Journal of College Reading and Learning

ISSN: 1079-0195 (Print) 2332-7413 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucrl20

Better Learning through Better Thinking:

Developing Students' Metacognitive Abilities

Shawn Taylor

To cite this article: Shawn Taylor (1999) Better Learning through Better Thinking: Developing
Students' Metacognitive Abilities, Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30:1, 34-45, DOI:
10.1080/10790195.1999.10850084

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10790195.1999.10850084

Published online: 08 Jul 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 68

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucrl20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 29 December 2015, At: 17:41
 Shawn Taylor
Better Learning
Through Better
Thinking:
Developing
Students'
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

Metacognitive
Abilities
How well students perform in college is closely related to how much effort
they put forth in their academic work. While this may seem axiomatic,
many students, not always aware of the different approaches to studying,
come to hold mistaken beliefs about the learning process, thus depriving
themselves of the opportunity to reason out their difficulties and discover
their capabilities. This article explores how students, through developing
their metacognitive skills, can examine their misconceptions about learning
and, in doing so, begin to acquire new habits of thoughts and qualities of
mind which will enable them to become autonomous learners.

T e notion that the vitality of Ameri-

ca's democratic institutions relies on an educated citizenry dates to
Thomas Jefferson. Just as Jefferson's abiding commitment to this ideal
endures to our own day, so too have today's educators, policymakers,
business leaders, and government officials come to value certain skills
and dispositions essential to society's economic and democratic suc-
cess. Those same people are in accord with what these qualities of
mind and character should include. These qualities are the capacity to

Shawn 7llylor, Ed.D., received his doctorate in history and philosophy ofeducation
at Rutgers Graduate School of Education, New Jersey. He serves as Learning
Specialist and Tutor Coordinator for the Learning Resource Center, Rutgers Newark
Campus.

34 Better Learning Through Better Thinking

 Better Learning Through Better Thinking 35

think critically, solve complex problems, act in a principled manner,

be dependable, read, write, and speak effectively, have respect for oth-
ers, adapt to change, and engage in lifelong learning (Bowen, 1977;
Candy & Crebert, 1991; Carnevale, Garner, & Meltzer, 1990; Marshall,
1989; Van Horn, 1995; Wingspread Group, 1993; Marshall & Tucker;
1993).
These are, to be sure, the same requisite skills and dispositions that
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

society expects of college graduates. Central to our nation's institu-

tions of higher learning is the capacity to promote these essential per-
sonal changes is the degree to which our students are actively involved
in theirlearning (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Study Group,
1984). Unfortunately, the educational experience of many college stu-
dents falls far short of society's expectations. Many underprepared col-
lege students, particularly those at-risk, experience difficulty due to a
chasm between their own academic and social skills and those de-
manded of the college environment (Bigaj, Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, &
Yost, 1995; Dunn, 1995; Mellard & Hazel, 1992; and White, 1992).
Yet the disjuncture between expectations and outcomes can be ex-
plained, in large measure, by the degree of students' active involve-
ment in college. Indeed, considerable research over the last three dec-
ades has explored the relationship between students' active involve-
ment in college-with academic work, intellectual issues, the faculty,
and other students-and the development of various outcomes (Astin,
1977,1984,1985,1987,1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pace, 1984,
1990; Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Based on their
review of 2,600 empirical studies of college's effects on students,
Pascarella and Terenzini concluded that "one of the most inescapable
and unequivocal conclusions...is that the impact of college is largely
determined by the individual's quality of effort and level of involve-
ment in both academic and nonacademic activities" (1991, p. 610). The
relationship between active involvement and effective learning is, in
fact, so strong that "the effectiveness of any educational policy or prac-
tice is directly related to the capacity of that policy or practice to in-
crease involvement in learning" (Study Group, p. 19).
It is precisely those skills that students most need that our nation's
educational institutions are striving to provide. Because the way school
is structured, students, with few exceptions, see themselves as passive
passengers in the learning process. They think it is the teacher's job to
teach and their job to listen. Like the submission of'Iblstoy's soldiers to
the rule ofthe regiment, so do many oftoday's students sullenly acqui-
esce to the settled procedures of school. In one study, for instance,
only 14 % of 745 research university students said they had ever been
 36 Journal of CollegeReading and Learning, 30 (1), Fall 1999

formally taught how to study, in high school or in college (Entwistle &

Ramsden, 1983).
Those same students consequently encounter difficulty in, among
other things, assessing the quality of the relationships between data
and interpretations; comparing the assumptions and processes of dif-
ferent ways of thinking; considering relevant variables separate from
each other; and weighing more than one approach to a problem
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

