metacognition pres

Metacognitive Model for HPT

Technological InnovationsATTD-6100Instructor:Dr. Jeff M. Allen

Conference Paper Presentation

Presented by:John R. TurnerOctober 21, 2010

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

New Metacognitive Model for HPT

Introduction

•HPT is a multi-disciplinary practice• HPTdevelopedasits’coreSystemsTheoryandBehavioralPsychology• HPTisinfluencedbyanumberofothercognatedisciplines

•HPT’s Cognate Disciplines• Huglin’s(2009)HPTRootsandBranches-JournalCitations• Psychology#1cognatefieldinjournalcitations

•ISPI Journal Search• PIQsearchfor‘metacognition’:20articles• PIJsearchfor‘metacognition’:11articles

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

New Metacognitive Model for HPT

Table of Contents•Cognition•Metacognition

• FourCriticalPointsaboutMetacognition

•Benefits to HPT / New Model•A Look at Different Metacognitive Theories

• SchrawandMoshmanMetacognitiveTheories(1995)• Flavells’CognitiveMonitoring(1979)• Kuhn’sMetacognitiveDevelopment(2000)• PintrichandKrathwohls’RevisedTaxonomy(2002)

•New Metacognitive Model for HPT•Conclusion

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995)

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002)Kuhn, D. (2000)Pintrich, P. R. (2002)

Metacognitionknowledge about cognition in general,as well as awareness of and knowledgeabout one’s own cognition.

Knowledge Domains

Declarative Knowledge

Knowledge about oneself as a learner and

about what factors in�uence one’s performance.

Conceptual Knowledge

Interrelationships among the basic elements

within a larger structure that enable them to

function together.

Procedural Knowledge

Knowledge about procedural skills.

Conditional Knowledge

Knowing when and why to apply various

cognitive actions.

INPUT / OUTPUT

Declarative Knowledge(Lower Level)

Conceptual Knowledge (Higher Level)



Metacognitive Knowing (Kuhn)

Metastrategic Knowing (Kuhn)

Metacognitive Knowledge(Pintrich)

Metatask Knowledge

Metastrategic Knowledge

Strategic Knowledge (Pintrich)/ Strategy (Flavell)

Knowledge about Cognitive Tasks (Pintrich) / Task (Flavell)

Self-knowledge (Pintrich)/ Person (Flavell)

Figure 1: Metacognitive Model for HPT

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Cognition

•Describestheacquisition,storage,transforma-tion, and use of knowledge.

•Deals with memory processes.

•Within cognition you have four knowledge do-mains:• DeclarativeKnowledge• ConceptualKnowledge• ProceduralKnowledge• ConditionalKnowledge

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Metacognition

“cognition that refelcts on, monitors, or regulates first-order cognition” (Kuhn, 2000)

“Knowledge about cognition in general, as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition” (Pintrich, 2002)

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Metacognition: Critical Point #1

•Metacognition is a cyclical activity where the cognitive functions are reflected upon and moni-tored by the metacognitive functions.• Metacognitiveandcognitivefunctionsareinteractingwithoneanother.

“educational research corroborates theories that emphasize the interaction of cognitive, meta-cognitive, and affective components of learning” (Gourgey, 1998).

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Gourgey (1998) identifies metacognitive pro-cesses as “internal, ‘executive’ processes that su-pervise and control cognitive processes”.

Critical Point #1: Metacognition is cyclical and in-teractive with the cognitive domains.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


“Investigators have recently concluded that meta-cognition plays an important role in oral com-munication of information, oral persuasion, oral comprehension, reading comprehension, writ-ing,languageacquisition,attention,memory,problem-solving, social cognition, and various types of self-control and self-instruction” (Fla-vell, 1979).

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Understandingone’smetacognitiveabilitiesprovides for better learning and improved task or goal achievement.

Critical point #2: Improving metacognitive activi-ties helps to improve performance.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Research has acknowledged cognitive and meta-cognitive activities when referring to individu-als, teams, groups, and organizations.

