從另類觀點詮釋後設認知

Interpretation of Metacognition from Alternative Perspectives

近年來許多熱心人士大力提倡以學習為中心的環境，認為這可以增進學習動機與 學習成就。然而他們努力的重點往往放在學習環境的營造，卻忽略了培養學習者針對其學習過程作內在省思，其實外在環境的設計與內在自省力的培養都是增進學習的重要因素。認知心理學者認為個人運用心智歷程的能力是影響學習成就最重要的因素之一，自從Flavell (1978) 將個人控制及引導心智歷程的現象稱為後設認知後，後設認知便逐漸引起關注且應 用在不同的學習情境，截至目前，後設認知的研究與應用包含智障生與低成就兒童的學習、科學領域與閱讀理解的學習、及問題解決等。後設認知除了已成功的被應用於這些領域，它和其它的高層思考能力如批判思考等，也逐漸為教育訓練人士所重視(Redding, 1990; leshin, Pollock & Reigeluth, 1992)。 雖然自Flavell提出後設認知後有許多學者積極建構後設學習的教學模式，也有越來越多 的研究證實後設認知對學習成就的重要性，學術界認為後設認知能力強者在認知相關技能的表現較優秀 (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Paris & Lindauer, 1982; Wellman, 1983; Paris, Wasik, & Vander Westhuizen, 1988; Pressley, Borkowski, & O'Sullivan, 1985)。 事實上教導學習者運用後設認知可以引起他們內在學習動機，乃至提 昇他們對自我學習的責任感，而不只是一味的依賴教師或環境的外在鼓勵。 儘管文獻上的研究成果，學者對於後設認知的內涵與本質並未有一致的看法 (Jones & Idol 1990)，也因此新的定義不斷的被提出，這不但造成了觀念的混淆， 也突顯了後設認知這一 觀念有待釐清。後設認知的種種界定一方面深受學習心理學理論演變的影響，另方面則是因 為學者應用後設認知於研究時， 所根據的後設認知理論或定義有所不同 (Jones & Idol, 1990)，因此我們有必要從另類觀點探討後設認知的本質與內涵。
本文首先針對後設認知的 研究作一分析，其次從思考的本質探討後設認知運作時與其它思考的互動關係，最後提出幾 個被忽視的後設思考歷程。作者希望這些觀點能夠讓我們跳出策略導向的層次，從動態的、 整合的角度探討學習者運用後設認知的歷程，並且檢視後設認知理論的缺失，乃至整合後設 認知的各種觀點，而非不加批判的運用現有的後設認知理論或模式。

Constructing a learning-centered environment to facilitate and enhance learning has been enthusiastically advocated by many scholars and researchers in recent years. While much effort has been expended on designing a good learning environment, the fact that the success of a learning-centered environment lies not merely in restructuring the environment external to the learners, but also in enabling learners to cultivate internal reflection upon their own learning processes, has often been overlooked. The author believes that teaching students how to exercise their mental processes, especially higher-order thinking processes, could enable them to take the responsibility for learning, instead of overrelying on the teacher's instructional or designing efforts. Cognitive psychologists have identified the way one exercises mental processes as the most significant determinant in successful learning. Flavell (1978) coined the phrase "metacognition" for the way learners control and direct their own mental processes. Since then, metacognition has received more and more attention and has been addressed in various learning contexts. In the past decades, more and more researchers take interest in exploring the essence of metacognition, and in constructing instructional models for promoting its learning. A great deal of research supports the importance of metacognition in cognitive development and academic learning (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Paris & Lindauer, 1982; Wellman, 1983; Paris, Wasik, & Vander Westhuizen, 1988; Pressley, Borkowski, & O'Sullivan, 1985). It has been widely recognized that learners who are metacognitively active tend to perform better on cognitive tasks than those who are not. Up to the present, research in metacognition covers several primary areas, such as the enhancement of disabled-student learning, science learning, reading comprehension, and problem solving. With the successful application in these areas, the role of metacognition is becoming prominent. It has received more and more attention in both educational and training contexts, like the other higher-level thinking skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving and inquiry (Redding, 1990; Leshin, Pollock & Reigeluth, 1992). Nevertheless, despite the fruitful findings in the literature, scholars do not agree on the definition of metacognition and have defined it differently in the course of the past decades (Jones & Idol, 1990). This has caused much confusion and remains a thorny problem to be solved. While the evolution of the diverse definitions of metacognition can be attributed to the new discoveries in learning psychology and people's different uses of metacognition (Jones & Idol, 1990), there is a need to explore the essence of metacognition from alternative perspectives. In this paper, the author examines the relationship of metacognition to other mental processes, the neglected facets of metacognition, and other considerations of this concept. She also illuminates metacognitive processes from a set of new conceptions. It is expected that the expanded views of metacognition presented in this paper could guide researchers to view metacognition from a more dynamic and synthetic perspective. The ultimate goal of this paper is to provide alternative interpretation of metacognition in order to direct more research effort on the construction, rather than application, of metacognitive theory.