Conditional Knowledge and Metacognition (Cognitive Learning Processes)

A signal deficiency intrinsic to information processing theories resides in their predilection for description over explanation in matters of learning. Accordingly, we discern that afferent data are admitted into the working memory (WM), subjected to iterative rehearsal, encoded, conjoined with pertinent informational strata, and sequestered within the long-term memory (LTM). However, one is compelled to inquire into the underlying impetus governing these operations. Particularly during the nascent stages of learning—when cognitive processing is not yet rendered automatic—we find ourselves in want of a cogent rationale elucidating the system's predilection for information processing. By way of illustration, what determinants govern the extent of rehearsal undertaken? By what mechanism is pertinent information selected within the LTM? Furthermore, how do individuals ascertain the requisite knowledge for diverse contextual exigencies?

The subject of metacognition directly confronts these inquiries. Metacognition denotes cognition of a higher order. Conditional knowledge shall be discussed presently, subsequent to which shall follow an explication of the manner in which metacognitive processes serve to integrate information processing.

Declarative and procedural knowledge pertain, respectively, to the cognition of facts and procedures. Conditional knowledge, in its essence, embodies the discernment of when and wherefore to employ various forms of declarative and procedural knowledge (Paris et al., 1983). The mere possession of requisite declarative and procedural knowledge to execute a task does not, ipso facto, guarantee a student's proficient performance. Students perusing a text on social studies may be cognisant of the required actions, comprehend the semantic content of vocabulary (declarative knowledge), and possess the acumen to decode, skim, ascertain principal ideas, and extrapolate inferences (procedural knowledge). However, upon commencing their reading, they might elect to skim the chapter, resulting in a subpar performance on a comprehension assessment.

Such a scenario is hardly uncommon. In this instance, conditional knowledge encompasses the understanding of when the act of skimming is apposite. One might, for instance, skim a newspaper or a webpage to glean the gist of the news, yet skimming ought not to be employed when a thorough comprehension of textual content is desired.

Conditional knowledge aids students in the selection and application of declarative and procedural knowledge to fulfil task-related objectives. To resolve to peruse a chapter with meticulous care, and then to enact such a resolution, students must be persuaded that diligent reading is germane to the task at hand; that is to say, this strategy possesses functional value by virtue of its capacity to facilitate comprehension of the material.

Learners devoid of conditional knowledge regarding the when and wherefore of the utility of skimming are apt to employ it at inopportune junctures. Should they deem it valuable for all reading tasks, they may employ it indiscriminately, absent explicit directives to the contrary. Conversely, should they perceive it as devoid of value, they may eschew its use entirely, save when explicitly instructed.

Conditional knowledge is likely represented within long-term memory (LTM) as propositions within cognitive networks, interlinked with the declarative and procedural knowledge to which it pertains. Conditional knowledge constitutes, in effect, a form of declarative knowledge, for it is 'knowledge that'—to wit, the knowledge that skimming is advantageous for grasping the essence of a passage, and that summarising text is efficacious for deriving a more profound understanding. Conditional knowledge is also integrated within procedures: Skimming is efficacious insofar as it enables one to grasp the gist; however, should one discern that the gist remains elusive, one ought to abandon skimming and engage in a more assiduous reading. The tripartite classification of knowledge is summarised in Table 'Comparison of types of knowledge'

Conditional knowledge forms an integral facet of self-regulated learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998). Self-regulated learning necessitates that students determine the learning strategy to be employed prior to engagement with a task (Zimmerman, 1994, 2000). Concomitantly, during task engagement, students assess their progress (e.g., their level of comprehension) through the utilisation of metacognitive processes. Upon the detection of comprehension impediments, students modify their strategy contingent upon conditional knowledge of what might prove more efficacious. It has also been suggested that computer-based learning environments may serve as metacognitive instruments to cultivate students’ self-regulated learning (Azevedo, 2005a, 2005b), a point to which we shall revert later.

