INT. J. SCI. EDUC.

, 8 OCTOBER 2004,
VOL. 26, NO. 12, 14271443

RESEARCH REPORT

Conscious knowledge of learning: accessing learning

strategies in a final year high school biology class

Lindsey Conner, Christchurch College of Education, New Zealand; e-mail:

[email protected]; Richard Gunstone, Monash University, Australia

This paper reports on a qualitative case study investigation of the knowledge and use of learning strategies by
16 students in a final year high school biology class to expand their conscious knowledge of learning. Students
were provided with opportunities to engage in purposeful inquiry into the biological, social and ethical aspects
of cancer. A constructivist approach was implemented to access prior content and procedural knowledge in
various ways. Students were encouraged to develop evaluation of their learning skills independently through
activities that promoted metacognition. Those students who planned and monitored their work produced essays
of higher quality. The value and difficulties of promoting metacognitive approaches in this context are discussed,
as well as the idea that metacognitive processes are difficult to research, because they have to be conscious in
order to be identified by the learner, thereby making them accessible to the researcher.

Introduction
In this paper, we present examples of how conscious knowledge, that is knowledge
that students can articulate, and metacognitive processes were used to help students
research and write essays about cancer. The essays were part of the assessment
requirements for the New Zealand final year high school biology curriculum being
studied by the class. The purpose of our study was to investigate if there was a link
between knowledge and use of learning strategies with the essay outcome.
Flavell (1976) identified three facets of metacognition: knowledge of processes
of thinking; awareness of ones own processes; and ability to control them. A fourth
facet, willingness to exercise that control, has also been identified as the means for
employing effective strategies (Paris et al. 1983, Borkowski et al. 1990, White 1998).
Knowing about how we learn becomes important in directing, monitoring and
evaluating our learning processes. The use of metacognition is a conscious process
which is why we are emphasizing the conscious knowledge of learning in this paper.
The distinction between conscious and unconscious knowledge is related to the
distinction between implicit and explicit knowing (Dienes and Perner 2001). For
example, the knowledge and skills associated with riding a bicycle are for most of us
unconscious (or implicit) knowledge because we are quite unable to articulate
anything of this knowledge or these skills.
In this study, we also distinguish between declarative knowledge (knowing
that), procedural knowledge (knowing how) (Gagne 1985), and conditional
knowledge (knowing when or why) (Paris et al. 1983) to emphasise that these
types of knowledge contribute to effective learning. Unless we have a foundation of

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 09500693 print/ISSN 14645289 online 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000177271
1428 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

background knowledge (whether it is declarative, procedural or conditional

knowledge) we cannot reflect on it, add to it or modify it. In other words the
conscious evaluation of learning processes presupposes knowing what we do, in
terms of learning, in the first place.
Put another way, [l]earners are appropriately metacognitive if they consciously
undertake an informed and self-directed approach to recognizing, evaluating and
deciding whether to reconstruct their ideas and beliefs (Gunstone 1994: 133).
Acting on metacognitive knowledge is important for modifying learning processes.
If students know of more effective learning strategies but do not use them, they have
not applied their metacognitive knowledge to their work. Previous studies on
assessing metacognitive knowledge have not emphasized this latter point. Met-
acognitive knowledge becomes useful when it is acted upon.
According to such researchers as Wang and Peverly (1986), Shuell (1988) and
Baird (1992), good learners are metacognitively adept and poor ones met-
acognitively deficient in how they tackle learning tasks in most subjects. Previous
studies in science education have tended to focus on the general development of
metacognition (Baird 1986, Thomas and McRobbie 2001, White and Gunstone
1989) and link enhanced learning to students use of metacognitive processes, that
is, if they know, monitor and control their own learning (White and Gunstone 1989,
Baird 1998, Hacker 1998) rather than investigating specific strategies that students
use to implement these processes. None of these previous studies link the use of
learning strategies with specific learning outcomes. In this study, trends in the
apparent knowledge and use of specific learning strategies have been linked with the
students achievement in essays.

The link between metacognition and motivation

One of the reasons for promoting metacognitive approaches in classrooms is that the
use of metacognition is strongly linked to motivational constructs. Biggs describes
this as congruent motive-strategy packages which include both an intention to use
and the actual use of a related strategy (Biggs 1986: 133). Students perceptions of
their own abilities and expectations of their own achievement seem to prevail over
their willingness to put effort into their work and consequent academic achievement
(Stipek and Weisz 1981). This current paper therefore also looks at trends in
students self perceptions and how these link with apparent use of learning strategies
and the final essay outcome (i.e., how well it was written).

