In attempting to develop pupils’ metacognition, it is also important to consider the advice of Lin et al (2005), who emphasise the importance of ensuring that both trainer and trainee share common goals. In short: pupils must understand and embrace the purpose for
metacognitive development if it is to be successful. The importance of this – of ensuring that pupils appreciate the purposes for engaging in metacognition - is also emphasised by Schraw (1998), who stresses that teachers must ‘take the time to discuss the importance of metacognitive knowledge and regulation, including the unique role it plays in self-regulated learning’ (pp. 118 – 119). There is much emphasis in the literature upon the importance of clear communication between teacher and pupils, and that pupils engage with the reasons for studying particular skills or concepts. Donaldson (1978), for example, suggests the logic of ascertaining that pupils understand the aims and intended outcomes of learning,
explaining that:
‘You cannot begin the teaching of arithmetic with a lecture on the concept of numerical base. But from the beginning you can be conscious of working towards such an end. And from the beginning you can try to help the child towards some degree of understanding of the general nature of the learning activity that he is about to engage in, so that, before he gets down to the confusion of the detail, he has at least a rudimentary sense of the kind of thing he is attempting’ (pp. 99 – 100).
I think that pupils’ involvement in the learning process is of particular importance to combat the perception of success in Maths as a ‘supernatural’ power, which Picker and
26
Berry (2001) suggest is a consequence of ‘the general invisibility to pupils of the
mathematical process, for with the process hidden, mathematical facility looks more like a power than an ability which anyone has the possibility to learn’ (2001: p. 88).
In addition to ensuring that pupils understand what is to be taught and what they must do to become successful, I believe that, to truly involve pupils in the learning process, we must go further, so that pupils also become actively engaged in deciding what they feel their priorities for learning are, and therefore contribute towards designing their own education experience. Certainly, this approach is also advocated by Holt (1964), who rather
passionately argues that children should be given the freedom to learn what ‘they most want to know, instead of what we think they ought to know’ (p. 289) and for whom schools should form ‘a great smorgasbord of intellectual, artistic, creative, and athletic activities, from which each child could take whatever he wanted, and as much as he wanted, or as little’ (Holt, 1964: p. 295). This, of course - under our current education system at least – goes too far. Since 1988, the National Curriculum has provided an outline of the basic requirements for teaching and learning and, working within a state-funded school, I am bound to follow it.
Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to involve pupils in the development of the sequence and content of lessons to ensure that learning is personalized – within the boundaries of the various national frameworks and curriculums - to meet the needs of each individual cohort of pupils. This would mark a sharp departure from the de-personalised teaching methods lamented by Nardi and Steward (2003), which are cited as one of the principle causes of dissatisfaction with Maths. Contrastingly, Wright and Taverner (2008) state that involving pupils in this way ‘encourages active participation and intrinsic motivation of students, and at the same time sets up concrete targets for them to achieve’ (p. 111). Furthermore, I believe that emphasizing learning outcomes in this manner would also encourage pupils to adopt the mastery-orientation mind-set described by Dweck (1986). This mind-set is extremely desirable due to the associated behaviours of determination and resilience when faced with challenges in learning. As Elliot and Dweck (1988) illustrate:
‘individuals who pursue learning goals are concerned with developing their ability over time and can be seen as posing the question, How can I best
27
acquire this skill or master this task? Subsequent events, such as failure outcomes, may then provide information that is relevant to this question, leading individuals to alter their strategies or escalate their efforts. Here, even individuals with poor opinions of their current ability should display the mastery-oriented pattern, because (a) they are not focused on judgments of their current ability, (b) errors are not as indicative of goal failure within a learning goal, and (c) low current ability in a valued area may make skill acquisition even more desirable’ (pp. 5 – 6).
This is fundamental because, as Biesta (2007) explains, ‘If teaching is to have any effect on learning, it is because […] students interpret and try to make sense of what they are being taught. It is only through processes of (mutual) interpretation that education is possible’ (p. 8). This view is grounded in educational theory, and is commensurate with a constructivist view of learning, where teachers ‘cannot directly transmit conceptual understanding to learners because such understanding can only develop through an individual’s own first hand experiences and cognitive activity’ (Westwood, 2011: pp. 6 – 7). Planning and
delivering a lesson is simply not enough: teaching must engage pupils, and make them want to participate in the learning process. Furthermore, I believe that increasing flexibility and opening up discussions surrounding learning, empowers pupils to take a measure of control – no matter how small - over their own learning, creating a more equitable and democratic classroom community.
The creation of shared learning intentions and success criteria is one of the first steps towards the development of metacognitive talk. The provision of opportunities to develop metacognitive awareness and skillfulness – pupils’ understanding of the nature of learning, and how best to achieve this – is essential to the successful establishment of a Thinking Classroom. Metacognition is the act of thinking about thinking, and encompasses planning how to approach learning, monitoring understanding, and evaluating progress. The
development of metacognition is a ‘vital stepping stone to students becoming autonomous, self-regulating, independent and effective learners’ (Nichols, 2006: p. 184), and there is considerable evidence of the relationship between metacognitive awareness and attainment outcomes ‘with effect sizes ranging between 0.5 and 0.8’ (Wall, 2014: p. 2).
Wright and Taverner (2008) also identify metacognition as one of their principles of teaching thinking, emphasizing the importance of encouraging pupils to ‘identify and label
28
the strategies they have used in problem solving, and develop their repertoire of strategies’ (p. 112), however I believe that this must be taken further. For me, metacognition is the thread which runs through each of the distinct aspects of a Thinking Skills approach. Metacognitive awareness and skillfulness is, ultimately, the goal of a Thinking Skills approach – in teaching pupils to think, I am asking them to think about thinking; I am asking them to engage in metacognition. Consequently, involving pupils actively in their learning is just one of the means by which we encourage them to do this.