Malas compañías

Metacognition is used to refer to “the knowledge about and regulation of one’s cognitive activities in the learning process” (Veenman et al., 2006, pp. 3). It is considered to be the higher-order agent that monitors and controls the cognitive system, and be part of that system at the same time. Metacognition can be categorized into two classes (Veenman et al., 2006; Schraw et al., 2006): metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation skills. Metacognitive knowledge involves knowing about ourselves as learners (like our memory limitations); about the learning strategies that we have found useful for different situations (like note-taking, summarizing, and how to memorize a list of words); and knowing about the level of understanding about a subject, or performance and strategy during a learning task. This knowledge, however, is not necessarily accurate. Metacognitive skills, on the other hand, refer to the ability to plan, monitor, and control one’s actions during a learning task and acts as the feedback mechanism that regulates and guides progression towards the successful completion of a task. According to Veenman et al. (2006, pp. 6), evidence of metacognitive behaviour can be observed in such verbalization as “this is difficult for me, let’s do it step by step” or “wait, I don’t know what this word means.” Or it may be inferred from planned behaviours such as doing things step-by-step.

Researchers of metacognition found, as reported by Veenman et al. (2006), that while intel- lectual ability uniquely accounts for 10% of variance in learning, metacognitive skills accounts for 17%, and both predictors share 20% of variance in learning for students of different ages and backgrounds, and for different tasks. The implication for this, as Veenman et al. point out, is that an adequate level of metacognitive skills can compensate for students’ cognitive limitations. Such skills can be instructed by (1) embedding metacognitive instructions into learning tasks design, (2) making students aware of the usefulness of these skills, and (3) prolonged training on these skills to guarantee their application.

Reflection, on the other hand, is considered by some researchers to be “the ultimate expres- sion of education” (Boyle, 1997), as it helps in making students aware of their thinking process (metacognition) and problem solving strategies (Boyle, 1997; Collins and Brown, 1988; Baker and Lund, 1997). With reflection, students can derive abstractions about their thinking process and compare it with their earlier performances, or to the performances of others. This enables them to identify weaknesses and areas for improvement that greatly increase the benefits gained from any problem solving process. If mistakes and weaknesses in problem solving are not high- lighted and discussed, students are likely to repeat them in later attempts. This is where feedback comes into play. Feedback is defined by Hattie and Timperley (2007, pp. 81) as the “informa- tion provided by an agent (e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding”, and considered it to be “among the most critical influences

on student learning.” In education literature, the terms “reflection”and “feedback”are sometimes used interchangeably. While Hattie and Timperley (2007) considered information provided by oneself as feedback (which, in many cases, can be considered as an act of reflection); others, like Collins and Brown (1988) considered the process of providing information by a teacher regarding the performance of a task and how to improve it, as reflection. I use the term feedback to refer to information provided by an external agent (e.g. teacher, peer, technology, book, parent, experi- ence) which can usually lead to self reflection; and use reflection for the personal act of thinking back on a process or a task, whether induced by an external or internal agent.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) identified three important questions that should be targeted by feedback (and consequently by reflection) regarding a learning task:

• What are the goals?

• What progress is being made toward the goals?

• What activities need to be undertaken to improve the progress?

According to Hattie and Timperley, the answers to these questions improve learning when there is a difference between what the learners understood, and what they were supposed to under- stand, which as a consequence may lead to increased effort, motivation, or engagement to reduce this gap. While from the work of Collins and Brown (1988), Nunes et al. (2003), and Baker and Lund (1997) on reflection, I identified three types of reflective feedback in terms of “when” and “how” this reflective feedback is provided (post-activity, inter-activity, and part-of-activity); Hattie and Timperley (2007) identified three important types of feedback (and consequently reflection) in terms of the level of feedback (related to task, process, or self-regulation).

Task related feedback involves information about how well a task is being accomplished, such as pointing out correct/incorrect answers and what more/different information is required. This type of feedback is more powerful when learners have incorrect interpretations rather than simply a lack of understanding and, if provided properly, may lead to the development of more effec- tive and efficient strategies for processing and understanding material. Process related feedback involves the actual processes that learners use in accomplishing the task, such as their strategies in error detection/correction, and the provision of reflective feedback that can lead to reworking, restrategizing, or knowledge reconstruction. The advantage of process-level feedback over task level is in its role in enhancing deeper learning. The self-regulation related feedback relates to how learners monitor, direct, and regulate their actions towards achieving their learning goals. Its importance comes from the fact that it leads learners to seek, accept, and accommodate feedback information, making them better learners.