(Gardiner, 1994). Under these circumstances, many students come to

hold mistaken ideas about school and learning that lead them to adopt
the wrong goals and strategies. Not understanding the learning proc-
ess, many students blame themselves, giving up prematurely to avoid
humiliation. Given this state of affairs, one of the most valuable ac-
tions we could take would be to help students dispel these destructive
assumptions by teaching them how to learn.
In this article, I present how students, through developing their
metacognitive skills, can begin to redress this imbalance. By drawing
on recent research in metacognition applied to educational practice, I
hope to show how students can gain a measure of control over their
study activities, and in doing so, change the way they view themselves-
from passive receivers of knowledge to active makers of meaning. I
conclude with a discussion by highlighting some educational implica-
tions of research on metacognition in regard to practice with particular
attention paid to learning styles.

A Brief Overview of Metacognition Research

The idea of deliberate, planful, and goal-directed thinking applied to
one's thoughts to accomplish cognitive tasks can be traced to the de-
velopmental psychology of Jean Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958).
Piaget's work, although somewhat modified in light of later advances
in developmental psychology, has nevertheless had a tremendous im-
pact on how researchers, practitioners, and the general public concep-
tualize child and adolescent child development (Flavell, 1963). During
the 1960s and 1970s, a group of researchers extended Piaget's work to
questions concerning not only how the storage and retrieval of infor-
mation develops but also how it is controlled. Over the same twenty-year
period, a substantial body of work emerged that would eventually be
viewed as the foundations of metacognitive research (Brown, 1978;
Belmont & Butterfield, 1969; Corsini, 1971; Hagen & Kingsley, 1968;
Hart 1965; and Markman, 1977). Despite the potential applications of
these inquiries, the methodology of the early research was not highly
sophisticated, making rigorous theories not yet available.
It was not until the 1980s that researchers in cognitive psychology
 Better Learning Through Better Thinking 37

collaborated with researchers in developmental psychology and edu-

cational psychology to produce more sophisticated methodologies for
assessing metacognition (Cavanaugh & Perlmutter, 1982; Kluwe, 1982;
Schoenfeld, 1987; and Schneider, 1985). Increased interest began in
the 1990s on the topic of how people monitor their ongoing learning,
and this research focused on judgments oflearning (Nelson & Dunlosky,
1991; Borkowsi & Muthukrishna, 1992; and Paris & Winograd, 1990).
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

While it was apparent that people who, for instance, were in self-paced
learning tasks would divide their study time in ways that were not
arbitrary or undirected, what was not so obvious, given the research
program was not yet well-developed, was the specific metacognitive
mechanisms that gave rise to those differences in study times. Not
until researchers sought answers to questions about both the basis for
peoples' judgments of learning and the accuracy of those judgments
were they then able to codify and integrate how students chose strate-
gies and allocated their study time (Hacker, Dunlosky & Graesser, 1998).
Once established, these methods became especially relevant to educa-
tional situations where learners have some control over their study
activities (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Pressley, Harris, & Guthrie,
1992; and Jones & Idol, 1990).