“individuals, groups, and organizations can be conceptualized as a nested hierarchy of learning systems: (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000)

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Learning, when referring to a team, group, or or-ganization can be viewed as an isomorphic con-struct (Garavan & McCarthy, 2008).

•isomorphic: “having similar or identical structure or form” (Webster’s College Dictionary, 2001).

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Fromthisperspective,thelearningfunctionsatthe individual level, including the cognitive and metacognitive functions, could be used to mod-el the learning functions at the team, group, and organization levels.

Critical Point #3: Metacognition is an isomor-phic construct that can be applied to each level of performance: individual, process, or organiza-tion.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Researchindicatesthatcognitiveandmetacog-nitive functions operate on their own indepen-dent neuronal paths within the brain.

“It may well be that the mechanisms that sub-serve one or another type of metacognitive judgment rely, in turn, on the functioning of relatively independent modules” (Rosenthal, 2000).

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Researchonmemoryindicatesthatcognitivesystems are not connected to one location with-in the brain.

Instead of cognitive systems being located in one area of the brain, “a more likely scenario is that the brain implements cognition via inter-connected networks of specialized areas, each performing different computation” (Fernandez-Duque,Baird,&Posner,2000).

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


Critical Point #4: Cognitive functions and their associated metacognitive functions do not oper-ate on sigular networks or loops.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Critical Points about Metacognition

1. Metacognition is cyclical and interactive with the cognitive domains.

2. Improving metacognitive abilities helps to im-prove performance.

3. Metacognition is an isomorphic construct that can be applied to each level of performance: in-dividual, process, or organization.

4. Cognitive functions and their associated meta-cognitive functions do not operate on singular networks or loops.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Benefits to HPT / New Model

•“Creation/validationofmodelsanddevelop-ment of HPT theory” was found to be the highest priority in the HPT research category from Hug-lin, Johnsen, and Markers’ (2007) Delphi Study.

“Many HPT scholars agree that more theory de-velopment and theory-grounded empirical re-search are in order” (Cho and Yoon 2010).

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Benefits to HPT / New Model

•Thisconferencepaperintroducesatheoryofcognitive / metacognitive domains that could benefit performance improvement efforts in the HPT domain.

•This theory is presented as a new model: Meta-cogntive Model for HPT.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

A Look at Different Metacognitive Theories

•Schraw and Moshman Metacognitive Theories (1995)

•Flavell’s Cognitive Monitoring (1979)

•Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000)

•Pintrich and Krathwohls’ Revised Taxonomy (2002)

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

SchrawandMoshman(1995)

TraditionalMetacognition

MetacognitiveTheories

MetacognitiveKnowledge

RegulationofCognition

DeclarativeKnowledge

ProceduralKnowledge

ConditionalKnowledge

Monitoring

Evaluation

Tacit

Explicit/Informal

Explicit/Formal

Planning

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Flavell(1979)CognitiveMonitoring


MetacognitiveExperiences

GoalsorTasks

ActionsorStrategies

Person

Task

Strategy

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Kuhn(2000)MetacognitiveDevelopment

DeclarativeKnowledge

MetacognitiveKnowing

ProceduralKnowledge

MetastrategicKnowing

MetataskKnowledge

MetastrategicKnowledge

Meta-Level Aw

areness

Pintrich(2002)Krathwohl(2002)

RevisedBloom’sTaxonomy

RevisedKnowledgeDimension

FactualKnowledge

ConceptualKnowledge

ProceduralKnowledge


KnowledgeofStrategy

KnowledgeaboutCognitiveTasks

Self-Knowledge

RevisedCognitiveTaxonomy

Remember

Understand

Apply

Analyze

Evaluate

Create

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•New metacognitive model for HPT

• Acompositeofkeyconceptsprovidedbyeachofthefourmodelspresent-ed.

