**5. Conclusions**

So, the institutional metacognition can be used as a methodological perspective in the process of analysis of the problems and improvement needs of the school community, with the objective of generating a process of institutional self-knowledge. For this, the traditional forms of information gathering, like the data analysis, professional reports, interviews, survey, etc., must be accompanied by moments of group reflection. Additionally, to favor the quality of the reflection, it is important that a large level of participation and collaboration of all the

An example of this is the implementation of reflective encounters within and between the different actors of the school community (teachers, managers, students, parents, educational assistants, etc.), both before and after the application of more traditional forms of self-exploration, with the aim of analyzing the problems that affect the community, with emphasis on those of greater relevance for the whole community. As it has been reviewed, the consecution of this learning requires a collaborative advisory and development process, for example, in the action research perspective where the critical friend role emerges [43, 56, 57]), which operates like a collaborator that through dialog that favors educational improvement provides continual feedback about the factors that create obstacles or that promotes educational development [58]. A second step of the improvement cycle corresponds to the determination of the desired situation, which consists of reaching agreements regarding the objectives and goals to be achieved, which must be the values and behaviors expected in the members of the school community, which allows us to overcome the problem situation detected in the previous phase. In order to do this, the IM perspective can promote the use of techniques such as discussion groups, assemblies, surveys, essays and debates, always constructing a final conclusion as an organi-

Once the current and desired situations have been clarified, the organization must develop an improvement plan. Like all planning, it should contain actions, people responsible, timelines and resources for its execution [54]. In this aspect the institutional metacognition can be taken advantage of by the same techniques as in previous steps, being careful that the plan maintains its participatory character. It is essential in this regard to provide the opportunity for all actors to propose ideas, present previous experiences, investigate experiences of other organizations and consult other institutions. It is recommended to keep a record of all the divergent proposals, which were discarded in the generation of the plan for not achieving consensus, being that during the execution of the plan, elements, situations and unexpected results could arise, which require making modifications to the plan and can then incorporate

The fourth step is the monitoring and evaluation of the plan; it is here that the institutional metacognition, especially the community self-regulation, plays a fundamental and enriching role for the improvement of the organization. The process must be carried out in two ways, on a focused way and a general way; on the focused way, we refer to the exercise of reflections and self-regulation regarding the implementation of a specific improvement plan and its established ways to deal with emerging situations in the processes of change. It is important in this process to have an accompaniment during the observation of situations and subse-

quent reflection with the agents involved, both individually and in small groups.

actors exists during the information gathering.

12 Open and Equal Access for Learning in School Management

zation, highlighting convergences and divergences.

elements that were not considered in the initial plan.

Institutional metacognition (IM) is a methodology that allows for the development of the educational institution, based on the actions of participation and reflection by the school community. It is an innovative methodology since it allows for the joint development of the reflective process of educational practices and the diagnosis of conflict situations, with the participation and dialog necessary for the meaningful and democratic evaluation of the members of the educational institution.

Although there are strategies that promote reflective processes in educational practices so that teachers can revise and modify their teaching practices and their previous knowledge, and there is a great tradition of action research that has been generated [49], these processes are usually worked independently and do not take advantage of the particularity of the collaborative and decision-oriented reflection given by the IM.

While originally the concept was thought of in the context of collaborative reflection for inquiry and improvement of school coexistence [5], and that similar concepts of organizational metacognition have been proposed, such as the process of recognition of knowledge networks in the management of organizational knowledge [36], the idea of institutional metacognition seeks to transcend these areas and is presented as a methodological perspective focused on the evaluation and improvement of situations that affect both learning and the school coexistence, thanks to the diagnosis, planning, intervention, and evaluation processes in participatory and reflective instances [6, 8].

The advantages that can be derived from the IM are, in the first place, the value that is given to the participation as a fundamental element of learning and educational improvement. Even when there is an extensive literature pointing to the advantages of collaboration in learning and in processes of educational change ([43, 44, 49, 53, 57]; Salomon [44]), this aspect is not always valued and promoted by teachers and school administrators [29], and therefore a management structure is needed that values and promotes it explicitly.

relevant and innovative methodology for educational management, both at the level of classroom management and at the level of the global school management. Therefore, we believe that it is a feasible tool that can be used by both teachers in the development of evaluation processes and improvement of individual and collaborative learning between students, as well as can be used by administrators and professionals in charge of programs and policies in the educational establishment, to improve the school coexistence and the educational practices. Finally, it can also be used by administrators of the educational institutions, in the development of improvement plans and in the use of strategic knowledge (knowledge management),

Institutional Metacognition as an Improvement Tool for Educational Management

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70992

15

and Felipe Rodriguez-Rojas3

implementing it as a continuous improvement cycle.

