Metacognition
Metacognition, in its literal sense, refers to a status that is beyond or at a high
level of cognition. Defined as “cognitions about cognition,” or “thinking about one’s
own thinking” (Georghiades, 2004, p.365), metacognition serves as a superordinate
mechanism monitoring our thinking process. The origin of this concept dates back to
the work of Flavell (1979), a distinguished American psychologist specialized in
children’s cognitive development. After more than three decades of investigation,
metacognition had not only been studied in the field of child psychology, but in the
field of other educational domains (Adey & Shayer, 1994; Schoenfeld, 1992). With a
larger number of empirical investigations, the definition of metacognition has been
broadened to “a state of consciousness of our own thoughts as we focus on a
particular cognitive or learning situation” (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, p.84).
The importance of metacognition lies in its potential of enabling learners to “be
agents of their own thinking” (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, p.84). Once learners take
control over their thoughts and behaviors, they can actively construct an
understanding of the upcoming information, shoulder greater responsibility of their
own learning, and develop better self-concept (Hacker, 2009). According to Paris and
14
Winograd (1990), learners engaged in metacognitive process gain a sense of agency
because of the two major benefits brought by metacognition: self-appraisal and
self-management. The former refers to the knowledge learners have of their own
competence and performance. The latter refers to the executive ability with which
learners orchestrate their cognitive strategies.
The two major benefits of metacognition reflect its two key constructs,
metacognitive knowledge (i.e. knowing WHAT strategies are available for facilitating
cognition) and metacognitive regulation (i.e. knowing HOW to use these strategies to
regulate cognition). Ever since the distinction between metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive regulation was made, researchers have been trying to flesh out the two
key constructs thorough in-depth exploration of their subcomponents.
Metacognitive knowledge, also referred to as knowledge of cognition, includes
person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategy knowledge (Flavell, 1979). The first
variable, person knowledge, is a learner’ understanding of his/her strengths and
weaknesses as a cognitive processer and belief about by what means can s/he achieve
success in learning. For example, a learner may hold a strong belief that s/he is more
an auditory than visual learner, and that s/he would learn better by listening than
reading. The second variable, task knowledge, is a learner’s knowledge of the nature
and demand of the task as well as what resources are available to him/her to complete
15
the task. For example, a learner may recognize that it’s more challenging to recall
details instead of main idea of a text, and may thus select the best memory strategies
to facilitate overall understanding. The third variable, strategy knowledge, is the
knowledge of strategies and how to make the most of these strategies to facilitate
learning. For example, to recite a large amount of information, a learner may look for
strategies such as rehearsal, organization, elaboration (Bjorklund & Douglas, 1997)
and then adopt the one s/he believes to be the most effective.
Metacognitive regulation, on the other hand, includes three subcomponents
which regulate cognition before, during, and after a given task (Schraw & Moshman,
1995). The first subcomponent, planning, refers to the strategies learners adopt “prior
to the onset of action” (Wenden, 1987, p.580). Examples include making predictions,
allocating time, and attending to information selectively. The second, monitoring,
refers to the “on-line awareness” (Schraw, 1998, p.115) of comprehension and
strategy use to facilitate comprehension. It requires learner’ constant reflection on the
current state of his/her understanding, and on what, why, and how s/he reacts when
faced with comprehension breakdown. As to the last subcomponent, evaluation, it
refers to one’s judgment on the effectiveness of strategies and the outcome of
learning.
Even though metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation seem
16
distinctively different, referring to the understanding and the employment of cognitive
strategies respectively, researchers maintained that the two are mutually related to
each other (Flavell, 1979; Jacobs & Paris 1987; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Sperling, ,
Howard, Staley, & DuBois, 2004). Research on Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(MAI), a self-report instrument measuring learners’ metacognition, revealed that these
two factors not only strongly intercorrelated but “may work in unison to help students
self-regulate” (Schraw & Dennison, 1994, p.466). While metacognitive knowledge
determines the ways learners regulate their cognitive process, the experience of
regulating their learning process affects their metacognitive knowledge by “adding to
it, deleting from it, or revising it” (Flavell, 1979, p.908). To sum up, it is the
interaction between knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition that affects
the decisions learners make to achieve the learning goal.
In the ensuing section, we will first focus attention on the relationship between
metacognition and general learning, and then on the relationship between
metacognition and language learning.
Metacognition and Learning
Metacognition is of great importance in learning. Although learning appears to
be most closely related to cognitive skills, according to Schraw (1998), developing
17
metacognitive skills may yield beneficial results in learning because of the following
two reasons.
