SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2

Revisiting Flavell’s Theory of Metacognition for Metacognitive Responsiveness

Flavell’in Üstbiliş Kuramının Üstbilişsel Duyarlılık Açısından Yeniden Gözden Geçirilmesi

Nesrin Ozturk(IZMIR DEMOCRACY UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7334-8476
Pages
257–271
Publication Date
2024-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This paper argues that the theory of metacognition needs a revision to embrace metacognitive responsiveness explicitly, and practical implications need to focus on materials to initiate metacognitive responsiveness for metacognitive development.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The theory of metacognition was innovative at the time for its promising practicality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, research findings that pertain to inconsistencies in metacognitive trainings’ outcomes and mainstream classrooms’ adversities of metacognition practices have accumulated since then.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This paper argues that the theory of metacognition needs a revision to embrace metacognitive responsiveness explicitly, and practical implications need to focus on materials to initiate metacognitive responsiveness for metacognitive development.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:metacognition · metacognitive responsiveness · thinking

Abstract

The theory of metacognition was innovative at the time for its promising practicality. However, research findings that pertain to inconsistencies in metacognitive trainings’ outcomes and mainstream classrooms’ adversities of metacognition practices have accumulated since then. These issues may highlight a need to revise metacognition theory. From a phenomenological perspective, this paper first describes the fundamental tenant of theory; thinking and whether thinking about thinking recognizes the nature of thinking. For individuals to manage their thinking, thinking should be stimulated first. Metacognitive responsiveness pertains to a conscious sensitivity towards a stimulus that might engage one into higher order thinking. Metacognitive responsiveness, thereby, may initiate attendance of attending higher order thinking in recognition of a stimulus. Thinking and metacognitive responsiveness pertain to personal relevance, attentiveness, interest, previous experiences, tools for thinking, features of tasks, and the nature of social interactions. In this sense, the stimulus should be designed or adapted to initiate each individual’s thinking or metacognitive responsiveness. This paper argues that the theory of metacognition needs a revision to embrace metacognitive responsiveness explicitly, and practical implications need to focus on materials to initiate metacognitive responsiveness for metacognitive development.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ozturk, N. (2024). Revisiting Flavell’s Theory of Metacognition for Metacognitive Responsiveness. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1232284