Metacognition doth refer to the deliberate and conscious control of cognitive activity (Brown, 1980; Matlin, 2009):

Flavell, 1985, p. 104:

What, pray tell, is metacognition? It hath usually been broadly and rather loosely defined as any knowledge or cognitive activity that taketh as its object, or doth regulate, any aspect of any cognitive enterprise. . . . It is termed metacognition because its core meaning is “cognition about cognition.” Metacognitive skills are believed to play an important role in sundry types of cognitive activity, including oral communication of information, oral persuasion, oral comprehension, reading comprehension, writing, language acquisition, perception, attention, memory, problem solving, social cognition, and divers forms of self-instruction and self-control.

Metacognition doth comprise two related sets of skills. Firstly, one must comprehend what skills, strategies, and resources a task doth require. Included in this cluster are the finding of main ideas, rehearsing information, forming associations or images, using memory techniques, organizing material, taking notes or underlining, and employing test-taking techniques. Secondly, one must know how and when to employ these skills and strategies to ensure the task be completed successfully. These monitoring activities include checking the level of understanding, predicting outcomes, evaluating the effectiveness of efforts, planning activities, deciding how to budget time, and revising or switching to other activities to overcome difficulties (Baker & Brown, 1984). Collectively, metacognitive activities reflect the strategic application of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge to tasks (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Kuhn (1999) did argue that metacognitive skills were the key to the development of critical thinking.

Metacognitive skills do develop slowly. Young children are not fully cognisant of which cognitive processes various tasks involve. For example, they typically are poor at recognising that they have been thinking and then recalling what they were thinking about (Flavell, Green, & Flavell, 1995). They may not understand that disorganized passages are harder to comprehend than organized ones or that passages containing unfamiliar material are more difficult than those composed of familiar material (Baker & Brown, 1984). Dermitzaki (2005) found that second graders used metacognitive strategies, but that their use bore little relation to children’s actual self-regulatory activities. Monitoring activities are employed more often by elder children and adults than by young children; however, elder children and adults do not always monitor their comprehension and often are poor judges of how well they have comprehended text (Baker, 1989).

At the self-same time, young children are cognitively capable of monitoring their activities on simple tasks (Kuhn, 1999). Learners are more likely to monitor their activities on tasks of intermediate difficulty as opposed to easy tasks (where monitoring may not be necessary) or on very difficult tasks (where one may not know what to do or may quit working).

Metacognitive abilities commence to develop around ages 5 to 7 and continue throughout the time children are in school, albeit within any age group there is much variability (Flavell, 1985; Flavell et al., 1995). Preschool children are capable of learning some strategic behaviours (Kail & Hagen, 1982), but as a result of schooling, children develop the awareness they can control what they learn by the strategies they use (Duell, 1986). Flavell and Wellman (1977) did hypothesise that children form generalisations concerning how their actions influence the environment; for example, they learn “what works” for them to promote school achievement. This is especially true with memory strategies, perchance because much school success depends on memorising information.

Learner Variables

Metacognitive awareness is influenced by variables associated with learners, tasks, and strategies (Duell, 1986; Flavell & Wellman, 1977).

Learners' levels of development influence their metacognition (Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel, 1995). Older children apprehend their own memory abilities and limitations better than younger children do (Flavell, Friedrichs, & Hoyt, 1970; Flavell et al., 1995). Flavell et al. (1970) presented children with material and instructed them to study it until they thought they could accurately recall the information. Children aged 7 to 10 were more accurate in judging their readiness to recall than were the children aged 4 to 6. Older children were also more cognisant that their memory abilities differ from one context to another. Children of the same age showed variations in memory abilities.

Learners' abilities to monitor how well they have performed on a memory task also vary. Older children are more accurate in judging whether they have recalled all items they were to recall and whether they can recall information. Wellman (1977) presented children with pictures of objects and enquired them to name the objects. If children could not name them, they were enquired whether they would recognise the name. Compared with kindergartners, third graders were more accurate at predicting which object names they would be able to recognise.

