*3.4.1. Knowledge components addressed in PD*

participated in a PD course initially found this task (taken from the matriculation exam, and

*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* 

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

*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

*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* 

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

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

*able to say to himself: Ahaa, what I did just now was to ask them to make a generalization.*

thus originally written for students) too difficult, indicating a weakness in their MSK:

*them mad. [original emphasis by interviewee].*

94 Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development

components of teachers' knowledge:

is significant for instruction.

**3.3. Mechanical knowledge**

conclusion:

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 components that are relevant for teaching metacognition:

**1. knowledge of thinking strategies**, that is, the workshop helps teachers in constructing their own knowledge about how to reason by using thinking strategies (on the cognitive or strategic level);

Another (related) principle is not to begin talking about metacognition in an abstract and theoretical way but to anchor discussions about metacognition in examples taken from specific topics teachers have been teaching. Participant #3 noted that she is apprehensive of starting to discuss the metacognitive aspects of thinking strategies in an abstract, theoretical way, because she feels that teachers find it menacing and alienating. She believes that metacognitive conceptualization must always begin with a concrete example. In other words, she pre-

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

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

97

*I always want it [i.e., metacognitive knowledge] to develop from an example that they will conceptualize. I mean my idea is that when you actually do something and then you conceptualize it – you understand what you are doing. You will do it better. Rather than- I will present you with a theory and we shall see* 

The scarcity of metacognitive learning in classrooms is not surprising when we look at the data concerning teachers' fragile knowledge. Most participants talked about the deficiencies in teachers' knowledge as the most prominent reason for not implementing metacognition in classrooms. The previous sections support this statement with ample evidence. Many of the excerpts cited in previous sections of this chapter imply the participants' belief that teachers' metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in the context of metacognition is a necessary condition for metacognitive teaching and that in general, the pertinent knowledge of many teachers is too fragile to support such teaching. In addition, participants talked about their apprehension from shallow and "mechanical" teaching. That is, they believed teachers' superficial knowledge could only allow them to teach using slogans and fixed algorithms rather than flexible scaffolding of students' metacognitive thinking. Because they wanted to refrain from such shallow implementation of metacognition, they preferred to avoid meta-

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

*how it can connect to reality. Because this approach does not work with teachers.* (#3).

fers inductive to deductive discussion of metacognitive knowledge:

*3.4.3. Reasons for not implementing metacognition in classrooms*

cognitive teaching altogether.

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


For example, participant #4 describes the construction of MSK during PD but then proceeds to explain how teachers' MSK forms the foundation for supporting the development of pedagogical knowledge. Emerging from a concrete example embedded in the content of the lesson, she talks about the nature and role of criteria in a comparison (i.e., MSK). Then she says:

*Which criteria would you put forward here so that the comparison would be worthy? (1) Would you present the criteria to the kids or would you ask* **them** *to propose which criteria they should use? (2) Because if the kids are on a higher level it is better if they choose the criteria by themselves (3)…/ What I am saying is that when you do something and you conceptualize it, you understand what you are doing. You can do it in a better way.* 

Participant #3 addresses three pedagogical issues: (1) the teacher's need to choose wisely among the many possible criteria for comparing and contrasting precisely which criteria would it be best to bring up in class; (2) the degree of guidance the teacher needs to provide with respect to the thinking strategy: whether to let students discover the criteria by independent thinking, or to guide them how to construct the criteria?; and (3) the need to accommodate the degree of teachers' guidance to students' level. This is based on the (implicit) assumption that when students are on a lower level it is advisable to provide more guidance (and to present them with the criteria for the comparison), but when the students are on a higher level, it is advisable to let them discover the criteria on their own.

Additional interviewees repeated similar ideas.

### *3.4.2. Principles of addressing metacognition in teachers' workshops*

Participants described several principles for working with teachers on the development of metacognition in the workshops. One recurrent theme was the significance of teachers' active learning.

More specifically, because the assumption is that most teachers are not experienced metacognitive thinkers, teachers' active learning makes it necessary that the workshops will provide opportunities for teachers to experience metacognitive thinking "as learners":

*[Working on a thinking skill in the workshop] is not simply to come and lecture them about the skill. It's not about lecturing. Teachers themselves must experience it as if they were students, to go through the experience with all the metacognitive processes.* (# 13).