First of all, metacognition is a not domain-specific but domain-general
knowledge (Gourgey, 1998; Schraw, 2001; Sternberg, 1998). While most skills such
as using quadratic formula, are encapsulated within specific domains, a large number
of skills such as self-regulation span a variety of knowledge domains. The skills
applicable to various subject areas are primarily metacognitive ones, for example,
planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Instead of facilitating the learning of
independent, specialized domain-specific knowledge, these skills help learners
“developing their self-knowledge and ability to ‘learn how to learn’” (Georghiades,
2004, p.366) in any knowledge domain.
Second, metacognition compensates for insufficiency of cognitive ability. Based
on existing literature, at initial stages of knowledge acquisition, cognitive ability is a
determining factor to successful learning, but it becomes far less crucial in later stages
(Ackerman, 1987; Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel, 1995). Cognitive ability may
have considerable effect on fundamental, content-specific knowledge in the beginning;
however, in later stages of learning, learners have to demonstrate the breadth and
depth of understanding, which primarily relies on their metacognitive abilities. As
what Swanson (1990) contended, as for successful problem solving, the importance of
18
metacognition overrides that of cognitive skills.
Ever since metacognition was proven to facilitate learning in various knowledge
domains, researchers have been advocating the integration of metacognition into
formal educational context (Georghiades, 2004). Several researchers considered it
feasible and desirable to promote metacognitive instruction in classroom-based
settings, proposing that students can learn better by becoming aware of their own
learning process (Flavell, 1979; Gunstone & Northfield, 1994; Paris & Winograd,
1990).
In regard to language learning, Wenden (1987) was the first one to articulate how
metacognition expands our understanding of language learners’ cognitive process and
how instruction on metacognition can facilitate learners’ language learning. Based on
Flavell’s (1979), who claimed that metacognition consists of metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive regulation, he illustrated a metacognition framework
particularly for language learning. According to Wenden (1998), the first key
component, metacognitive knowledge, includes 1) age, proficiency, and subject
matter information for person knowledge, 2) rhetorical and metalinguistic
characteristics for task knowledge, and 3) appropriateness and effectiveness judgment
for strategy knowledge. As for the other component, metacognitive regulation, is
made up of task analysis and monitoring before, during, and after engagement in a
19
language learning task. Obviously, the three subcomponents of metacognitive
knowledge are extensions of person, task, and strategy knowledge, and the ones of
metacognitive regulation are consistent with planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
After Wenden’s pioneering work, researchers have further explored the
relationship between metacognition and language learning; however, most of attention
has been drawn to language learners’ metacognitive knowledge instead of their
metacognitive regulation (Wenden, 2001). For learning to be effective, however,
learners must do more than simply reflecting upon their learning process. Schraw
(1998) underscored the importance of putting metacognitive knowledge to use,
arguing that through constant practice can learners better acquire better metacognitive
knowledge. Vandergrift and Goh (2012) also contended that “Learners who are aware
of learning needs or problems can either choose to do nothing differently or they can
select appropriate strategies to improve their learning” (p.92). Therefore, there’s a
need to not only raise learners’ awareness of their cognition, but encourage learners to
practice making good use of the acquired metacognitive knowledge to solve problems
in language learning.
Since there is a need to give learners opportunities to apply their metacognitive
knowledge to complete language learning tasks, instruction becomes one of the ways
for metacognition in action. Instruction on metacognition may raise students’
20
awareness of their own learning process and guide them to select appropriate
strategies to solve problems they encounter during the learning process. Once learners
are able to recognize comprehension gaps and then to adopt the right strategies to
bridge the gaps on their own, they may achieve comprehension more efficiently. To
sum up, in order to facilitate learning, we should focus not only on introduction to
metacognitive knowledge but guidance on metacognitive regulation.
Metacognition and Strategy Instruction
The teaching of metacognition is often associated with strategy instruction.
Learning strategies, by definition, is a conscious, goal-driven process learners involve
in to complete a language task (Chamot, 2005). The history of research on language
learning strategy dates back to the 1980s.
Pioneering researchers like Stern (1975) and Rubin (1975) made effort to
identify characteristics of successful language learners. According to strategy research,
the frequent use of metacognitive strategy, along with cognitive strategies (Brown,
Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983) or affective and social strategies (Dansereau,
1985; McCombs, 1988), is one of the distinguished features of the best learners.