Acquisition of Metacognitive Skills

Admittedly, while some use of study strategies and application of prior
knowledge during study probably are performed intuitively and occur
without conscious regulation, a great deal of studying and academic
self-management involves conscious decision making and
self-regulation. The degree to which students confront academic de-
mands is primarily determined by how adroitly they employ various
strategies. Many researchers and practitioners are now convinced that
by promoting metacognitive processes during instruction, more dura-
ble and transferable learning can be achieved. "Theoreticians," in fact,
"seem unanimous-the most effective learners are self-regulating" (But-
ler & Winne, 1995 p. 245). What is basic to the notion of metacognition .
is the idea ofthinking about one's own thoughts. Metacognition, more
specifically, is an appreciation of what one already knows, together
with a correct apprehension of the learning task and what knowledge
and skills it requires, combined with the agility to make correct infer-
ences about how to apply one's strategic knowledge to a particular situ-
ation, and to do so efficiently and reliably (Barrows, 1988; Hartman,
1990; Paris & Myers, 1981; Schoenfeld, 1987, Paris & Winograd, 1990).
These are the skills that enable students to change themselves from
passive learners to active learners.
 38 Journal of CollegeReading and Learning, 30 (1), Fall 1999

Self-Appraisal
Two essential features undergird the definition of metacognition:
self-appraisal and self-management (Paris & Winograd 1990, p.17).
Learning is not just a cognitive process, but an affective one as well.
Self-appraisals are peoples' personal reflections about their knowledge
states and abilities, and their affective states concerning their knowl-
edge, abilities, motivation, and characteristics as learners. Such reflec-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

tions answer questions about "what you know, how you think, and
when and why to apply knowledge or strategies" (Paris & Winograd,
1990, p. 17). A great deal of evidence has been generated in recent
years supporting the claim that students have entrenched beliefs about
what they can do and what they cannot do (Marsh, 1992). Students
bring with them not only their prior knowledge and intellectual skills
but also their attitudes and expectations about the subject, about them-
selves in relation to it, and about the learning process (Gourgey, 1992;
Hartman, 1990; Schoenfeld, 1987).
These beliefs go far in determining academic tasks that students will
attempt and those they will avoid (Bandura, 1995). Many people, for
example, are convinced they are terrible at solving mathematical word
problems. Because they assume every mathematical word problem will
forever evade them, they are little motivated to attempt a solution, and
even less motivated to monitor and regulate their attempts. Similarly,
stress and anxiety overwhelm many students whenever they are asked
to give an oral presentation in front of a group of peers, thereby mak-
ing it nearly impossible for them to monitor and regulate their per-
formance. Yet by assessing those affective elements that interfere with
their progress, students can defeat these irrational, self-defeating
thoughts. More important, such self-assessment often serves as moti-
vation for further assessments concerning strategies for overcoming
other seemingly intractable problems. Indeed, these
personal-motivational states often "determine the course of new strat-
egy acquisition and, more importantly, the likelihood of strategy trans-
fer and the quality of self-understanding about the nature and function
of mental processes" (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990, p.
54).

Self-Management
In addition to self-appraisal, the second component of metacognition,
self-management, refers to "metacognition in action," that is, mental
processes that help to "orchestrate aspects of problem solving" (Paris &
Winograd, 1990, p. 18). Each academic subject raises a unique set of
questions about itself that must be asked and answered systematically
 Better Learning Through Better Thinking 39

if students are to understand it. A metacognitive learner, at bottom,

engages in an internal dialogue of relentless self-questioning about the
subject at hand. These questions could take the specific form of: What
is this composed of? What are its chemical and physical properties?
How is it formed? How can this be identified? What is an example of
this? While each subject calls for its own unique set of questions, other
questions of a more general nature that students can also employ when
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

studying would include: What is my purpose for reading this? What do

I already know about this topic? What information is important here?
How does this information fit in with what I already know?
Perhaps this is what Socrates meant when he said, u••• knowledge [does]
not come from teaching but from questioning" (Plato, 1956. p. 138).
Questions, after all, are the principle intellectual instruments avail-
able to students. Everything we know has its origin in questions. The
idea is for students to learn that the terminology of the question deter-
mines the terminology of its answer; that a question cannot be an-
swered unless there are procedures by which reliable answers can be
obtained; and that the value of a question is determined not only by
the specificity and richness of the answers it produces but also by the
quantity and quality of the new questions it raises. Focusing on
self-appraisal and self-management, therefore, helps in the
conceptualization of learners as individuals who need to be actively
involved in the orchestration of their knowledge construction. Ulti-
mately, the aim is to enable students to transfer the more advanced
patterns of thought learned in one area to areas in which they have
been thinking more simplistically.