Automaticity
The idea that metacognition is largely responsible for the initial decision to be
strategic is linked to an understanding that learning usually improves when
sufficient effort is put into choosing and using the strategies (Borkowski et al. 1987)
and when there has been some success in their use (Borkowski and Krause 1985).
With practice and repeated use, strategy implementation may become seemingly
spontaneous or automatic. This is probably the result of a combination of the
students knowledge of strategies, monitoring and control of the use of these
strategies (i.e. when to use them) and their motivational beliefs. It is likely that
apparent spontaneity is the result of a continuous, long-term developmental
process that reflects the maturation of the metacognitive system (Borkowsky et al.
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1429

1987: 63). Thus, prolonged strategy use as a consequence of metacognitive

processes can lead to automaticity. As Borkowsky et al. (1987: 69) have observed,
Once strategy use occurs automatically and efficiently, metacognition is no longer
necessary. This last idea has implications for researchers who use the conscious
self-reports of students as their measure of success of an intervention promoting
metacognitive processes, as will be discussed later.

The curriculum context of the study

The unit of work
In this study, a unit of work was designed to address the following achievement
objective from the New Zealand Biology Curriculum for final year high school
students: investigate contemporary biological issues and make informed judg-
ments on any social, ethical, or environmental implications (Ministry of Education
1994: 28). In fulfillment of the achievement objective, all students must write an
essay of about 500 words which is worth 20% of their grade on the national
University Bursary examination. This is high stakes assessment.
The New Zealand Biology Curriculum document for this level does not prescribe
content. This is the responsibility of the class teacher, as is the addressing of the
dilemma such as what level of conceptual knowledge a student should have in order to
make informed judgments on any social, ethical, or environmental implications.
The placing of responsibility with the teacher for decisions about curriculum detail is
common in New Zealand, so this was a normal rather than unusual situation. The
unit devised for this study required students to develop knowledge of the causes,
development and treatments of at least two types of cancer and an understanding of
the social and ethical implications of these, as well as skills in researching and essay
writing. The reason for including issues education in the biology curriculum is to give
students the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills and become more
informed decision makers about social and ethical issues (Conner 2000a). Because
enquiry about issues encourages students to articulate, question and evaluate their
personal views, we considered this context to be very suitable for using similar self-
questioning to develop self-evaluation and monitoring of learning.
The context in which the unit was implemented was a final year biology
classroom in the high school in which the first author had previously taught, and the
teacher of this class was thus a former colleague of the first author. The unit of work
was four and a half weeks long. It was designed to tap into students prior knowledge
of strategies, from their extensive prior school experiences, so that they could use
and build on prior knowledge to develop more independent and self-regulating
learning processes. The unit detail was developed by the first author in conjunction
with the class teacher. The teacher was very experienced (26 years teaching biology
and science), and committed to setting up learning environments that were
conducive to student-centered approaches. He also was committed to continued
improvement of his teaching, was very willing to try teaching approaches suggested
by the researchers, and saw the discussions involved in the development of the unit
as also giving him greater understanding of these metacognitive teaching approa-
ches. This was significant for the study as the teacher conducted all classes for the
unit, including the introduction and discussion of procedures with a focus on
student planning and monitoring of their own learning (see below).
1430 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

The approach used in this unit of work gave students a degree of choice in what
they did both in terms of content and processes for researching and writing (Conner
2002), a choice with which the class teacher was totally comfortable as this reflected
his usual practices. Wise learning strategy choice by students is likely to produce
efficient performance because it requires students to search for, modify or apply a
strategy appropriate for the given learning task. This has also been the premise for
other classroom interventions using metacognitive approaches (for example, Baird
1986, Baird and Northfield 1992, Thomas 1999). Recently, the importance of using
these approaches in contexts that involve biological, social and ethical issues has
been highlighted (Conner 2000a).
The constructivist approach that we employed in the unit helped students
reflect not only on their prior content knowledge but also on their prior procedural
knowledge. Central to this adoption of a constructivist approach are arguments
about the intertwined nature of metacognition and constructivist perspectives/
conceptual change (Gunstone 1994, Gunstone and Mitchell 1998). Activities which
tapped into students prior content knowledge were a questionnaire, a group
brainstorm activity, group discussions and journal writing. Students received
specific instruction on such procedures as planning, researching, drafting and
editing their writing. We also assumed that students would need instruction on how
to use text conventions and how to monitor and control their inquiry and
writing.

