Summary of the arguments in my dissertation, "Rethinking Thinking about Thinking: Against a Pedagogical Imperative to Cultivate Metacognitive Skills"

1. reThinking
thinking
about thinking against a
pedagogical
imperative to
cultivate metacognitive skills
Dissertation Defense
March 12th, 2021
Lauren R. Alpert
PhD Candidate in Philosophy

2. BACKGROUND 1-2
My view 3
NOT MY View 5
My Approach 4
ChAPTER highlights 6-14
contents
References 15-16

3. BACKGROUND
Metacognition is often mentioned in
summaries of “best practices” for teaching
→ The concept is central to a vision of ideal learning
on which students ought to become
self-aware, self-directing masters of their own learning
cognitive monitoring
• think-aloud
• self-questioning
• confidence judgments
study tactics
• dual-coding
• retrieval practice
• spaced practice
• mind mapping
planning & project management
• pre-writing
• goal-setting
reflection & self-assessment
• exit tickets
• assignment / assessment wrappers
• retrospective written reflections 1
Examples of phenomena described as ”metacognition”
or “being metacognitive” in educational settings:

4. BACKGROUND
Beyond prompting engagement in metacognition during learning, accounts of “best practices”
often urge educators to effect lasting enhancements in students’ metacognitive skills
2
Some authors say educational research indicates
A Pedagogical imperative to implement metacognitive skill-building interventions:
⎯ “. . . [because] metacognition plays a critical role in successful learning,
it is imperative that instructors help learners develop metacognitively”
(DOE Office of Vocational & Adult Education, 2011)
⎯ “The available evidence strongly suggests that metacognitive approaches to teaching
and learning have the potential to radically improve the outcomes and life chances
of children . . . Such knowledge then places a moral responsibility on policy makers
to ensure that schools, school leaders and all those who support them to rapidly
develop and implement practical strategies which can deliver, measure and improve
metacognitive skills across all schools for all children.” (Perry, Lundie & Golder 2019)
⎯ “If we want students to learn as much as possible,
then we should help them improve their metacognitive skills” (Concepción 2004)

5. Education research does not indicate unequivocally that metacognitive training
is effective in achieving its objectives — let alone that instructors must implement
pedagogical practices aimed at metacognitive skill-building
My view
→ What is “metacognition,” when deployed as a pedagogical concept?
→ What exactly does metacognitive training amount to?
→ How attainable is the ideal of cognitive self-mastery
at which metacognitive training aims?
→ What kind of evidence are proponents referring to when they assert
that research indicates that metacognitive training is effective?
→ Why might people be disposed to believe in the efficacy of
metacognitive training, even if the evidence for this is lacking? 3
Key questions addressed in this project

6. My aPPROACH
1. Address the complexity of the construct
→ “Metacognition” is ambiguous, complicating generalizations about its pedagogical value
4
2. challenge the assumption that we can know & Control our own minds
→ Some cognitive scientists contend that first person experience involves
illusions that foster excessive confidence in our ability to achieve mental self-mastery
3. Examine the methodology of research on metacognitive training
→ Limitations of these studies undermine the claim that education research
clearly indicates a pedagogical imperative to implement metacognitive training
4. Explain why advocacy for metacognitive training
is popular & persistent
→ Enthusiasm for metacognitive training may result from patterns of
goalpost-shifting and motivated reasoning that foster credence in its efficacy

7. NOT MY view
I’m not arguing that...
5
✕ The concept of “metacognition” has no pedagogical v
alue
⎯ Despite its flaws, it can boost learning outcomes (by encouraging
explicit instruction of valuable background knowledge, I presume)
⎯ It can also be valuable in articulating an ideal theory of learning,
clarifying a vision of excellence students should be working towards
✕ Future evidence can’t redeem metacognitive training
⎯ It’s possible that future research could validate the efficacy of
metacognitive training, using more reliable measures & clearer bounds on “metacognition”
✕ Educators are at fault for believing in metacognitive training
without adequate evidence
⎯ Educators are in no way alone in finding it easier to believe in
what one would like to be true. My purpose is not to place blame, but to examine and
draw attention to factors that allow pedagogical concepts & theories to gain traction

8. Genealogy of “metacognition”
• Coined to unify an array of phenomena all presumed to account for
intelligence and/or academic aptitude (Flavell 1976, Brown 1987)
• “ . . . metacognition remains open-ended and definitions of metacognition
almost become projective tests. Researchers bemoan the imprecision
of the term and attribute it to those things that they feel are important
about teaching and learning.” (Paris & Winograd 1990)
Chapter 1 A working glossary on metacognition in education
6
Working conception of metacognition in education
• Qua pedagogical concept, metacognition describes activities, attributes, or behaviors:
I. theorized to produce superior learning than what one would achieve in their absence,
II. where learning benefits are presumed to derive from their provision of
insight into and/or control over the operations of one’s own mind
→ Phenomena deemed “metacognition” in the educational context are unified by
their perceived pedagogical value, not by a common psychological foundation