Task Variables

Knowing the relative difficulty of different forms of learning and retrieving from memory various types of information are parts of metacognitive awareness. Although kindergartners and first graders believe that familiar or easily named items are easier to remember, older children are better at predicting that categorised items are easier to recall than conceptually unrelated items (Duell, 1986). Older children are more likely to believe that organised stories are easier to remember than disorganised pieces of information. With respect to the goal of learning, sixth graders know better than second graders that students should employ different reading strategies depending on whether the goal is to recall a story word for word or in their own words (Myers & Paris, 1978).

Some school tasks do not necessitate metacognition because they can be handled routinely. Part of the issue in the opening scenario is to employ more tasks that necessitate metacognition, with a corresponding decrease in low-level learning that can be accomplished easily.

Strategy Variables

Metacognition depends on the strategies learners employ. Children as young as ages 3 and 4 can employ memory strategies to remember information, but their ability to employ strategies improves with development. Older children are able to state more ways that assist them remember things. Regardless of age, children are more likely to think of external things (e.g., write a note) than internal ones (e.g., think about doing something). Students' use of memory strategies such as rehearsal and elaboration also improves with development (Duell, 1986).

Although many students are capable of employing metacognitive strategies, they may not know which strategies aid learning and LTM retrieval, and they may not employ those that are helpful (Flavell, 1985; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Salatas and Flavell (1976) enquired kindergartners, third graders, and college students to recall all list items that exhibited a given property (e.g., were breakable). Even though the young children often reported that conducting a thorough search for information is important (Duell, 1986), only the college students spontaneously recalled each item and decided whether it exhibited the given property.

Simply generating a strategy does not guarantee its use. This utilisation deficiency is more common in younger children (Justice, Baker-Ward, Gupta, & Jannings, 1997) and appears to stem from children's apprehension of how a strategy works. Older learners apprehend that the intention to employ a strategy leads to strategy use, which produces an outcome. Younger children typically have only partial apprehension of the links between intentions, actions, and outcomes. Such apprehension develops between the ages of 3 and 6 (Wellman, 1990).

Task, strategy, and learner variables typically interact when students engage in metacognitive activities. Learners consider the type and length of material to be learned (task), the potential strategies to be employed (strategy), and their skill at employing the various strategies (learner). If learners think that note taking and underlining are good strategies for identifying main points of a technical article and if they believe they are good at underlining but poor at taking notes, they likely will decide to underline. As Schraw and Moshman (1995) noted, learners construct metacognitive theories that include knowledge and strategies that they believe will be effective in a given situation. Such metacognitive knowledge is critical for effective self-regulated learning (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008).

A comprehension of which skills and strategies are conducive to the acquisition and retention of knowledge is requisite, albeit insufficient, for the augmentation of scholastic achievement. Even those pupils who possess an awareness of efficacious learning methods do not consistently engage in metacognitive activities, owing to a variety of determinants. In certain instances, metacognition may prove superfluous, particularly when the subject matter is readily assimilated. Furthermore, learners may exhibit reluctance to expend the requisite effort in the deployment of metacognitive activities, which are, in themselves, discrete tasks demanding both temporal and energetic investment. Learners may harbour an incomplete understanding of the extent to which metacognitive strategies enhance their scholastic performance, or they may subscribe to the belief that alternative factors, such as time allotment or exerted effort, bear greater import upon the learning process (Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979; Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Schunk & Rice, 1993).

Although metacognitive activities serve to ameliorate scholastic achievement, the frequent failure of students to employ them presents a conundrum for pedagogues. Students ought to be instructed in a compendium of activities, encompassing both those applicable to learning in general (e.g., the ascertainment of purpose in learning) and those pertinent to specific circumstances (e.g., the underscoring of salient points in text). Moreover, they ought to be encouraged to utilise these activities across diverse contexts (Belmont, 1989). While the 'what' component of learning is indubitably consequential, the 'when', 'where', and 'why' of strategy utilisation are of equal significance. The impartation of the 'what' in isolation may engender confusion amongst students and potentially prove demoralising; students possessing knowledge of what to do, yet lacking understanding of when, where, or why to do it, may evince diminished self-efficacy with respect to the attainment of scholastic success.

