**4. Summary, discussion, and implications**

The findings confirm the findings of previous researchers [24, 26, 22] regarding a prevalent theory-practice gap in the area of teaching metacognition. As noted earlier, the data are based on participants' testimonies and statements rather than on direct observations. Yet, our findings show that educators who led wide-scale programs aimed at the development of students' HOT viewed teachers' knowledge in the area of metacognition as valuable for their program. Yet, only four of them reported that classroom instruction in their programs currently addresses metacognition. Participants reported that the major reason for the unsatisfactory implementation of metacognition was teachers' fragile knowledge of metacognition. Our analysis shows lack of teachers' general metacognitive knowledge, lack of the more specific MSK regarding individual thinking strategies, and lack of the pedagogical knowledge required for teaching metacognition. Some participants thought that the knowledge teachers had could have enabled them to teach metacognition only in a shallow or "mechanical" way. Such knowledge can facilitate routine teaching according to given scripts or fixed learning materials but does not support the ability to respond to the unexpected events characterizing the teaching of HOT and metacognition in a flexible way. Many of the participants shared the apprehension of previous scholars who believe that without teachers' deep understanding of the intentions embedded in new curriculum materials, there is a danger of clinging to an innovation's external characteristics, while the essence of the reform might be lost in the adaptation process [17, 29, 30]. Because they saw this potential risk as a serious menace, many participants thought it was better to avoid any metacognitive teaching altogether than to engage with it in a distorting "mechanical" way.

[2] Dent AL, Alison CK. The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology

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

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

99

[3] Bloom BS. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain. New York:

[4] Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice.

[5] Leighton JP. A cognitive model for the assessment of higher order thinking. In: Schraw G, Robinson DR, editors. Assessment of Higher Order Thinking Skills. Charlotte: NC;

[6] Zohar A. Higher Order Thinking in Science Classrooms: Students' Learning and Teachers' Professional Development. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Pub-

[7] McGuinness C. ACTS: A methodology for teaching thinking across the curriculum.

[8] Fullan M, Watson N. The slow road to higher order skills. Report to Stupski Foundation.

[9] Resnick LB. Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational

[10] Flavell JH, Miller PH, Miller SA. Cognitive development. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River.

[11] Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–develop-

[12] Kuhn, D. Metacognitive development. In: Balter LY, Tamis-LeMonda CS, editors. Child Psychology, A Handbook of Contemporary Issues. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor and Francis;

[13] Kuhn D, Pearsall S. Relations between metastrategic knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development. 1998;**13**(2):227-247. DOI: 10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90040-5

[14] Schraw G, Moshman D. Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review. 1995;

[15] Zohar, A, Barzilai, S. Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education. In: R. Wegerif, James LL, Kaufman C, editors. The Routledge International

[17] Loef-Frank M, Carpenter T, Fennema E, Ansel E, Behrend J. Understanding teachers' self-sustaining generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching

Researcher. 2010;**39**:183-197. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X10364671

mental inquiry. American Psychologist. 1979;**34**(10):906-911

Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking. 2015. p. 229-242

[16] Adey PS, Shayer MJ. Really Raising Standards. London: Routledge; 1994

Review. 2016;**28**:425-474. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8

2002;**41**(4):212-218. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104\_2

Information Age Publisher; 2011. pp. 151-181

Teaching Thinking. 2000;**2**:1-12

New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2002

**7**(4):351-371. DOI: 10.1007/BF02212307

and Teacher Education. 1998;**14**:67-80

McKay; 1956. pp. 20-24

lishers; 2004

2011

1999

Participants also described several principles for working with teachers during PD. One recurrent theme was the significance of teachers' active learning, including a need that the workshops will provide opportunities for teachers to experience metacognitive thinking "as learners." Another (related) principle is to anchor discussions about metacognition in examples taken from specific topics teachers have been teaching rather than to discuss metacognition in an abstract and theoretical way. The data thus show that it is possible to address metacognition in large-scale implementation processes, but unfortunately, it does not happen frequently. Teaching metacognition is not common in wide-scale efforts to implement HOT and thus remains an unresolved challenge in the implementation of most programs.

The main implication of this study is an emphasis on the need to develop practical and userfriendly, yet not "mechanical," ways to foster the knowledge teachers need in order to teach metacognition in programs designed to teach HOT. Teachers PD in programs that foster students' HOT need to cater to both theoretical knowledge pertaining to metacognition and to the pedagogical knowledge required for teaching it.