Conclusion
Writing at the beginning of the twentieth century, the American phi-
losopher and educator John Dewey noted, "No educational question is
of greater import than how to get the most logical good out oflearning
through transmission from others" (1997, p. 197). Dewey's observation
is as relevant today as it was almost a century ago. Students are taught,
in large part, to live in two separate worlds, one is the world of out-of-
school experience, the other is the world of books and lessons. Thus,
the means by which information is communicated are often inadequate,
making learning unnecessarily difficult for some students. The text-
book, to take just one example, is commonly the primary educational
tool in the classroom. As a vehicle for conveying information, how-
ever, textbooks are far from an ideal medium. Most texts are dry, infor-
mation-dense and packed with unfamiliar terms. More important, there
is no way anyone textbook can conform to a student's particular needs
 40 Journal of CollegeReading and Learning, 30 (1), Fall 1999

and learning style. The chief drawback with textbooks is that they can
only present information linearly, one piece at a time, while a stu-
dent's mind needs to see how those pieces fit together.
Although books by themselves, or lectures for that matter, cannot
supply all of the solutions for the student, they do offer suggestions.
The sources of these suggestions are the student's past experience and
prior knowledge. These two qualities become the student's
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

metacognitive resources. Suggestions more or less apt and helpful are

more likely to lend themselves if a student has had some acquaintance
with similar situations or if the student has dealt with material of the
same sort before. Unless there has been experience in some degree
analogous, the student will remain confused. Without some sort of
metacognitive experience, there is little else for the student to draw
upon in order to clarify the material. To urge a student to think when
they have no prior experience involving some of the same conditions
is ineffective.
If the material learned is to become an intellectual asset for the stu-
dent, then it should be relevant to a question that is vital in the stu-
dent's own metacognitive experience. Students assimilate new mate-
rial from what they have digested and retained from prior experience.
Thus, the material given by the instructor and textbook should be found,
as far as possible, in what the learner has derived from more direct
forms of the student's experience. Failure to do this results in an accu-
mulation of isolated knowledge, inert facts that work to stifle instead
of enlarge and refine the student's experience. Course material that
does not fit into any problem already stimulating the student's mind
consequently becomes an obstruction in the way of effective thinking
when a problem arises.
The challenge of metacognition lies in adjusting the academic task
to the nature of thought of the student. This can be accomplished by
asking questions to remind the student offamiliar experiences oftheir
own that will be useful in acquiring the new topic. Metacognition is
specific, in that different things suggest their appropriate meanings,
and in that they do this in very different ways with different students.
What one already knows supplies the means with which one appre-
hends the unknown. Hence, the process of learning the new will be
made easier if related ideas in the student's mind are aroused to activ-
ity and brought to the student's consciousness. For this to occur, the
student must change and personalize the information by asking ques-
tions and posing problems. It is the sense of a problem that forces the
student's mind to search and recall past experiences, and to discover
what the question means and how it may be dealt with. The question
 Better Learning Through Better Thinking 41

What does this remind me of? gets the student thinking in terms of
analogies and metaphors, and starts the process of connecting the new
information to what the student already knows.
Contrast this approach with the all too common practice of high-
lighting words on a page or other passive activities where nothing raises
a question or suggests alternative outcomes. Unless a comparison of
the familiar and the unfamiliar is introduced at the beginning, stu-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

