95 2013, 13, 139–158 p. METACOGNITIVE COMPONENTS IN LEARNING TO LEARN APPROACHES Stéphanie Frenkel 1 University of Liège, Belgium Abstract. Background. Numerous students are having school difficulties linked to the way they learn. Some people speak of a “metacognitive deficit”. We refer to a “sleeping po- tential” instead. Be it psychologists, teachers or parents, all wish to develop their skills in order to help these students. This is the case in primary and secondary school. The EDUCA + project is intended to provide possible solutions. Purpose. The aim of this paper is to present a metacognitive and cognitive theory of learning to learn, which will (a) explain why numerous students are having school difficulties, and (b) predict the success of the EDUCA + project. Keywords: metacognition, school, student, potential, dynamic assessment. CONTEXT The demand for clinical consultations concerning learning difficulties is increasing steadily. At the present time, numerous field workers are concerned about the fate of students with learning difficulties and/or experiencing school failure or even school dropout. Of course, this is not new. Several causes have been mentioned: the transition from primary to secondary school (Bronselaer, 2010; Hirrt, 2004), a cognitive deficit (Aubret, Blanchard & Sontag, 2006; Giasson, 2005; OCDE, 2011) or a metacognitive deficit (Grangeat, 1999; Lumbelli, 2001; Poissant, Poëllhuber & Falardeau, 1994; Rozencwajg, 2003). More or less successful initiatives emerged here and there. However, one has to admit that the psycho-pedagogical teams are most often helpless when facing these field realities as they lack tools and expertise. MOKSLO STRAIPSNIAI ISSN 1941-7233 (Print), ISSN 2345-024X (Online) http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.14.5 1 Address for correspondence: Université de Liège, Département de Psychologie: Cogni- tion et Comportement, Unité de Psychologie Scolaire, Bâtiment B38 – Rue de l’Aunaie, 30, B-4000 Liège, BELGIUM, e-mail s.frenkel@ulg.ac.be, telephone 0032 4 366 36 02. 96 Stéphanie Frenkel Studies show high rates of school failure, mostly in secondary school (i.e., repeating in secondary school: from 7 to 20.8%). The transition years are said to be the most problematic. Thus in the first year of secondary school, 17% of the students repeat their year (against 7% in the first year of primary school), (AGERS, 2009). This primary/secondary school transition is a key-stage which can bring about new difficulties at school for the pupil (e.g., distance from home, numerous teachers, stricter schedules, necessity for personal organization skills). However, this alone does not entirely explain these learners’ difficulties (Vianin, 2009). “… He failed in many subjects … She has learning difficulties … He has no strategy … Her learning methods are inadequate … He does not know how to learn … She is badly organized … She always does things at the last minute … He is not autonomous …”. These are all adults’ comments regarding the above-mentioned children and teenagers. In fact, their common feature is, generally, that they have what we can call a “sleeping potential”. It means that the student does not use his/her learning potential fully and has not fully developed his/ her metacognitive abilities. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Introduction Metacognitive abilities play a central role in learning (e.g., Frenkel & Deforge, in press; Giasson, 2001; Grangeat, 1999; Hessels & Hessels- Schlatter, 2010; Lumbelli, 2003; Poissant et al., 1994; Rozencwajg, 2003; Veenman, Kok & Blöte, 2005) and thus in successful school learning (Büchel, 2013a, 2013b; Van der Stel & Veenman, 2010; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1994). However, studying them requires that we clarify what is meant by “metacognition” and “metacognitive abilities”. The term «metacognition» has been defined in various ways. These definitions show several components without any consensus being reached concerning their nature and number (Anderson, Nashon & Thomas, 2009; Livingston, 1997; Noël, 1997; Veenman, Hout-Wolters & Afflerbach, 2006; Vianin, 2009). They use heterogeneous terms, leading numerous authors to consider the concept as «fuzzy» (e.g., Akturk & Sahin, 2011; Brown, 1987; Hacker, 1998). International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 97 2014, 14, 95–112 p. Metacognition is defined by Flavell as «one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and outcomes or anything related to them (…) The active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or objective» (Flavell, 1976, p. 232) and more globally as a «cognition about cognitive phenomena» (Flavell, 1979, p. 906). These two aspects of knowledge and control (we will refer to them later) are