The concept of metacognition refers to one’s knowledge and control of one’s own cognitive system. However, despite being widely used, this concept is confusing because of several reasons. First, sometimes it is not at all clear what is cognitive and what is metacognitive. Second, researchers often use the same term, namely, “metacognition” even when they refer to very different aspects of this complex concept. Alternatively, researchers may use different terms to indicate the same metacognitive elements. Another foggy matter is the interrelationships among the various components of metacognition discussed in the literature. This conceptual confusion regarding the concept of metacognition and its sub-components calls for in-depth theoretical and conceptual clarifications. The goal of this article is to portray a detailed example of a conceptual analysis of meta-strategic knowledge (MSK) which is one specific component of metacognition. This specific example is used to draw a general model for conceptual analyses of additional metacognitive components. The approach suggested here is to begin with a clear definition of the target sub component of metacognition, followed by a systematic examination of this sub component according to several dimensions that are relevant to metacognition in general and to that sub component in particular. The examination should include an analysis of how the details of the definition of the target sub-component refer to: (a) general theoretical metacognitive issues raised by prominent scholars; (b) definitions formulated and issues raised by other researchers who have investigated the same (or a similar) sub-component and, (c) empirical findings pertaining to that sub-component. Finally, it should be noted that since metacognition is a relational rather than a definite concept it is important to situate the context within which the conceptual analysis takes place.

Recent studies have begun to show that epistemic thinking, thinking about knowledge and knowing, may play an important role in online learning processes such as searching, evaluating, and integrating multiple online sources. The purpose of this study is to characterize the epistemic thinking of elementary school students as they study online. This goal is achieved by using the Epistemic Understanding Questionnaire (Kuhn et al., 2000), and thinking aloud during two open-ended online tasks, followed by retrospective interviews (Hofer, 2004). The participants of this study are 42 Israeli sixth graders. Preliminary results show that epistemic thinking is related to performance of key online learning strategies such as evaluation, integration, and construction and justification of arguments based on multiple online sources. The study analyzes the interplay between epistemic metacognition and strategic performance. 

This study assessed the effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge (MSK) on gains of low-achieving (LA) and high-achieving (HA) 5th grade students (N=41). Gains in reasoning scores of students from the Experimental group (compared to students from the control group) were obtained on the strategic and on the metastrategic level. Gains were preserved in near and far transfer tasks immediately after the end of instruction and 3 months later. Explicit teaching of MSK affected both LA and HA students, but it was extremely valuable for LA students who required a longer period than HA students to reach their top score.

This study assessed the effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge (MSK) on gains of low-achieving (LA) and high-achieving (HA) 5th grade students (N=41). Gains in reasoning scores of students from the Experimental group (compared to students from the control group) were obtained on the strategic and on the metastrategic level. Gains were preserved in near and far transfer tasks immediately after the end of instruction and 3 months later. Explicit teaching of MSK affected both LA and HA students, but it was extremely valuable for LA students who required a longer period than HA students to reach their top score.

Meta-strategic Knowledge (MSK) is a sub-component of metacognition that is defined in the present study as general, explicit knowledge about thinking strategies. In the present study we shall focus on the control of variables thinking strategy. Following an earlier study (Zohar & Peled 2007) that showed considerable effects of explicit instruction of MSK in laboratory setting, this study explores whether these effects are preserved in authentic classroom situations. Participants were 119 8th grade students from 6 classes of a heterogeneous school. Equal numbers of low-achieving and high-achieving students were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The findings showed dramatic developments in students’ strategic and meta-strategic thinking following instruction. The effect of the treatment was preserved in delayed transfer tests. Our findings show that explicit teaching of MSK had a strong effect on low achieving students. The implications of the findings for learning and instruction are discussed.

Meta-strategic Knowledge (MSK) is a sub-component of metacognition that is defined in the present study as general, explicit knowledge about thinking strategies. In the present study we shall focus on the control of variables thinking strategy. Following an earlier study (Zohar & Peled 2007) that showed considerable effects of explicit instruction of MSK in laboratory setting, this study explores whether these effects are preserved in authentic classroom situations. Participants were 119 8th grade students from 6 classes of a heterogeneous school. Equal numbers of low-achieving and high-achieving students were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The findings showed dramatic developments in students’ strategic and meta-strategic thinking following instruction. The effect of the treatment was preserved in delayed transfer tests. Our findings show that explicit teaching of MSK had a strong effect on low achieving students. The implications of the findings for learning and instruction are discussed.

This study investigates how the context of mathematical tasks affects the performance of young children (ages 5–11). Subjects were 523 children from age 5 to 11. Three contexts of mathematical tasks (stereotypically boys’ contexts, stereotypically girls’ contexts and neutral contexts) are examined in three age groups (young, medium, and old). Boys’ and girls’ mean scores were compared for each age group in each of the three contexts. The data show that girls’ performance is affected by the context of the task while boys’ performance is not. The comparison between boys and girls in the three different contexts showed that in neutral contexts, the scores of boys and girls are similar. In (stereotypically) boys’ contexts, however, boys score significantly higher than girls. In (stereotypically) girls’ contexts, a significant interaction is found between age and gender, showing that the way girls are affected by such contexts depends on their age. The implications of these findings for gender-fair mathematics learning are discussed.