Teaching of the unit

As noted above, the usual class teacher continued to teach the class throughout the
unit. He acted as a facilitator by assisting students with their planning, monitoring
and evaluation. He used prompts for reflection as part of the instructions for
everyday learning, as recommended by Resnick (1987), and provided the students
with written guidelines for planning their research and for writing their essays. Most
of the students set their own agendas for planning their individual research,
choosing the two types of cancer they wanted to investigate and determining the key
words and key questions that would drive their work. They were also given
notebooks (journals) to record their thinking. The journals included bookmarks that
had the prompts listed in figure 1 to help them consider the biological, ethical and
social issues as well as planning and monitoring their research and writing:
The teacher encouraged students to write questions into their journals as a
guide for their research. The first author collected the journals at the end of most
sessions so as to give feedback on progress and feed forward in the form of
questions the students might like to consider. The teacher also went through a
checklist of features of an essay with the students. The students marked each others
draft copies of the essays, a process that allowed them to share ideas, especially in
terms of what could be written and how the ideas could be organized and presented.
The essays were marked according to a negotiated marking schedule between the
teacher and the students, but which was based on previous examiners reports that
were publicly available. This schedule gave 10% for considerations of why cancer
was a contemporary issue, 40% for knowledge of causes/effects/treatments of
cancer, 25% for biological/social/ethical aspects of the cancer issue chosen, and
25% for structural aspects of the essay. It was then not an unusual marking schedule
for this type of task. Students marks for each others essays are not reported below.
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1431

Figure 1. Prompts for journal entries given to students.

The teacher indicated to the students that they could write more than one essay for
practice, to help them frame the content and develop their essay-writing skills. Some
students exercised this option, as indicated below.
Appropriate ethical procedures were sued in the conduct and reporting of the
researchall participants gave informed consent, only pseudonyms are used in all
data reporting and so on.

Research approaches
The first author acted as a participant observer (after Gold 1958), where
questions from both the teacher and the students were answered and students
were prompted during class work sessions while making observations. This was a
natural role since 11 of the 16 students who participated in the study had been
taught by the first author previously. The research methodology employed for this
part of the study was based on an interpretive case study approach (Merriam
1988). All 16 students were interviewed prior to and after the unit of work. The
interviews were semi-structured but open to allow students to describe how they
learned. Utilising Guba and Lincolns (1989) credibility criterion for judging the
quality of the research, the extent to which the students accounts during the pre
and post unit interviews honestly portrayed their experiences was gauged through
classroom observations of approximately three quarters of the lessons. Detailed
field notes of observations were made. Student journals, as described in the
previous section, were also used as a source for determining the use by students
of learning strategies.

Analysis of data
The data presented here focus on students conscious knowledge and use of
strategies, as reported by students in their pre (iv1) or post (iv2) unit interviews or
in their journals (j), and as observed as part of their class work (co) or evident in
their essays (e).
In order to collate and cross-reference these multiple sources, metamatrices or
master charts (see Miles and Huberman 1984) were constructed for each of the 16
1432 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

students. This enabled the categorisation of quotations, extracts, observational

notes and outcomes into themes related to learning. It also allowed each students
learning tendencies to be linked to his or her learning outcomes.
Since an essay was the desired outcome, students were grouped according to
the quality of their essays; Invisible Product, Satisfactory Product and Quality
Product. Students in the Invisible Product category did not hand in a final essay.
Students in the Satisfactory Product category produced essays that ranged in
marks from 1324/40. Students in the Quality Product category wrote essays
which gained marks between 26/4032/40. The Satisfactory Product and Quality
Product categories were further subdivided into Multiple Satisfactory and
Multiple Quality categories to indicate students who had written more than one
essay. The students have been given pseudonyms and are ranked by their essay mark
within each group.
In order to identify specific learning strategies, the metamatices were scanned
and new tables were created to summarize each of the targeted strategies. These are
given as Tables 13.

Results
Knowledge and use of declarative strategies
Declarative strategies are those learning strategies involved with the organized
collection of facts and concepts (Derry 1990). Three of the strategies outlined by
Derry (1990). were targeted; locating and focusing information, schema use, and
elaboration.
Locating and focusing on information includes using text structure to identify
important points, underlining or highlighting important words or phrases, or using
key words or key phrases to search information.
Schema use includes the use of concept mapping or any graphic organization to
structure, order or rank text, the use of mnemonics such as G.E.E. (Generalisation,
Explanation, Example) and visualisation techniques for memorising.
Elaboration includes explaining ideas (e), answering questions and using
generative note making strategies (q), and summarising or paraphrasing (s).
Declarative strategies that were known or used by students and reported in
interviews or evident from journals or essays, are summarized in table 1.
Table 1 shows that most students knew about the targeted declarative strategies.
The use of the strategies was more evident for students who achieved higher marks
in their essays. This is not a surprising result, but has not been previously
reported.
The use of declarative strategies was linked to students perceptions of their
use. For example many students knew about using key words or key questions for
focussing but did not use them because they did not perceive them as being
useful. Students who used key words used them both for planning and writing/
checking their essays. For example Ann commented in her second interview that
she had thought of what key words she should use and checked that they were in
there.
Ann (iv2): Well I tried key words. I tried to make sure that I had words like say
metastasis and like the later stage and things like that. I made sure that the
biological things were in there, so the person marking it will know that I
know stuff.
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1433

Table 1. Knowledge and use of declarative strategies.

