Metacognition pres

Metacognitive
Model for Metacognitive Model for HPT
HPT

Technological Innovations
ATTD-6100
Instructor:
Dr. Jeff M. Allen

Conference Paper Presentation

Presented by:
John R. Turner
October 21, 2010
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for New Metacognitive Model for HPT
HPT

Introduction

• HPT is a multi-disciplinary practice
• HPT developed as its’ core Systems Theory and Behavioral Psychology
• HPT is influenced by a number of other cognate disciplines

• HPT’s Cognate Disciplines
• Huglin’s (2009) HPT Roots and Branches - Journal Citations
• Psychology #1 cognate field in journal citations

• ISPI Journal Search
ATTD-6100

• PIQ search for ‘metacognition’: 20 articles
• PIJ search for ‘metacognition’: 11 articles
UNT

Metacognitive
Model for New Metacognitive Model for HPT
HPT

Table of Contents
• Cognition
• Metacognition
• Four Critical Points about Metacognition

• Benefits to HPT / New Model
• A Look at Different Metacognitive Theories
• Schraw and Moshman Metacognitive Theories(1995)
• Flavells’ Cognitive Monitoring (1979)

• Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000)
• Pintrich and Krathwohls’ Revised Taxonomy (2002)

• New Metacognitive Model for HPT
ATTD-6100
ATTD-6100

• Conclusion
UNT
UNT

Metacognitive Metacognition
Model for knowledge about cognition in general,
as well as awareness of and knowledge

HPT
about one’s own cognition.

om ains
ge D
and ce.
rner forman

wled
lea er
e as a
2)
p
ledg oneself ce one’s
Knolar
Kn ow out
ative ledge a actors in
b uen ents
elem m to .R . (20
0
h, P
c
Dec Know t what f dge basi e Kuh
the nable th c )
abo
u ow le among at e
al Kn ionships ructure t
h n , D.
(200 Pi ntri (2 002
cep tu lat
r st 0) D . R.
hl,
e
Con Interr a large ther. .
ithin n toge kills o
w
func
tio dge cedu
owle out pro
ral s
ous
Sch
raw rathw
ral Kn e ab
app
ly vari , G. K
cedunowledg wledg why to
e &M
Pro o and osh
K
l Kn man
diti ona ing when ns.
Con Know tive actio , D.
ni
(199
cog
Declarative Knowledge
5)
(Lower Level) Metacognitive Knowing
Conceptual Knowledge (Kuhn) Metatask Knowledge
(Higher Level)
INPUT / OUTPUT

Metastrategic Knowledge

Procedural Knowledge Metastrategic Knowing
(Kuhn) Strategic Knowledge (Pintrich)
/ Strategy (Flavell)
ATTD-6100

Metacognitive Knowledge Knowledge about Cognitive
Conditional Knowledge (Pintrich) Tasks (Pintrich) / Task (Flavell)
UNT

Self-knowledge (Pintrich)
/ Person (Flavell)

Metacognitive
Model for Cognition
HPT

• Describes the acquisition, storage, transforma-
tion, and use of knowledge.

• Deals with memory processes.

• Within cognition you have four knowledge do-
mains:
• Declarative Knowledge

• Conceptual Knowledge
• Procedural Knowledge
• Conditional Knowledge
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Metacognition
HPT

“cognition that refelcts on, monitors, or regulates
first-order cognition” (Kuhn, 2000)

“Knowledge about cognition in general, as well as
awareness of and knowledge about one’s own
cognition” (Pintrich, 2002)
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #1
HPT

• Metacognition is a cyclical activity where the
cognitive functions are reflected upon and moni-
tored by the metacognitive functions.
• Metacognitive and cognitive functions are interacting with one another.

“educational research corroborates theories that
emphasize the interaction of cognitive, meta-

cognitive, and affective components of learning”
(Gourgey, 1998).
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Gourgey (1998) identifies metacognitive pro-
cesses as “internal, ‘executive’ processes that su-
pervise and control cognitive processes”.

