. Her
forgetfulness may be attributed to the fact that students are expected to notice

128

the journal prompt on the board when they enter the class and write in response
to the prompt as bellwork. The teacher, generally, did not preface the journaling
or bring any attention to it. If tardy, absent, or otherwise preoccupied, students
might easily forget the understood expectation that they write in response to the
prompts.
The student who commented that she enjoyed writing for writings sake
and not for a grade also commented that journaling:
kind of forces you to sit down and think about it when you might
not necessarily, but I dont know, I think I could get the same thing
out of it if I were just thinking about it on my own. I dont
necessarily have to write it down.
This comment and the others suggest that students see some benefits from
journaling, but generally feel that journaling is not necessary for them to think and
reflect.
Teachers Perceptions
The teachers views about the purpose and function of writing and
metacognition in her classroom were evident in my interview with her at the
conclusion of the study. Here she revealed that, I have intrinsic metacognitive
goals that are in my head but are not necessarily written down on paper. She
further explained that she makes adjustments when necessary to help her
students think about their processes, know what is working for them, and make
corrections when strategies do not seem to be working. This is evident when she
stated in her interview that:

129

I want students to be able to think about their thought processes to

recognize where those thought processes are not working for them,
and then make those corrections. Im always making adjustments,
although they are not necessarily formalized in the curriculum or on
paper; its always something Im trying to accomplish.
When asked how she knew when and how to adjust and if/how journaling
helped her make adjustments, she replied that she keep[s] an eye on what kids
are writing in their journalsself-assessmentsand peer editing.

Of all the

journal entries that I collected during the observation period, none had comments
from the teacher. They did include a tally of points indicating completion; the
same was true of their self-assessments and peer editing sessions. It is possible
that she monitored their processes mentally, instead of writing her comments
down. It was observed that she monitored students thought processes through
oral feedback and questioning during large and small group discussions or most
often while they were working independently to complete projects and research.
She also revealed that she believed metacognitive ability to be a byproduct of intelligence, stating, I think it is more difficult for the lower IQ students.
I think it is also more difficult if they have not seen it modeled. She went on to
say about modeling that:
I think part of that is modeling throughout their education, starting
as far back as their parents, and watching family members and so
forth. I think part of it is that innately higher level students are more
likely to do that. I think students whose brain reaches abstraction
ability earlier are more able to do that. Ive seen it be more difficult
with younger students, because they are not capable of the
abstraction.

130

This indicates a need for modeling, which is also supported by Quicke and
Winter (1994), though it was rarely observed that the teacher modeled
metacognitive thinking behaviors. The only occasion observed was when she
thought-aloud while assisting a student who was having trouble navigating the
computer while compiling Internet research for a project.
The teachers quote also reveals her assumption that metacognition is
associated with IQ.

This is not unfounded. Opper and Ginsburg (1997)

acknowledge an association with cognitive development and metacognition.

Admittedly, however, intelligence quotient and cognition are not completely
synonymous. When asked how she determined IQ, the teacher replied that she
did not use a specific objective test or measure. Here, it seems that she is
relying on her observations of students, analysis of their work, or possibly their
overall grades. There is research that supports a teachers ability to accurately
predict student achievement based on non-cognitive variables or observations
and perceptions of students abilities (Mulholland and Berliner, 1992).
In sum, there were many metacognitively supportive behaviors in the
classroom selected for observation. Substantive time was allowed for students
to think, write, and discuss their ideas. Moreover, students were observed being
metacognitive, especially during oral discussions. The Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory revealed, however, that many of the students are not completely aware
of their metacognitive abilities.

Also, the teacher demonstrated her ability to

construct discussion and journal questions that could elicit metacognitive

131

responses. Alternatively, many of her pedagogical practices only raised more

questions as to whether or not different instructional techniques may garner more
of different metacognitive responses from students.

132

CHAPTER 5
METACOGNITIVE ARTIFACTS
The ultimate goal of this study was to identify and characterize
metacognition found in students reflective journal writing.

To do so, each

consenting and assenting subjects journal entries were transcribed and coded.
First, I worked deductively using the coding schema used by Hennessey (1999),
in which the five categories from her study were applied to the journal entries.
Hennesseys coding categories resulted from her inductive examination of
higher-order metacognition.

Her study outlined the process people use to

change their metacognition and identified the role of teaching in helping

metacognitive change occur. Her work was also focused on these aspects of
metacognition as they occurred in a science classroom.

Hennesseys

categories, because of their specificity to the goals of her study, were not as
applicable to the questions addressed by this study. Consequently, that coding
scheme was abandoned in favor of an inductive approach.
Firstly, one of my independent raters and I used a sample set of journal
entries gathered from the sample at the beginning of the study. These entries
were divided into units of one sentence in length. A unit of thought was defined
as an expression of one complete idea. On occasion, one compound sentence
contained more than one unit of thought and was, therefore, split. An example of
a unit is, I enjoyed the lit circle.

An example of a compound sentence

containing two units is, I also thought that Jefferson would get off/but the ending

133

of the book dashed my dreams. In other instances, a series of two or three

sentences constituted one unit of thought and were contained together.

An

example of this type of unit is, I learned I lost my guts. I cant worry what other
people think, though.

Each unit was examined by the two of us for the

metacognitive thought it seemed to contain. Then, the units were arranged into
categories.

Finally, the categories were organized into a matrix that reflected

levels of metacognition (e.g. low, medium, high) and categories (e.g. strategy,
content, learnings) (Table 8).

Strategy

Table 8
Types of Metacognition Observed in Journal Entries
Low
Identification/
Description of plan of
work

Medium
Evaluation of conditions
or need for change in
conditions for task
completion

High
Description or
awareness of learning
style or learning
difficulties

Goal setting for task

completion

Statement of criteria for

successful completion
of a learning task

Description of purpose
or intent for learning or
task completion

Identification/
Description of strategy
choice

Control of strategy
usage
Description of
conditions for strategy
usage
Strategy choice with
rationale
Monitoring of strategy
usage
Evaluation of strategy
efficacy

134

Table 8
Continued
Low

Medium

Statement of idea
about content

Identification/
Description of own or
others beliefs about
content

Identification of
schema for beliefs or
ideas about content

Statement of
prediction about
content

Statement of prediction
about content with
rationale

Identification of ease
or difficulty with
content
Monitoring of ideas
about or
comprehension of
content

Content

Analysis of content

Evaluation of impact of
content
Feelings/attitudes
about content or a
learning experience

Learnings

High
Identification of
motivation for task
completion

Identification/
Description of
enjoyment of or
learning experience

Identification/
Description of
enjoyment of content or
a learning experience
with a rationale

Identification/
awareness that new
learning occurred

Summarization/
retelling of new
learnings

Feelings/attitudes
about content or a
learning experience
with a rationale

Evaluation of impact of
new learnings on
beliefs, ideas, and
schema

135

Table 8
Continued
Low

Medium

Learnings

Evaluation of own or
others performance

High
Awareness of others
understanding/
Comprehension
Evaluation of own or
others performance
with rationale
Evaluation of
effectiveness of
teachers instruction

The journal coding matrix was then used to code the remaining journal
entries collected throughout the observation period. Six hundred seventy-five
(675) units of thought were analyzed. The valid responses (611) are all of those
coded as having low, medium, or high metacognition, and excludes those coded
as having no metacognitive properties.

Many (40.6%) of these units were

designated high in their metacognitive properties.

A summary of the

occurrence of levels of metacognition is shown in Table 9.

In general, the number of units included in the journals decreased each
week. The percentage of non-metacognitive units also decreased from a high of
10.5% to 0% by week eight. However, the percentage of high units remained
nearly constant at about 40% throughout the study. Also, the percentage of low
metacognitive units tended to decrease, while the percentage of medium
increased (Figure 2).

136

Table 9
Levels of Metacognition
No
Week

Low
% of

Medium

% of

% of

Total

% of

Valid

Valid

Valid

Valid

Total

High

44

10.5

136

37.1

84

22.4

155

41.3

419

375

0.0

33

40.2

24

29.3

25

34.1

82

82

8.2

11.9

22

32.8

37

55.2

73

67

13

30.2

21

70.0

6.7

23.3

43

30

4.3

18.2

36.4

10

45.5

23

22

0.0

28.0

32.0

10

40.0

25

25

0.0

30.0

30.0

40.0

10

10

TOTAL

64

9.5

212

34.7

151

24.7

248

40.6

675

611

Figure 2
Percent of Metacognitive Units per Week

100%
80%
High

60%

Medium

40%

Low

20%
0%
1

4
Weeks

137

There is a higher percentage of low units during the fourth week of the
study.

The observed difference during this week of the study was that the

teacher made an explicit and open reminder during this week for students to
submit their journals so that they could be included in their progress report
grades. Also during this week, there were three journal prompts, requiring three
different types of responses.

These prompts asked students to make a

prediction about the video they were watching, to express their ideas about
debating, and to make a work plan for completing a project. During week three,
there was also a higher percentage of high metacognitive units.

The only

observed difference during this week was that there was only one journal prompt
given and it required students to write about their learnings (What did you learn
from your poster project?).
Descriptions and Examples of the Observed Types of Metacognition
No Metacognition
Units identified as no metacognition were those that did not have any
metacognitive characteristics.

Often those ideas identified as having no

metacognition were either summaries of the content or reactions to content that

did not entail the students concepts of their own thinking.

For example, after

watching a film in class, a male student responded, This was an excellent

movie.

