Metacognition is a notoriously woolly concept that has been subject to much debate since its conceptualisation by Flavell in the late 1970s. This blog is the story of a journey to PhD completion, a journey with many questions along the way.

Why metacognition? Although metacognition has origins in the field of psychology, recognition of the value of metacognition both for and within education practice is on the increase. The familiarity of metacognition for practitioners has many recognisable manifestations including Thinking Through Teaching, Learning to Learn, Learning How to Learn and Thinking Skills to name a few. Metacognition and self-regulation are classed as having a high impact for very low cost in the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF) Teaching and Learning Toolkit; clearly warranting further consideration.

Research about metacognition is overwhelming at times, fundamental questions that I posed in the early stages included what is metacognition and how is it defined? It became clear that the field of metacognition was vast, one size did not fit all; a pragmatic and iterative approach was required. One such approach, focussing on learners and talk about their own learning is Pupil Views Templates (PVTs).

PVTs have been used by teachers and researchers, with origins in pupil voice they are a tool to facilitate talk about learning (Wall, 2008; Wall & Higgins, 2006). Previous PVT analysis has shown evidence of developmental trends in cognitive skills and (contrary to established belief) metacognition in learners as young as aged four years (Wall, 2008). My research explored developmental trends in metacognition across school-aged children (4 – 16 years) using PVTs.  

To situate PVTs and explore definitions of and other approaches to evaluating metacognition, a systematic review was conducted (Gascoine, Higgins, & Wall, 2016). Over 80 distinct tools or methods used to explore metacognition with children aged 4 – 16 years were identified. PVTs and their visual prompt to facilitate dialogue about learning were unique in their use across a wide age range (primary and secondary), by teachers and researchers and with learners as young as four years old.

The volume of literature about metacognition, of course not always agreeing, can make it difficult to navigate. One person’s awareness of metacognitive skilfulness may be another’s metacognitive knowledge of strategy, person or task, or even a mixture of all three! Indeed, asking questions about metacognition can open a huge can of worms! The key is undoubtedly transparency and clarity. Considering this, I draw attention to Desoete’s (2008) refrain that “how you test is what you get”, but would also like to emphasise the importance of how you define metacognition, is also what you get and how you test. In exploring metacognition, clarity from the outset about what you are exploring is essential – without it, metacognition only becomes woollier.

It is easy to get lost in theoretical musings about metacognition and translating this to researching metacognition with learners, but ultimately my PhD was about using PVTs to explore metacognitive development. Importantly, my findings supported previous PVT findings about developmental trends in metacognition and emerging metacognition with younger learners. Dialogue about learning in my research, facilitated by PVTs, did elicit evidence of metacognitive awareness in learners as young as 4 years old. For example, “A B B Y that’s my name. Thinking about it helps me to remember to spell out my name” (aged 4) and “This is a lot easy! Because we are making rhymes for long words” (aged 7). The social nature of using PVTs, as a discussion with groups or classes, was also important. Learning is a social activity, it is not just about box ticking and measurement scales; “We can be friends and help each other” said one five-year-old participant. There are many aspects of metacognition to consider, thinking about how these can work together in defining and exploring metacognition is key…what can they learn about learning from each other?

References

Desoete, A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: how you test is what you get. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 189-206. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9026-0

Gascoine, L., Higgins, S., & Wall, K. (2016). The assessment of metacognition in children aged 4–16 years: a systematic review. Review of Education, doi:10.1002/rev3.3077

Wall, K. (2008). Understanding metacognition through the use of pupil views templates: Pupil views of Learning to Learn. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 23-33. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.004

Wall, K., & Higgins, S. (2006). Facilitating metacognitive talk: a research and learning tool. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 39-53. doi:10.1080/01406720500537353