Later researchers compared strategy use by more successful learners with that by
less successful learners. Results showed that what differentiated successful from less
successful learners is the frequency of strategy use. For example, more successful
21
listeners tended to use more metacognitive strategies and engage in questioning for
clarification (Vandergrift, 2003a). What’s more, the results revealed that the main
difference between the two is not only about the frequency of strategy use, but the
way strategies are used. While more successful learners are capable of selecting
strategies that facilitate task completion, their less successful peers, however, have
difficulty choosing the most suitable strategies due to lack of metacognitive
knowledge of task (Chamot, 2005).
To help learners move closer to “the profile of ‘a good language learner’,”
(Oxford, 2002, p.129), researchers started studying experts’ use of strategy, making a
list of strategies adopted by successful learners. Afterwards, they have to teach
learners these strategies and the ways to orchestrate them. In addition to an
introduction to the “what,” the types of strategy contributing to successful language
learning, researchers have focused attention to the guidance on “how,” the way to use
strategies to help learners tackle tasks at hand. To teach language learners not only
knowledge of strategies but the way to regulate them, the importance of language
learning strategy instruction cannot be overemphasized.
Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension
Since metacognition has been proven to be one of the key characteristics of
22
successful language learners, it is essential for language teachers to have a thorough
understanding of their metacognitive strategies so that to teach these strategies to the
other learners. Although language researchers have different categorizations of
metacognitive strategies (Bacon, 1992; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 2013;
Vandergrift, 1997), their classification schema built on the same works ─ the
categorization of Flavell (1979) and Wenden (1987).
According to Flavell (1979) and Wenden (1987), there are two subcomponents of
metacognition: knowledge of cognition (i.e. person, task, strategy) and regulation of
cognition (i.e. planning, monitoring, evaluating). The latter, regulation of cognition,
referring to the execution of knowledge of cognition, is the basis of metacognitive
strategies.
One of the earliest strategy classifications is done by O’Malley and Chamot
(1990). Based on the three fundamental categories─planning, monitoring, evaluating,
they further identified five strategies underlying the first category, planning. While the
last two are made up of self-monitoring and self-evaluation individually, planning
consists of five substrategies─1) advanced organizers, 2) directed attention, 3)
functional practice, 4) selective attention, and 5) self-management.
Following O’Malley & Chamot’ taxonomy, Vandergrift (1997) tried to identify
metacognitive strategies particularly for listening comprehension. With a prime focus
23
on listening, he came up with a more detailed classification as well as adding the
fourth category, problem identification, to the taxonomy (See Table 1).
The first category, planning, has a lot in common with that of O’Malley and
Chamot’s classification. As for the second category, monitoring, Vandergrift identified
three strategies through observing learners’ listening process─1) comprehension
monitoring, 2) auditory monitoring, and 3) double-check monitoring. The third
category, evaluation, is specified to include not only performance evaluation (i.e.
checking one’s comprehension), but strategy evaluation (i.e. judging one’s strategy
use). The last category, problem identification, refers to listeners’ awareness of a
certain point during the listening process that hinders comprehension.
When it comes to metacognitive strategies for listening comprehension,
Vandergrift’s classification has been the most comprehensive one for reference.
24
Table 1
Vandergrift’ (1997) Metacognitive Listening Strategies: Planning, Monitoring, Evaluating, Problem Identification
1. Planning: Developing an awareness of what needs to be done to accomplish a listening task, developing an appropriate action plan and/or appropriate contingency plans to overcome difficulties that may interfere with successful completion of the task.
Definition Example
I try to think of questions the teacher is going to ask.
1b. Directed attention
Deciding in advance to attend in general to the listening task and to ignore irrelevant distractors; maintaining attention while listening.
I listen really hard.
I pick out the words that are familiar.
1c. Selective
I establish the speakers in the conversation, their relationship by tone of voice, how they will address each other.
1d.
I put everything aside and concentrate on what she is saying.
2. Monitoring: Checking, verifying, or correcting one’s comprehension or performance in the course of a listening task.
Definition Example
I just try to put everything
together, understanding one thing leads to understanding another.
2b. Auditory monitoring Using one’s “ear” for the language (how something sounds) to make
decisions.
I use my knowledge of Portuguese, primarily sound.
I use the sound of words to relate to other words I know.
2c. Double-check Checking, verifying, or I might catch it at the end and then
25
3. Evaluating: Checking the outcomes of one’s listening comprehension against an internal measure of completeness and accuracy.
3b. Strategy evaluation Judging one’s strategy use.
I don’t concentrate too much to the point of translation of individual words because then you just have a whole lot of words and not how they’re strung together into some kind of meaning.