• Thismodeljuxtaposescommonalitiesofthepreviousmodelsandprovidesastructurethatkeepstheinherentmeaningofeachpreviousmodel.

• Thismodelisuniqueinthatitaddressesallfouroftheknowledgedomainsinonemodel.

• Thismodelshowstheinteractivitybetweenthemetacognitivefunctionsandthecognitivefunctions.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

INPUT / OUTPUT

Declarative Knowledge(Lower Level)

Conceptual Knowledge (Higher Level)



Metacognitive Knowing (Kuhn)

Metastrategic Knowing (Kuhn)

Metacognitive Knowledge(Pintrich)

Metatask Knowledge

Metastrategic Knowledge

Strategic Knowledge (Pintrich)/ Strategy (Flavell)

Knowledge about Cognitive Tasks (Pintrich) / Task (Flavell)

Self-knowledge (Pintrich)/ Person (Flavell)

Figure 1: Metacognitive Model for HPT


•Declarative and Conceptual Knowledge are grouped together indicating that both types of knowledge are dependent on one another.• DeclarativeKnowledgedealswithalowerlevelofunderstanding,primarilyone’slexiconorfacts.

• ConceptualKnowledgeinvolvesahigherlevelofunderstanding,compar-ingconceptsanddeterminingtheirrelationships.

•Declarative Knowledge and Conceptual Knowl-edge are associated with Kuhn’s (2000) Metacog-nitive Knowing.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Procedural Knowledge is best represented by Kuhn’s (2000) Metastrategic Knowing domain.

•This Metastrategic Knowing domain is divided into two subcategories: Metatask Knowledge and Metastrategic Knowledge.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT


•Conceptual Knowledge is best represented by Pintrich’s (2002) Metacognitive Knowledge do-main.••The Metacognitive Knowledge domain is sepa-

rated into three subcategories:• StrategicKnowledge(Pintrich)/Strategy(Flavell)• KnowledgeaboutCognitiveTasks(Pintrich)/Task(Flavell)• Self-Knowledge(Pintrich)/Person(Flavell)

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

Conclusion•Research has indicated that performance improve-

ment occurs when the metacognitive domains are ad-dressed.

•This model addresses the concerns identified by Hug-lin, Johnsen, and Marker (2007) when they indentified that the creation and validation of models were re-quiredtofurthertheresearcheffortswithinHPT.

•Addressing the cognitive and metacognitve domains during performance improvement efforts, such as ap-plying the concepts in the Metacognitive Model for HPT, can assist the field of HPT.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

ReferencesArrow, H., McGrath, J. W., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex xyxtems: Formation, coor-

dination, development and adoption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Cho, Y. & Yoon, S. W. (2010). Theory development and convergence of human resource fields: Impli-

cations for human performance technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 23, Issue 3,pp.39-56.doi:10.1002/piq

Fernandez-Duque,D.,Baird,J.A.,&Posner,M.I.(2000).Executiveattentionandmetacognitivereg-ulation. Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 9, pp. 288 - 307.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive - developmen-talinquiry.AmericanPsychologist,Vol.34,No.10,pp.906-911.

Garavan, T. N., & McCarthy, A. (2008). Collective learning processes and human resource develop-ment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 451 - 471.

Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Journal not defined, Vol. 26, pp. 81 - 96, copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands.

Hughlin, L., Johnsen, L., & Marker, A. (2007). Research priorities in performance technology: A del-phi study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 79 - 95.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 212 - 218.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 178 - 181.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 203 - 214.

Schraw,G.&Moshman,D.(1995).Metacognitivetheories.EducationalPsychologyReview,Vol.7,No. 4, pp. 351 - 371.

Webster’s new world college dictionary (4th ed.), (2001). Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide.

Met

acog

nitiv

eM

odel

for

HPT

ATTD

-610

0Te

chno

logi

cal I

nnov

atio

nsU

NT

metacognition pres

Business