A female student in one of her entries that was coded as having no

metacognition wrote, In class we acted out skits that showed someone wanting
something so bad that they would do anything for it. This entry was a retelling of

138

activities in which they had engaged during class, but did not exhibit her thoughts
about those activities.
Low metacognition
Low metacognitive statements, however, did reveal a sliver of students
thought processes. For instance, when writing about strategies, these units of
low metacognition identified a plan, strategy, or goal for completion of a learning
task. When related to content, students, generally, expressed their ideas and
predictions about the content they were reading or watching.
Low metacognition was the second most frequently observed type. One
such example could be found in the journal entry of a Caucasian male student in
his response to a prompt that asked the students to react to the play Macbeth
during the first week of the study. His entry, which was coded Low/ Content
(Statement of prediction about content) reads, I think MacBeth will be praised as
a hero and eventually be influenced by his wife to take over the government.
Here, the student exhibits his ability to react to the text and make a prediction,
but does not venture into a rationale or monitor any earlier predictions he may
have had about the content.
Similarly, an African American female student responded in her journal to
a video that they watched as a class and were asked in the prompt to make
predictions about what would happen to the students featured in the video (What
do you think will happen at the end of the video?),

139

I think that the students will prove their innocence of not cheating
on the Advanced Placement test. I also believe that something will
happen to one of the students.
Statements categorized as low that were about students learning usually
were an acknowledgement that they were, in fact, learning something new.
These statements were often closely related to one of the two parts of
metacognition associated with cognitive awareness Kluwe (1982) identified as
knowledge of thinking or declarative knowledge. For example, one student wrote
in response to the prompt, What do you need to do to get ready for Thursdays
test and binder check? that he needed to finish all my bellwork and summary
entries. In response to the prompt, What is your plan for your poster project?,
another student wrote, I would be drawing and maybe doing models for this.
Both of these responses like the other 210 coded as low, show students
declarative knowledge about the thinking and learning they need to do to
successfully complete assignments, but do not delve into the actual cognitive
processes they employed to control their thinking while engaged in those
assignments.
Medium metacognition
Of the journal entries that were coded as medium, one that is
characteristic came from an African American female student in the seventh
week of the study and was coded as Medium/Learnings (summarization of new
learnings). It was written in response to the prompt, What have you learned
from the research of your workgroup partners?:

140

In African mythology one piece of information I didnt know about

was the god of vomit, Bumba. It was told that he made the Earth
and Heavens through vomit.This topic is interesting to know.
This entry and the others like it show her awareness of her new learning and her
ability to retell it.

It was not, however, classified, as a high instance of

metacognition, because it did not evaluate the impact of her new learning on her
own ideas or schema.
Journal responses coded as medium also gave a bit more of a view of
students cognitive processes than the low responses. Often units of thought
rated as medium contained many of the same attributes as the low units, but
went further to include an evaluation or a rationale.

For instance, a journal

response coded as medium stated, Group discussions are also fun because
you can see what other people think. Yet another stated in response to a packet
of articles they were asked to read about affirmative action, The packet made
sense though my mind did wander here and there.

These examples show

where students are not simply declaring or identifying what they need to do to
complete a learning task, identifying their new learnings, or stating their
enjoyment in a learning task. In the medium category, students thinking was
more transparent in that they began to explain why they enjoyed a learning
activity, assessed their performance or others, and acknowledged and retold
their new learnings. Also in this category, students were able to state in their
own words the criteria for successful completion of a learning task or the
conditions they required to be successful in that task.

141

High metacognition
The executive control that Brown (1987) wrote about as another critical
component of metacognition was more evident in journal prompts categorized as
high.

These entries demonstrated an acute awareness of learning style or

difficulties. Almost exclusively in highly metacognitive responses students gave

reasons and rationales for their ideas. For instance, some entries described
when students believed they should or should not use a particular strategy. For
example, one student wrote,
I am one of those people that dont need to study to pass their
classes./ I can retain information fairly well, so that as long as I pay
attention in class and to the assignments I wont have to study for
tests./ I figure that I should already know everything on a test by the
time it comes around so studying will be redundant./ There are a
few times I will actually do extra studying. Only in certain situations
will I study. One such situation was German class./ I wouldve
never received a good grade in German unless I studied the
vocabulary./ The only other time I will study is if I missed a few
days of class and I need to catch up/. This way of studying hasnt
steered me wrong yet,/but if it does, I wouldnt hesitate to change it.
Examples of units of high metacognitive thought are further represented
in the following quotes from journal entries of the sample. One female student
from the sample wrote a response coded as High/Content (Identification of
schema for beliefs or ideas about content) to the prompt, Where do your ideas
of the death penalty come from?:
My ideas come from my mom, though it is not good. / I always
check what she believes to base off my belief though I know she
is not always right it does not seem that way./ Also my ideas of
the death penalty come from my belief on life and saying no one
has the right to take life away./ But then some of these people
might as well be dead instead of being in jail all their life./ I really

142

should see what God thinks what else better to get your ideas
from then God who created everything. God would know.
Another example of high level metacognition occurred when another female
student responded to the prompt, What did you learn from your poster project?
She replied in an extended response which was coded as High/Learnings:
Personally, I think that both the appearance and the grammar of
my project was exceptional. / I had eye catching decorations as
well as pictures. Also, I had almost no grammar mistakes. / [Other
students name] did, however point out my improper usage of the
word incompetence. / I still think I used it correctly though.
Both of these examples exhibit the depth of thought students were capable of,
particularly when their reflection was rather personal in nature.

In fact, the

personal nature was characteristic of the inner speech discussed in the literature
(Flavell, et al., 1997; Harris, 1990). More often than not, however, even though
their metacognition was coded as high, it did not make the same type of
personal connection or have the same type of inner dialogue as the two previous
examples.

Instead, these other high instances illustrated students abilities to

monitor, control their thinking and understanding. For example, a male student
wrote in response to the prompt, Journal Reaction to Multimedia Presentation
that he had chosen to use PowerPoint explaining, I am most familiar with
PowerPoint so I saw it as the best option/Tranferring ideas from my paper to the
PowerPoint was very easy.

These two units were coded as High/Strategy.

They demonstrate the students ability to monitor the ease and difficulty of a
learning task in which he was engaged.

143

Similarly, another male student wrote in response to the prompt, What is

your research plan for the day?, that the most difficult part about this research
was coming up with a theory. This, too, was coded as an example of high
metacognition, because the student was aware and able to monitor his learning
difficulty.
On occasion in units of thought that were coded as high, students wrote
about how effective a strategy was that they had used.

Frequently, students

with high metacognitive entries discussed their motivations or intentions for

learning, even when the motivation was extrinsic.

One example is a female

students entry about her choice of novel for one of the units. She wrote, I
picked Frankenstein because I want to learn the truth behind the myths and
horror tales. It also sounded really interesting and difficult to read. I wanted to
challenge myself.

Another student wrote about his difficulties with a research

project that the motivation to put the research into some kind of actual format
was the most difficult thing to find./ Once found it was no problem to take the
research I found easily and put it into finality.

Obstacle:

the subject was

famous.
Students journal entries regarding content that were coded as high also
expressed their existing schema for their beliefs, relayed the difficulty or ease
they were having with a text, or monitored a prediction that they had previously
expressed regarding something they were reading. An example of a student
expressing her comfort with a text can be found in one female students reaction

144

to Macbeth when she writes, I get the main idea but miss detail in Shakespere
[sic].
When writing about their learnings, students entries were coded as high
when they evaluated the impact of their new understanding on their beliefs or
ideas. They were also coded as high when they showed awareness of others
understandings or comprehension or gave a rationale with their evaluation of a
performance or the adequacy of the instruction they had received.

characteristic entry coded as high that related to a students learnings can be

found in the following response from a female student in which she writes,
I enjoyed the groups discussion because it was a learning
experience that taught me things that I didnt previously know. The
discussion was somewhat helpful and powerful, so powerful that I
no longer know what I believe.
One entry, categorized as high, that evaluated the impact of a new
learning on the subjects ideas was written by a Caucasian female to the same
prompt and reads:
It helped me center my thoughts and understand where I should go
for my paper.I really hope that I can somehow incorporate what
Ive learned now with what I already knew
Yet another, written by another Caucasian male as an extended response
reads, I will not be swayed. I canned the info no change. Suppose there is
support, but it is not new info to me.
When looking exclusively at high instances of metacognition in the
samples journal writing there was also no statistical difference between the
mean occurrences of males and females, t (13)=.258, p<.804. This suggests

145

that both male and females were likely to produce similar amounts of high
metacognition in their journal writing. Similarly, when comparing the instances of
high metacognition in the journal writing of minority students (e.g. African
American, Hispanic, and Mixed-Race) with that of the Caucasian students in the
sample, there was also no statistical difference in the means, t (14)=.242,
p<.812.
MAI Scores and Artifacts of Metacognition Found in Students Writing
The data of this study were also analyzed to examine any relationship
between students self-reports of their metacognition as reported through their
MAI scores and the levels of metacognition identified in their journal writing. A
chi square test was performed where the mean number of each level of
metacognition was compared between the two groups of students with low and
high self-ratings on the MAI. The comparison revealed no statistical difference
with an alpha level of .05 between levels of metacognition for the high and low
MAI score groups, F2= (3, N=675) = 6.014, p=.1109. It suggests that students
who self-reported both high and low levels of metacognition did not vary in the
levels of metacognition in their writing.
Relationship of journal units to prompts
All of the units were also analyzed for their relationship to the prompt.
They were divided into three categories, direct, indirect, and extended denoting if
they were direct, indirect, or extended responses to the prompt.