found in the definitions proposed by Brown (19872), Efklides (2001) and Noël (1997); the last two referring to the model of Nelson and Narens (1990). Although there seems to be general agreement on these two aspects of (a) knowledge about cognition and (b) mechanisms of regulation in the definition of metacognition, their link with the psycho-affective variants at stake in learning is only of recent interest (see Berger & Büchel, 2012 for more details). Thus, although the interdependence between motivational beliefs and metacognition was reported as early as in the 1970s (e.g., Brown, 1978), the reciprocal influence of these variants was only recently considered and studied in the field we are interested in. This was the case notably in the framework of the self-regulated learning theories. Two main components emerged from the first works carried out by Flavell and Brown (and their respective teams): metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies. Considering other works on metacognition leads us to lay emphasis on a third component: metacognitive experiences. Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive knowledge is defined as part of our knowledge about the world which has a relationship with individuals as cognitive beings and with their various aims, tasks, actions and cognitive experiences (Flavell, 1979). Three major categories were distinguished: person, task and strategy. Most metacognitive knowledge results from the interaction or combination among two or three of these categories. In the 1990s, Paris and Winograd (1990a, 1990b) dealt with metacognitive knowledge via the notion of self-appraisal. This notion 2 This double aspect of metacognition was already present in Baker & Brown (1980). 98 Stéphanie Frenkel includes personal reflections about the state of one’s knowledge and abilities. The authors distinguish the declarative type of knowledge (What you know), procedural type (How you think) or conditional type (When and why to apply knowledge and strategies). This allows us to know what we know, to know how we know it, and to know why and when to use this knowledge or apply the strategies (Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Paris, Lipson & Wixson, 1983)3. This categorization of metacognitive knowledge was also mentioned by Schraw and Moshman (1995) then Pintrich, Wolters and Baxters (2000). The latter included it in the category of metacognitive knowledge related to Flavell’s strategies (1979). The authors then postulate the existence of metacognitive knowledge (a) of self, (b) of tasks and contexts and (c) of cognition and cognitive strategies; subdividing the last category into declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. The distinction between the three categories proposed by Flavell (1979) can also be found in the works of Büchel and other members of his team (e.g., Büchel, 1996; Büchel, Berger & Kipfer, 2011). In the field of self-regulated learning theories, Berger and Büchel (2013), among others, specify this by including too-often forgotten psycho-affective aspects in the global approach of learning. They distinguish knowledge relating to oneself (our motivation, emotions, and cognition), relating to the type of task (pre-knowledge of contents, level of difficulty of contents and reasons for the level of difficulty) and relating to cognitive and metacognitive strategies. According to these authors, it is not necessary to subdivide the last category, nor to postulate metacognitive knowledge of the conditional type. They consider that a strategy is, by definition, procedural and that a procedure includes the conditions necessary for its own implementation (Büchel, 1991). This last conception allows us to account for the interrelation between cognitive, metacognitive, and psycho-affective aspects in 3 If we take the example of cumulative rehearsal: (a) I know that this strategy is useful for me in order to memorize a word list (declarative knowledge), (b) I know that, in order to use it, I have to do so as early as the first word and that, practically, I repeat the word I have just heard after those I heard previously (procedural knowledge) and (c) I know that this strategy is adapted to an auditory presentation of words, that it is only useful if the list contains a limited number of words and that, if the list is too long, I will have to give it up and use another one (conditional knowledge). International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 99 2014, 14, 95–112 p. learning and thus in the building of metacognitive knowledge. Moreover, it provides an operational grid for the identification and development of the learner’s metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive Strategies Metacognitive strategies are defined as activities