dents will continue to encounter a loss of understanding. This prob-

lem afflicts most severely those who are just getting started in a new
field of knowledge, typically students who are learning how to think
and write in some academic area new to them, in some well-defined
"community of discourse" to which they do not yet belong. Some items
of familiar experience must be brought to conscious recognition. The
problem is the discovery of intervening terms and experiences, which
when inserted between the remoter end and the given means, will
evoke other associations.
Fortunately, students can be assisted in discovering their
metacognitive experiences. Metacognitive assessment-engaging in a
genuine interest in understanding students' thinking-offers a novel
way, through dialogue, of getting inside the mind of a student. Free
human dialogue, wandering wherever the agility of the mind allows,
lies at the heart of a learning conversation. In fact, when we allow our
memory to be freely active the course of associated recollections is
never the same, and this apparently random ebb and flow ofthoughts
is the source of all novelty and invention. Regrettably, developmental
students often lack the knowledge of how to engage in this internal
dialogue. Th enhance learning to the fullest and help students acquire
integrative learning skills, learners need to become aware of them-
selves as vibrant self-regulatory organisms who can consistently and
deliberately achieve specific goals (Kluwe, 1982).
Thtors, learning assistants, and learning professionals, for their part,
can become what Barrows calls, the student's "metacognitive con-
science" (1988) by asking questions for the student in order to develop
his or her awareness and analytical processes. Such questions might'
include: What preparation does the student have for attacking this sub-
ject? What familiar experiences of theirs are available? What have they
already learned that will come to their assistance? 'Io what objects shall
I call their attention? What examples shall I cite? What comparisons
shall I lead them to draw and what similarities to recognize? What is
the general principle toward which the whole discussion should point
to its conclusions? What activities of their own may bring it home to
them as a genuinely significant principle?
 42 Journal of Goliege Reading and Learning, 30 (1), Fall 1999

One must also listen empathetically to students' feelings with a stead-

fast refusal to share any negative views of themselves. Negative self-
perceptions must be replaced with the positive expectation that stu-
dents can successfully take responsibility for their own learning. With
enough practice in hearing and answering the tutor's or learning as-
sistant's intuitive questions, students eventually begin to ask them-
selves the same questions and to monitor their own learning until the
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

process becomes habitual (Barrows, 1988; Schuette, 1990). Through self-

interrogation, introspection, and interpretation of ongoing experience,
the student gains insight into how their personal experiences can be
used to enhance their understanding of how things depend upon or
influence one another, instead of merely expressing the static qualities
of an object.
Metacognition offers students a way to move from a familiar pattern
of meanings that fail them to a new vision that helps them make sense
of their broadening experience. The promise of metacognitive theory
is that it focuses on those same characteristics of thinking that can
contribute to students' awareness and understanding of being agents
of their own thinking and can prepare them for becoming lifelong learn-
ers. Perhaps this was best stated more than three hundred years ago by
the British philosopher and enlightenment thinker, John Locke. Locke,
whose political thought profoundly influenced Jefferson, believed in
the importance of thought for life and the need of training so that its
best and not its worst possibilities would be realized, echoes contem-
porary sentiments about preparing young people for lifelong learning
when, in expressing one of his enduring aims of education, wrote, u••• to
give [students]... that freedom, that disposition, and those habits that
may enable [them] to attain any part of knowledge [they] shall apply
[themselves] to, or stand in need of, in the future course of [their] life"
(Grant & Tarcov, 1996, p.18?). Encouraging students to gain autonomy
over their own thoughts is worth pursuing, for it not only places them
in a better position to understand their own individual narratives of
study, but above all, calls into play their highest capacities as intelli-
gent beings.

References
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
_ _. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 297-308.
_ _. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
_ _. (1987). Competition or cooperation? Teaching teamwork as a basic skill. Change
19 (5): 12-19.
 Better Learning Through Better Thinking 43

_ _. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine.
Belmont, J. M. & Butterfield, E. C. (1969). The relations of short-term memory to
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

development and intelligence. In L. C. Lipsett & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child