Direct

responses answered the prompt question precisely without elaboration. Indirect

146

responses gave a related, but not as precise response to the prompt. Extended
responses not only answered the prompt question, but also went further and
beyond.
The units were each also analyzed for the ideas they expressed. These
are also represented by three categories strategy, content, and learnings. The
summary displayed in Table 10 reveals that overall, most of the responses (472)
were direct responses and were related to strategies (250).

Table 10
Number of Types of Journal Responses
Week

Type of Response to Prompt

Focus of Entry

Direct

Indirect

Extended

Strategy

Content

Learnings

294

20

105

161

186

72

69

13

45

15

22

60

13

19

10

44

17

19

14

29

10

15

20

17

TOTAL

472

37

166

250

221

204

Week four, however, yielded more extended responses to the prompt. Again,
this was the week that the teacher reminded students to submit their work for

147

inclusion on their progress reports.

Also, the prompts for this week asked

students to make a prediction about content they were studying, express their
idea about a concept and reveal their schemata for that idea, and develop a work
plan for completing a learning task.

Likewise, during week six there were more

indirect responses to the prompt.

The prompts for this week required self-

assessment and students reflections about their learnings after engaging in an

activity. The prompts were, How well is your group prepared for the debate?,
What did you learn from the debate?, and How pleased are you with your
research question? Explain.
Figure 3 represents the mean of each type, further illustrating that direct
responses and responses related to strategy usage were the most frequent
types.
Figure 3
Means of Types of Journal Responses
80

70.86

70
60
50
40
30

32.14

31.57
22.57

21.42

20
4

10
0
Direct

Indirect

Extended

Strategy

Content

Learnings

148

Chi square tests were performed to describe any difference between the
variables of the level of metacognition and types of responses (Table 11). The
total F2 is 52.705 (8, N=675, p=.000) revealing a significant difference in the type
of responses to the prompts and the levels of metacognition. This suggests that
the type of response to the prompt does impact the level of metacognition
observed in that response.
Of the units labeled as high in metacognition most of them were direct
responses to the prompt (n=155, 62.50%). However, direct prompt responses
also yielded the most units labeled as having no metacognition (n=43, 67.19%).
Indirect responses to the prompt most frequently resulted in low (n=13, 35.13%)
or no (n=12, 32.43%) metacognition. Also, of the extended prompt responses,
most were high (n=89, 53.61%) in metacognition.

Table 11
Levels of Metacognition and Types of Journal Responses
Direct

n
% of
level
Indirect
n
% of
level
Extended
n
% of
level
Total
N
%
F2
p=.000

No
43
67.19

Low
156
73.58

Medium
118
78.15

High
155
62.50

Total
472
69.93

12
18.75

13
6.13

8
5.30

4
1.61

37
5.48

9
14.06

43
20.28

25
16.55

89
35.89

166
24.59

64
9.48

212
31.41

151
22.37

248
36.74

675
52.705

149

Students Perceptions of Metacognition and their Journals

During the one-on-one interviews with six selected members (n=6) of the
larger sample, students revealed that they did not, generally, perceive their
journals as a mirror of their metacognitive thinking.

This is reflected in the

interview responses from two (33%) of the students.

One stated that it,

seems kind of pointless to me. This same student revealed also that, I dont
know that I think about my thinking. But subconsciously I think I do, but I dont
see it coming out in my writing.
The other student stated:
I find them pretty pointless. The subjects cover things that dont
need to be reiterated, that I dont need to think about; What do you
plan to do for your research today? The same thing I did yesterday
and the day before, just go about it the way I have.
Three of the students interviewed (50%) found journaling helpful as a tool
for learning. Their comments show that they generally viewed their journals as a
place to plan or organize their work. One wrote, I think they do a good job of
helping us reflect. Whether its what we did the previous day or laying out our
foundation for what we are going to do for our plan today. The other student
stated that she felt that journaling helps me think about what Im going to do for
that dayand after class I always have after thoughts, from there as in my
summary I reflect on that. She went further to state that journaling helped me
organize it [her essay] better, because if I put it in my journal Ill re-read it and itll
remind me that I need to organize better the next time. The third student who

150

found journaling beneficial stated, It helps me memorize. Sometimes you read

something then you write it out and then you can understand it betterI dont like
doing them, but I think they help me remember things. One (16.67%) was rather
indifferent about journaling and stated that it:
forces you to sit down and think about it [the content they are
studying] when you might not necessarily, but I dont know, I think I
could get the same thing out of it if I were just thinking about it on
my own. I dont necessarily have to write it down.
Another student stated his preferences for writing journal entries when
asked, If you had to write a journal entry and you were able to come up with a
topic can you give me an example of how you would write the question
[prompt]? He responded:
It would be more along the line of personal musings, random
observations and put them through my own sense of humor. I dont
know if it would be the notes and class structure. I would take it on
my own spin. If it had to be somewhat mirroring the subject.like if
it were about an assignment, I would criticize the assignment or talk
about how the assignment should have been.
His quote seems to acknowledge that the journal entries are more meaningful
when he is able to connect them to something personal (or engage in inner
dialogue/speech), is allowed to write freely, and feels safe to be critical of the
classroom activities and assignments. It was never observed during this study
that students chose their own prompts.

Some students, however, did

occasionally write extended responses to the journal prompts given to them by

the teacher. This practice of extending responses was neither discouraged nor

151

encouraged.

The aforementioned statistical analysis reveals that extended

responses yielded high metacognition (13.18%).

Another student expressed in her interview the importance of doing what
she was told by their teacher or whomever was in charge. Specifically, when
asked if she ever deviated from the topic, she stated, I follow the processI try
to follow the process the best I can, do what the teacher may say, as long as
they know what they [the teachers] are talking about.

Importantly, direct

responses did yield high (22.96%) and low (6.37%) metacognition.

During the interviews, each student was asked about a journal entry that
was coded as a high occurrence of metacognition. After allowing them to reread the entry and without revealing how it was coded, they were asked if they
thought the entry was an example of them thinking about their thinking. Two
believed that it was such an example, two thought the journal entry was not, and
two were not sure. Of the ones who believed that the journal entries exemplified
a time when they were thinking about their thinking, one responded, Yes, it was
more of a to do list so that I knew what I need to do, clearly expressing that he
viewed that entry as an opportunity to plan work that he still needed to do on an
essay he was composing. Another student responded,
Definitely in the journal entry I was thinking about my thinking. I
was thinking about why I was thinking that I wanted to research that
topic. When Im thinking about my thinking, its usually when Im
reflecting on what I did. Any other time, Im not usually thinking
about my thinking.

152

Of those who did not believe it was an example of their

metacognition, one student replied:
That one was mostly on a silly subject. It wasnt really a subject
that I cared to talk about all that much. So, I did it to meet the
requirements of length and whatnot and used the opportunity to
rant a little bit.
In sum, the students interviews revealed that for some journaling was
beneficial, but mostly as a place to plan their work. While many of them viewed
themselves as metacognitive (at least, occasionally), they perceived their
metacognitive abilities coming out in their journal entries on occasion, but not
consistently. Many saw writing in their journals as a pointless exercise, while
others viewed it as a tool for recording declarative knowledge and information for
recall at a later point in time.

Their interview comments also revealed the

importance they placed on doing what was asked of them by their teacher, which
may account for the large percentage of direct responses to the journal prompts
(69.92%).
Students journal entries, however, did demonstrate their metacognition
and many instances which were high. Additionally, most of the students journal
entries were direct responses to the prompt which coincides with their interview
statements where they exposed their propensity to do what was asked of them
by their teacher. Importantly, direct prompt responses yielded many high units of
metacognitive thought. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in the
levels of metacognition of Caucasian and ethnic minority students, male and
female, and students with low and high Metacognitive Awareness Inventory

153

scores. This suggests that these criteria are not predictors of the type of levels of
metacognition that may be found in students journal writing.

154

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
The foremost conclusion of this study is that metacognition can indeed be
found in students reflective journal writing.

In addition, various levels of

metacognition low, medium, and high can also be observed in their journal
entries. Furthermore, there was a statistical difference in the type of responses
(i.e. direct, indirect, extended) to the prompt and the level of metacognition of the
responses. Both direct and extended responses to the prompts accounted for
the highest percentage of high levels of metacognition in students journal writing.
This study also found that metacognition was not directly correlated to
students self-reports of their metacognitive ability as reported on the
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI).

In fact, students seemed to

underreport their metacognitive abilities on the MAI in comparison to what was

observed in their journal entries. Female and minority students seemed to have
a lower perception of their metacognitive abilities as reported on the MAI than
their male and Caucasian peers. However, there was no statistical difference in
the various levels and types of metacognition observed in their journal entries.
The disparity between students awareness of the metacognition and the
high levels of metacognition found in their journals calls into question the need
for metacognitive awareness for metacognitive proficiency. In other words, the
results of this study challenge the existing definition of metacognition which
concerns itself with cognitive control and awareness.

Students interview

155

comments and relatively low MAI scores exposed their general lack of
awareness of their metacognitive ability. This lack of awareness did not impede
their ability to be metacognitive during classroom discussions and while
journaling.
This study also revealed that metacognition can be influenced by the
classroom climate and culture which includes the teachers pedagogical style and
student and teacher interactions. As such, this study considered the classroom
climate and culture as a contributing factor to the metacognition that was
observed in the students journal entries. The observations of the classroom
revealed many rituals and patterns that had potential for contributing to
metacognitive thought. Some of these patterns and rituals, such as large group
call and response discussions did not lead to observed metacognition in the oral
discourse of the classroom participants. Metacognitive thought was observed,
however, during literature circles and when the teacher facilitated independent
work by asking probing questions or modeling a thought process.
Also, the classroom was largely driven by external motivators, such as
points and grades.