used to regulate and oversee learning (Brown, 1987). These self-regulatory mechanisms are put into place while performing a task by individuals we will name «active learners» (Baker & Brown, 1980; Campione, Brown & Ferrara, 1982). Brown (1987) was one of the first to mention metacognitive strategies under the term of activities used to regulate learning. From his viewpoint, these strategies refer to planning activities (predicting outcomes, scheduling strategies…), monitoring activities (monitoring, testing, revising and re-scheduling one’s strategies for learning) and checking outcomes (evaluating the outcome of any strategic actions compared with criteria of efficiency). Paris and Winograd (1990a, 1990b) also refer to metacognitive strategies via the term self-management. They define that term by specifying that it concerns metacognition in action and how meta- cognition can orchestrate cognitive aspects of problem solving. They distinguish planning (selective coordination of cognitive means in order to reach a cognitive goal), evaluation (evaluation of the unfolding of cognition while performing the task) and regulating (progress moni- toring, revision and/or modification of plans and strategies used depen- ding on the results), (Jacobs & Paris, 1987). Although they use different terms (activities, process vs. metacognitive strategies), more recent conceptions – dating from the 2000s – agree on the presence of planning, of a form of continuing control (sometimes called guidance, supervision or regulation which allows constant checking and adjustments, if necessary) and a final control carried out at the end of a task and which bears on the results obtained (Büchel, 2001, 2007; Büchel et al., 2011; Martin, Doudin & Albanèse, 2001; Vianin, 2009). Even if we can find this forecast aspect in Martin et al. (2001), when they refer to the “expectations of results obtained”, only Vianin (2009) and Büchel et al explicitly mention anticipation. Transfer allows generalization in 100 Stéphanie Frenkel the sense of the implementation of knowledge and skills acquired to another context than that in which the acquisition took place. It is present in the conceptions of Martin et al. (2001) and of Vianin (2009). In Büchel et al.’s conception, transfer is not considered as a metacognitive strategy (Büchel 2007, 2013a, 2013b; Büchel et al., 2011). In our work, we consider metacognitive strategies as self-regulatory mechanisms of cognitive functioning. These are general strategies intervening in all «problem-solving situations», in the term’s largest conception. It groups school learning and vocational training situations, ordinary professional situations, or situations of daily life and hobbies. Anticipation and planning are meant as strategies of preparation of learning. Continuing control and evaluation (i. e., final control) are stra- tegies of supervision of learning. Regarding transfer (i.e., generaliza- tion), there is a general consensus to admit that it allows to generalize knowledge, know-how and soft skills inside a field, and, on the other hand, in other fields. In this sense and through its interrelations with anticipation, transfer also allows to regulate cognitive functioning. However, it is not because it regulates cognitive functioning that it is de facto a metacognitive strategy. Of course, preparation for the transfer of strategies is one of the didactic aspects in metacognition teaching (Büchel, 1990). Metacognitive Experiences Thanks to the model of Nelson and Narens (1990), the interest also focused on a third component of metacognition: monitoring (which led us to reconsider metacognitive experiences). According to these authors, thanks to monitoring – and through a flow of information going back to it – the meta-level is informed by the object-level of the unfolding of the cognitive process. The authors distinguish two kinds of monitoring they make operational through different metacognitive judgments formed by the learner. These metacognitive judgments are the expression of introspective reports done by the learner in relation to his/her learning (cf. Léonesio & Nelson, 1990; Nelson & Narens, 1990, 1994 for more details). Notably basing himself on this model, Noël (1997) distinguishes three stages in metacognition: mental process (which includes, among International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 101 2014, 14, 95–112 p. others things, the learner’s conscience of cognitive activities he carries out or their product), judgment (which bears on the cognitive activity or on the mental product of this activity) and decision (which can be to modify or not the cognitive activities, their product or any other aspect of the situation depending on the metacognitive judgment formed. This last step can lead the