Locating/
focussing Schemas Elaboration1

Group Student know use know use know use

Invisible Product Daniel

Tulane q
Sally q
Mary
Kay s
Satisfactory Product Mitchel s
Vincy s, q
Awar q
Samantha e
Satisfactory Multiple Ann e, s, q
Quality Product Niome e, s, q
Lois e, s, q
Charlie e, s, q
Quality Multiple Terri e, s, q
Liz e, s, q
Marianne e, s, q

1
e explaining ideas; q using generative note taking strategies; s summarising or paraphrasing

For example Awar, Ann, Niome and Charlie wrote lists in their journals for
organising the information for their essays. Liz explained how she used G.E.E. as a
guide for structuring paragraphs.
Liz (co): In History, we make a generalization, then put it [the ideas] in a logical
order in a list.

Marianne and Sally explained how the Trash and Treasure activity helped
them to choose the important points and make summaries.
Marianne (iv2): Its not so much I didnt know, you should look for the most
important point and it is just that you think I cant be bothered, Ill
just write it down. Because we were doing a thing [activity] on it, it
was like, Im going to do that, [choose] the most important points and
paragraphs and just write them down and try and write out the
meaning by yourself so you know it is in your head. The most
important notes made me realize that they are best than picking every
little sentence, so it actually was quite good and it made me figure out
what it meant.
Sally (iv2): It is easy to tune out if you are just taking notes, you dont really read what
you are writing, if you have to put input into it [your own ideas]. . . . . You
have to know more about what you are talking about.

Students who achieved higher marks in their essays used elaboration and
summarising strategies. For example, Charlie elaborated on the information he
found out about telemeres and their function in determining the life span of a cell
to the concept of immortality.
1434 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

Table 2. Knowledge and use of procedural strategies.

Generalisation Discrimination Practice/effort

Group Student know use know use know use

Invisible Product Daniel

Tulane
Sally
Mary
Kay
Satisfactory Product Mitchel
Vincy
Awar
Samantha
Satisfactory Multiple Ann
Quality Product Niome
Lois
Charlie
Quality Multiple Terri
Liz
Marianne

Charlie (e): Biological conflicts arise in all facets of the disease. For instance, some
biologists believe that cancer is a natural aspect of all animals and that
finding a cure is futile. Other biologists believe that resourcing cancer
research could lead to the key to immortality. Cancer could ironically be
the key to immortality!

Niome explained how she summarised information.

Niome (iv1): I just get my material and skim through it and I take out the important
points and write them down under little key titles and things like that and
I review it and see if I have missed anything out. That is basically what I
do.

Niome even reminded herself in her journal to summarise rather than copy
notes. This was a conscious decision as evidenced by her journal entry.
Niome (j): Make sure Im reading and taking things in properly and summarising
rather than just copying

Knowledge and use of procedural strategies

Procedural strategies are those which help to determine knowing how and have
been divided into these categories: generalisation, discrimination and practice/
effort.
Generalisation strategies are those where summaries or overviews of a particular
idea are constructed.
Discrimination strategies are those where information is sorted according to
relevance or importance. Students who used a trash and treasure exercise or their
own modifications of it were classified as having used discrimination. Other
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1435

Table 3. Knowledge and use of metacognitive strategies.

Self-
Planning Monitoring questioning

Group Student know use know use know use

Invisible Product Daniel 0

Tulane 0
Sally 3
Mary 4
Kay 2
Satisfactory Product Mitchel 2
Vincy 3
Awar 2
Samantha 4
Satisfactory Multiple Ann 3
Quality Product Niome 10
Lois 5
Charlie 5
Quality Multiple Terri 4
Liz 14
Marianne 5

students also showed evidence of this from the structure and choice of content in
their essays.
Students scored positively in the practice/effort category if they perceived that
practice or effort was required to write a good essay. Those who wrote multiple
drafts or multiple essays were automatically considered to use practice or effort.
Table 2 summarises the knowledge and use of these strategies.
Table 2 shows that although many of the students in the Invisible Product and
Satisfactory Product categories knew what they should do in terms of making
generalisations, discriminating between types of information and that practice could
be helpful, they did not use these strategies. Students in the Quality Product
category showed a greater knowledge and use of these strategies than students in the
Invisible Product and Satisfactory Product categories. The trend of greater
knowledge and use of procedural strategies with quality of essay(s) is obvious.