Not only did the teacher have an overt focus on task

completion as attested to in her interview comments, but many of the students

interviewed at the end of the study indicated that they performed based on what
they believed the teacher wanted or expected. This may account for the large
percentage of direct responses to the journal prompt. Direct responses to the
prompt did result in the highest percentage of high metacognition (22.96%). On

156

the other hand, this extrinsic motivational focus on task completion did not result
in consistent completion and submission of journals. At its peak, only 68.8% of
the possible journal entries that could have been collected were actually
submitted. For each subject, submission of journal entries also varied from week
to week. This inconsistency might be attributed to a phenomenon of apathy that
often occurs among students during their senior year in high school (Heller,
2001).

Nonetheless, inconsistency in journal submissions compromised

comparative analysis of development of metacognition within any one student or

over time for the entire sample.
Discussion
Identifying and describing metacognition in students journal writing
Consistently in the literature, metacognition is viewed as abstract or fuzzy
(Brown & Smily, 1978; Flavell & Wellman, 1977; and Paris & Winograd, 1990).
Investigating concrete evidence of students metacognitive ability by working
inductively from their writing brings more clarity to what metacognition is, and
how it can be assessed, monitored, and supported as a part of regular classroom
instruction.

Initially, the proposed methodology of this study called for using

Hennesseys (1999) categories for coding the collected journal entries.

This

process, however, revealed the general shortcomings of Hennesseys categories

for fully answering the questions of this study. Because her categories resulted
from her investigation of a science classroom and the metacognition that came
from students oral, graphic, and written work therein, the categories proved

157

difficult to uniformly apply to the journal writing that was done in the English
classroom for this study.
Working inductively to develop applicable coding categories, revealed that
students writing clearly exhibited different types (e.g. strategy, content,
learnings) and levels (e.g., no, low, medium, high) of metacognition. By using
this form of analysis, the journal entries revealed students metacognitive thinking
and that not all metacognitive thinking was the same.
This study revealed that many of the students journal responses (40.6%)
where characterized as high in metacognition. This study also uncovered that
direct (22.96%) and extended (13.18%) responses to the journal prompts yielded
the largest number of high metacognition. The largest percentage of the journal
prompts required students to react to the content they were studying or a
learning activity in which they had engaged (28.57%).

The teacher revealed in

her interview that she believed her students to be more able to metacognitive
once they had completed something and were reflecting back on it. Her claim is
substantiated by these results, as responses requiring students to plan work
tended to yield more low instances of metacognition.

Those that required

reflection, however, yielded more high instances of metacognition.

The numerous instances of high metacognition found in the students
journal is also consistent with the very nature of journaling to help thinking
emerge. Anson and Beachs (1995) writings about journals as a place to explore
and extend thinking offer a possible explanation for the frequency of high

158

metacognition found in student journal entries in this study. Their assertion also
fits with the teachers notions about not responding to the students journal
entries. Anson and Beach explain that,
the act of making thoughts tangible and visible engenders new
thinking, which leads to new text. The writer scans and rescans a
fresh assertion, testing it with a readers scrutiny and the
reformulating it with a writers new vision. By simply expressing
their thoughts in writing, students are learning to think (p. 23).
Moreover,

metacognition

is

by-product

of

age

and

cognitive

development and it is to be expected that thinking people are, to a degree,

naturally metacognitive. Brown (1987) asserts that cognitive regulation is highly
dependent upon the age of the individual and is characteristically unstable.
Based on Browns assertion, it can be expected that a person may demonstrate
ability to regulate thinking in one particular instance, but not another. This is
consistent with the findings of various levels of metacognition in students journal
entries in relationship to the various types of responses (i.e. direct, indirect,
extended) and types of prompts.
From this it can be drawn that researchers and practitioners should not
rely on one source in one situation to ascertain students metacognition.

We

should expect students metacognition to fluctuate based on age, cognitive

development, and each learning situation. Also, journals and other primary
sources of students thinking give a fuller view of students metacognitive abilities
than self-reports.

Additional primary sources (e.g. think alouds, graphic

159

representations, etc.) should be employed and examined to further validate and

substantiate what can be detected in students journal writing, as well.
Delineating awareness as a component of metacognition
The teacher revealed in her interview that she valued metacognition, but
that it was not an explicit goal of hers to use her students journals to monitor or
support their metacognition. This may not have provided support that could have
helped students become more metacognitive or exhibit more executive control.
Furthermore, though the teacher viewed the students journals as metacognitive,
the students did not, generally, appear to do so as revealed in their interviews.
This, at least, shows a difference between the teachers intentions and the
students understanding of the purpose of the journals.
The students journal entries had many instances of metacognition that
were categorized as high.

Evidence of their metacognitive abilities also

emerged on occasion during classroom discussions. However, two of the six

students interviewed commented that their journals were not reflections of their
metacognitive thinking. Another two students were unsure if their journals really
were a record of their thinking about their thinking.

This combined with the

significant portion of the class rating themselves in the low range on the MAI
shows that either (a) the students did not completely understand metacognition,
or (b) the journals captured metacognition of which the students were not fully
aware.

If they are not completely aware of when they are being metacognitive,

then it stands to reason that they may not have been employing their

160

metacognitive faculties in intentional ways.

This intentionality seemed

unnecessary for students to exhibit their metacognition in oral discussions and in

their journal writing.
In other words, awareness of metacognition does not seem necessary for
students to be metacognitive. This challenges the prevailing definition of
metacognition. While the definition of metacognition continues to evolve, the
most current literature defines it as awareness and control of cognitive processes
(Brown, 1978, 1983, 1987; Kluwe, 1982; Flavell, 1977). I argue that this study
helps to delineate between awareness of metacognition and awareness of
cognition as an addendum to the fields definition of metacognition. Currently,
the literature does not explicitly distinguish the awareness component of
metacognition in this manner. With metacognition identified by Bransford (1999)
as a function of learning and a characteristic of expert learners, it is worth teasing
apart the types of awareness that could conceivably compose metacognition.
The results of this study suggest that awareness of cognition is an
attribute of high levels of metacognition.

This is not to be mistaken for

awareness of metacognition, which did not seem necessary for students to be

highly metacognitive. In fact, it should be considered that perpetual awareness
of metacognition might be counterproductive. Students could potentially become
so enraptured in a state of heightened awareness about whether or not they are
being metacognitive that it could interfere with the basic cognitive processes
needed to complete the learning task. Whereas, on the other hand, it seems that

161

the most productive levels of awareness of metacognition, according to the

results of this study, are rather intuitive and do not interfere with the cognitive
processes required to learn. They were not explicitly instructed or shown how to
reveal their cognitive processes or show their control of those processes, but
regularly demonstrated their abilities to do that type of thinking. For instance, the
journal entries analyzed in this study revealed that students were often aware of
their cognition and able to control it. In fact, the units of thought identified as
high in metacognition seemed to most clearly demonstrate students awareness
of their cognitive needs and processes. For example, they often wrote about
strategies they needed to employ to successfully complete a learning task, times
that learning was difficult for them, or the ways in which new content had
impacted their ideas and thought processes. This is demonstrative of awareness
of cognition and is, according to the results of this study, a critical component of
metacognition, because virtually all instances of high metacognition contained
these characteristics.
Most students, however, divulged in their interviews that they did not
believe that they were being metacognitive when shown examples of their own
journal entries that were coded as high in metacognition. Their Metacognitive
Awareness Scores, also reveal that they were relatively unaware that they were
metacognitive. This exhibits a general lack of awareness of metacognition.

If

students self-reports of the metacognition were the only source for teachers and
researchers, there would likely be a complete misrepresentation of students

162

metacognitive abilities. In fact, without the journals in this study, I may have
falsely concluded based on students self-reports in the MAI and their interviews
that they were not, generally, metacognitively capable. The journals provided a
primary record of students thought processes that established their awareness
and control of their cognition their ability to be metacognitive.
Consequently, responding to students journals for the purpose of helping
them identify their metacognition is not only unnecessary, but it must also be
considered that it may have unintentionally inhibited students written expression
(Anderson, 1992). Teacher responses may also have squelched their authentic
inner voice and promoted them to write what the teacher wanted instead. Also,
students performing for their teachers is a custom of school that in many ways is
necessary to adequately guide students.

Moreover, the behaviors that were

observed in the participating students may have occurred regardless of what the
teacher said or did.
Given the disconnect in students generally low MAI scores, and the
variability in the levels of metacognition in their journal entries, this study did
confirm some of the literatures notions and suggestions for assessing
metacognition. Specifically, virtually all studies of assessment of metacognition
call for a multi-modal approach that uses self- or verbal reports along with task
and error-analysis or records of private or inner speech (Brown, 1987; Butler,
1994; MacLeod, Butler, & Syer, 2003; Wilson, 2001).

163

For this study, the students self-reports of their metacognitive ability

through the MAI tell only their self-concept. Viewing their self-reports along with
their journal entries as a record of sorts of their inner dialogue, however, gave a
more complete picture.

This picture revealed a disconnect in their self-

perceptions and actual evidence of the metacognitive capabilities. This was

substantiated by their interview comments where students varied in their
perceptions of their journals as a record of their metacognition. The chasm
between students MAI results, interview comments and the metacognition that
was actually observed in their journal entries is expected given the literatures
recognition of the shortcomings of self-reports of metacognition.