This study investigates how the context of mathematical tasks affects the performance of young children (ages 5–11). Subjects were 523 children from age 5 to 11. Three contexts of mathematical tasks (stereotypically boys’ contexts, stereotypically girls’ contexts and neutral contexts) are examined in three age groups (young, medium, and old). Boys’ and girls’ mean scores were compared for each age group in each of the three contexts. The data show that girls’ performance is affected by the context of the task while boys’ performance is not. The comparison between boys and girls in the three different contexts showed that in neutral contexts, the scores of boys and girls are similar. In (stereotypically) boys’ contexts, however, boys score significantly higher than girls. In (stereotypically) girls’ contexts, a significant interaction is found between age and gender, showing that the way girls are affected by such contexts depends on their age. The implications of these findings for gender-fair mathematics learning are discussed.

How should the information age affect teaching goals and methods? One of the claims voiced by educators is that computerized information tools make systematic study and acquisition of information redundant. Put bluntly this claim states that students should no longer ‘waste’ their time learning or memorizing texts and facts that can be retrieved in a keystroke. We attempted to examine the current role of information acquisition in learning processes by interviewing 24 expert academic researchers who work regularly with computerized information tools. Analysis of the researchers’ descriptions of their learning and thinking processes revealed that, according to the majority of the researchers, computerized information tools have not reduced the importance learning and acquiring information. These exploratory findings suggest that information acquisition should still be an important part of the curriculum in the age of information.

How should the information age affect teaching goals and methods? One of the claims voiced by educators is that computerized information tools make systematic study and acquisition of information redundant. Put bluntly this claim states that students should no longer ‘waste’ their time learning or memorizing texts and facts that can be retrieved in a keystroke. We attempted to examine the current role of information acquisition in learning processes by interviewing 24 expert academic researchers who work regularly with computerized information tools. Analysis of the researchers’ descriptions of their learning and thinking processes revealed that, according to the majority of the researchers, computerized information tools have not reduced the importance learning and acquiring information. These exploratory findings suggest that information acquisition should still be an important part of the curriculum in the age of information.

What do teachers (pre-service teachers as well as in-service teachers) need to know in order to be able to implement argumentation processes proficiently in their classrooms? What implications does that body of knowledge have for teacher education (TE) and professional development (PD) programs? Let us take a look at the reflections of a teacher who had taught (what she considered to be) a successful argumentation lesson in a ninth grade biology class. The teacher provided guidance to a group of four students who engaged in an argumentation activity about moral dilemmas in human genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2000). A typical problem with students’ initial reasoning in this unit is that they tend to form unwarranted opinions, ignoring alternative points of view. When they do justify their opinions, they tend to avoid cardinal justifications that involve the ethical sides of the issue, and thus to circumvent the focus of the dilemma. In her analysis of part of a lesson in which she provided guidance to her students, the teacher reported that before her intervention, students expressed their opinions in a loud voice, did not justify their opinions and did not listen to each other. A dramatic change took place following her intervention: students started to phrase the dilemma in terms of principled bio-ethical considerations, justify their opinions, refute each other’s arguments, and explain why other people’s opinions may be wrong. The guidance that has been successful in bringing about such a high-level discussion may seem an easy thing to do. Therefore, we should pay attention to the teacher’s report of what she had felt during the process of guiding her students (Zohar, 2004a, p. 146)

Like other countries, Israel had its share of projects that see the implementation of inquiry and higher order thinking in schools as their main goal. However, although many of these projects were quite successful, they did not succeed in changing the bulk of teaching and learning in Israeli schools. This article describes a new national educational policy called “Pedagogical Horizons for Learning”. The goal of this policy is to move the whole educational system towards a focus on higher order thinking and deep understanding. Such a move must consider the knowledge gained from previous projects but it must also lean on strategies for implementing systemic educational change. Implementing the goals of the “Pedagogical Horizons for Learning” on a national scale requires simultaneous work on three-dimensions: (a) curriculum, learning materials and standards; (b) professional development; and (c) assessment. The article outlines the plan for each of these three-dimensions and provides some accounts of the first stages of the implementation process.

Like other countries, Israel had its share of projects that see the implementation of inquiry and higher order thinking in schools as their main goal. However, although many of these projects were quite successful, they did not succeed in changing the bulk of teaching and learning in Israeli schools. This article describes a new national educational policy called “Pedagogical Horizons for Learning”. The goal of this policy is to move the whole educational system towards a focus on higher order thinking and deep understanding. Such a move must consider the knowledge gained from previous projects but it must also lean on strategies for implementing systemic educational change. Implementing the goals of the “Pedagogical Horizons for Learning” on a national scale requires simultaneous work on three-dimensions: (a) curriculum, learning materials and standards; (b) professional development; and (c) assessment. The article outlines the plan for each of these three-dimensions and provides some accounts of the first stages of the implementation process.