Metacognitive awareness and control

The strategies linked to the development of metacognitive awareness and control
include planning, monitoring by checking on progress, using information from
peer-checking or setting priorities, asking evaluative questions and making decisions
about the learning process. Awareness is linked to knowing the strategies whereas
control is linked to the strategic use of these (know/use columns in table 3).
Although self-questioning can be a planning and a monitoring strategy, it is
highlighted as a separate category specifically to illustrate the number of questions
written in journals.
1436 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

Table 3 shows that metacognitive awareness and control were more evident in
students who produced quality essays. The extent to which students used planning,
monitoring and self-questioning was greater for those who produced quality essays.
Planning by writing lists or paragraph headings, deciding on the logical order to
write the content, reflecting on what they needed to find out or do, and general
outlining strategies were more evident for these students. As a group they also
showed a greater amount of reflective thinking when self-reporting and asked more
questions in their journals (table 3).

Aspects of planning. Planning the inquiry process and planning essays was a new
approach for some students. Key words, key questions and journals were used by
students to help focus and feed forward on their work. Five students had a specific
heuristic approach to planning their essay that was consistent with the checklist
provided. Although three other students agreed that planning was important, they
considered their planning was non-existent. There was some automatisation of
planning processes by Marianne and Terri. In fact these students did plan but did
not write plans.

Aspects of monitoring. Monitoring represents the decisions made to control and

regulate learning processes. Some students used a checklist for essay writing, which
elaborated on what to write in each section of the essay and how to focus on the
essay question (Conner 2000c). Other specific activities helped to develop students
discriminatory skills for the inquiry process, for example trash and treasure and a
notes on notes activity, which is a way of annotating notes in a reflective way
(Conner 2000b). Journal writing was also a key activity in promoting self-
questioning, not only about the content but also about self-regulation of learning.
Aspects of reviewing, such as evaluating and revising, evoked new planning.
Many students used their thinking journals to write plans, select information to
support their points, apply personal organization, consider alternatives and
elaborate on their ideas. However, not all students used the journals in this way. This
was the first time that students had ever used a thinking journal. They only tended
to write in them when they were reminded and given time at the end of the lesson
to do so. Three students used their journals frequently. The following are examples
of statements in journals that illustrate how the students used them for
monitoring.
Marianne (j): I know what cancer is technically but I dont know what effects the
individual. The same with treatments. What effects do they experience? Are
there some general effects that cancer patients experience regardless of
where the cancer is situated?
Terri (j): Will SPF 15 stop ovarian cancer? Cancer treatment- stop blood supply to
tumor. Difference between malignant and benign? Structure and causes.
Learn about 1 hereditary and 1 non-hereditary cancer.
Niome (j): How do cells know how old a person is when they are replaced so
frequently? How/why does age affect cancer? i.e. Younger girls are more
likely to get cervical cancer than more mature women. Why?
Must take more notes, be less lazy and catch up on all the work I missed
while away. Make sure Im reading and taking things in properly and
summarising rather than just copying mindlessly.

One student wrote in his journal almost everyday. The following extracts
illustrate how he integrated and extended his knowledge and interest in the topic.
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1437

Charlie (j): Already know about carcinogens and retroviruses. I would like to know
about cancer in plant cells and prokaryote cells do they get cancer? If so, do
they get it as frequently as in humans? Do all carcinogens have the same
sort of effect on plant cells as they do on humans?
Charlie (j): Doesnt this cancer information go against our natural selection theory i.e.
wouldnt mutations become cancerous and die?

As shown by the examples above, the use of journals helped the students to self-
question their thinking about cancer and about their learning. There were many
examples of where self-questioning was promoted by the use of the bookmarks given
out with the journals.
Some students did not find the journal useful either because the students did
not like to write their thoughts or they thought it was too time consuming. Mitchel
thought the journal was for the researcher to monitor his progress, rather than being
a self-reflection tool.
Mitchel (co): [The purpose of the journal was] for us to keep in contact with you. In the
journal I wrote a few questions and the reason I wrote those questions was
because I didnt know the answers. So I was expecting you to sort of answer
them for me and then you said to keep writing yourself questions. . .. For
you, to see how we were going.