Learners frequently require instruction in fundamental declarative or procedural knowledge in conjunction with the acquisition of metacognitive skills (Duell, 1986). It is imperative that students monitor their comprehension of principal concepts; however, such monitoring is rendered ineffectual absent an understanding of what constitutes a principal concept or the method by which to identify one. Students must be actively encouraged to employ metacognitive strategies—a salient implication arising from the discourse at Nikowsky Middle School—and afforded opportunities to apply their newly acquired knowledge beyond the immediate instructional milieu. Furthermore, students are deserving of feedback concerning the efficacy of their strategy application and the extent to which strategy utilisation enhances their scholastic performance (Schunk & Rice, 1993; Schunk & Swartz, 1993a). A potential hazard inherent in teaching a metacognitive strategy solely in conjunction with a singular task resides in the propensity of students to perceive the strategy as applicable only to that specific task, or to tasks of marked similarity, thereby impeding transferability. It is thus advisable to employ multiple tasks in the instruction of strategies (Borkowski, 1985; Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979).

Metacognition doth possess relevance to the art of reading, inasmuch as it is implicated in the comprehension and surveillance of both the aims and the stratagems employed in the perusal of texts (Paris, Wixson, & Palincsar, 1986). Novice readers oft fail to grasp the conventions governing printed matter: In the English tongue, one doth peruse words from left to right and from top to bottom. Readers of a nascent or inferior calibre typically do not monitor their understanding, nor do they adjust their stratagems accordingly (Baker & Brown, 1984). Readers of maturer years and superior skill exhibit a greater proficiency in the monitoring of comprehension than do their younger and less adept counterparts, respectively (Alexander et al., 1995; Paris et al., 1986).

Metacognition is engaged when learners establish objectives, assess the progression towards said objectives, and effectuate necessary rectifications (McNeil, 1987). Skilled readers do not approach all reading tasks in an identical manner. They ascertain their objective: to discover principal ideas, to peruse for minute details, to skim, to grasp the essence, and so forth. They then employ a stratagem which they deem capable of achieving the objective. When reading skills are highly developed, these processes may transpire automatically.

Whilst reading, skilled readers audit their progress. Should their objective be to locate salient ideas, and should they, after perusing a few pages, have failed to locate any such ideas, they are wont to reread those pages. Should they encounter a word which eludes their understanding, they endeavour to determine its meaning from the context or consult a lexicon, rather than continuing their perusal.

Developmental evidence doth intimate a tendency towards a greater recognition and rectification of comprehension deficiencies (Alexander et al., 1995; Byrnes, 1996). Younger children recognise comprehension failures less frequently than do older children. Younger children who are possessed of good comprehension may recognise a problem but may not employ a stratagem to resolve it (e.g., rereading). Older children who are possessed of good comprehension recognise problems and employ rectification stratagems.

Children cultivate metacognitive abilities through interactions with parents and teachers (Langer & Applebee, 1986). Adults assist children in solving problems by guiding them through the steps towards a solution, reminding them of their objective, and assisting them in planning how to achieve their objective. An efficacious teaching procedure includes informing children of the objective, making them cognisant of information pertinent to the task, arranging a situation conducive to problem-solving, and reminding them of their progress towards the objective.

Stratagem instruction programmes generally have been successful in aiding students to learn stratagems and maintain their use over time (Pressley & Harris, 2006). Brown and her colleagues advocated stratagem training incorporating practice in the use of skills, instruction in how to monitor the outcomes of one’s efforts, and feedback on when and where a stratagem may prove useful (Brown, 1980; Brown, Palincsar, & Armbruster, 1984).