development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 29-82). New York: Academic.
Bigaj, S. J., Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., McGuire, J. M., & Yost, D. S. (1995). Services for
students with learning disabilities at two- and four-year institutions: Are they different?
Community College Review, 23, 17-33.
Borkowski, J. G. & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the class-
room: "Working models" and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, &
J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477-501).
San Diego, CA: Academic.
Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E. A., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated strat-
egy use: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B F. Jones
(Ed.), Dimensions of thinking: Review of research (p. 53-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bowen, H.R. (1977). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of Ameri-
can higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. I, pp. 77-165).
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Butler, D. L. & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoreti-
cal synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
Candy, E C. & R. G. Crebert. (1991). Ivory Tower to Concrete Jungle: The Difficult
Transition from the Academy to the Workplace as Learning Environments. Journal of
Higher Education, 62, NO.5: 570-592.
Carnevale, A. E, Gainer, L. J. & Meltzer, A. S. (1990). Workplace basics: The essential
skills employers want. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cavanaugh, J. C. & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child
Development, 53, 11-28.
Corsini, D. A. (1971). Memory: Interaction of stimulus and organism factors. Human
Development, 14, 227-235.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York: Dover.
Dunn, C. (1995). A comparison of three groups of at-risk students. Journal of College
Student Development, 36, 270-279.
Entwistle, N. J. and Ramsden, E (1983). Understanding student learning. London:
Croom Helm.
Feldman, K. A. & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact ofcollegeon students. 2 Vol. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 44 Journal of CollegeReading and Learning, 30 (1), Fall 1999

Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology ofJean Piaget. New York: D. Van
Nostrand.
Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in stu-
dent learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 7.
Gourgey, A. F. (1992). Thtoring developmental mathematics: Overcoming anxiety
and fostering independent learning. Journal of Developmental Education, 14 (2), 2-6.
Grant, R. W. and Tarcov, N. (Eds). (1996). John Locke: Some thoughts concerning educa-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

tion and of the conduct ofthe understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
Inc.
Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J, & Graesser, A. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory &
practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hagen, J. W. & Kingsley, P. R. (1968). Labeling effects in short-term memory. Child
Development, 39, 113-121.
Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal ofEduca-
tional Psychology, 56, 208-216.
Hartman, H. J. (1990). Factors effecting the tutoring process. Journal ofDevelopmen-
tal Education, 15 (1), 14-18.
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth oflogical thinking from childhood to adoles-
cence. New York: Basic Books.
Jones, B. F. & Idol, L. (Eds.) (1990). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In
D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind-human mind. (201-224). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don't understand: A preliminary investi-
gation. Child Development, 48, 986-992.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achieve-
ment and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35-42.
Marshall, R. (1989). The education crisis and the future of our economy. Occasional
Paper. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Marshall, R. & Thcker, M. (1993). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of
nations. New York: Basic Books.
Mellard, D. F. & Hazel, J. S. (1992). Social competencies a pathway to successful life
transitions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15,251-265.
Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). The delayed-JOL effect: When delaying your
judgments of learning can improve the accuracy of your metacognitive monitoring.
Psychological Science, 2, 267-270.
Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of student experiences: An account of the devel-
opment and use of the college student excellences questionnaire. Los Angeles: University of
California Graduate School of Education, Higher Education Research Institute. ED 255
009. 142 pp.
 Better Learning Through Better Thinking 45

_ _. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in college in

the 1980s. Los Angeles: University of California Center for the Study of Evaluation. ED
375701. 164 pp.
Paris, S. G. & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study
strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13 (1), 5-22.
Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learn-
ing and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 17:41 29 December 2015

instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College Environmental Influences in Learning and Cogni-
tive Development: A Critical Review and Synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education:
Handbook of Theory and Research. Vol. 1. New York: Agathon.
Pascarella E.T. and P. T. Terenzini, (1991). How college affects students: findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Plato. (1956). Protagoras and meno. New York: Penguin.
Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Guthrie, J. T. (Eds.) (1992). Promoting academic compe-
tence and literacy in school. London: Academic Press.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior
relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G.
Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. I, pp. 57-109). New
York: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld
(Ed.) Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates.
Schuette, L. M. (1990). Thtoring? Why should I? In M. Maxwell (Ed.), When tutor
meets student: Experiences in collaborative learning. Kensington, MD: MM Associates.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmermann, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of/earning and perform-
ance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984).
Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential ofAmerican higher education. Washington
D.C: National Institute of Education.
Van Horn, C. E. (1995). Enhancing the connection between higher education and the
workplace: A survey of employers. Denver: State Higher Education Executive Officers
and Education Commission of the States.
White, W. (1992). The post-school adjustment of persons with learning disabilities:
Current status and future projections. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (7), 448-456.
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher ex-
pectations for higher education. Wisconsin: The Johnson Foundation.