In terms of when and how reflective prompts are provided, and from literature on reflection, I have identified three classes: post-activity, inter-activity, and part-of-activity. These can target any or all of the task-, process-, or self-regulatory levels. Post-activity refers to the provision of

a “playback” of a certain problem solving activity after the completion of the task in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in the process (Collins and Brown, 1988). Collins and Brown categorized four types of post-activity-reflection:

Imitation: The feedback agent here is typically a teacher who imitates what the student did highlighting the correct and incorrect aspects and the critical moments in the process. An obvious weakness in this approach is its dependence on the accuracy of the teacher’s imitation, and how confident the student is about the teacher’s imitation.

Replay: A conventional video playback of the process. If supervised by a teacher (as with imitation) correct and incorrect aspects and critical moments in the process can be highlighted.

Abstracted replay: Recordings of only critical aspects of the process, and possibly from differ- ent perspectives. This type is particularly useful when too much data is involved, thus an abstract replay helps in keeping the student’s focus on the important aspects of the process. The important issue here is in finding out the right level and type of abstraction.

Spatial reification: This is a form of a static visualization of the process that displays time spa- tially allowing the student and the teacher to identify critical aspects and moments of the process quickly.

Although it is clear that a teacher could use video playback to provide the first two types of reflection support, it is difficult to envisage how this might be integrated into a real-world classroom context. However, other digital technologies, have the potential to play a very useful role in providing all four classes of support.

Inter-activity reflective feedback refers to the induction of moments of reflection (that is, the opportunity to pause and think about a certain action or decision) during the activity (Nunes et al., 2003). Nunes et al. identified the types of activities that allow the integration of reflection support to be those that comprise problems that do not have a direct path leading to the solution and involve multiple steps and strategies. This is basically because problem solving inherently requires reflection to make decisions about which steps to take as well as why and when they must be employed. The benefit of such multi-stage, multi-path types of problems is that they admit the observation of the problem solving process itself, and the construction of a set of common error patterns. This potentially makes it possible for a digital system to identify problems and intervene at appropriate times (usually at the boundaries between steps). Nunes et al. suggested that such tasks should be followed with activities that encourage students to think about (reflect on) their overall problem solving process so as to maximize the benefit gained by the learner from the session. This can be achieved through any combination of the types of reflection that Collins and Brown (1988) identified.

Part-of-activity reflection involves designing tasks to include reflective interactions as part of the activity. In collaborative learning, such interactions include explanation, justification, and evaluation, which are more likely to occur in collaborative tasks than in individual learning (Baker and Lund, 1997; Dillenbourg, 1999), with peers normally playing the role of the feedback agent. The type of problems specified by Nunes et al. (2003) can still apply to collaborative problem solving tasks, with the additional requirement that the task be chosen to allow a space for the above types of reflective interactions to occur.

Reflection and metacognition correspond to the “strategic and reflective thinking” element of the model suggested by Moseley et al. (2005). As can be seen in Figure 5.1, these skills can be employed on any of the three basic categories of cognitive skills; and feedback can be considered as the mechanism that helps in triggering reflective thinking and metacognition.

In addition to cognition, and metacognition, other researchers (e.g. Kitchener, 1983; Schraw et al., 2006) add a third type which Kitchener (1983) referred to asepistemic cognition(or meta- metacognition). Kitchener considered epistemic cognition to be the highest monitory cognitive level that individuals invoke to monitor the epistemic nature of problems, and is affected by indi- viduals’ knowledge of the limits, certainty, and criteria of knowing. While, according to Kitchener (1983), metacognition leads one to chose and use the different cognitive skills to accomplish a given task, epistemic cognition leads one to interpret the nature of the problem in the task and to consider the limits of any strategy in solving that task. Epistemic cognition is affected by the per- sonal underlying epistemic beliefs which range from absolutism to relativism. Absolutism , which is common among adolescents, is grounded in the belief that knowledge is absolute and that the truth of any claim can be determined with absolute certainty. By contrast, relativism is grounded in the recognition that interpretation of knowledge and truth depends on the context (Kitchener, 1983; Schraw et al., 1995). Epistemic cognition is not a skill that can be easily taught or encouraged by technology, but it is worth noting that many researchers consider it an aspect of metacognition (Kitchener, 1983).