So, even by the end of the unit Mitchel had not seen that asking himself
questions could help focus his intention on what was required and be a tool for
helping him to monitor or control his work. Reminding students about the purpose
of the journals throughout the unit of work may have helped with this.
The teachers comments about the use of the journals were very positive. He
considered that the journals helped the students to tap into their thinking as
illustrated here.
Teacher: The journal writing, some were keen to do that, I think that they got keener
as they progressed, they could see the value of it, but initially they couldnt
quite see the point of it apart from using it as a diary just to remind them
what they have to do. They were actually talking to themselves, they had
never done that in a material way before. I think the kids dont spend near
enough time looking at their own performance for a period or for a section
of time. The journals forced them to do that. So the journals, I think were
a good idea but certainly the prompting questions needed to be there
because they didnt know how to start to talk to themselves on paper unless
they had some specific things to look at.

The students who completed essays swapped them for peer checking. Some
students considered peer checking to be the most beneficial activity for improving
their essays. Mostly it was beneficial to the readers/markers as it gave them ideas and
insights into what could be written and how it could be organized, especially where
constructive comments were given. They also learned about the skills of essay
writing from negative examples. However, some students were too afraid to put
their peers down by giving negative feedback. There was also uncertainty as to how
to allocate the marks because some students felt that they did not have the
appropriate background knowledge to evaluate other essays.
When the teacher was asked if the improvement of the essays this year was due
to making the processes more explicit he said:
Teacher: I think it was partly that, possibly, but certainly because the log books [
journals], they had actually written down there what they were short in, so
that they knew what they had to go away and bone up on.
1438 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

Table 4. Students achievements, perceptions and reasons for studying the

subject.

Essay
writing
Exam perception
Essay mark prediction (e- easy; Career
Group Student (out of 40) (as %) d- difficult) goal

Invisible Product Daniel 0 to pass d interest

Tulane 0 low d/e interest
Sally 2 55 d As a 5th subject
Mary 5 low d interest
Kay 9 to pass d psychology
Satisfactory Product Mitchel 13 to pass d interest
Vincy 20 45 d Not sure
Awar 24 low d medicine
Samantha 24 70 ed Science degree
based on
previous
marks
Satisfactory Multiple Ann 22 19 5055 de degree
Quality Product Niome 26 5560 e interest
Lois 31 60 de interest
Charlie 32 good mark e Science degree
if plan
Quality Multiple Terri 25 29 60 + linked to effort e/d Science degree
Liz 27 28 60 d Science degree
Marianne 27 28 60 + e/d Health degree

His comment is very important because it illustrates that he thought developing

the students self-directedness (control of their own work) was more important than
the instructional strategies for processing information.

Utilization of strategies. The students in the Quality Product category had more
awareness and control over their learning than students in the Invisible Product
and Satisfactory Product categories. Many students in the first two categories in
tables 1, 2 and 3 knew of strategies that could help them, either through prior
experience or as a result of this unit of work, but did not use them. They were less
willing to employ the strategies.

Students perceptions
Students essay marks, their predictions of their final exam mark, how good they
thought they were at writing essays, and why they were taking biology are shown in
table 4.
There are trends in the relationship between students perceptions and the final
essay outcome. In general, the students who either did not complete essays or who
did not achieve well (table 4), identified essays as being difficult whereas students
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1439

who achieved higher essay marks tended to think that essay writing was easy (except
Liz). Lois and Ann thought that essay writing was difficult before the unit of work
but changed their opinions to easy after they had written their essays.
The students perceptions of the ease in writing essays were often qualified
conditionally by context. For example, Niome thought interest in the content made
it easier, Tulane, Mary and Liz thought that understanding the question helped and
Samantha, Lois, Ann, Marianne and Terri identified the need to have enough
content/information. Sally explained that she found essays where she could write
creatively easy, but that they were difficult when you were constrained by guidelines
and had to structure it according to rules (as she perceived was the case for this
essay).
There is a link between the students predictions of their final essay mark (table
4) and the use of self-monitoring (table 3). Students who predicted higher essay
marks (for example, Lois, Charlie, Ann, Liz, Terri and Marianne) used monitoring
strategies. In contrast, the five students in the Invisible Product category reported
difficulties with getting started and maintaining a focus for their essays. These
students reported that they could be easily distracted. When asked about them,
Daniel described his main distraction as thinking about other things.
Daniel (iv1): If your mind is not in class and you are thinking about what else you should
be doing.