Critical Point #1: Metacognition is cyclical and in-
teractive with the cognitive domains.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

“Investigators have recently concluded that meta-
cognition plays an important role in oral com-
munication of information, oral persuasion, oral
comprehension, reading comprehension, writ-
ing, language acquisition, attention, memory,
problem-solving, social cognition, and various
types of self-control and self-instruction” (Fla-

vell, 1979).
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Understanding one’s metacognitive abilities
provides for better learning and improved task
or goal achievement.

Critical point #2: Improving metacognitive activi-
ties helps to improve performance.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Research has acknowledged cognitive and meta-
cognitive activities when referring to individu-
als, teams, groups, and organizations.

“individuals, groups, and organizations can be
conceptualized as a nested hierarchy of learning
systems: (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000)
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Learning, when referring to a team, group, or or-
ganization can be viewed as an isomorphic con-
struct (Garavan & McCarthy, 2008).

• isomorphic: “having similar or identical structure
or form” (Webster’s College Dictionary, 2001).
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• From this perspective, the learning functions at
the individual level, including the cognitive and
metacognitive functions, could be used to mod-
el the learning functions at the team, group, and
organization levels.

Critical Point #3: Metacognition is an isomor-
phic construct that can be applied to each level

of performance: individual, process, or organiza-
tion.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Research indicates that cognitive and metacog-
nitive functions operate on their own indepen-
dent neuronal paths within the brain.

“It may well be that the mechanisms that sub-
serve one or another type of metacognitive
judgment rely, in turn, on the functioning of

relatively independent modules” (Rosenthal,
2000).
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Research on memory indicates that cognitive
systems are not connected to one location with-
in the brain.

Instead of cognitive systems being located in
one area of the brain, “a more likely scenario is
that the brain implements cognition via inter-

connected networks of specialized areas, each
performing different computation” (Fernandez-
ATTD-6100

Duque, Baird, & Posner, 2000).
UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

Critical Point #4: Cognitive functions and their
associated metacognitive functions do not oper-
ate on sigular networks or loops.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Critical Points about Metacognition
HPT

1. Metacognition is cyclical and interactive with
the cognitive domains.
2. Improving metacognitive abilities helps to im-
prove performance.
3. Metacognition is an isomorphic construct that
can be applied to each level of performance: in-
dividual, process, or organization.
4. Cognitive functions and their associated meta-

cognitive functions do not operate on singular
networks or loops.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Benefits to HPT / New Model
HPT

• “Creation / validation of models and develop-
ment of HPT theory” was found to be the highest
priority in the HPT research category from Hug-
lin, Johnsen, and Markers’ (2007) Delphi Study.

“Many HPT scholars agree that more theory de-
velopment and theory-grounded empirical re-

search are in order” (Cho and Yoon 2010).
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Benefits to HPT / New Model
HPT

• This conference paper introduces a theory of
cognitive / metacognitive domains that could
benefit performance improvement efforts in the
HPT domain.

• This theory is presented as a new model: Meta-
cogntive Model for HPT.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for A Look at Different Metacognitive
HPT
Theories
• Schraw and Moshman Metacognitive Theories
(1995)

• Flavell’s Cognitive Monitoring (1979)

• Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000)

• Pintrich and Krathwohls’ Revised Taxonomy
(2002)
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive Declarative Knowledge

Model for
HPT Metacognitive Procedural Knowledge
Knowledge

Traditional Conditional Knowledge
Metacognition

Planning

Regulation
of Cognition
Monitoring

Schraw and Moshman
(1995) Evaluation

Tacit

Metacognitive Theories Explicit / Informal
ATTD-6100

Explicit / Formal
UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Person

HPT
Metacognitive
Task
Knowledge

Strategy

Metacognitive
Experiences

Flavell (1979)
Cognitive Monitoring

Goals
or Tasks
ATTD-6100

Actions
or Strategies
UNT

Metacognitive
Model for
HPT
Declarative Metacognitive
Knowledge Knowing

Meta-Level Awareness
Kuhn (2000)
Metacognitive Development

Metatask
Knowledge

Procedural Metastrategic
Knowledge Knowing

Metastrategic
Knowledge
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive Pintrich (2002)
Krathwohl (2002)
Model for Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
HPT

Revised Knowledge Revised Cognitive
Dimension Taxonomy

Remember
Factual Knowledge
Understand
Conceptual
Knowledge Apply

Procedural
Knowledge Analyze

Metacognitive Evaluate
Knowledge

Knowledge of Create
Strategy
Knowledge about
ATTD-6100

Cognitive Tasks
UNT

Self-Knowledge

Metacognitive
HPT

• New metacognitive model for HPT

• A composite of key concepts provided by each of the four models present-
ed.

