**3.2. Teachers' fragile metastrategic knowledge**

issues: a general description of the program, the strategies used for wide-scale implementation, main barriers and challenges, professional development, the development of learning materials, assessment, the suitability of the program to diverse learners, and whether the

Data collection took place between January and October 2015. The interviews were between

Both researchers read the full interview transcripts (referring to all 13 questions) numerous times and wrote down initial codes for each segment. Data reduction took place by creating a file ("the metacognition file") that consisted of the full responses to the metacognitive question (#10) and all the segments from responses to other questions that belonged to the

Then both researchers read the metacognition file numerous times and coded it to create the-

Our findings show that 15 of the leaders we have interviewed recognized the value of meta-

*We really really want to be there [i.e., to engage in metacognitive thinking]. We are aiming at it. We* 

*Metacognitive processes are really important… Because at the moment you are engaging in a metacognitive process you secure the strategy and you make it possible to transfer it to another domain…/ You need it [the metacognitive process] in order to acquire a thinking skill and to transfer it from one* 

Yet, although the majority of the participants recognized that metacognition is indeed valuable for their program, only four of them reported that their programs currently apply metacognitive teaching in classroom learning and instruction. A number of participants reported that metacognition is part of their PD. Participants reported that the major reason for the

In total, 15 interviewees noted weaknesses in teachers' knowledge regarding metacognition, referring to two different elements: knowledge of metacognition and pedagogical knowledge

*I wish, I wish it [i.e., metacognition] would have been implemented in all schools.* (#17).

unsatisfactory implementation of metacognition was teachers' fragile knowledge.

matic sub-files that were then analyzed using a narrative approach.

cognitive teaching in learning and instruction:

**3.1. Teachers' fragile metacognitive knowledge**

*want very much to be there.* (#7).

*domain to another.* (#2).

program involved metacognition.

92 Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development

**2.5. Data collection**

90 and 120 min.

**2.6. Data analysis**

"metacognition" code.

**3. Findings**

The present study discusses metacognition in the context of teaching HOT. It is important to note that the data are based on participants' testimonies and statements rather than on direct observations. Under these circumstances, participants explicitly addressed teachers' lack of knowledge concerning MSK of thinking strategies. Participant #1 explained that the matriculation exam in the subject she is responsible for includes HOT items. These items ask students to use thinking strategies (on the cognitive level) and then to reflect on how they have solved the HOT items by noting (1) **which** thinking strategy(ies) they have been using to solve the HOT items and (2) by explaining **why** they chose to use precisely this particular thinking strategy. This reflective part of the item corresponds to MSK. Students receive a list of thinking strategies, so that in order to answer section (1) of the question all they needed to do is to choose the name of the appropriate strategy from the list. Yet, interviewee #1 reported that **teachers** who participated in a PD course initially found this task (taken from the matriculation exam, and thus originally written for students) too difficult, indicating a weakness in their MSK:

teaching. In Hebrew, the term "mechanical knowledge" is used to designate knowledge that is superficial and meaningless, allowing the knower to "hit" the right answer by carrying out routines that do not require thinking. These participants imply that in such cases, teaching thinking in general and metacognition in particular may cause more damage than benefit. It seems that by using the term "mechanical approach", the participants meant that teachers

Challenges in Addressing Metacognition in Professional Development Programs in the Context…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76592

95

*Teachers did not understand what it is all about. How they are meant to do it… And some of those who* 

Participant #3 was apprehensive about a mechanical and shallow use of metacognition and more specifically of MSK. In the following citation, she expresses her aversion toward teachers and students who discuss what thinking skills they have been using in class and why it is important to apply particular thinking strategies when they do not really understand the

*I don't want it to turn into a mechanical language of students who will start to talk using slogans…/ This is why I really dislike that teachers bring into the classroom words that they don't really understand. You start saying [here the interviewee mimics a formal, pompous voice] - "Please pay attention. What we did now was to engage in strategies that teach the importance of argumentation", or that "what you just did is a generalization". If the teacher doesn't understand what he is talking about, it is preferable that he would not use that language. I don't want him to bring into the classroom words that* 

Participant #15 also addresses the association between mechanical use of a thinking strategy and lack of metacognition. She talks about a thinking activity in which students are presented

*…But if you are doing it mechanically… [moving to in a scornful voice] "OK, I was told I must look at this picture and ask questions" … [moving back to her normal voice] So where is the metacognition?* Participant #18 also said explicitly several times that throughout the system HOT is used in a

In summary, several participants brought up the idea of "mechanical knowledge" of metacognition, implying that in such cases, it may be better to overlook metacognitive teaching altogether than to engage with it in a meaningless and superficial way that may be harmful. It should be noted that additional participants (not cited here) also expressed apprehension

In total, 16 participants addressed the issue of metacognition in the context of PD processes. A few of these participants described in detail what goes on in PD workshops. The description informs us how teachers' learning processes handle metacognition in the context of teaching thinking. The interviews indicate that the PD workshops address all three knowledge compo-

engage in superficial rather than deep facets of metacognition:

*did [teach metacognition], did it in a very mechanical way.* (#4).

concepts they are using:

*he doesn't really know how to use.*

with a picture and asked to ask questions about it:

"mechanical" way on both the cognitive and the metacognitive level.

from shallow knowledge without using the term "mechanical knowledge."