learner to undertake one or several regulatory actions of his/her cognitive activity. These two aspects of the mental process (Noël, 1997) and metacogni- tive judgment (Nelson & Narens, 1990; Noël, 1997) refer, on the one hand, to the earliest definition of the metacognitive experiences of Flavell (1979) and, on the other hand, to those recently proposed by Efklides and by Büchel and other members of his team. The latter have explicitly introduced the implication and influence of psycho-affective factors on the metacognitive elements (laying an emphasis on motivational factors). These experiences are named “metacognitive” in the sense that they are the product of a cognition monitoring process (Efklides, 2001). Efklides (2008, p. 279) defined metacognitive experiences as being “what the person is aware of and what she or he feels when coming across a task and processing the information related to it”. In this conception, it refers to an online awareness when given a task; the metacognitive experiences then acting as an interface between the learner and the task (Efklides, 2006). They can thus manifest themselves before, while, or after the task is processed and they influence causal attributions of the person (Metallidou & Efklides, 2001). On this basis, Efklides proposed two categorizations of metacognitive experiences. The first makes a distinction between metacognitive feelings, metacognitive judgments and online task specific knowledge, (cf. Efklides, 2006 for more details). The second categorization lays on the three main phases of task processing. It leads the author to distinguish metacognitive experiences in relation with task representation, cognitive processing, and performance (cf. Efklides, 2011 for more details). It evokes the three functional loops defined by Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman and Miller (1980) whose efficiency will enable the automation of knowledge and know-how: input (exploration and information intake), elaboration (mobilization of knowledge stocked in long-term memory) and output (control of actions’ implementation). 102 Stéphanie Frenkel Very recently, Berger and Büchel (2012, p. 96) defined metacognitive experiences as being «subjective feelings and judgments relating to the learner’s «present» cognitive undertaking (which is the one taking place during the task); they are the interface between the learner and the task». Thus they make the link between cognition, motivation and feelings (Büchel, 2013b). Metacognitive experiences play a central role in cognitive functioning and in self-regulated capacities. We will come back to this point further in this paper. METACOGNITIVE AND COGNITIVE THEORY OF LEARNING TO LEARN Interrelations between Metacognitive Components In order to shed light on the essential role played by the three main components of metacognition, our study is based, among other sources, on works previously mentioned and more particularly those of Büchel and other members of his team (e.g., Büchel, 2007, 2013a; Büchel & Büchel, 2009). In this perspective, metacognitive knowledge is at the basis of metacognitive strategies which lead and co-ordinate (and thus trigger) cognitive strategies as well as cognitive processes (Figure 1). Indeed, in order to be efficient and to use the specific strategies needed to solve a problem efficiently, it is necessary for the student to anticipate the task difficulties, plan his/her strategy and check its implementation (Büchel, 1995). Learners use a strategy because they know that it will help them to reach their goal (metacognitive knowledge), therefore they plan to use this strategy (metacognitive strategy) and implement it in a concrete way (cognitive strategy). Before implementing metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies, one has to have acquired them. Indeed, these metacognitive abilities are not innate and have to be learned (e.g., Klein, 1991; Vianin, 2009). In order to do that, the learner must have had the opportunity to acquire and practice them. In this way, environment1 has to be an incentive and provoke metacognitive experiences. One of its roles is to 1 The term is used here in its largest meaning. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 103 2014, 14, 95–112 p. Fig. 1. Metacognitive and Cognitive Theory of Learning to Learn lead the learner into “moving off their own centre” and give them the opportunity to think about their own functioning: that is, adopt a meta stance. It is through these metacognitive experiences that the learner will be able to (a) build, develop and activate his metacognitive abilities and also (b) develop his strategic repertoire. What does the Theory explain and predict? The theory described above may explain why numerous students are having school difficulties. These are mostly linked to the way they learn: they do not use efficient methods. Therefore, it would be necessary to teach them how to learn. Many “Learning to Learn” approaches have appeared over time. However, in general, they do not enable the student to (a) reflect on his/her own learning behavior, (b) build up greater self-awareness (including psycho-affective characteristics), (c) improve general strategies such as anticipation, planning, continuing control and evaluation, and (d) develop his/her strategic repertoire (e.g., active memorizing, understanding instructions, external memory strategies). In fact, the majority of existing approaches do not work on a metacognitive level. If we really want the student to set up an efficient learning method 104 Stéphanie Frenkel and be able to adapt to the teachers’ requests (which evolve over time), it is essential, in our opinion, to work on a metacognitive level as well. The theory described above may be used to predict future success of the EDUCA + project because its purpose is to design products which will, on the one hand, enable field workers to detect “sleeping” potential among students, and, on the other hand, to help them develop a more efficient learning behavior. What is EDUCA +? EDUCA + is at the crossroads between several disciplines and based on wide field experience. Its objective is to increase the expertise of “front line” field workers by developing specific products such as tools, training courses, services, and a website (Frenkel, in press). This will notably enable them to develop their expertise, detect “sleeping” potential, diagnose, give advice when necessary, intervene (prevention and remediation) and use the tools efficiently. Two types of tools are being designed. On the one hand, assessment tools (tests allowing to put forward the learner’s strengths and weaknesses as well as the scope of his/her “sleeping potential”). On the other hand, intervention tools (short prevention vs. remediation programs). This also includes training courses and services. The creation of a website also aims to reinforce the actions of EDUCA + (personalized access depending on the internaut’s profile: students, parents, professionals). Products The products arise from various disciplines: Developmental Psycholo- gy, Cognitive Education, Cognitive Sciences, Clinical Psychology, Syste- mic applied to the school field, Neuro-Cognitive and Behavioral Approach. . Tools. Test for dynamic assessment (complete version for psy- chologists, abridged version for teachers). Intervention tools: «reading comprehension (second year of secondary school, main- stream education)» (metacognitive remediation programme cen- tered on reading comprehension strategies) and prevention programmes for primary school (centered on metacognitive abi- lities improvement); International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 105 2014, 14, 95–112 p. . Training courses. Main themes: specific learning impairments, differential diagnosis, tools for leading school activities, under- standing and improving metacognitive abilities... Target public: psychologists, speech therapists, people working in CPMS (see below), teachers, parents, pedopsychiatrists; . Website. On-line test, personalized coaching, downloadable files, post training follow-up platform… Partnerships There are four main partners: . The CPMS. The purpose of the Social, Psychological and Medical Centers (CPMS) is to improve the students’ psychological, psychopedagogical, medical and social conditions in order to offer them the best chances of developing harmoniously all the aspects of their person so as to take on their role as responsible and autonomous citizens. The CPMS contribute to the education process of the students all along their school years, by favoring the implementation of means which will enable them to improve themselves continuously. With a view to lifelong guidance, these Centers provide support to students in the positive building of their life project: personal, educational, and professional. In Belgium, each school is linked to a CPMS. . Assess Group1. This firm is specialized in competencies assessment, pedagogical engineering, training impact assessment, and in developing technological support for assessment (mainly throug- hout their web-based platform Docimo, Optical Markup Reading and Voting System). Its consultants are academics involved in international projects and work on the basis of proven scientific models both in the literature and on the field. It is active on the Belgian, French and Swiss market. . Interface Entreprises-ULg2. This Interface between companies and the University is an internal service from the University of Liège (ULg) set up to organize and implement the economic part of the 1 