• This model juxtaposes commonalities of the previous models and provides
a structure that keeps the inherent meaning of each previous model.

• This model is unique in that it addresses all four of the knowledge domains
in one model.

• This model shows the interactivity between the metacognitive functions
and the cognitive functions.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for
HPT

Declarative Knowledge
(Lower Level) Metacognitive Knowing
Conceptual Knowledge (Kuhn) Metatask Knowledge
(Higher Level)
INPUT / OUTPUT
Metastrategic Knowledge

Procedural Knowledge Metastrategic Knowing
(Kuhn) Strategic Knowledge (Pintrich)
/ Strategy (Flavell)

Metacognitive Knowledge Knowledge about Cognitive
Conditional Knowledge (Pintrich) Tasks (Pintrich) / Task (Flavell)

Self-knowledge (Pintrich)
/ Person (Flavell)

Figure 1: Metacognitive Model for HPT
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Declarative and Conceptual Knowledge are
grouped together indicating that both types of
knowledge are dependent on one another.
• Declarative Knowledge deals with a lower level of understanding, primarily
one’s lexicon or facts.
• Conceptual Knowledge involves a higher level of understanding, compar-
ing concepts and determining their relationships.

• Declarative Knowledge and Conceptual Knowl-

edge are associated with Kuhn’s (2000) Metacog-
nitive Knowing.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Procedural Knowledge is best represented by
Kuhn’s (2000) Metastrategic Knowing domain.

• This Metastrategic Knowing domain is divided
into two subcategories: Metatask Knowledge
and Metastrategic Knowledge.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
HPT

• Conceptual Knowledge is best represented by
Pintrich’s (2002) Metacognitive Knowledge do-
main.
•
• The Metacognitive Knowledge domain is sepa-
rated into three subcategories:
• Strategic Knowledge (Pintrich) / Strategy (Flavell)
• Knowledge about Cognitive Tasks (Pintrich) / Task (Flavell)

• Self-Knowledge (Pintrich) / Person (Flavell)
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for Conclusion
HPT
• Research has indicated that performance improve-
ment occurs when the metacognitive domains are ad-
dressed.

• This model addresses the concerns identified by Hug-
lin, Johnsen, and Marker (2007) when they indentified
that the creation and validation of models were re-
quired to further the research efforts within HPT.

• Addressing the cognitive and metacognitve domains

during performance improvement efforts, such as ap-
plying the concepts in the Metacognitive Model for
HPT, can assist the field of HPT.
ATTD-6100

UNT

Metacognitive
Model for
References
HPT Arrow, H., McGrath, J. W., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex xyxtems: Formation, coor-
dination, development and adoption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cho, Y. & Yoon, S. W. (2010). Theory development and convergence of human resource fields: Impli-
cations for human performance technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 23, Issue
3, pp. 39 - 56. doi:10.1002/piq
Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive reg-
ulation. Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 9, pp. 288 - 307.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive - developmen-
tal inquiry. American Psychologist, Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 906 - 911.
Garavan, T. N., & McCarthy, A. (2008). Collective learning processes and human resource develop-
ment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 451 - 471.
Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Journal not defined, Vol. 26, pp. 81 -
96, copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands.
Hughlin, L., Johnsen, L., & Marker, A. (2007). Research priorities in performance technology: A del-
phi study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 79 - 95.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, Vol. 41,
No. 4, pp. 212 - 218.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 9,

No. 5, pp. 178 - 181.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory into Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 203 - 214.
Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 7,
ATTD-6100

No. 4, pp. 351 - 371.
Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.), (2001). Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide.
UNT

Metacognition pres

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (12)

Más de John Turner

Más de John Turner (8)

Último

Último (20)

Metacognition pres