EdPsy 399OL
L9Q1
Instructor: Tom Anderson
Submitted by
Kimberly Fitzer
In the 1970s, one of
the hottest educational concepts discovered was a process
called metacognition.
Metacognition, which refers to the knowledge people have about their own
thinking is considered an important key to
learning. The practice of being able to
think about thinking is an essential step in cognitive development, and allows
the learner to control and access strategies while understanding her
limitations and strengths in learning (Bruning, Scraw,
& Ronning, 1999). By monitoring one’s own thought processes, people can
streamline the learning process and select which method of learning works
best. This becomes an automatic process
in the experienced and mature learner, yet, as evidence shows, can be taught to younger students. Once children have been
introduced to metacognitive training, regardless of their aptitude and
ability, significant gains in performance can be achieved (Bruning, et. al.
1999).
A similar subclass of
metacognition is metamemory, or the knowledge one has about memory. Pre-adult and mature learners often discover
that certain strategies must be developed to improve memory, for as George A.
Miller suggested in his landmark paper, The
Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two:
Some Limits on Our Capacity for Information Processing, most people
can only process six or seven bits of information at one time (Miller,
1956). Learning one or two telephone
numbers or vocabulary words is not as formidable as learning ten or
twelve. List making, mnemonics, post-it
notes, memo pads, sensory associations, and many other strategies serve to establish
cues that will assist in the processing of larger chunks of information,
thereby making retrieval easier. As with
metacognition, metamemory is a developmental occurrence: as we get older, we get better at
remembering, and we also improve our abilities for
developing strategies to assist our memories (Bruning, et. al., 1999).
Then how does the
metacognitive process interact with another, more concrete activity such as
writing? Does the ability to think
cognitively about the writing process improve one’s ability to write fluently
and comprehensively? In order to answer
these questions, let’s examine the possibilities and
create a new strategy, Meta-writing.
First, it may be
necessary to understand what constitutes good writing. Researchers Linda Flower and John Hayes
developed a very workable model of the writing process, in which they described
writing as a problem-solving activity.
They divided the
model into three components:
·
The task
environment: This area contains the
motivation for writing and the product of the writing process itself.
·
Long-term
memory: This component contributes much
of the topical knowledge, the knowledge about the audience that will ultimately
read the work, and the awareness of what kind of discourse is being selected (i.e.
essay, letter, creative, persuasive, or informative writing).
·
Working
memory: It is here that the major
concentration of cognitive activity takes place. It involves three sub-components: Planning (setting objectives, generating
ideas, and organizing ideas into a coherent structure), Translating (the
transformation of the ideas and knowledge into text), and Reviewing (the final
evaluation and subsequent revising that must take place for a written document
to be successful) (Bruning, et. al., 1999)
Effective writers re-enact
this model every time they sit down to write, however, the model does not exist
as a linear process, but as a non-linear process. Experienced writers may review as they go,
altering text to make sense within the context of their work. They may also return to the planning stage at
several points in their work, to align objectives, form ideas and add
material. The translating component, of
course, proceeds throughout the entire process.
All stages of the Flower and Hayes model occur rapidly, simultaneously,
and furthermore, automatically, for the successful writer (Bruning, et. al.
1999).
It may be beneficial
to inexperienced writers to use the Working Memory component of the Flower and
Hayes model to understand their writing process, and pinpoint areas where
improvement is needed. Many novice writers
tend to skip over the planning stage and rely instead on the translating stage
completely. Some sidestep the reviewing
stage, believing that the revisions performed while translating the text are
sufficient. In either case, the
avoidance of crucial components of the Working Memory process will result in an
inferior effort. Our new meta-concept, Meta-writing, may be needed to generate
thinking about how one writes. In the
exercise below, I will develop an activity based on the Flower and Hayes model that
examines the steps I took to write this paper.
·
Planning: First, I read the assignment description
several times, and thought about metacognition, it’s meaning to me, and how I applied
it in the classroom. I thought about how
I assigned writing activities to my students, and whether they encouraged
metacognition, or merely recall of information.
I realized that in the paper, I would have to define what effective
writing was and that for my writing to be clear, I would have to also provide a
good definition of metacognition and metamemory. I also reflected on why I was writing the
paper, and for whom, and knew that a formal approach was required of my
writing. I read passages in the textbook regarding metacognition and the
writing process, and highlighted material I felt would be essential for the
presentation of my paper. After reading
and highlighting, I went back to the highlighted text and wrote down any
thoughts that were generated from my reading.
I made notes as to other concepts I could pull into the paper, such as
Miller’s Magical Number Seven paper. In regards to these thoughts, I began to
create a structure for the paper in my mind.
·
Translating: Once I had gathered enough information, and
had the basic structure of the paper in my mind, I began to write. My writing proceeded from the introduction of
metacognition and metamemory, to the Flower and Hayes model of the writing
process. At this point, I felt I needed
to return to the planning stage, to formulate the concept of Meta-writing. I reflected on what Meta-writing would look
like, how it would proceed, and what the potential applications might be in the
classroom. I decided that the best
approach would be to apply the Flower and Hayes model to the writing of this
paper and to review the thought process behind each decision I performed.
·
Reviewing: As I suspected, I do not edit all at once,
but rather, as I go. I tend to be a
rather poor typist, and so often have to stop and revise misspelled words. I also reread each paragraph and made
decisions as to whether to include a phrase, or move a sentence. One of the things that I have realized by
doing this exercise that while I revise as I go, I don’t as often go back and
reread the entire paper when I am finished.
This is mainly due to laziness and a need to finish quickly, so that I
may move on. Now I understand why my
students do it. I will, out of regard to
the content of the paper, be sure to reread and revise the paper upon
completion.
I found this exercise
to be interesting and informative for several reasons:
1.
I realized
that I do not spend as much time revising as I should when I write.
2.
I realized
that my planning consists mainly of thinking about what I will write and how I
will write it. I do not seem to exert as much effort into the written outline
approach; in fact, I rarely produce an outline prior to beginning writing.
3.
I realized
that I spent more time on the translating stage of the writing process than
other stages.
4.
This
exercise may be valuable for students to use in evaluating their writing,
because I found that as I wrote, I was forced to examine why I did, or did not,
perform certain tasks. I am now prompted
to improve my writing by concentrating more on these areas.
Metacognition, or the
investigation of the thought processes behind learning, may have applications
in many areas of educational activity.
Furthermore, metacognitive activities can be incorporated across subject
areas. Students should be examining
their thinking, especially when confronting new and unfamiliar material, so
that they can begin to construct meaning and form connections to knowledge they
may already have. Asking students to journal,
write reflectively, self-evaluate work, apply strategies to assist in
remembering and other activities will serve to strengthen cognitive
development, and improve performance.
Meta-writing, as outlined above, can also be transformed into
meta-reading, meta-drawing, meta-computing, and so on. The learning potential can be significant,
regardless of subject area.
References
Bruning, Roger H.,
Ronning, Royce R., and Schraw, Gregory J.
1999. Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, Third Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall,
Inc. pp. 95-98, 297-302.
Miller, George
A. 1956.
The Magical Number Seven: Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing
Information. Originally published in
The Psychological Review, 1956.
vol. 63, pp. 81-97. Retrieved
from the World Wide Web on
http://www.well.com/user/smalin/miller.html