**3.4. Professional development in the area of metacognition**

*3.4.1. Knowledge components addressed in PD*

nents that are relevant for teaching metacognition:

*There is a list. They don't need to remember by heart [the names of the thinking strategies]. [They need] to answer the question and then to explain, to justify how this thinking strategy helps… and it drove teachers crazy because they could not answer this question… they didn't know and it drove them mad. [original emphasis by interviewee].*

Participant # 13 also reported that the PD workshops revealed deficiencies in teachers' MSK. For example, when a workshop engaged teachers in making comparisons, they immediately noted specific differences and commonalities between the objects they compared, that is, they had no difficulties using the HOT strategy of making comparisons on the cognitive/strategic level. They lacked, however, the knowledge of discussing comparisons on the general, meta-level that MSK consists of. Participant #13 asserts in an explicit way that during the PD workshops, there is a need to work with teachers on the construction of the MSK that the program addresses. This assertion indicates that teachers were not proficient in using MSK prior to their formal learning in this area. The next citation supports this conclusion:

*We teach the teachers how to carry out a comparison, or a sorting task. If teachers don't know that- how will they know how to teach? You tell me. If the meta-strategic knowledge does not really sit well in their minds (1)? … They are not familiar with the thinking maps, or they are only partially familiar with them. Now, if a teacher is not familiar with the thinking map, it will also be very difficult for her to construct a teaching strategy because teaching strategies go together with the thinking map (2)….* (#13).

In this citation, participant #13 discusses teachers' missing MSK (1) in an explicit way. Her program uses "thinking maps" as graphic representations for MSK. She explains that teachers are unfamiliar with the MSK represented in the thinking maps (either completely, or only partially). Notably, she also established an explicit connection between teachers' MSK and their pedagogical knowledge for teaching HOT, explaining that the former is a condition for the latter (2). In other words, if teachers are not proficient with MSK, they will not be able to teach thinking effectively. Participant # 3 also expressed the same connection between the two components of teachers' knowledge:

*It is important to me that the teacher himself will have the conceptualization of whatever it is [he is teaching]… It is very important to me that when a teacher enters the classroom and teaches he will be able to say to himself: Ahaa, what I did just now was to ask them to make a generalization.*

The conceptualization of the type of thinking (in this case a generalization) a teacher engages with in class, including the ability to use the "language of thinking" in terms of being able to name the strategy, is in effect MSK. In this citation, participant #3 therefore also addresses the connection between teachers' MSK and instruction, stating her belief that teachers' MSK is significant for instruction.

#### **3.3. Mechanical knowledge**

Six participants noted that because teachers lack the deep knowledge required for teaching metacognition in a meaningful way, they might adopt a "mechanical approach" in their teaching. In Hebrew, the term "mechanical knowledge" is used to designate knowledge that is superficial and meaningless, allowing the knower to "hit" the right answer by carrying out routines that do not require thinking. These participants imply that in such cases, teaching thinking in general and metacognition in particular may cause more damage than benefit. It seems that by using the term "mechanical approach", the participants meant that teachers engage in superficial rather than deep facets of metacognition:

*Teachers did not understand what it is all about. How they are meant to do it… And some of those who did [teach metacognition], did it in a very mechanical way.* (#4).

Participant #3 was apprehensive about a mechanical and shallow use of metacognition and more specifically of MSK. In the following citation, she expresses her aversion toward teachers and students who discuss what thinking skills they have been using in class and why it is important to apply particular thinking strategies when they do not really understand the concepts they are using:

*I don't want it to turn into a mechanical language of students who will start to talk using slogans…/ This is why I really dislike that teachers bring into the classroom words that they don't really understand. You start saying [here the interviewee mimics a formal, pompous voice] - "Please pay attention. What we did now was to engage in strategies that teach the importance of argumentation", or that "what you just did is a generalization". If the teacher doesn't understand what he is talking about, it is preferable that he would not use that language. I don't want him to bring into the classroom words that he doesn't really know how to use.*

Participant #15 also addresses the association between mechanical use of a thinking strategy and lack of metacognition. She talks about a thinking activity in which students are presented with a picture and asked to ask questions about it:

*…But if you are doing it mechanically… [moving to in a scornful voice] "OK, I was told I must look at this picture and ask questions" … [moving back to her normal voice] So where is the metacognition?*

Participant #18 also said explicitly several times that throughout the system HOT is used in a "mechanical" way on both the cognitive and the metacognitive level.

In summary, several participants brought up the idea of "mechanical knowledge" of metacognition, implying that in such cases, it may be better to overlook metacognitive teaching altogether than to engage with it in a meaningless and superficial way that may be harmful. It should be noted that additional participants (not cited here) also expressed apprehension from shallow knowledge without using the term "mechanical knowledge."
