Re: [Phys-L] Metacognition

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 05/21/2012 10:09 AM, Jeffrey Schnick wrote:
> So the question is, is this an example of what metacognition is all about?  

As for me, I completely agree that metacognition means "thinking about 
thinking".  See also
  http://www.av8n.com/physics/thinking.htm

> Also, if you can, please provide more explanation of metacognition as well as some examples.

1) One of the reasons the Feynman lectures are so highly regarded 
is that many metacognition lessons are sprinkled throughout.  For 
example, in Volume I Chapter 22, he doesn't just assert that sine 
and cosine exist;  he shows how you could have figured out for 
yourself, on a desert island, the salient properties of sine and 
cosine and various other things.  The chapter closes with the words:

> > When we began this chapter, armed only with the basic notion of
> > integers and counting, we had little idea of the power of the process
> > of abstraction and generalization. Using the set of algebraic `laws'
> > or properties of numbers, Eq.(22.1) and the definition of the inverse
> > operations (22.2), we have been able here, ourselves, to manufacture
> > not only numbers but useful things like tables of logarithms, powers
> > and trigonometric functions (for these are what the imaginary powers
> > of real numbers are), all merely by extracting ten successive square
> > roots of ten!

This is a direct, in-your-face discussion of two major components
of high-level cognition, namely generalization and abstraction.

2) I reckon that any discussion of "the scientific method" counts 
as metacognition, insofar as thinking about science counts as
thinking about thinking.

  I would be happier if the usual discussions of "the scientific
  method" were not quite so ludicrously wrong
    http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm#sec-poster
  but I suppose if you are going to have metacognition you must
  allow for the possibility of wrong metacognition.

For a high-quality discussion of "What Is Science" including a plea
for common sense, we turn again to Feynman:
  http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html
also
  http://ipv6.google.com/search?tbm=vid&q=feynman+%22character+of+physical+law%22

3) A great deal of the PER literature can be considered metacognition.

For example the book by Arons, _Teaching Introductory Physics_
book talks about lofty principles, such as the importance of 
critical thinking, sensitivity to student misconceptions, and 
the precedence of ideas over terminology. 

Alas the book by-and-large fails to uphold those principles.  An 
example is its mishandling of the two-fluid theory of electrical 
charge.  Overall I consider the book to be a morass of wrong 
physics and bad pedagogy.  For details, see
  http://www.av8n.com/physics/arons-1996.htm

4) More generally, a great deal of the psychology literature,
especially educational psychology, can be considered metacognition.
Alas, once again we find a lot of lousy metacognition.  The 
signal-to-noise ratio is very poor.  Doing good experiments in
this area is very, very difficult ... but that is no excuse for
doing lousy experiments.

Occasionally however one finds some gems, such as the discussion 
by William James (1899), especially the part about the role of 
/connections/ in learning and recall.

  William James, 
  Talks to Teachers On Psychology; and to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals (1899).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=XYSsCLlF_mkCprintsec=frontcover
  Chapter XII deals specifically with memory.
    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/talks/chapter12.html

5) There is quite a bit of good common-sense educational psychology
in
   William K. Kershner
   _The Flight Instructor's Manual_
   http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Instructors-Manual-Fourth-Edition/dp/081380633X

although it is only a rather small part of the overall book, and
most people wouldn't want to wade through the whole book looking
for this one topic.

6) You can learn a lot by hanging out on Phys-L.

7) You can do even better by watching other teachers.  Watch a 
lot of different teachers.  Sit in the back of the class and
watch.  See what works, or not.  See what suits your personal 
style, or not.

Watching Feynman is a hoot, not just for what he says, but for
how he says it:
  http://wn.com/Richard_Feynman_on_QED,_part_of_the_introduction
  http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

  http://ipv6.google.com/search?tbm=vid&q=feynman+%22character+of+physical+law%22
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Character-Physical-Modern-Library/dp/0679601279

For example, here is Feynman making a passing comment about
"the possibilities of reasoning, interconnecting one idea
 with another"
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_IfV9fkBhk&t=12m0s

Again, that is an example of rather direct, explicit metacognition.  
Note that William James is not the only one to emphasize /connections/.