\*Address all correspondence to: cossa@ubiobio.cl

\*, Ignacio Figueroa-Céspedes<sup>2</sup>

2 Center for Cognitive Development, Diego Portales University, Santiago, Chile

3 Pablo Correa Montt School, Pelarco's Township Administration Department, Chile

[1] Labarrere AF. Aprendizaje, complejidad y desarrollo: agenda curricular para enseñar en

[2] Garzón Castrillón M, Fisher A. Modelo teórico de aprendizaje organizacional. Pensamiento & Gestión. 2008;**24**:195-224. DOI: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci\_

[3] Morillo R, Salas-de-Molina D, Valbuena M. Nueva propuesta organizacional para las

[4] Minakata A. Gestión del conocimiento en educación y transformación de la escuela:

[5] Arístegui R, Bazán D, Leiva J, López R, Muñoz B, Ruz J. Hacia una Pedagogía de la

[6] Ossa C, Figueroa I, Rodríguez F. La metacognición institucional como herramienta para mejorar la gestión de la convivencia escolar. Actualidades Investigativas En Educación.

[7] Garbanzo-Vargas Guiselle M. Desarrollo organizacional y los procesos de cambio en las instituciones educativas, un reto de la gestión de la educación. Revista Educación.

2016;**16**(3):1-18. DOI: doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/aie.v16i3.25962

1 Education and Humanities Faculty, Bio-Bio University, Chillan, Chile

los tiempos actuales. Revista de Psicología. 2006;**XV**(2):65-76

Notas para un campo en construcción. Sinéctica. 2009;**32**:17-19

2016;**40**(1):67-87. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v40i1.22534

arttext&pid=S1657-62762008000100008&lng=en&tlng=es

instituciones educativas. Omnia. 2014;**20**(3):23-33

Convivencia. Psykhe. 2005;**14**(1):137-150

**Author details**

**References**

Carlos J. Ossa-Cornejo<sup>1</sup>

Secondly, another advantage is the reflective analysis that entails participatory dialog; as a metacognitive process, it must respect the deep search for information and not stay with the superficial or biased information that is often used in the educational space for decisionmaking. The reflection allows for knowing in depth and in extension the situations that are experienced in the institution, which is why it generates a level of information as pertinent and significant, which can promote better learning.

In the third place, the IM does not only allow you to know but also to decide what to do with the information produced in a participatory manner, which necessarily guides the action. It is in this sense a process that is oriented toward educational change at the level of improvement of collaborative learning, since it can promote the reflective analysis of the processes of interaction and positive interdependence [25]. Likewise, it focuses on institutional improvement, strengthening processes of organizational change based on strategic decisions.

The fourth point regarding the benefits of this proposal is the possibility to work it into a cycle of continuous improvement, which is a set of processes that allow the implementation of the whole process of reflection/participation in four major phrases (diagnostic, planning, implementation of plans and evaluation); in this way it can be promoted as a systemic and sustained methodology over time [54].

The last point in favor, related with the previous paragraph, is that this methodology would permit promoting significant and contextualized learning, not only for the increase of knowledge but also so that this knowledge serves as a base for the improvement (improvement cycle), and this can generate at the level of learning communities, as educational organization, promoting a virtuous circle of actions that lead to such improvement, including dialog, reflection, planning, participatory change and evaluation (and new cycle).

On the other hand, within the factors that limit this proposal, we find the level of participation that is allowed or promoted in educational institutions. Participation is one of the basic assumptions of the IM, so that an institution with policies or cultures that restrict or do not promote participation would not allow the development of this methodology. Also, in relation to the above, institutions that do not allow or do not promote reflection and dialog cannot benefit from this methodology, as these processes are also basic elements of the proposal.

The third type of limitation is related to political elements or to functioning of the educational system, which many times has difficulties with management of human resources, time, or materials, and this ends up impeding the reflective and participatory work in the institution [6].

Finally, it has as a limitation, the theoretical character of the proposal; since its methodology is still being developed, it does not have empirical data that validates or rejects the approaches outlined in the proposal; and this has not been allowed for detailed analysis of the practical elements of the methodology.

Despite the previously mentioned limitations, the authors propose that the institutional metacognition proposal has sufficient epistemological and theoretical foundations to present it as a relevant and innovative methodology for educational management, both at the level of classroom management and at the level of the global school management. Therefore, we believe that it is a feasible tool that can be used by both teachers in the development of evaluation processes and improvement of individual and collaborative learning between students, as well as can be used by administrators and professionals in charge of programs and policies in the educational establishment, to improve the school coexistence and the educational practices. Finally, it can also be used by administrators of the educational institutions, in the development of improvement plans and in the use of strategic knowledge (knowledge management), implementing it as a continuous improvement cycle.