Kay thought that everything was a distraction and then admitted that she was
lazy and unable to avoid distractions such as television and talking to friends.
Mary (iv1) also spoke of thinking about the weekend as a distracter as well as
when the subject is a bit too boring, you cant really understand it, so you turn off
and think of other things. Sally spoke of being tired and not enjoying the work, as
distracters. She preferred to spend her spare time in the dark room on her
photography assignment rather than attempting to write her essay. Tulane identified
music, church and kickboxing as distracters although she also admitted that she
procrastinated a lot and thought about other things like the weekend instead of her
work. Students in this group used distracters as excuses for not completing their
work. This corresponds with the data in table 3 which shows that Daniel, Tulane and
Mary did not use monitoring strategies
There is also a link between student achievement in essays and their perceptions
of their own role in their learning. Some students who did not achieve well expected
the teacher to monitor their work for them and wondered why the teacher was not
telling them the content they needed to know. They considered that the teachers
job was to tell them the content.
For example,
Vincy (iv2): Just the way he wasnt telling us you need to learn this and this and you need
to know all these things about cancer. He kind of said, pick your one, and
learn.
Interviewer: So why do you think he did it that way because he did it purposely?
Vincy: He wants us to go out and do the work and learn. I dont actually know.
Interviewer: You are right.
Vincy : He wanted us to do it instead of just being fed the information. But I think
we are just so used to being fed it that its not going to work.
Interviewer: So normally people [teachers] would just give you the information?
Vincy: Yes, but this is like do it yourself. And were like, what do we do now? That
was quite hard, I found it quite hard actually.
1440 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

Vincys comments also indicate that some of the students needed more
information about how to get started.
In contrast, the students in the Quality Product category showed self-
directing/self-monitoring strategies to a greater extent than the other two groups of
students. This is consistent with previous findings that students perceptions of their
own roles in their learning can influence the achievement outcome (Baird and White
1982) and whether they have control over factors that determine their success (De
Jong and Gunstone 1988). Students who believed they did not have to take
responsibility for their learning, (for example, Mary and Vincy) did not use
monitoring strategies and were therefore not self-directed in their learning.

Discussion
Value of promoting strategic approaches
The value of promoting the use of learning strategies is that they are indeed helpful
(Conner 2000c). It is also likely that combinations of these strategies interact in
mutually supportive ways. The holistic nature of the use of these strategies should
not be understated. Combinations are undoubtedly important. It is simply not
enough to know. It is not until the strategies are applied that they become useful for
enhancing learning. When strategies are used together, there is a much greater
likelihood that the learning outcome is of higher quality.
A willingness to be open and to become aware of the strategies and to use them
is a necessary component in their implementation. Willingness is closely linked to
motivational constructs. Those students who gained higher essay marks were willing
to use multiple learning strategies (tables 1, 2 and 3).
Some students used learning strategies instinctively. For example, Terri and
Marianne did not write essay plans because they considered that writing plans was
too time-consuming. Not only did they have more content knowledge but their
feeling about the worth of carrying out an activity, influenced what they did. They
had already evaluated what was worthwhile spending their time on. These students
were also more persevering in that they recognised the value of producing more than
one essay to get more practice. Perhaps the need for conscious use of strategies
decreases as the behaviours they once mediated become more self-starting (Flavell
and Wellman 1977). This could explain why more able students appeared to have
more automatic processes for researching and writing and did not state that they
reflected on or monitored their work. They had already (automatically) evaluated
their work.
When knowledge, awareness and control aspects of learning are combined,
there is a much greater likelihood that the learning outcome is of higher quality. The
willingness aspect though appears essential for employing strategies.

Difficulties in promoting metacognitive processes

Some of the difficulties in getting students to use strategies in this study were due
to their pre-conceived notions about their roles in their own learning. Some of the
student-centered approaches in this unit of work (such as allowing students to
choose what they could do to meet the learning outcomes) were new to some of the
students, there was resistance from those who had a vested interest in the previous
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1441

methods. This is partly because the integrated approach which combined previously
taught material (in this case procedural ways of researching and writing essays) with
metacognitive overtones, required new intellectual demands as indicated by
Gunstone and Mitchell (1998) and White (1998). Students are required to make
decisions that they may not be accustomed to making. They may try to minimise
effort rather than maximize effective learning processes.
If students align past successes and failures with external events, effort and
persistence may be inconsistent (Dweck 1975). Students who do this have not taken
responsibility for their own learning. In contrast, other students may have developed
a high degree of self-regulation and to a certain extent, some automaticity in their
learning. Non-conscious or automatic processes are unintended, effortless and very
fast. Once in gear, automatic processes guide the learner with one third less effort
than regular thinking (Gilbert 1989:193, cited in Bargh and Chartrand 1999). In
experts, automatic learning processes may surpass the need to be consciously
monitoring and controlling. They may have some automatic self-regulation which
predisposes them to behave more consistently.
Non-conscious/ automatic use of strategies poses a difficulty for researching
and assessing levels of metacognitive processing. For purposes of documenting
metacognition, the processes need to be conscious so that they are potentially
reportable by students. Also, if learning processes are conscious and deliberate, they
are likely to be more controllable by the learner themselves. Students who use
learning strategies automatically, may use processes spontaneously, without
conscious effort. Therefore there is a dilemma as a researcher in evaluating an
intervention designed to promote metacognitive processes when the processes have
become automatic and students are not consciously aware of them.