9. CONCLUSIONS
A working glossary on metacognition in education
Chapter 1
Satire of the treatment of metacognition
as a pedagogical panacea (Ashman 2015)
7
Given the polysemy & incoherence of the construct,
→ There’s high potential for equivocation,
where an endorsement of some particular translation of
“metacognition” is mistaken for endorsement of another
→ Summary claims about the educational benefits of
metacognition can mislead instructors into thinking
that every possible instantiation of “metacognition“
in teaching has been vetted by education research
→ Claims to the effect that metacognition is key to learning
may seem to express a robust empirical finding of
a causal relationship, but in some circumstances
articulate an a priori normative theory of education

10. illusions of knowledge of / control over our own mind
• First-person experience fosters (persistent, rarely challenged) impressions of
transparent access to our mental states & exaggerated agency over our mental operations
- What seems like insight into our cognitive states & processes might instead be
inferential self-interpretation, or even total confabulation (Rosenthal 2000)
- Accounts we offer to others about how our minds work are influenced by
a priori theories of mental causation & desires to explain our behavior
to ourselves in a flattering light (Nisbett & Wilson 1977, Carruthers 2011)
Complications and controversies from phil. mind & cognitive science
Chapter 2
8
Limits of cognitive control
• Conscious awareness of our cognition does not necessarily enable
direct control over our cognitive processes, let alone the contents of our thinking
- Instead, cognitive control over learning tends to be automatic & unconscious (Reder & Schunn 1996)
or only achievable through behavior modification (Carruthers 2011)

11. CONCLUSIONS
→ Assurance that we can cultivate students’ capacity to know/control their minds
may stem from our susceptibility to phenomenological illusions that foster
entrenched convictions in our capacity to know/control our own minds
ChAPTER 2 Complications and controversies from phil. mind & cognitive science
9
→ What feels like discovery of our inner states through
self-reflection may instead be invention of compelling
claims & narratives about ourselves as thinkers
→ Self-awareness of one’s cognition doesn’t translate into
instant, unrestrained power to change one’s cognition
→ Metacognition isn’t immune from error or
motivated self-deception

12. Methodological issues with Approaches to metacognitive training
• Due to murkiness about what constitutes success in these interventions,
it can be hard to distinguish training efforts that are actually effective
from those that appear to be effective
ChAPTER 3 Scrutinizing metacognitive training interventions
10
- The apparent impact of explicit modeling of metacognition may boil down to
the instructors’ exposure of valuable domain-specific knowledge to students
- Easily-teachable “hacks” are often shoehorned into the scope of
metacognitive strategy instruction, making metacognitive skill-building
seem artificially achievable
- Reflective activities don’t necessarily yield veridical self-reports from students
— especially when the instructor’s apparent metacognitivism creates
a demand effect prompting students to over-report their metacognitive activity
→ Students most in need of metacognitive skill-gain are least able to benefit
from self-reflection & self-assessment (Kruger & Dunning 1999, Hacker et al 2000)

13. Limitations of the empirical findings
• Most studies on metacognitive training in education assess the impact
of these interventions on learning outcomes, but don’t actually verify
that these interventions increase metacognitive ability (Veenman et al. 2006)
• Studies that do assess metacognitive ability pre-/post-intervention
often depend on unreliable (self-reported) measures (ibid., Baker & Cerro 2000)
→ As a result, we can’t conclude that improved learning outcomes associated with
metacognitive training definitively result from metacognitive skill-gain
ChAPTER 3 Scrutinizing metacognitive training interventions
11
Explaining the impact of metacognitive training on learning outcomes
• These interventions provide heightened transparency about domain-specific standards for
successful academic performance, knowledge of which facilitates navigation of assessments
→ Background knowledge is a limiting factor determining whether or not students can
display aptitude in any given context (Hirsch 2006, Willingham 2007, Quigley et al. 2018)

14. conclusionS
→ Ambiguity about what metacognition is manifests in ambiguity around
when metacognitive training has accomplished its intended ends
ChAPTER 3 Scrutinizing metacognitive training interventions
Application of domain-specific standards for
successful performance (Tomsett 2015)
12
→ Research to date does not definitively demonstrate
that metacognitive training succeeds in producing
the psychological changes at which it aims
→ There are alternative explanations available
as to why metacognitive training is linked to
enhanced learning outcomes,
— namely, that these interventions increase
students’ exposure to explicit information about
what they need to know/do to evince their learning
convincingly in assessments