Inventories,

questionnaires, interviews and other self-reports often result in over- or underreporting

(Rhodes

&

Shanklin,

1993;

Harp,

1996).

Therefore,

the

aforementioned disconnect in students self-perceptions of their metacognition

and what was observed in their classroom discussions and journal entries could
possibly be attributed to students under-reporting their metacognitive abilities on
the MAI and in their interviews. Self-reports should not be completely discarded,
however, because they do give a perspective of students self-concepts of their
metacognitive abilities.

This information can be useful to researchers and

teachers as they examine and develop pedagogies to help students improve their
own concepts of their metacognitive ability. In fact, journals and other primary
records of students thoughts could help make students own thoughts more

164

visible to them, which could improve their own concepts of themselves as

metacognitive thinkers.
Executive control
Zimmerman (1989) postulated a prevailing purview of self-regulated
learning when he said, Students can be described as self-regulatory to the
degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active
participants in their own learning process (p.4). Furthermore, according to
Wittrock, there is a link between teaching and student achievement, and
between student cognition and learning or achievement (1986, p. 297).
Wittrock goes further to maintain that it is an engrained custom of school for
students to generally respond to what is asked of them by their teachers.
Though metacognition was observed in students reflective journal writing,
students in this classroom appeared to be driven by external motivators or to
please the teacher.

This notion was a consistent theme in the interviews

conducted at the end of the study.

Control of learning, a hallmark of a

metacognitive climate (Bransford, 1999; Fisher, 2002; Norman, 1980 ), was

sometimes evident in that students had choice of the novels they would read,
topics they would research, and spent most of their time working independently.
However, the true executive control over their own thought processes appeared
to be overshadowed by students motivation to do what the teacher asked of
them.

165

Executive control is the ability of a person to monitor and direct her/his

own thinking processes (Brown, 1987; Brown & Smiley, 1978; Brown, Bransford,
Ferrar, & Campione, 1983). With many of the students (50%) making some
admission in their interviews that they performed to earn points or please the
teacher, this seemed to be the manner in which they chose to exercise their
control. More intrinsic examples of executive control of cognition occurred during
literature circle group discussions or when students wrote extended responses to
the journal prompts.

It was during these discussions and in the extended

response entries that students voices were most authentic or when inner
dialogue was detected. Possibly, it was at these times that students were most
engaged, invested, and intrinsically motivated by what they were thinking and
writing.
It must also be reiterated that many of their journal entries, even those
coded as high in metacognition, lacked an authenticity that would be more
characteristic of true inner dialogue.

This lack of authenticity could also be

attributed to students view of their journals as another assignment that the

teacher is requiring them to do for a grade and not so much a place for them to
think and write deeply in ways that are personally meaningful.
Consequently, this leads to the conclusion that if journals are to be used to
help

support

and

develop

students

metacognition,

practitioners,

must

communicate this purpose clearly to students. With a variety of purposes for

journals (e.g. writing practice, writing skill development, etc.) students might

166

benefit from being told explicitly when a journal is intended for them to monitor
and control their thought processes. The intention and purpose of journals as a
place to be metacognitive should also be valued in teachers assessment
systems.
Implications
This study also aspired to suggest to practitioners ways in which
metacognition could be promoted in their classrooms, specifically through the
use of reflective journal writing. There are some implications from this study that
should be considered for practical classroom use.

These include creating a

metacognitively supportive classroom climate and culture, attending to the types

of journal entries students are writing, and using students journals as a tool to
monitor their cognitive processes.
Creating a metacognitively supportive climate
Norman (1980) asserts that the sum of the parts of metacognition
strategies, such as reflective journaling, are not greater than the whole. In other
words, without a fully supportive metacognitive climate, requiring students to
write reflective journal entries may not equate to full metacognitive awareness,
control, and execution on the part of those students (even if some of their journal
entries exhibited instances of high metacognition).
A fully metacognitive classroom is one in which teachers use
instructional strategies purposefully intended to develop childrens metacognitive
abilities (Costa, 1984, p. 58).

Hennessey also concluded that metacognitive

167

skills can be gained or improved by participating in metacognitive processes, and

by having metacognitive thinking modeled (1999).

Such purposefulness,

participation, and modeling could address the seeming problematic result of this
study that students were being metacognitive and did not always realize it. Within
the context of this study, this may be accomplished by having metacognitive
thinking modeled by teachers, and by giving students journal entries feedback
(e.g. probing questions, identification of metacognitive ideas, etc.). This could
take the form of a teacher writing along with the students and sharing her/his
journal entries with them or by thinking-aloud while demonstrating learning tasks.
S/he might also choose to share exemplary student journal entries with her/his
students while taking care to explicitly show them instances of metacognitive
thought. Teachers may also want to exhibit their value and purposefulness for
metacognition by keeping a written record of plans for teaching metacognition or
how they assess it.

Doing so could help them further identify, monitor, and

encourage metacognitive thinking. Additionally, classroom practitioners would

likely benefit from the findings in the literature and this study which caution
against the complete reliance on self-reports to gauge students metacognitive
abilities.

Consequently, classroom teachers would also want to use various

types of assessments to substantiate any self-reports they employ.

Quicke and Winter (1994) explain that if children are expected to become
more successful learners, then teachers need to make them aware of the
cognitive and psychological processes involved in learning. Isolated strategy

168

instruction (or having them complete compulsory journal writing without

explanation, discussion, or feedback) simply will not create the independent, lifelong learners that most educators value. Therefore, teachers might explain the
purpose of the journal as a place to think about ones thinking, model
metacognitive thinking and writing, and provide feedback on students journal
entries that prompt and promote metacognitive thinking.

Simply assigning

journal entries for students to write may assist in developing other desired
thinking and writing behaviors. It may also, as it did in this study, reveal some of
their metacognitive thinking, even metacognitive thinking classified as high.
However, journaling alone without other supports is not sufficient for helping
students become completely cognitively aware and in control (Quick and Winter,
1994).
Exploiting extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation could work to the advantage or disadvantage of
increasing students metacognitive ability. As observed in the study, for instance,
students most often responded directly to the teachers journal prompts. Often,
these prompts elicited high metacognitive responses.

Therefore, if teachers

carefully craft prompts by designing them to garner a highly metacognitive

response, it is likely that many students would respond accordingly. However, if
encouraged to extend their responses beyond the prompt, they are also likely to
produce a highly metacognitive response. The authenticity of the extended
responses as a reflection of what the student was interested in writing about or

169

made personal connections with is more closely associated with a critical aspect
of metacognition executive control.
Practitioners should be aware of the power of extrinsic motivators and
exploit them by having students write to carefully crafted prompts, at least some
of the time. In this study, students responded directly to the prompts on most
occasions (472 of 675 responses were direct responses to the prompt). Also,
direct responses most often resulted in low and high levels of metacognition in
students writing. This leads to the conclusion that in classroom practice, the
best crafted prompts would take advantage of students propensity for writing
directly to teacher prompts and would be designed to yield instances of high
metacognition.

To do this, they would require students to give extended

responses that include rationales for their thinking, monitor their understanding of
content, self-assess their performance, critique the performance of others, or
evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy they had employed.
With further regard to the types of journal prompts and entries that should
be encouraged, teachers should encourage students to write extended
responses to prompts and to respond to prompts in ways that are personally
meaningful or that make personal connections.
yielded

the

most

authentic

(containing

inner

These types of responses

speech/dialogue)

highly

metacognitive responses.
Lastly, practitioners should be acutely aware that journaling alone (or any
other isolated strategy for that matter) will not create thinkers who have mastered

170

metacognition (Quicke and Winter, 1994). This was evident in the data from this
study in that four of the six students interviewed were not aware or did not
believe that their journal entries exhibited their metacognition.

The were,

nonetheless, able to be metacognitive. The question is raised, therefore, as to

how this intuitive metacognition can be bolstered and supported to enhance
students cognitive processes and, ultimately, their learning and achievement.
For journals to become a meaningful part of a systemically metacognitive
classroom culture, they must be assessed for their metacognitive properties.
The coding scheme (Table 8) that evolved from this study could provide a
starting point for this type of assessment.

Teachers might look for and

encourage the type of metacognitive thought that fell into the high segment of
the matrix as they work with students and their journals. Modifying the matrix
into a classroom rubric such as the one in Figure 4, could give student and
teachers, alike, practical guidance for evaluating metacognition in journal entries.
Figure 4
Rubric for Assessing Metacognition in Students Journals
Rating
6

Holistic characteristics
Cognitive
Control & Awareness
The journal entry
The writing exhibits
responds to the
conscious control of
prompt with a highly
thinking in that the
authentic voice.
writing demonstrates
Students thinking
the students
about his/her thinking
awareness of learning
is highly transparent.
difficulties with
appropriate selection
of strategies for
overcoming those
Voice

Rationale
In most all cases, the
student gives a
rationale for her/his
thinking.

171

Figure 4
Continued
Rating

Holistic Characteristics
Cognitive
Control & Awareness
difficulties or ways to
approach a learning
task.
The journal entry
The entry
responds to the
demonstrates the
prompt, and
students ability to
somewhat exposes
describe successful
the students inner
completion of a
voice. The students
learning task or
thinking about his/her
evaluate the learning
thinking is somewhat
situation and what
transparent.
factors may contribute
to his/her successful
completion of the
learning task.
However, he/she does
not reveal in the entry
what s/he specifically
requires as a learner
to be successful in
that learning situation.
Voice

The
journal
entry
responds
to
the
prompt, but does not
expose the students
inner
voice.
Consequently,
students
thinking
about their thinking in
the entry is mildly
transparent.