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Afflerbach, P., & Meuwissen, K. (2005). Teaching and learning self-assessment strategies in middle school. In S. E. Israel, C. Collins Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 141–164). Erlbaum.
  2. Aşık, G., & Erktin, E. (2019). Metacognitive experiences: Mediating the relationship between metacognitive knowledge and problem solving. Egitim ve Bilim, 44(197), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7199
  3. Aydoğan, A. (2019). Düşüncenin çağrısı. Say Yayınları.
  4. Baker, L. (2017). The development of metacognitive knowledge and control of comprehension: Contributors and consequences. In K. Mokhtari (Ed.), Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading strategies instruction (pp. 1–31). Rowman & Littlefield.
  5. Başerer, D., & Duman, E. Z. (2019). Felsefi süreç içinde düşünme olgusu. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 9(2), 379–395.
  6. Book, C., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., & Vavrus, L. G. (1985). A study of the relationship between teacher explanation and student metacognitive awareness during reading instruction. Communication Education, 34, 29–36.
  7. Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77.
  8. Branigan, H. E., & Donaldson, D. I. (2020). Teachers matter for metacognition: Facilitating metacognition in the primary school through teacher-pupil interactions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100718
  9. Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131
  10. Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition develops students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 127–151.
  11. Duffy, G. G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers’ development and low achievers’ understandings. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231.
  12. Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28–41). Guilford.
  13. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). Effective practices of developing reading comprehension. Theory, Research, Reflection on Teaching and Learning, 189(1/2), 107–122.
  14. Edie, J. (1964). Transcendental phenomenology and existentialism. International Phenomenological Society, 25(1), 52–63.
  15. Efklides, A. (2006a). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001
  16. Efklides, A. (2006b). Metacognitive Experiences: The Missing link in the self-regulated learning process A Rejoinder to Ainley and Patrick. Educ Psychol Rev, 18, 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9021-4
  17. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–278. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
  18. Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema, 21(1), 76–82. https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/PST/article/view/8799/8663
  19. Efklides, A. (2014). How does metacognition contribute to the regulation of learning? An integrative approach. Psihologijske Teme, 23(1), 1–30.
  20. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  21. Garner, R., & Alexander, P. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402_2
  22. Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science, 26, 81–96.
  23. Guitton, J. (2011). Düşünme sanatı (Translator: Cevdet Tekin (ed.)). Elips Kitap.
  24. Husserl, E. (1975). The Paris lectures (T. P. Koestenbaum (ed.); 2nd ed.). The Hague.
  25. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 255–278.
  26. Kerndl & Aberšek, M. K. (2012). Teachers’ competence for developing reader’s reception metacognition. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 46, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/12.46.52
  27. Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200201
  28. Kolencik, P. L., & Hillwig, S. A. (2011). Encouraging metacognition: Supporting learners through metacognitive strategies. Peter Lang.
  29. Madison, G. (2009). Transcendental phenomenology as practical philosophy. Santalka, 17(3), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.3846/1822-430x.2009.17.3.17-28
  30. Marinay, W. A. A. (n.d.). Edmund Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. PhilArchieve. https://philarchive.org/archive/MAREHT
  31. McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (1994). The attributes of instructional materials. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00614.x
  32. McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Child development and education (6th ed.). Pearson.
  33. Meijer, J., Sleegers, P., Elshout-Mohr, M., van Daalen-Kapteijns, M., Meeus, W., & Tempelaar, D. (2013). The development of a questionnaire on metacognition for students in higher education. Educational Research, 55(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.767024
  34. Melot, A. M. (1998). The relationship between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences: Acquisition and re-elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172814
  35. Molenda, M., Reigeluth, C., & Nelson, L. M. (2003). Instructional design. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol 2, pp. 574–578). Nature Publishing Group.
  36. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.
  37. Ozturk, N. (2017). Assessing metacognition: Theory and practices. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 4(2), 134–148.
  38. Ozturk, N. (2019). A case study of metacognition in a foreign language reading context. Journal of Language Education and Research, 5(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.584458
  39. Ozturk, N. (2021). The Relation of metacognition, personality, and foreign language performance. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(3), 103–115.
  40. Ozturk, N., & Senaydın, F. (2019). Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 15(2), 605–617.
  41. Papleontiou-louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of metacognition. Teacher Development, 7(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530300200184
  42. Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55(6), 2083–2093.
  43. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_2
  44. Pimvichai, J., Sanium, S., & Buaraphan, K. (2019). Exploration of students’ metacognitive experience in physics classroom. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012076
  45. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In Gregory Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning (pp. 43–97). Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
  46. Pogrow, S. (2004). The missing element in reducing the learning gap: Eliminating the “blank stare.” Teachers College Record, 106(10), 11381.
  47. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
  48. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033
  49. Seel, N. M., Lehmann, T., Blumschein, P., & Podolskiy, O. A. (2017). Instructional Design for Learning: Theoretical Perspectives. 36th European Society for Engineering Education, SEFI Conference on Quality Assessment, Employability and Innovation. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_888
  50. Takallou, F. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 272–300.
  51. Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. Cell Biology Education, 11(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
  52. Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. (1997). The language of thinking. The Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368–374. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+language+of+thinking.-a019192248
  53. Veenman, M. V. J. (2016). Metacognition and individual differences. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading (pp. 26–40). Routledge.
  54. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol 1). Springer.
  56. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43.
  57. Washburn, D. A., Smith, J. D., & Taglialatela, L. A. (2005). Individual differences in metacognitive responsiveness: Cognitive and personality correlates. Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.132.4.446-461
  58. Yee, S. F. (2019). A phenomenological inquiry into science teachers’ case method learning. Springer.
  59. Yurt, E. (2018). Düşünme üzerine bir soruşturma: Heidegger felsefesinde düşünmenin yeri. Fakülte Kitabevi Yayınları.
  60. Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69.
  61. Zöller, G. (1992). Lichtenberg and Kant on the subject of thinking. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 30(3), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1992.0062