Metacognition pres

2,496 views

Published on

Addressing metacognitive functions has been shown to improve performance at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Metacognition is beginning to surface as an added cognate discipline for the field of human performance technology (HPT). Advances from research in the fields of cognition and metacognition offer a place for HPT to expand its theoretical base. This article summarizes current theories of metacognition and presents a new metacognitive model for HPT.

Published:
Turner, J. R. (2011). New metacognitive model for human performance technology. Performance Improvement, 50(7), 25-32. doi: 10.1002/pfi.20229

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,496
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
49
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Metacognition pres

  1. 1. Metacognitive Model for Metacognitive Model for HPT HPT Technological Innovations ATTD-6100 Instructor: Dr. Jeff M. Allen Conference Paper PresentationTechnological Innovations Presented by: John R. Turner October 21, 2010ATTD-6100UNT
  2. 2. 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 Technological Innovations • ISPI Journal SearchATTD-6100 • PIQ search for ‘metacognition’: 20 articles • PIJ search for ‘metacognition’: 11 articlesUNT
  3. 3. 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)Technological InnovationsTechnological Innovations • Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000) • Pintrich and Krathwohls’ Revised Taxonomy (2002) • New Metacognitive Model for HPTATTD-6100ATTD-6100 • ConclusionUNTUNT
  4. 4. 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 / OUTPUTTechnological Innovations 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)
  5. 5. 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 KnowledgeTechnological Innovations • Conceptual Knowledge • Procedural Knowledge • Conditional KnowledgeATTD-6100UNT
  6. 6. 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)Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  7. 7. 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-Technological Innovations cognitive, and affective components of learning” (Gourgey, 1998).ATTD-6100UNT
  8. 8. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #1 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.Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  9. 9. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #2 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-Technological Innovations vell, 1979).ATTD-6100UNT
  10. 10. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #2 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.Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  11. 11. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #3 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)Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  12. 12. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #3 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).Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  13. 13. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #3 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 levelTechnological Innovations of performance: individual, process, or organiza- tion.ATTD-6100UNT
  14. 14. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #4 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 ofTechnological Innovations relatively independent modules” (Rosenthal, 2000).ATTD-6100UNT
  15. 15. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #4 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-Technological Innovations connected networks of specialized areas, each performing different computation” (Fernandez-ATTD-6100 Duque, Baird, & Posner, 2000).UNT
  16. 16. Metacognitive Model for Metacognition: Critical Point #4 HPT Critical Point #4: Cognitive functions and their associated metacognitive functions do not oper- ate on sigular networks or loops.Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  17. 17. 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-Technological Innovations cognitive functions do not operate on singular networks or loops.ATTD-6100UNT
  18. 18. 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-Technological Innovations search are in order” (Cho and Yoon 2010).ATTD-6100UNT
  19. 19. 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.Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  20. 20. 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)Technological Innovations • Pintrich and Krathwohls’ Revised Taxonomy (2002)ATTD-6100UNT
  21. 21. Metacognitive Declarative Knowledge Model for HPT Metacognitive Procedural Knowledge Knowledge Traditional Conditional Knowledge Metacognition Planning Regulation of Cognition Monitoring Schraw and Moshman (1995) Evaluation TacitTechnological Innovations Metacognitive Theories Explicit / InformalATTD-6100 Explicit / FormalUNT
  22. 22. Metacognitive Model for Person HPT Metacognitive Task Knowledge Strategy Metacognitive Experiences Flavell (1979) Cognitive Monitoring Goals or TasksTechnological InnovationsATTD-6100 Actions or StrategiesUNT
  23. 23. Metacognitive Model for HPT Declarative Metacognitive Knowledge Knowing Meta-Level Awareness Kuhn (2000) Metacognitive Development Metatask Knowledge Procedural Metastrategic Knowledge Knowing Metastrategic KnowledgeTechnological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  24. 24. 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 KnowledgeTechnological Innovations Knowledge of Create Strategy Knowledge aboutATTD-6100 Cognitive TasksUNT Self-Knowledge
  25. 25. Metacognitive Model for Metacognitive Model for HPT 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.Technological Innovations • This model shows the interactivity between the metacognitive functions and the cognitive functions.ATTD-6100UNT
  26. 26. 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 HPTTechnological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  27. 27. Metacognitive Model for Metacognitive Model for HPT 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-Technological Innovations edge are associated with Kuhn’s (2000) Metacog- nitive Knowing.ATTD-6100UNT
  28. 28. Metacognitive Model for Metacognitive Model for HPT 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.Technological InnovationsATTD-6100UNT
  29. 29. Metacognitive Model for Metacognitive Model for HPT 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)Technological Innovations • Self-Knowledge (Pintrich) / Person (Flavell)ATTD-6100UNT
  30. 30. 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 domainsTechnological Innovations during performance improvement efforts, such as ap- plying the concepts in the Metacognitive Model for HPT, can assist the field of HPT.ATTD-6100UNT
  31. 31. 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,Technological Innovations 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

×