The entry may contain

goals or steps for
completing a learning
task.

Rationale

A rationale for his/her

thinking may not be
present.

In most cases, the

writing does not reveal
the students rationale
for his/her choices or
ideas.

As other essential elements of a systemically metacognitive classroom,

practitioners should also have clear metacognition learning goals and clearly

172

articulated ways of measuring students growth towards those goals.

In this

study, the teacher valued metacognition, but stated that her metacognitive goals
were implicit.

The fact that metacognition was not overtly and explicitly

articulated as a learning goal may have contributed to students general failure to

understand metacognition or view themselves as metacognitive as attested in
their low MAI scores and interview comments.

Conversely, explicit modeling of

metacognitive thinking could bring a heightened level of awareness and, thus,

frequency of deliberate usage of metacognitive strategies. Likewise, having a
systematized way of assessing metacognition using journals might also help
teachers compensate for under- or over-reporting by students of their
metacognitive abilities.
For Further Study
This study raises some additional questions worth further investigation.
Does, for instance, metacognitive evidence found in students reflective journal
writing change over time? Other questions raised relate to comparisons that
researchers might want to study more closely: (1) Is metacognitive evidence
different in traditional public versus charter schools?; (2)

Is metacognitive

evidence different in urban versus suburban settings?; (3) Can the coding
scheme that emerged be applied to other content areas or academic situations?;
and, (4) How does any metacognitive evidence found in younger students
journals differ from that of older students? It can also be contemplated how a
different teacher with different pedagogical techniques and a classroom with

173

other cultural elements would impact metacognition found in students journal

entries.
To investigate questions such as these, further research may need to
control for a number of variables. Namely, larger sampling that was random and
demographically stratified would make the statistical analysis even more valid,
reliable, and generalizable. Including subjects from a wider range of grade levels
and/or ages would allow the investigator to study the differences in observed
metacognition that may be an effect of age-related cognitive development. This
would also overcome the age-related limitation of senioritis that may have
impacted the results of this study. It should also be encouraged for researchers
to use the same methodology on different populations, (i.e. public school/private
school, urban setting/suburban or rural setting, etc.).

Pre-identification of

classrooms that have various characteristics of their metacognitive culture and

climate should be considered in additional investigations. Doing so would allow
critical comparative analyses of the ways in which various cultural attributes
impact the metacognition observed in students journal entries.

Similarly

observing teacher who engage different pedagogical practices as they relate to

the journals could further explain some of the questions raised by this study. For
instance, researchers should consider studying a classroom where students
journals are not responded to by the teacher, one in which they are responded to
with comment, and possibly one in which they are responded to with probing
questions.

174

Further studies may also engage in longitudinal investigations. This would

allow researchers to observe increases or decreases of metacognitive types and
levels in the students journal entries over time. In addition, just as Hennesseys
(1999) coding scheme proved difficult to use to answer the questions of this
study, other research might use the coding scheme that emerged from this work
in a classroom other than English Language Arts and with something other than
students journals to observe if the categories remain applicable.
Additional comparative analyses would also be possible if further studies
controlled for the length and number of journal entries that were collected from
each subject. Instead of conducting the study naturalistically, researchers may
want to develop the prompts and ask subjects to respond at predetermined
intervals with journal entries of a specific length. Developing the prompts would
allow the researcher to implement prompts of a specific type that were designed
with the intent to elicit a particular type or level of response. Standardizing the
expected length, number, and desired characteristics of the journal entries would
facilitate efficiency and accuracy in using them as a tool for measuring students
metacognitive development.

Though, it must be cautioned, this type of

standardization might negatively impact student writing by stifling thought or

causing some students to artificially extend their writing to meet the required
length.
In summary, this study affirms many of the assertions in the literature
about metacognition.

It is, in fact, abstract but can, indeed, be observed.

175

Students journal entries provided this window into students minds.

In fact,

without the journals, students self-reports would likely have led to an assumption
that students were not, necessarily, metacognitive. The general lack of
awareness of their metacognition revealed in their interviews and Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory scores exposed the chasm between students capabilities
and their perceptions. This combined with the teachers implicit intentions for the
journals to support student metacognition create implications for creating a fullysupportive metacognitive culture.

176

APPENDIX A
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
Schraw, G. and R. S. Dennison (1994). "Assessing Metacognitive Awareness."
Contemporary Educational Psychology 19 (4): 460-75.
The following questions ask about the way you study and learn. Please take a
moment to respond to these questions. Remember there are no right or wrong
answers, just answer as accurately as possible. Use the scale below to answer
the questions. If you think the statement if very true of you, circle 7; if it is not at
all true of you, circle 1. If the statement is more or less true of you, find and circle
the number between 1 and 7 that best describes you.
1
not at
all true
of me

1. I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my

goals.
2. I consider several alternatives to a problem
before I answer.
3. I try to use strategies that have worked in the
past.
4. I pace myself while learning in order to have
more time.
5. I understand my intellectual strengths and
weaknesses.
6. I think about what I really need to learn before I
begin a task.
7. I know how well I did once I finish a test.
8. I set specific goals before I begin a task.
9. I slow down when I encounter important
information.
10. I know what kind of information is most
important when I learn.
11. I ask myself if I have considered all options
when solving a problem.
12. I am good at organizing information.
13. I consciously focus my attention on important
information.

7
very
true
of me

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

1
1
1

2 3
2 3
2 3

4
4
4

5
5
5

6
6
6

7
7
7

2 3

2 3

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

177

14. I have specific purpose for each strategy I use.

15. I learn best when I know something about the
topic.
16. I know what the teacher expects me to learn.
17. I am good at remembering information.
18. I use different learning strategies depending on
the situation.
19. I ask myself if there was an easier way to do
things after I finish a task.
20. I have control over how well I learn.
21. I periodically review to help me understand
important relationships.
22. I ask myself questions about the material before
I begin.
23. I think of several ways to solve a problem and
choose the best one.
24. I summarize what Ive learned after I finish.
25. I ask others for help when I dont understand
something.
26. I can motivate myself to learn when I need to.
27. I am aware of what strategies I use when I
study.
28. I find myself analyzing the usefulness of
strategies while I study.
29. I use my intellectual strengths to compensate
for my weaknesses.
30. I focus on the meaning and significance of new
information.
31. I create my own examples to make information
more meaningful.
32. I am a good judge of how well I understand
something.
33. I find myself using helpful learning strategies
automatically.
34. I find myself pausing regularly to check my
comprehension.
35. I know when each strategy I use will be most
effective.
36. I ask myself how well I accomplished my goals
once Im finished.
37. I draw pictures or diagrams to help me
understand while learning.
38. I ask myself if I have considered all options after
I solve a problem.

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

1
1
1

2 3
2 3
2 3

4
4
4

5
5
5

6
6
6

7
7
7

2 3

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

2 3

2 3

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

2 3

178

39. I try to translate new information into my own

words.
40. I change strategies when I fail to understand.
41. I use the organizational structure of the text to
help me learn.
42. I read instructions carefully before I begin a
task.
43. I ask myself if what Im learning is related to
what I already know.
44. I re-evaluate my assumptions when I get
confused.
45. I organize my time to best accomplish my goals.
46. I learn more when I am interested in the topic.
47. I try to break studying down into smaller steps.
48. I focus on overall meaning rather than on
specifics.
49. I ask myself questions about how well I am
doing while I am learning something new.
50. I ask myself if I learned as much as I could have
once I finish a task.
51. I stop and go back over new information that is
not clear.
52. I stop and reread when I get confused.

2 3

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

2 3

2 3

2 3

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6

7
7
7
7

1
1

2 3
2 3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

2 3

2 3

179

APPENDIX B
Parental Informed Consent
Title of Project: Artifacts of Thought: Evidence of Metacognition in Twelfth
Grade Students Reflective Journal Writing
Principal Investigator: Kendra Hearn
Introduction and Purpose: As a part of a doctoral program, the principal
investigator, Kendra Hearn, plans to conduct research to investigate evidence of
students ability to think about their own thinking (metacognition) as it appears in
their journal writing.
My child, _______________________________, is being asked to participate in
this study because reflective or metacognitive journal writing is a regular part of
the curriculum at my childs school whose administrators have agreed to allow
Mrs. Hearn to conduct her study.
Procedure:
If my child takes part in this study, s/he will
x complete the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, a questionnaire of
her/his reading, study, and thinking habits during her/his English class.
x write in a journal as a normal part of her/his English class one time per
week over an eight week period. Journal entries will be photocopied but
my childs name will not be on the photocopies.
x possibly be interviewed by the principal investigator about her/his journal
entries. This interview will last about fifteen minutes and will not interfere
with classroom instruction. It will be tape recorded. Only a small number of
students will be selected for the interview.
Benefits:
The possible benefit of my child participating in this study is that her/his scores
on all measures will be reported to him/her upon completion of the study. As a
result, s/he may have a greater understanding of her/his metacognition and how
her/his writing reflects her/his metacognitive ability. My child will also receive $5
compensation for her/his participation in the interview after the interview is
completed.
Risks:
There are no apparent risks involved in taking part in this study. Those that may
exist are not known to the principal investigator at this time.

