I know some people will find this useful, which is why I'm linking to it, as it is a detailed - some might say exhaustive - list of references and citations in ed tech literature related to metacognition. Metacognition is basically the process of thinking about thinking. The paper identifies three major forms:
1. Declarative knowledge about self and strategies;
2. Procedural knowledge about how to use strategies;
3. Conditional knowledge about when and why to use strategies.
Of course, these correspond with three major categories of knowing generally: knowing what, knowing how, and knowing why. These are associated with three major skills: planning, monitoring and evaluation. And that, basically, is the framework for metacognition proposed by the authors. I personally found the paper tedious and pedantic, overflowing with needless references to half-baked and unoriginal theories.
I'm sorry to be so critical, but consider the discussion and table of nine separate theories that follows the observation that "typical representations of MC are based on the argument that it is comprised of two components or dimensions." (Table 1) If the authors weren't so intent on citing the (dubious) "literature) and would simply get to the task at hand, linking to the people they actually depended on, this would be a really good ten-paragraph blog post. As it is, the reader has to dig through a load of extraneous material (and it's not even linked! for goodness sakes). And for the record - this is more a criticism of the journal, which demands that people write this way, than the poor authors, who waste weeks of their lives complying.
1. Declarative knowledge about self and strategies;
2. Procedural knowledge about how to use strategies;
3. Conditional knowledge about when and why to use strategies.
Of course, these correspond with three major categories of knowing generally: knowing what, knowing how, and knowing why. These are associated with three major skills: planning, monitoring and evaluation. And that, basically, is the framework for metacognition proposed by the authors. I personally found the paper tedious and pedantic, overflowing with needless references to half-baked and unoriginal theories.
I'm sorry to be so critical, but consider the discussion and table of nine separate theories that follows the observation that "typical representations of MC are based on the argument that it is comprised of two components or dimensions." (Table 1) If the authors weren't so intent on citing the (dubious) "literature) and would simply get to the task at hand, linking to the people they actually depended on, this would be a really good ten-paragraph blog post. As it is, the reader has to dig through a load of extraneous material (and it's not even linked! for goodness sakes). And for the record - this is more a criticism of the journal, which demands that people write this way, than the poor authors, who waste weeks of their lives complying.
Today: 2 Total: 27 [Direct link] [Share]