4. Problem identification Explicitly identifying the central point needing
Music, there is something, ...” des jeux”, I don’t know what this is.
Metacognitive Teaching Approach to Enhancing L2 Listening Comprehension
According to Vandergrift (2003b), learning strategies are rarely used separately,
let alone metacognitive strategies. Different from teaching individual strategies one at
a time, “the coordinated used of multiple strategies during listening” (Vandergrift &
Tafaghodtari, 2010, p.474) has yielded positive results. Therefore, learners should be
given opportunities to learn how to orchestrate these strategies appropriately so as to
better comprehend the listening text.
So far, researchers have advocated a plausible way to teach metacognitive
26
strategies during listening─conducting listening classes with a dual focus, teaching
the learning process as well as language content (Goh, 1997). Engaging students in
the listening process rather than simply verifying comprehension as a final product,
teachers empowered learners to select and use metacognitive strategies to facilitate
the learning process. With constant practice and reflection, they are able to develop
and modify their metacognitive knowledge of listening (Wenden, 1991), so as to take
greater control over the listening process.
To teach both language content and learning process in listening classes, one
common approach is to teach listening based on a sequence of activities, in which
learners are encouraged to apply metacognitive strategies step by step (Mendelsohn,
1998). Take Vandergrift’s (2003b) listening sequence for example. With a
four-column note-taking table, learners kept a record of their listening process before,
during, and after listening. Similarly, Goh and Taib (2006) proposed a process-based
listening lesson─learners first completed the “listen and answer” stage, with a
subsequent “individual reflection” stage, followed by the final “self-report and group
discussion” stage. Cross (2009b) also guided learners through a pedagogical cycle
“encompassing three stages reflecting real-life listening” (p.159): 1) pre-listening
preparation, 2) monitoring of comprehension, and 3) evaluation of performance.
27
Table 2
Stages of Instruction and Underlying Metacognitive Processes for Generic Listening Activities
Pedagogical Stages Metacognitive
Processes 1. Pre-listening─Planning/ predicting stage
After learners have been informed of the topic and text type, they predict the types of information and possible words they may hear.
1. Planning
2. First Listen─First verification stage
a. Learners verify their initial hypotheses, correct as required, and note additional information understood.
b. Learners compare what they have understood/written with a partner, modify as required, establish what still needs resolution, and decide on the important details that still require special attention. 3. Second Listen─Second verification stage
a. Learners verify points of earlier disagreement, make corrections, and write down additional details understood.
b. Class discussion in which all class members contribute to the reconstruction of the text’s main points and most pertinent details, interspersed with reflections on how learners arrived at the meaning of certain words or parts of the text. 4. Third Listen─Final verification stage
Learners listen specifically for the information revealed in the class discussion which they were not able to make out earlier. This listen may also be accomplished by the transcript of all or part of the text.
4.Monitoring and problem-solving
5. Reflection and goal-setting stage
Based on the earlier discussion of strategies used to compensate for what was not understood, learners write goals for the next listening activity.
5.Evaluation and planning
Note. adapted from Vandergrift, 2004 (cited in Vandergrift & Goh, 2010)
Among existing metacognitive pedagogical sequences, Vandergrift and Goh
28
(2012) argued that theirs deserves particular attention for any practitioners who aim to
design effective listening activities. They suggested that although listening is
inherently an individual mental process, listening comprehension can be facilitated by
the implementation of metacognitive strategies under the teacher’s guidance. This
argument built upon results of previous studies, which suggested that guiding learners
through the process during listening lessons enhances their overall listening ability
(Field, 2001; Goh, 2002a; Vandergrift, 2002, 2003a; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari,
2010).
To systematically guide learners through the listening process while practicing
the metacognitive strategies for listening comprehension, Vandergrift and Goh (2012)
divided the listening process into different stages (See Table 2).
These stages allow learners to take notice of their own listening process and to
apply their metacognitive knowledge to tackle problems during listening. At the
pre-listening stage, learners use their prior knowledge to make predictions of the
upcoming texts. After the first listening, they verify their hypothesis for the first time
and note newly understood information. Also, by comparing the comprehended
information with a partner, learners put down disagreements which need to be
resolved. After that, they listen to the text for the second time to further check their
comprehension. During the second verification stage, they are engaged in a class
29
discussion on strategies used to achieve comprehension as well as the main ideas and
details of the text. Later on, learners listen to the text for the third time, paying
attention to the information they may have missed. Last but not least, they reflect
attention to the information they may have missed. Last but not least, they reflect