**2. Definitions of metacognition**

Perhaps the most practical definition of metacognition is that it is 'thinking about thinking' (Flavell, 1999; Metcalfe, 2000; Bogdan, 2000; Downing, 2009a; Ning & Downing 2010) however this definition requires further elaboration, because metacognition also involves knowing how to reflect and analyse thought, how to draw conclusions from that analysis, and how to put what has been learned into practice. In order to solve problems, students are often challenged to understand how their mind functions. In other words, they need to perceive how they perform important cognitive tasks such as remembering, learning and problem solving.

Kluwe (1987) refined the concept of metacognition by noting two characteristics: the thinker knows something about their own and others' thought processes, and the thinker can pay attention to and change their own thinking. This latter type of metacognition Kluwe calls

'executive processes'. Hacker (1998) points out the difference between 'cognitive tasks' (remembering things learned earlier that might help with the current task or problem) and 'metacognitive tasks' (monitoring and directing the process of problem solving), stressing the importance of learning more about thinking. Cornoldi (1998) emphasises the role of learners' beliefs about thinking and makes the point that if students feel confident that they can solve problems, they tend to do better work. In defining metacognition as 'thinking about thinking' or 'second-order cognition', Weinert (1987) acknowledges that purpose, conscious understanding, ability to talk or write about tasks, and generalisability to other tasks are also important factors in determining whether a given task is metacognitive and this viewpoint is supported by Brown (1987) who agrees that metacognition requires the thinker to use and describe the process of mental activity. Many other researchers also make the point that metacognition is best defined by acknowledging that it is both knowledge about, and control over thinking processes (Allen & Armour-Thomas, 1991). Vadhan and Stander (1993) clearly distinguish between ordinary thinking and awareness and understanding of thinking, and this is a theme elaborated on by Hacker (1998) who divides metacognition into three types of thinking:

The Impact of Moving Away from Home on Undergraduate Metacognitive Development 139

as 1917, Thorndike was testing metacognition by asking his students to problem-solve by answering questions on texts they had read. Consequently, when Flavell (1963) published a text on the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget the as yet unnamed, 'metacogniton' caught the attention of researchers and by 1975 had come into common use. More recently, a number of researchers have begun to explore the validity and reliability of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) as a longitudinal measure of metacognition in university students (Ning & Downing, 2010a) and even posit metacognition as indicative of another stage

**4. Metacognition and the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI)** 

Metacognition is assessed in a range of ways but one of the most popular methods currently in widespread use in schools, colleges and universities worldwide is through the use of questionnaires which require students' to report their perceptions about their thinking and problem-solving skills and strategies. It is generally accepted that most students who struggle at university could improve their performance considerably if they understood the learning process better. Weinstein (1988) points out that poor grades begin to rebound when students learn the tricks of pinpointing the key points in lectures, and asserts that learning is more effective when we engage in thinking about the process of learning, thinking, and problem-solving. Recent research studies have confirmed Weinstein's view (e.g. Ning & Downing, 2010b), and have investigated other factors impacting upon metacognition such as gender differences (Downing et al., 2008) and the impact of problem-based learning approaches on metacognitive development (Downing et al., 2009). As a result of her work in the field of strategic learning at the University of Texas at Austin, Weinstein developed the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) which is now the most widely used learning inventory in the world (Weinstein, 1987). The LASSI measures student's perceptions of their study and learning strategies and methods. In other words, it is a measure of the students thinking about their thinking or metacognition. The tool consists of ten scales, and eighty items which provide an assessment of students' awareness about and use of learning and study strategies related to the skill, will and self-regulation components of strategic learning. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that these factors contribute significantly to successful study, and that they can be learned or enhanced through educational interventions such as learning and study skills courses (Weinstein, 1994a, 1994b;

The LASSI provides standardised scores for the ten different scales and provides students with a diagnosis of their strengths and weaknesses, compared to other students, in the areas

These scales examine students' perceptions (metacognition) of their learning strategies, skills and the thought processes related to identifying, acquiring and constructing meaning for important new information, ideas and procedures. The LASSI scales related to the skill

of intellectual development beyond Piaget's stage of formal operations.

King, 1991; Letteri, 1992; Hanley, 1995).

component of strategic learning are:

**4.1. Skill component of strategic learning** 

covered. It measures three main areas of 'strategic learning':


Therefore, whilst cognition focuses on solving the problem, metacognition focuses on the process of problem solving (Marchant, 2001).

In addition to the knowledge people have about how they use their thoughts and strategies (Brown, 1987; Lynch et al., 2006), knowledge about how much they will be able to learn, and what kinds of strategies they use (Gleitman, 1985; Weinert & Kluwe 1987), people also have a set of general heuristics. For example, how they plan, set goals, and process feedback (Frese et al. 1987; Ning & Downing 2010d). The assumption is that these general heuristics can be either conscious or automatic (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1987) and they may be highly generalised or specific.