15. ChAPTER 4 An error theory for metacognitivism
Goalpost-shifting around metacognitive training
• Slipperiness around “metacognition” plays into at least two patterns of goalpost-shifting:
- Substituting easily-manifestable translations of “metacognition”
for the elusive objective of promoting cognitive self-mastery (Haynes 2014)
- Substituting performance of thinking about thinking for the real deal (Issitt 2007)
…both of which foster subjective impressions that one has succeeded in
making students “more metacognitive” through one’s pedagogical interventions
13
Motiv
ated reasoning in defense of metacognitivism
• Educators are occupationally invested in the idea that it’s possible to
effect high-impact, lasting enhancements of students’ intellectual potential
→ “…for propositions we want to believe, we ask only that the evidence
not force us to believe otherwise — a rather easy standard to meet.” (Gilovich 1993)

16. SpeculationS
Factors that foster belief that metacognitive training works likely include:
ChAPTER 4 An error theory for metacognitivism
Precedents for Motiv
ated reasoning In education
• Learning styles and whole-word reading each demonstrate how a pedagogical theory
can be enthusiastically embraced by educators & administrators,
but fail to withstand empirical scrutiny (Pashler et al. 2008, Hanford 2019)
14
→ Influence of mindset theory (Dweck 2006), specifically the notion that
registering limits to students’ capacity for change is detrimental to students
→ Easier uptake of pedagogical methods that are intuitive (aligning with
teachers’ existing beliefs & observations about how learning seems to work)
→ Uncritical embrace of concepts that emerge from educational science, fueled by
pressure on educators to use scientifically-informed teaching practices without
accompanying training on how to decipher rigorous findings from bunk

17. REFERENCES (for sources cited in these slides; see manuscript for full bibliography)
Ashman, G. (2015) Actionizing thinkiness. [Blog post] Making Learners Extraordinary: An extraordinary spoof by @greg_ashman.
https://makinglearnersextraordinary.com/2015/08/24/actionizing-thinkiness/
Baker, L. & Cerro, L.C. (2000). “Assessing metacognition in children and adults.” In G. Schraw & J.C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement
of Metacognition (pp. 93-145). Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe
(eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 65-116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carruthers, P. (2011). The Opacity of Mind: An Integrated Theory of Self-Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Concepción, D.W. (2004). Reading philosophy with background knowledge and metacognition. Teaching Philosophy, 27(4), 351-368.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books.
Flavell, J.H. (1976). “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.” In L.B. Resnick (ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231-235).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilovich, T. (1993). How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Free Press.
Hacker, D.J., Bol, L., Horgan, D.D., & Rakow, E.A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 160-170.
Hanford, E. (2019, Aug 22). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers. APM Reports.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading
Haynes, F. (2014). Teaching children to think for themselves: From questioning to dialogue. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 1(1), 131-146.
Hirsch, E.D. (2006) The Knowledge Deficit: Closing the Shocking Education Gap for American Children. Houghton Mifflin.
Issitt, J. (2007). Evidence and metacognition in the new regime of truth: Figures of the autonomous learner on the walls of Plato’s cave.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(3), 381-393.
15

18. REFERENCES continued
Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of It: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated
self-assessments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 251-9.
Paris, S.G. & Winograd, P. (1990). “How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction.” In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.).,
Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (pp. 15-51). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pashler, H. McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest
9(3),105-119.
Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2018). Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching
metacognition in schools?. Educational Review, 71(4), 483-500.
Reder, L.M. & Schunn, C.D. (1996). “Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice Is governed by implicit learning and memory.”
In L.M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit Memory and Metacognition (pp. 45-78). Erlbaum.
Rosenthal, D. (2000). Introspection and self-interpretation. Philosophical Topics, 28(2), 201-233.
Tomsett, J. (2015) This much I know about…The Sutton Trust/EEF Tookit and the Golden Thread from evidence to student outcomes, via
deliberate intervention. [Blog post] https://johntomsett.com/2015/02/13/this-much-i-know-about-the-golden-thread-from-evidence-
to-student-outcomes/
Quigley, A., Muijs, D. & Stringer, E. (2018). “Metacognition and self-regulated learning: Guidance report.” Education Endowment Foundation.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/tools/guidance-reports/metacognition-and-self-regulated-learning
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (2011). Just Write! Guide. Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy
Center. https://lincs.ed.gov/state-resources/federal-initiatives/teal/guide/metacognitive
Veenman, M.V.J., van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological
considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3-14.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31, 8-19. 16