180

Voluntary Participation/Withdrawal:
Taking part in this study is voluntary. I, on behalf of my child, may choose for
him/her not to take part in this study, or if I decide to allow him/her take part, I
can later change my mind and withdraw him/her from the study. My decision will
not change the present or future education or other services that my child
receives.
Costs:
There are no costs associated with this study.
Confidentiality:
All information collected about my child during the course of this study will be
kept confidential to the extent permitted by law. S/he will be identified in the
research records by a code number. Information, which identifies him/her
personally, will not be released without my written permission and the permission
of my child, however, my childs records may be reviewed by the study sponsor,
its agents, the Wayne State University Human Investigation Committee, and
appropriate federal agencies. Information from this study may be published, but
my childs identity will be kept confidential in any publications.
Questions:
If I have any questions in the future, I may contact Kendra Hearn, the principal
investigator at (313) 863-1338 or klhearn@umich.edu. If I have any questions
about my rights as a research subject, the Chair of the Human Investigation
Committee can be contacted at (313) 577-1628.
Consent to Participate in a Research Trial:
To voluntarily agree to allow my child to take part in this study, I must sign on the
line below. If I choose to allow my child to take part in this study, I may withdraw
him/her at any time. I am not giving up any of my legal rights by signing this
form. My signature below indicates that I have read, or had read to me, this
entire consent form, including the risks and benefits, and have had all my
questions answered. I will be given a copy of this consent form.
___________________________________________________________
Printed Name of Study Subject (Student)
___________________________________________________________
Signature of Parent or Guardian

__________________________
Date

___________________________________________________________
Relationship to Subject
__________________________________________________________
Signature of Witness

__________________________
Date

___________________________________________________________
Signature of Investigator/Designee Obtaining Informed Consent

__________________________
Date

181

Student Assent Form

Introduction and Purpose: As a part of a doctoral program, the principal
investigator, Kendra Hearn, plans to conduct research to investigate evidence of
students ability to think about their own thinking (metacognition) as it appears in
their journal writing.
I am being asked to participate in this study because reflective or metacognitive
journal writing is a regular part of the curriculum at my school whose
administrators have agreed to allow Mrs. Hearn to conduct her study.
If I take part in this study, as a part of my normal classroom instruction I will take
the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, a questionnaire of my reading, study,
and thinking habits. For this study, I also agree to allow Mrs. Hearn to photocopy
the journal entries that I write as a normal part of my English Language Arts class
once per week over an eight week period. I may also be among six students
selected to be interviewed by Mrs. Hearn about my ideas about my thinking,
learning, and journal writing. Finally, I also agree to allow the principal
investigator to observe me during her/his English Language Arts class and take
notes of her observations.
Questions:
If I have any questions in the future, I may contact Kendra Hearn, the principal
investigator at (313) 863-1338 or klhearn@umich.edu. If I have any questions
about my rights as a research subject, the Chair of the Human Investigation
Committee can be contacted at (313) 577-1628.
_____________________________________
Printed Name of Study Subject (Student)
_____________________________________
Signature of Subject

_____________________
Date

182

Informed Consent
For Participating Teacher
Title of Project: Artifacts of Thought
Principal Investigator: Kendra Hearn
Introduction and Purpose: As a part of a doctoral program, the principal
investigator, Kendra Hearn, plans to conduct research to investigate evidence of
students ability to think about their own thinking (metacognition) as it appears in
their journal writing.
I am being asked to participate in this study because reflective or metacognitive
journal writing is a regular part of the curriculum for the English Language Arts
course that I teach at my school whose administrators have agreed to allow Mrs.
Hearn to conduct her study.
Procedure:
If I take part in this study, I agree to allow the principal investigator, Mrs. Hearn to
observe me 16 times while teacher one of my 12th grade English Language Arts
classes take notes of her observations, and interview me two times throughout
the course of the eight week study (at the end of the fourth and eighth weeks of
the study). I will also allow Mrs. Hearn to administer the Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory to my students in the selected class at the beginning of the
study. I will further allow Mrs. Hearn to collect the reflective journal writings
completed by the students in the selected class, of which only the targeted
students entries will be transcribed and analyzed. I will arrange a time for a
select sample of six students to be interviewed by Mrs. Hearn regarding their
perceptions of their thinking, learning, and journal writing at a time that will not
cause them to lose classroom instruction. I realize that the targeted students of
Mrs. Hearns study will remain unknown to me.
Benefits:
There are no known benefits to my participation in this study although I may be
able to improve my teaching after the general results of this study are shared
with me.
Risks:
There are no apparent risks involved in taking part in this study. Those that may
exist are not known to the principal investigator at this time.

183

Incentives:
In exchange for participating in this study, I will be given an incentive of $100 by
the principal investigator upon completion of the eight week data collection period
of the study.

Confidentiality:
All information collected about me during the course of this study will be kept
confidential to the extent permitted by law. Information, which identifies me
personally, will not be released without my written permission. My records may
be reviewed by the study sponsor, its agents, the Wayne State University Human
Investigation Committee, and appropriate federal agencies. Information from
this study may be published, but my identity will be kept confidential in any
publications.
Questions:
If I have any questions in the future, I may contact Kendra Hearn, the principal
investigator at (313) 863-1338 or klhearn@umich.edu. If I have any questions
about my rights as a research subject, the Chair of the Human Investigation
Committee can be contacted at (313) 577-1628.
______________________________________________
Name of participating Teacher

______________________________________________
Signature of participating Teacher

________________
Date

184

APPENDIX C
JOURNAL PROMPTS
WEEK ONE
What have you heard about senior English?
What do you expect from senior year?
What do you want to accomplish this year?
Which of the study skills in the packet would work for you?
Where do you get your ideas about the death penalty?
Reaction to the Novel
Reaction to movie, Dead Man Walking
What is your research plan for the day?
What is your research plan for the day?
What is your work plan for the day?
What is your work plan for the day?
What is your goal for the project?
Reaction to the Novel
What reading strategies/study skills worked for you in reading your lit circle
novel?
What did you learn from your case study and multimedia project?
Are you responsible for the action of other people undertaken on your behalf?
Explain.
Journal Reaction to Multimedia Presentation
Reaction to skits
What do you think will happen next in MacBeth?
Reaction Journal Act 1, scene 3-6
Reaction to MacBeth
Journal Reaction Act 3
Reaction to Act 4 Scene 2
How do you think MacBeth will end? Whats the lesson?
What do you need to do to get ready for (?) test and binder check?
In a paragraph or two evaluate your groups presentation for todays trial.
Reaction to Mock Trial
How does society determine the appropriate limits of science and technology?
Why did you choose this novel? Explain.
WEEK TWO
Evaluate your performance
Sloppy Copy Peer Edit
What is your plan for your poster project?

185

WEEK THREE
What did your learn from your poster project?
WEEK FOUR
What do you think will happen at the end of the video?
What is your understanding of the idea of a debate? Where does this idea come
from?
What is your work plan for the day?
WEEK SIX
How well is your group prepared for the debate?
What did you learn from the debate?
How pleased are you with your research question? Explain.
WEEK SEVEN
What have you learned thus far from your research? What more do you want to
find?
How well did your research workgroups function?
What have you learned from the research of your workgroup partners?
WEEK EIGHT
Reaction to Research Workgroup

186

REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (1992). Journal writing: the promise and the reality. Journal of
Reading 36, 304-309.
Annenburg/CBP. (2003). The learning classroom: Theory into practice.
Stanford University School of Education.
Anson, C. and R. Beach. (1995). Journals in the classroom: Writing to learn.
Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood
(Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp. 21-24). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L.S., Dominowski, R.L., & Rellinger, E.R. (1995).
Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
21, 305-223.
Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated
cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and selfesteem. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction (pp. 53-92). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.

187

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation, and other

Mysterious Mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.),
Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S.S. (1978). The development of strategies for studying
texts. Child development., 49, 1076-1088.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning,
remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & Markman, E.M. (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology, 3, 77-166. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Buehl, D. (1996). Improving students learning strategies through self reflection.
Teaching and Change, 3(3), 227-43.
Butler, D. L. (1994). From learning strategies to strategic learning: Promoting
self-regulated learning by post seconary students with learning disabilities.
Canadian Journal of Special Education, 4, 69-101.
Case, J., Gunstone, R., & Lewis, A. (2000). The impact of students' perceptions
on their metacognitive development: A case study. Paper presented at
the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, USA.
Chi, M., Bassock, M.L., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations:
How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.
Cognitive Science, 13 (2), 145-182.

188

Costa, A. (1984). Mediating the Metacognitive. Educational Leadership, Vol.

42(3), 57-62.
Covington, M. V. (1983). Motivated cognitions. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H.
Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp.139-164).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De La Paz, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Teaching students with
learning and writing disabilities to compose persuasive and expository
essays. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20 (3), 227-248.
Dennison, R. S., Krawchuk, C. M., Howard, B. C., & Hill, L. (1996). The
development of a children's self-report measure of metacognition. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective
thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dirkes, M. A. (1985). Metacognition: Students in Charge of Their Thinking.
Roeper Review, 8(2), 96-100.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (1998). Cognitive and motivational determinants
of students academic performance and achievement: Goals, strategies,
and academic outcomes in focus. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Erez, G., & Peled, I. (2001). Cognition and metacognition: Evidence of higher
thinking in problem-solving of adolescents with mental retardation.

189

Education and training in mental retardation and developmental

disabilities., 36(1), 83-93.
Feathers, K, & White, J. (1987). Learning to learn: Case studies of the process.
Reading Research and Instruction, 26(4), 264-274.
Fisher, R. (2002). Shared Thinking: Metacognitive Modelling in the Literacy Hour.
Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(2), 63-67.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scadura & C. J.
Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior
(pp. 213-245). The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-011.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive Monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral
communictaion skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., Flavell, E. R., & Grossman, J. B. (1997). The
development of children's knowledge about inner speech. Child
Development, 68(1), 39-47.
Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail & J. W. Hagen
(Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ:
Abex.

