Metacognition

I've been reading a paper by Akyol and Garrison (2011) on assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Whereas Persico et al (2010) found that an additional code was needed to record metacognition in the critical thinking cycle underlying cognitive presence in the CoI model (Garrison, 1991, Garrison et al, 2001), Akyol and Garrison suggest that it is inherent in the model (see figure). They argue that metacognition is 'intended to provide the knowledge, awareness and strategies to critically assess the learning process' (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.4) and that, in an online community, it is a collaborative process where learners' internal and external processes are constantly being assessed. Moreover, metacognition is not only about reviewing  and changing one's own learning, but also that of others. As such, inherent in metacognition is the notion of learners assuming some responsibility for teaching presence.

Practical inquiry reflects an iterative process between the individual and the shared; between 'reflection and discourse, and analysis (insight) and synthesis (understanding)' (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.5-6). As such, learning involves sharing and justifying one's ideas in a group context.

Critical thinking/learning cycle (Garrison, 1991, p.293)

In order to assess metacognition, the authors of the paper propose indicators based upon three dimensions: knowledge of cognition - this is a relatively static state that reflects awareness of self and knowledge about metacognition; monitoring of cognition - the reflective part of learning, where one attempts to consider the bigger picture; and regulation of cognition - when one takes action to control and modify the learning process (Akyol and Garrison, 2011). Their results indicate that most of the messages in the online learning forums that they analysed demonstrated one of the three phases of metacognition, however there was predominantly a move from monitoring metacognition to regulating metacognition over time. As they rightly suggest, this results is perhaps to be expected and reflects a group that is successfully learning collaboratively.

What could be the implications be for my analysis of the learning in the eTwinning LE? Good question! So far I have suggested having a code for metacognition in addition to the four that reflect the stages of critical thinking proposed by Garrison (1991). As this could be construed as being redundant, I may decide instead to have two codes for each of the two stages of critical thinking related to the higher levels , that is integration and resolution, to distinguish between metacognition relating to the general use of web 2.0 tools and metacognition relating to their use in teaching practice. My feeling is that if I code the forums using just the single codes, I shall fail to see this important distinction - my perception, reading the forums, is that the teachers this time took their thinking to this extra level, thinking about the consequences for their teaching practice. And it would be important to show this if I am to illustrate that competence development took place.

Brian
-----

Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D. R. (2011) 'Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry', The Internet and Higher Education, In Press, Accepted Manuscript. (ONLINE - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005 - accessed 24.03.2011)

Garrison, D. R. (1991) 'Critical thinking and adult education: a conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners'. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10 (4), pp.287 - 303

Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23

Persico, D., Pozzi, F. & Sarti, L. (2010) 'Monitoring collaborative activities in computer supported collaborative learning'. Distance Education, 31 (1), pp.5 - 22