*In principle, I think that the way we have been working most often with teachers is by some sort of mirroring movement… Teachers are going through processes that later on they will go through with their students.* (# 6)

Another (related) principle is not to begin talking about metacognition in an abstract and theoretical way but to anchor discussions about metacognition in examples taken from specific topics teachers have been teaching. Participant #3 noted that she is apprehensive of starting to discuss the metacognitive aspects of thinking strategies in an abstract, theoretical way, because she feels that teachers find it menacing and alienating. She believes that metacognitive conceptualization must always begin with a concrete example. In other words, she prefers inductive to deductive discussion of metacognitive knowledge:

*I always want it [i.e., metacognitive knowledge] to develop from an example that they will conceptualize. I mean my idea is that when you actually do something and then you conceptualize it – you understand what you are doing. You will do it better. Rather than- I will present you with a theory and we shall see how it can connect to reality. Because this approach does not work with teachers.* (#3).

## *3.4.3. Reasons for not implementing metacognition in classrooms*

**1. knowledge of thinking strategies**, that is, the workshop helps teachers in constructing their own knowledge about how to reason by using thinking strategies (on the cognitive

**2. knowledge of metacognition**, including both metacognitive knowledge and metacogni-

**3. pedagogical knowledge**, that is necessary in order to teach the components mentioned in

For example, participant #4 describes the construction of MSK during PD but then proceeds to explain how teachers' MSK forms the foundation for supporting the development of pedagogical knowledge. Emerging from a concrete example embedded in the content of the lesson, she talks about the nature and role of criteria in a comparison (i.e., MSK). Then she says:

*Which criteria would you put forward here so that the comparison would be worthy? (1) Would you present the criteria to the kids or would you ask* **them** *to propose which criteria they should use? (2) Because if the kids are on a higher level it is better if they choose the criteria by themselves (3)…/ What I am saying is that when you do something and you conceptualize it, you understand what you are doing.* 

Participant #3 addresses three pedagogical issues: (1) the teacher's need to choose wisely among the many possible criteria for comparing and contrasting precisely which criteria would it be best to bring up in class; (2) the degree of guidance the teacher needs to provide with respect to the thinking strategy: whether to let students discover the criteria by independent thinking, or to guide them how to construct the criteria?; and (3) the need to accommodate the degree of teachers' guidance to students' level. This is based on the (implicit) assumption that when students are on a lower level it is advisable to provide more guidance (and to present them with the criteria for the comparison), but when the students are on a

Participants described several principles for working with teachers on the development of metacognition in the workshops. One recurrent theme was the significance of teachers' active

More specifically, because the assumption is that most teachers are not experienced metacognitive thinkers, teachers' active learning makes it necessary that the workshops will provide

*[Working on a thinking skill in the workshop] is not simply to come and lecture them about the skill. It's not about lecturing. Teachers themselves must experience it as if they were students, to go through* 

*In principle, I think that the way we have been working most often with teachers is by some sort of mirroring movement… Teachers are going through processes that later on they will go through with* 

opportunities for teachers to experience metacognitive thinking "as learners":

higher level, it is advisable to let them discover the criteria on their own.

*3.4.2. Principles of addressing metacognition in teachers' workshops*

*the experience with all the metacognitive processes.* (# 13).

Additional interviewees repeated similar ideas.

or strategic level);

96 Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development

*You can do it in a better way.* 

tive skills; and

(1) and (2).

learning.

*their students.* (# 6)

The scarcity of metacognitive learning in classrooms is not surprising when we look at the data concerning teachers' fragile knowledge. Most participants talked about the deficiencies in teachers' knowledge as the most prominent reason for not implementing metacognition in classrooms. The previous sections support this statement with ample evidence. Many of the excerpts cited in previous sections of this chapter imply the participants' belief that teachers' metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in the context of metacognition is a necessary condition for metacognitive teaching and that in general, the pertinent knowledge of many teachers is too fragile to support such teaching. In addition, participants talked about their apprehension from shallow and "mechanical" teaching. That is, they believed teachers' superficial knowledge could only allow them to teach using slogans and fixed algorithms rather than flexible scaffolding of students' metacognitive thinking. Because they wanted to refrain from such shallow implementation of metacognition, they preferred to avoid metacognitive teaching altogether.