190

Garner, R., & Kraus, C. (1981). Good and poor comprehenders' differences in
knowing and regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research
Quarterly, 6(4), 5-12.
Gil, A., Osiecki, N., & Juarez, A. (2001). Students Reflecting on What They
Know. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Council
for Innovation in Higher Education, Rome, Italy.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Metacognition: Definitions and Emperical Foundations. In
D. D. Hacker, John; Graesser, Arthur C. (Ed.), Metacognition in
Educational Theory and Practice. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
Harp, B., & Brewer, J. (1996). Reading and writing: Teaching for the
connections. Orlando: Harcourt Brace.
Harris, K. R. (1990). Developing self-regulated learners: The role of private
speech and self-instruction. Educational Psychologist, 25, 35-49.
Heller, S. (2001). Dealing with senioritis. English Journal, 90, (5), 17-18.
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
(NARST), Boston, MA.
Huckin, T.N. (1992). Context-sensitive text analysis. In G. Kirsch & P. Sullivan
(Eds.). Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 84-104).
Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

191

Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading:

Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Jacobson, R. (1998). Teachers improving learning using metacognition with selfmonitoring learning strategies. Retrieved July 23, 2003, from
http://gateway.proquest.com.
Kincannon, J., Gleber, C., & Kim, J. (1999). The effects of metacognitive training
on performance and use of metacognitive skills in self-directed learning
situations. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association
for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX.
Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and execuitve control: Metacognition.
In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind -- human mind (pp. 201-224). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The Development of Scientific
Thinking Skills. San Diego: Academic Press.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A.N. (1978). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana,
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Langreher, D., & Palmer, B. (2001). A historical perspective of metacognition:
From abstraction to paradigm. Retrieved February 12, 2003, from
http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~db12291/metacogintro.html.
LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Designing and conducting
ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

192

Lin, X., & Lehman, J.D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a
computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college
students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36 (7), 837-858.
MacLeod, W. B., Butler, D. L., & Syer, K. D. (2003). Beyond achievement data:
Assessing changes in metacognition and strategic learning. Retrieved
January 4, 2003, 2003, from http://www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/Butler
/Confer/AERA%201996%20metacognition.pdf
Maehr, M. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels; Why
Sarah never did. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H. W.Stevenson (Eds.),
Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp.179-210). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Maxwell, R. J. (1996). Writing across the curriculum in middle and high schools.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Mayher, J. S. (1990). Uncommon sense: Theoretical practice in language
education. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The Impact of Learning Journals
on Metacognitive and Cognitive Processes and Learning Performance.
Learning and Instruction, 5(2), 167-185.
Michigan Education Report (2004). Summer 2004. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from
http://www.educationreport.org.

193

Morse, L., Smith-Mallette, G., & Talento-Miller, E. (2000). Metacognitive

protocols: A qualitative study of perceptions of smartness of adults and
children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association, Bowling Green, KY.
Mulholland, L. & Berliner, D. (1992). Teacher experience and the estimation of
student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Nicholls, J. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation: A theory
and its implications for education. In G. O. S. Paris, & H. Stevenson (Ed.),
Learning and motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Norman , D. A. (1980). Cognitive engineering and education. In D. T. T. F. Reif
(Ed.), Problem solving and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
ONeil, H. F., and Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive
inventory: Potential for alternative assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. 469). Los
Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Opper, S., & Ginsburg, H. (1987). Piagets theory of intellectual development, (3rd
ed.) New York: Pearson Education.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote
read(ing) with your mind. In T. L. Harris & E. J. Cooper (Eds.), Reading,
thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom. New
York: The College Board.

194

Parker, R.P., & Goodkin, V. (1987). The consequences of writing: enhancing

learning in the disciplines. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook.
Paris, S., Wasik, B., & va der Westhuizen, G. (1988). Meta-metacognition: A
review of research on metacognition and reading. In J. R. S. Baldwin
(Ed.), Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 143-166). Chicago, IL: National
Reading Conference.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic
learning and instruction. In B. J. L. Idol (Ed.), Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction (pp. 15-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Quick, J., & C., W. (1994). Teaching the language of learning: toward a
metacognitive approach to pupil empowerment. British Educational
Research Journal, 20(4), 429-445.
Reeve, R. A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognition Reconsidered: Implications
for Intervention Research. Technical Report No. 328 (143 Reports-Research; 070 Information Analyses). Illinois: Illinois Univ., Urbana.
Center for the Study of Reading.
Rhodes, L., & Shanklin, N. (1993). Windows into literacy: Assessing learners K8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Richmond, J. (1990). What do we mean by knowledge about language. In R.
Carter (Ed.), Knowledge about Language and the Curriculum. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.

195

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 460-475.
Shermis, S. (1999). Reflective Thought, Critical Thinking (Digest No. #143): ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication.
Short, J.; Harste, K.; & Burke, C. (1995). Creating Classrooms for Authors and
Inquirers. Heinemann: Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Slifkin, J. (2001). Writing the care of the self: Variances in higher order thinking
and narrative topics in high school students reflective journals. English
Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 5-9.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Toronto: Thomas Learning.
Stewart, O., & Tei, O. (1983). Some implications of metacognition for reading
instruction. Journal of Reading, 26, 36-43.
Tishman, S. (1994). Thinking dispositions and intellectual character. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Wilson, J. (2001). Metholodogical difficulties of assessing metacognition: A new
approach. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in
Education Conference, Fremantle.
Winograd, P., & Gaskins, W. (1992). Metacognition: matters of the mind, Matters
of the heart. In A. Costa, J. Bellanca, & R. Fogarty (Eds.), If minds matter:
A foreword to the future (1), pp. 225-238. Palatine. IL : Skylight.

196

Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. (1980). Comprehension monitoring and the error
detection paradigm. Technical Report Number 153. Urbana, Illinois:
Center for the Study of Reading.
Wittrock, M. (1986). Students' Thought Processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Wolcott, H. (2001). Writing up qualitative research, (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Zemelman, S.; Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best Practice: New Standards
for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools. Heinemann:
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

197

ABSTRACT
ARTIFACTS OF THOUGHT: EVIDENCE OF METACOGNITION IN TWELFTH
GRADE STUDENTS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL WRITING
by
KENDRA L. HEARN
August 2005
Advisor:

Dr. Karen Feathers

Major:

Curriculum and Instruction

Degree:

Doctor of Philosophy

Metacognition thinking about thinking - is an abstract concept which

makes it difficult to teach and assess. This study sought to address this problem
by using students reflective journal writing to describe student metacognition
within the context of their normal classroom interactions. The study began by
giving the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory to a class of twelfth grade English
Language Arts students (N=16). After administering the inventory, the selected
classroom was observed on eleven occasions over the course of eight weeks.
During this observation period, the journal entries of the sample were collected
and analyzed for their metacognitive properties. The participating teacher and a
sub-set of students from the sample (n=6) were interviewed at the conclusion of
the observation period.
On the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, a self-reported measure of
students metacognitive abilities, more students (75%) MAI scaled scores fell

198

into the low range than the high, suggesting a generally low self-concept of their
metacognitive ability.
The coding of students journal entries revealed a matrix of different levels
(i.e., no, low, medium, and high) and types of metacognition (i.e. content,
strategy, learnings). Analysis of student responses in relationship to the journal
prompt also showed that most journal entries were direct responses to the
prompt (69.92%).

Direct responses to the prompt also resulted in the most

instances of high metacognition (22.96%).

Chi square tests (F 2=52.705 (8,

N=675, p=.000) also established a statistical difference in the type of responses

to the prompt and the level of metacognition of the responses.
The participating teachers interview revealed that she had metacognitive
goals, but viewed students journals as an assignment worth the exercise and not
necessarily one in which she was monitoring their thoughts. Interviews with the
students (n=6) exposed their propensity to be externally motivated to do what the
teacher asked of them. Their interviews also showed how students see some
benefits from journaling, but generally feel that journaling is not necessary for
them to think and reflect.

199

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT
Kendra L. Hearn is the Director of Curriculum for the West Bloomfield
Schools (West Bloomfield, MI; 2005-).

She has also served the Lincoln

Consolidated Schools in Ypsilanti, MI as Director of Curriculum (2003-2005).

Prior to her post at Lincoln she was a Professional Development Consultant with
the Macomb Intermediate School District (Clinton Twp., MI; 2001-2003). Before
assuming these leadership positions, Kendra was a high school English Teacher
at West Bloomfield High School (West Bloomfield, MI; 1996-2001) and Redford
High School (Detroit, MI; 1994-1996).
While a classroom teacher Mrs. Hearn developed a course called
"Tapestry: Multicultural Literature" that exposed a very diverse student body to
the cultural diversity of American literature. She has also written and facilitated
online courses for the MITs Concord Consortium Virtual High school. A National
Board Certified teacher (1998), Mrs. Hearn has mentored others interested in
National Board Certification, was the first new teacher mentoring and induction
coordinator for West Bloomfield, and serves on a variety of statewide
committees. She has also presented at numerous professional conferences and
workshops.
Mrs. Hearn holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the University
of Michigan (Ann Arbor, 1993) and a Master of Arts degree in Education
Administration from the University of Detroit Mercy (Detroit, Michigan; 1995).
She is also the recipient of many awards honoring educators, including the
coveted Milken National Educator Award (1999).