What do teachers (pre-service teachers as well as in-service teachers) need to know in order to be able to implement argumentation processes proficiently in their classrooms? What implications does that body of knowledge have for teacher education (TE) and professional development (PD) programs? Let us take a look at the reflections of a teacher who had taught (what she considered to be) a successful argumentation lesson in a ninth grade biology class. The teacher provided guidance to a group of four students who engaged in an argumentation activity about moral dilemmas in human genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2000). A typical problem with students’ initial reasoning in this unit is that they tend to form unwarranted opinions, ignoring alternative points of view. When they do justify their opinions, they tend to avoid cardinal justifications that involve the ethical sides of the issue, and thus to circumvent the focus of the dilemma. In her analysis of part of a lesson in which she provided guidance to her students, the teacher reported that before her intervention, students expressed their opinions in a loud voice, did not justify their opinions and did not listen to each other. A dramatic change took place following her intervention: students started to phrase the dilemma in terms of principled bio-ethical considerations, justify their opinions, refute each other’s arguments, and explain why other people’s opinions may be wrong. The guidance that has been successful in bringing about such a high-level discussion may seem an easy thing to do. Therefore, we should pay attention to the teacher’s report of what she had felt during the process of guiding her students (Zohar, 2004a, p. 146)

What do teachers (pre-service teachers as well as in-service teachers) need to know in order to be able to implement argumentation processes proficiently in their classrooms? What implications does that body of knowledge have for teacher education (TE) and professional development (PD) programs? Let us take a look at the reflections of a teacher who had taught (what she considered to be) a successful argumentation lesson in a ninth grade biology class. The teacher provided guidance to a group of four students who engaged in an argumentation activity about moral dilemmas in human genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2000). A typical problem with students' initial reasoning in this unit is that they tend to form unwarranted opinions, ignoring alternative points of view. When they do justify their opinions, they tend to avoid cardinal justifications that involve the ethical sides of the issue, and thus to circumvent the focus of the dilemma. In her analysis of part of a lesson in which she provided guidance to her students, the teacher reported that before her intervention, students expressed their opinions in a loud voice, did not justify their opinions and did not listen to each other. A dramatic change took place following her intervention: students started to phrase the dilemma in terms of principled bio-ethical considerations, justify their opinions, refute each other's arguments, and explain why other people's opinions may be wrong. The guidance that has been successful in bringing about such a high-level discussion may seem an easy thing to do. Therefore, we should pay attention to the teacher's report of what she had felt during the process of guiding her students (Zohar, 2004a, p. 146)

While the traditional meaning of connected knowledge is valuable in some school subjects, it does not address the main activities of knowledge acquisition in subjects such as physics and mathematics. The goal of this article is to analyze the relationships between the concepts “learning for understanding” and “connected knowledge”, a central theme in feminist epistemology. In learning for understanding, the learner forms multiple, intricate connections among the concepts she is studying in school, between school concepts and her everyday concepts, and between school concepts and their wider context. Viewing connected knowledge as tightly related to understanding has several important implications. It brings connected knowledge into the central learning activities that take place in school science and mathematics, and gives it a high status. It contributes to our understanding of gender-related patterns in thinking; and it may form a unifying theoretical framework for many studies and projects in the field of gender fair education.

This study revisits a classic yet still intriguing question regarding information technology (IT): what difference does IT “really” make, in terms of people’s thinking? In order to explore this question, the effects of IT in authentic research settings were studied through retrospective interviews with 24 academic researchers. Analysis of the researchers’ descriptions of their learning and thinking processes shows that the effects of IT on higher order thinking strategies can be classified, following Perkins [Perkins, D. N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information processing technology changes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 11–17], into first order effects and second order effects. First order effects of IT amplify or improve existing thinking strategies, without changing their nature, while second order effects of IT cause significant changes in the researchers’ thinking strategies. The results demonstrate that both types of effects take place in authentic research settings, often existing side by side. This article explores several examples of the ways in which IT affects higher order thinking strategies (such as forming research questions, constructing models and evaluating information), examines the types of effects created by IT, the conditions required for these effects to take place, and the role of distributed cognition.

This study examines the development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge (MSK), a component of metacognitive knowledge, in the context of higher order thinking. Participants were 14 junior high school and high school science teachers who attended a professional development course. Data collection was carried out by triangulation of several data sources: classroom observations, individual interviews, written assignments, and recordings of discussions that took place during the course. The Findings section provides a detailed analysis of the professional development of 2 teachers, as well as an analysis of the development of the 14 teachers as a group. The data provide evidence for the types of knowledge teachers need for applying MSK in the course of instruction, the most specific of which are MSK of thinking skills (that must be explicit) and pedagogical knowledge regarding MSK. The considerable overall development in teachers’ MSK following an in-service course consisted of at least 3 different patterns of development: (a) learning MSK regarding new thinking skills, (b) transforming initially implicit metalevel knowledge into explicit metalevel knowledge, and (c) introducing changes in the class culture to value new forms of discourse regarding thinking. The implications for professional development courses in this field are discussed.