http://www.assess-group.be. 2 http://www.interface.ulg.ac.be. 106 Stéphanie Frenkel University’s third mission: service to the community. Today, the Interface Entreprises-ULg is responsible for setting up collaborations between companies and the University, developing the results of research, managing intellectual property, involving the University in regional development, and organizing continuing education in the technological and scientific fields. . Pr. Fredi BÜCHEL (University of Geneva). He participates in this project as the main scientific partner. He brings his expertise in the creation of learning tests and metacognitive intervention material. He is also involved in the scientific assessment of diagnosis and intervention tools. This is partly related to programs and materials he developed for the training of practitioners, the DELF/DELV metacognitive intervention program (Büchel & Büchel, 1995, 2011) and the QsA diagnosis tool (Büchel et al., 2011). The complementarity of these partnerships will enable the EDUCA + project to reach its objectives. The CPMS reinforce the expertise of the EDUCA + team, enable privileged access to the field (collection of in- formation and testing of products) and a better spreading of information. Assess Group and the Interface Entreprises-ULg bring entrepreneurial expertise and enable a high quality supervision in the possible setting up of a Spin-off. Besides, Assess Group brings this expertise as a consultant in the field of Human Resources and Education in order to develop a commercial approach within the EDUCA + project. CONCLUSION Led by the School Psychology Unit1 of the University of Liège, the EDUCA + project is both part of the clinical activities of the Unit (Atelier d’Apprentissage2) and its research activities on intellectual functioning in learning situations, the prevention of school difficulties and the setting up and standardization of tools designed to assess and remedy learning difficulties. 1 http://www.fapse.ulg.ac.be/web/pscol/. 2 http://www.fapse.ulg.ac.be/cms/c_319405/psychologie-scolaire. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 107 2014, 14, 95–112 p. By building these innovative tools, our research will try to provide a better definition of the cognitive, metacognitive and psycho-affective aspects that play an essential role in the emergence of school difficulties linked to the learning method. Identifying, formalizing and implementing these aspects will, hopefully, make it possible to prevent learning difficulties and also to evaluate and attempt to remedy them. One of our aims is to facilitate the creation of new training courses contents and to increase the efficiency of the pedagogical methods concerned. The services proposed will thus be more relevant to meet the field needs and enable students to use their learning potential fully and develop it further. These are the objectives EDUCA +. Acknowledgments: EDUCA + is a research project funded by Wal- lonia (SPW, Belgium). References AGER (Administration Générale de l’Enseignement et de la Recherche Scientifique). (2009). Redoublement dans l’enseignement ordinaire de plein exercice [Electronic version]. Les indicateurs de l’enseignement 2009, 4, 36–39. Akturk, A. O., & Sahin, I. (2011). Literature review on metacognition and its measurement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3731–3736. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.364. Anderson, D., Nashon, S., & Thomas, G. P. (2009). Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Research in Science Education, 39 (2), 181–195. Doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9078-1. Aubret, J., Blanchard, S., & Sontag, J. C. (2006). Evaluer les compétences en lecture des collégiens en 6e/5e. L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 35, 2–20. Doi : 10.4000/osp.1015. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading (Report n°372). Illinois University, Urbana: Center for the study of reading. Berger, J.-L., & Büchel, F. P. (2012). Métacognition et croyances motivationnelles: Un mariage de raison. Revue française de pédagogie, 179, 95–128. Berger, J.-L., & Büchel, F. P. (2013). L’autorégulation de l’apprentissage: Perspectives théoriques et applications. Nice, France: Les Editions Ovadia. Bronselaer, D. (2010). Comprendre l’élève. In Réussir à l’école: guide psychopédagogi- que destiné aux élèves du primaire et du secondaire (p. 96–159). Namur, Belgique: Labor. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology 1 (p. 225–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 108 Stéphanie Frenkel Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (p. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Büchel, F. P. (1990). Des stratégies d’apprentissage à un enseignement métacogni- tif. Education et recherche, 3, 297–306. Büchel, F. P. (1991). How are learning activities initiated? An epistemological view of mediated learning experience. ln R. Feuerstein, P. Klein & A. Tannenbaum (dir.), Mediated learning experience: Theoretical, psychological and learníng implications (p. 53–70). Tel Aviv et Londres: Freund Publishing House. Büchel, F. P. (Ed.), (1995). L’éducation cognitive. Le développement de la capacité d’apprentissage et son évaluation. Neuchâtel, Suisse: Delachaux et Niestlé (Textes de base). Büchel, F. P. (1996). DELF – un programme métacognitif destiné à la formation professionnelle des adolescents et jeunes adultes ayant des difficultés d’apprentissage. In A. M. Besse & K. Bernath (Eds.). Quelles chances sur le mar- ché du travail? (p. 183–213). Lucerne, Suisse: Edition SPC. Büchel, F. P. (2001). DELF: Un programme métacognitif pour adolescents en formation professionnelle. In P.-A. Doudin, D. Martin, & O. Albanese (Eds.), Métacognition et éducation: Aspects transversaux et disciplinaires (p. 179–200). Berne, Suisse: Peter Lang. Büchel, F. P. (2007). L’intervention cognitive en éducation spéciale. Deux programmes métacognitifs. Genève, Suisse: Carnets des Sciences de l’Education. Büchel, F. P. (2013a). L’intervention psychopédagogique auprès des enfants ayant des difficultés d’apprentissage. Un modèle métacognitif et d’autorégulation. In J.-L. Berger & F. P. Büchel (Eds.), L’autorégulation de l’apprentissage: Perspectives théoriques et applications (p. 71–105). Nice, France: Les Editions Ovadia. Büchel, F. P. (2013b). Le programme DELV – Comprendre son propre apprentissage. Evaluation scientifique auprès d’enfants et d’adolescents sans ou avec difficultés d’apprentissage. In J.-L. Berger & F. P. Büchel (Eds.), L’autorégulation de l’apprentissage: Perspectives théoriques et applications (p. 333–380). Nice, France: Les Editions Ovadia. Büchel, F. P., Berger, J.-L., & Kipfer, N. (2011). Questions sur l’Apprentissage. Un instrument pour le diagnostic pédagogique aux niveaux secondaires I et II. Lausanne, Suisse: Editions LEP. Büchel, F. P., & Büchel, P. (1995). Découvrez vos capacités, rÉalisez vos possibilités, pLanifiez votre démarche, soyez créatiFs (DELF). Russin, Suisse: Centre d’Educa- tion Cognitive. Büchel, F. P., & Büchel, P. (2009). Das Eigene Lernen Verstehen. Handbuch zum DELV- Programm. Berne, Suisse: h.e.p. Verlag. Büchel, F. P., & Büchel, P. (2011). DELV. Comprendre son propre apprentissage. Tegna, Suisse: Centre d’Education Cognitive. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 109 2014, 14, 95–112 p. Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1982). Mental retardation and intelli- gence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (p. 392–490). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (p. 297–323). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14. Doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13 (4), 277–287. Doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 6–25. Doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538645. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (p. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911, Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906. Frenkel, S. (in press). Métacognition et réussite scolaire: Applications. In C. Girau- deau & G. Chasseigne (Eds.), Psychologie, Education et Vie Scolaire. Tours, France: Editions Publibook Université. Frenkel, S., & Deforge, H. (in press). Métacognition et réussite scolaire: Perspectives théoriques. In C. Giraudeau & G. Chasseigne (Eds.), Psychologie, Education et Vie Scolaire. Tours, France: Editions Publibook Université. Giasson, J. (2001). La métacognition et la compréhension en lecture. In D. Martin, P. A. Doudin, & O. Albanese (Eds.), Métacognition et Education (p. 249–262). Bruxelles, Belgique: Peter Lang. Giasson, J. (2005). Pourquoi des textes littéraires? In Les textes littéraires à l’école (p. 7–21). Bruxelles, Belgique: De Boeck. Grangeat, M. (1999). La métacognition, une aide au travail des élèves. Paris, France: ESF éditeur. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (p. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 110 Stéphanie Frenkel Hessels, M. G. P., & Hessels-Schlatter, C. (2010). Vers une évaluation adéquate et une intervention cognitive ciblée auprès des élèves à besoins éducatifs particuliers. In M. G. P. Hessels & C. Hessels-Schlatter (Eds.), Evaluation et intervention auprès d’élèves en difficultés (p. 1–4). Berne, Suisse: Peter Lang. Hirrt, N. (2004). Texte préparatoire pour la réunion de l’APED du 26 juin 2004: Programme pour l’enseignement obligatoire en Belgique, [En ligne]. http://www.skolo.org/spip.php?article163 (Page consultée le 29 novembre 2009). Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in the definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22 (3–4), 255–278. Doi: 10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052. Klein, P. S. (1991). Molar assessment and parental intervention in infancy and early childhood: New evidence. In R. Feuerstein, P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Mediated Learning Experience (MLE). Theoretical, psychological, and learning implications (p. 213–239). London, UK: Freund Publication. Leonesio, R. J., & Nelson, T. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16 (3), 464–470. Doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.464. Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview, [En ligne]. http://gse.buffalo. edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm => cf si références complètes. Si oui, le rappeler à DN. Lumbelli, L. (2001). Développer le contrôle conscient de la compréhension de texte: un modèle d’intervention. In D. Martin, P. A. Doudin, & O. Albanese, Métacognition et Education (p. 203–221). Bruxelles, Belgique: Peter Lang. Lumbelli, L. (2003). Per un controllo consapevole della comprensione di testi. Un approcio alla diagnosi e alla stimolazione. In O. Albanese, P. A. Doudin, & D. Martin (Eds.), Metacognizione ed educazione (p. 159–177). Milano, Italy: FrancoAngeli. Martin, D., Doudin, P.-A., & Albanese, O. (2001). Vers une psychopédagogie métacognitive. In P.-A. Doudin, D. Martin & O. Albanese (Eds.), Métacognition et éducation: Aspects transversaux et disciplinaires (p. 3–29). Berne, Suisse: Peter Lang. Metallidou, P., & Efklides, A. (2001). The effects of general success-related beliefs and specific metacognitive experiences on causal attributions. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (p. 325–347). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (26, p. 125–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (p. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach Tarptautinis psichologijos žurnalas: biopsichosocialinis požiūris 111 2014, 14, 95–112 p. Noël, B. (1997). La métacognition. Paris, France: De Boeck Université. OCDE. (2011). Résultats du PISA 2009: Savoirs et savoir-faire des élèves – Performan- ces des élèves en compréhension de l’écrit, en mathématique et en sciences (Volume I). OCDE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264097643-fr (Page consul- tée le 23 juin 2011). Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990a). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (p. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990b). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (6), 7–15. Doi: 10.1177/074193259001100604. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self- regulated learning. In J. C. Impara, L. L. Murphy, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition: Complete work (p. 43–98). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Poissant, H., Poëllhuber, B., & Falardeau, M. (1994). Résolution de Problèmes, Autorégulation et Apprentissage. Canadian Journal of Education, 19, 30–44. Rozencwajg, P. (2003). Metacognitive factors in scientific problem-solving strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 281–294. Doi: 10.1007/BF03173249. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-371. Doi: 10.1007/BF02212307. Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 220–224. 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. Doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0. Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blöte, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33, 3, 193–211. Doi : 10.1007/s11251-004-2274-8. Vianin, P. (2009). L’aide stratégique aux élèves en difficulté scolaire. Comment donner à l’élève les clés de sa réussite? Bruxelles, Belgique: De Boeck Université «Pratiques pédagogiques». Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51 (4), 74–79. 112 Stéphanie Frenkel METAKOGNITYVINIAI KOMPONENTAI MOKYMOSI MOKYTIS POŽIŪRIU Stéphanie FRENKEL Lježo universitetas, Belgija Santrauka. Įvadas. Daugeliui besimokančiųjų iškyla sunkumų mokykloje. Tai susiję su tuo, kaip jie mokosi. Kartais tai įvardijama kaip „metakognityvinis deficitas“. Straipsnyje remiamasi „neatskleisto potencialo“ požiūriu. Psichologai, mokytojai ar tėvai – visi jie stengiasi plėtoti savo įgūdžius, kad galėtų padėti besimokantiesiems. Taip yra pradinėse ir vidurinėse mokyklose. EDUCA+ projektas skirtas galimiems sprendimams surasti. Tikslas. Šio straipsnio tikslas – pateikti metakognityvinę ir kognityvinę mokymosi mokytis teorijas, kurios (a) paaiškins, kodėl daug mokinių turi mokymosi sunkumų ir (b) leis numatyti EDUCA+ projekto sėkmę. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: metakognicija, mokykla, mokinys, potencialas, dinaminis įvertinimas. Received: 11-06-2013 Accepted: 04-07-2014