Conclusion
This study has provided examples of how students differentially employed a range
of learning strategies in a senior high school biology class. In this class, students who
were more conscious of their learning and who knew about a range of learning
strategies and were willing to use them, produced essays of higher quality.

References
BAIRD, J. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: a classroom study.
European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263282.
BAIRD, J. (1992). The individual student. In J. R. Baird and J. R. Northfield (Eds.), Learning from
the PEEL experience (Melbourne: Monash University), 3760.
BAIRD, J. (1998). A view of quality in teaching. In B. Fraser and K. Tobin (Eds.), International
handbook of science education, vol 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 153167.
BAIRD, J. and NORTHFIELD, J. (1992). Learning from the PEEL Experience (Melbourne: Monash
University).
BAIRD, J. and WHITE, R. (1982). Promoting self-control of learning. Instructional Science, 11,
227247.
BARGH, J. and CHARTRAND, T. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American
Psychologist, 54(7), 462479.
BIGGS, J. (1986). Enhancing learning skills: the role of metacognition. In J. Bowden (Ed.), Student
learning: research into practice (Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education,
University of Melbourne), 131148.
1442 L. CONNER AND R. GUNSTONE

BORKOWSKI, J. G., CARR, M. RELLINGER, E. and PRESSLEY, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition:

interdependence of metacognition, attributions and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol
(Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum),
5392.
BORKOWSKI, J. G. and KRAUSE, A. J. (1985) Metacognition and attributional beliefs. In Proceedings
of the XX111 International Congress of Psychology (Amsterdam: Elsevier).
CONNER, L. (2000a). The inclusion of societal issues in the science and technology curriculums in
N. Z. and the implications for teaching. Pacific Asian Education, 12(1), 1927.
CONNER, L. (2000b). Teaching social and ethical issues in senior high school science. Christchurch
College of Education Journal of Educational Research, 5, 2344.
CONNER, L. (2000c). Inquiry, discourse and metacognition: promoting students learning in a bioethical
context. Paper presented at National Association of Research in Science Teaching
Conference, New Orleans. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440877.
CONNER, L. (2002). Learning about social and ethical issues in a biology class. PhD thesis, Faculty of
Education (Melbourne: Monash University).
DE JONG, E. J. and GUNSTONE, R. F. (1988). A longitudinal study of some mechanics concepts and
conceptual change. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching Conference, Lake Ozark, MO.
DERRY, S. (1990). Learning strategies for acquiring useful knowledge. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol
(Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), 374379.
DIENES, Z. and PERNER, J. (2001). When knowledge is unconscious because of conscious knowledge and
vice versa. Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the cognitive science society,
Edinburgh, Scotland (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 255260.
DWECK, C. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674685.
FLAVELL, J. H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature
of intelligence (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 231235.
FLAVELL, J. H. and WELLMAN H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail and J. W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. (Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum
Associates), 333.
GAGNE, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction, (4th ed.) (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston).
GOLD, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217223.
GUBA, E. G. and LINCOLN, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
GUNSTONE, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of
metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone and R. White (Eds.), The content of science: a
constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (London: Falmer Press), 131146.
GUNSTONE, R. F. and MITCHELL, I. J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In J. J.
Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee and J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: a human
constructivist view (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 134163.
HACKER, D. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlowsky and A.
C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates), 123.
MERRIAM, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach (San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass).
MILES, M. B. and HUBERMAN, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a source book of new methods
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage).
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1994). Biology in the New Zealand curriculum (Wellington: Learning
Media).
PARIS, S. G., LIPSON, M. T. and WIXSON, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 293316.
RESNICK, L. (1987). Education and learning to think (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press).
SHUELL, T. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 13, 276295.
STIPEK, D. J. and WEISZ, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement.
Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 101137.
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF LEARNING 1443

THOMAS, G. (1999). Student restraints to reform: conceptual change issues in enhancing students
learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 89109.
THOMAS, G. P. and MCROBBIE, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students
metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2),
222259.
WANG, M. C. and PEVERLEY, S. T. (1986). The self-instructive process in classroom learning
contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 370404.
WHITE, R. T. (1998). Decisions and problems in research on metacognition. In B. J. Fraser and K.
G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Dordrecht: Kluwer),
12071212.
WHITE, R. and GUNSTONE, R. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal
of Science Education, 11, 577586.