Palincsar and Brown (1984) identified seventh graders with poor comprehension skills. They trained students in self-directed summarising (review), questioning, clarifying, and predicting. Summarising included stating what had transpired in the text and also served as a self-test on the content. Questioning was directed at determining what main idea question a teacher or test might ask about that material. Clarifying was used when portions of the text were unclear and students could not adequately summarise. Predicting was used when text cues signalled forthcoming information.

Researchers imparted these activities as part of an interactive dialogue between teacher and student known as reciprocal teaching. During the lessons, an adult teacher met with two students. Initially the teacher modelled the activities. The teacher and students silently read a passage, after which the teacher asked a question that a teacher or test might ask, summarised the content, clarified troublesome points, and predicted future content. Following the teacher’s modelled demonstration, the teacher and students took turns being the teacher. At first, students had difficulty assuming the role of teacher; the teacher often had to construct paraphrases and questions for students. Eventually students became more capable of following the procedure and implementing the four activities.

Compared with a condition in which students received instruction on locating information in text, reciprocal teaching led to greater comprehension gains, better maintenance over time, and better generalisation to classroom comprehension tests. Students exposed to reciprocal teaching also showed greater improvements in quality of summaries and questions asked. The maintenance and generalisation results are important because changes brought about by stratagem training programmes may not maintain themselves or generalise to other tasks (Phye, 2001).

The dialogue about the following text occurred between teacher (T) and student (S) early in the training programme (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

The snake’s skeleton and parts of its body are very flexible—something like a rubber hose with bones. A snake’s backbone can have as many as 300 vertebrae, almost 10 times as many as a human’s. These vertebrae are connected by loose and rubbery tissues that allow easy movement. Because of this bendable, twistable spinal construction, a snake can turn its body in almost any direction at almost any point.

The last statement by the teacher is a modelled demonstration of summarisation.

There are other reading programmes that incorporate stratagem instruction and teach students to self-regulate. For example, the Self-Regulated Stratagem Development programme combines stratagem instruction with instruction in self-regulation (e.g., self-monitoring, self-instructions, goal setting, self-reinforcement; Graham & Harris, 2003; Mason, 2004). This programme has proven to be effective with children with learning disabilities and reading problems.

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) incorporates cognitive stratagem instruction on the stratagems of activating background knowledge, questioning, searching for information, summarising, organising graphically, and identifying story structure (Guthrie et al., 2004; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004). CORI has shown to be effective in raising students’ reading comprehension.

Motivation plays a critical role in reading comprehension (Schunk, 1995). Guthrie, Wigfield, and VonSecker (2000) integrated reading stratagem instruction with science content and found significant benefits on students’ motivation compared with traditional instruction emphasising coverage of material. Student interest presumably was heightened with the real-world use of effective reading stratagems. The CORI programme also incorporates motivational practices such as goal setting and giving students choices. Compared with stratagem instruction alone, Guthrie et al. (2004) found that CORI led to greater benefits in comprehension, motivation, and use of stratagems.

Other research shows that motivational factors affect reading outcomes. Meece and Miller (2001) found that task-mastery goals predicted students’ use of learning stratagems in reading instruction. After reviewing a large number of studies, Blok, Oostdam, Otter, and Overmaat (2002) concluded that computer-assisted instruction was effective in beginning reading instruction. It is possible that the motivational benefits of computers may aid in the development of early reading skill. Morgan and Fuchs (2007) examined 15 studies and found a positive correlation between children’s reading skills and motivation and also obtained evidence suggesting that skills and motivation can affect one another.

The rapid influx of nonnative English speaking students in U.S. schools has necessitated expansion of programmes for English language learners. For English instruction students often are placed in immersion or second language programmes. In immersion programmes students learn English in an all-English speaking classroom with formal or informal support when they have difficulties. In second language programmes students receive instruction in reading and possibly other subjects in their native languages. Students often transition to English instruction around grade 2 or 3. Slavin and Cheung (2005) compared immersion with second language programmes and found an advantage of second language programmes on students’ reading competencies; however, the number of studies in their review was small, and longitudinal studies are needed to determine long-term effects.