See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/38303914

Metacognition and Lifelong E-Learning: A Contextual and Cyclical Process

Article in E-Learning and Digital Media · June 2007

DOI: 10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.161 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

12 177

2 authors, including:

Frances Bell

48 PUBLICATIONS 1,092 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Frances Bell on 19 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

E–Learning, Volume 4, Number 2, 2007 doi: 10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.161

Metacognition and Lifelong E-learning:

a contextual and cyclical process

LISA WORRALL & FRANCES BELL

University of Salford, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT Metacognition is arguably an important conceptualisation within the area of lifelong e-

learning, with many theorists and practitioners claiming that it enhances the learning process.
However, the lifelong, cyclical and flexible aspects of ‘before’, ‘during’ and ‘after’ metacognitions
within lifelong e-learning (inclusive of whether an ‘input’ necessarily leads to a completed ‘output’)
seem marginal within current areas of practical and theoretical debate. This article analyses Reeves’s
(1997) model of web-based learning in the context of the ADAPT project; a study of lifelong learners
based in small and medium sized enterprises. The article focuses upon an analysis of this model’s view
of metacognition, and in the light of the project findings and literature review, aims to put forward an
extended and expanded version of the model with reference to lifelong e-learning.

An Introduction to Reeves’ Original Model

Learning is a complex process and involves many differing factors and variables that interact with
one another to affect the degrees of success or failure of any one particular individual and/or group
of individuals. Before the introduction of learning technologies, earlier models sought to visualise
these physical and conceptual face-to-face and group-based processes that occurred within
traditional institutions of learning, such as schools. Carroll’s model of School Based Learning (1963)
used five classes of process variables to explain variance in achievement (output), and treated
aptitude (the input variable) as being the amount of time that a learner needs to master a unit of
instruction. Reeves adapted this model to include a series of dimensions that take into account the
potential of web-based learning and of the ways to realise that potential. We will firstly discuss
Reeves’s original works, with the aim of further extending this model to incorporate a conceptual
awareness of the role that metacognition plays in the processes of lifelong e-learning.

After Dimensions
Reeves’s (1997) model stated that constructs like schema, propositions, rules and skills can play a
part in the ‘Knowledge and Skills’ that a person can obtain. Individuals can also utilise, adapt and
extend ‘Robust Mental Models’ (or structures) that enable them to understand new concepts and
knowledge and to problem solve. ‘Higher Order Outcomes’ such as creativity, curiosity and
problem-solving abilities can also be the result of learning and need to be measured, as they may
have an effect upon learner performance.

Before Dimensions
‘Cultural Habits of Mind’ relate to cultural influences that affect learning and problem-solving and
how the designers of web-based environments need to be aware of these issues. ‘Aptitude and
Individual Differences’, such as intelligence, preferred learning styles, interests and attitudes can
also affect learning processes and behaviours. Reeves argues that there is a need to analyse the

161
Lisa Worrall & Frances Bell

‘Origin of Motivation’ of each learner. An ‘extrinsic’ motivation could be due to, for example, a
learner obtaining a vocational qualification in order to gain employment. An ‘intrinsic’ motivation
can occur where knowledge and/or skills are gained due to interests in problem-solving and/or
carrying out various tasks. He argues that by its very nature, the World Wide Web will promote
‘intrinsic’ motivation due to its relatively new educational use, multimedia capabilities and ability
to offer greater learner control.

Figure 1. Reeves’s (1997) model of World Wide Web based learning.

During Dimensions
The ‘during’ dimensions shed light on the processes of learning and link it into the context in which
it can be applied. According to Reeves (1997), there is considerable evidence that learning is
promoted when learners are given the ‘Opportunity to Construct Learning’ and with ‘Task
Ownership’ where they are given greater control over what and how they approach and learn
content. In the context of learning in formal education, learning tasks can be primarily academic
(e.g. essay writing) or authentic (e.g. conducting specific chemical analysis research). Whereas
academic tasks may consist to a large degree of memorising data, names, theories, etc., authentic
tasks might involve more practical activities that learners feel that they own for themselves to
complete. Cognitive learning theory suggests that differences in the way that knowledge is initially
gained may affect how it can be used and applied in future differing contexts. Therefore, the
potential benefit of web-based learning is that in addition to academic tasks, authentic tasks could
also be catered for.
Reeves (1997) argues that each learner’s ‘Sense of Audience’ through the publication of
opportunities afforded when learning on the Web will encourage the sharing of knowledge and the
enthusiasm to learn. He states that the growth in the number of tools for web-based group work
will enable the facilitation of ‘Collaborative Support’ and also argues for the need to provide
‘Teacher Support’. ADAPT project constraints significantly limited the interactivity described in
these three dimensions, since the learning opportunities were mainly individuals interacting with
computer-based packages, placing a greater emphasis on the last dimension of ‘Metacognitive
Support’, which, as term and concept, will be specifically defined and analysed later in this article.

162
Metacognition and Lifelong E-learning

What is Lifelong E-learning?

Reeves’s model was designed with regard to e-learning via the World Wide Web. So what is
learning and, specifically, what is lifelong e-learning? Schoenfeld (1999, p. 6) defined ‘learning’ as
the process of ‘coming to understand things and developing increased capacities to do what one
wants or needs to do’. The European Lifelong Learning Initiative defines ‘lifelong learning’ as:
The development of human potential through a continuously supportive process which
stimulates and empowers individuals to acquire all the knowledge, values, skills and
understanding they will require throughout their lifetimes. (ELLI, 2001)
According to Luckin et al (2004), the concept of ‘e-learning’ has been outlined by the UK
Department for Education and Skills consultation document, ‘Towards a Unified E-learning
Strategy’, as occurring with the usage of information and communications technologies (ICTs).
There are also terms like ‘networked learning’, which can be defined as the usage of ICTs that
promote connections between learners, tutors, communities and their resources (Goodyear, 2001).
However, the extent of the ‘freedom’ of these connections is very much open to debate
(Lankshear, 2006). Interactivity can be cyclical and occur with an exchange of concepts and ideas
between people, things and technologies (Luckin & du Boulay, 2002). E-learning can also be
‘blended’ in terms of its combination of delivery media, instructional, online and face-to-face (F2F)
methods Driscoll (2002).
‘Open Learning’ is a term utilised by the Open University (2001) to refer to learning that
occurs without restrictions on age, place or space and where learners can be more self-directed in
what, where and how quickly they learn and when they are assessed. ‘Distance Learning’ involves
a specific part of ‘Open Learning’ that refers to tutors and learners being geographically separated.
It can be argued that, taken as a whole, ‘lifelong e-learning’ presents a ‘grand challenge’ of the need
to incorporate these concepts while also being able to evolve throughout an individual’s lifetime
(Hall, 2002, p. 1).
We agree with Jones (2004) that the theoretical and disciplinary backgrounds of learning
technologies are far too numerous and diverse to comprehensively analyse and discuss. In itself,
Reeves’s model goes far in attempting to incorporate the concepts of e-learning, but not of ‘lifelong
e-learning’, since the model presents e-learning as a singular ‘input/output’ process. It is with
specific regard to this cyclical and self-directed aspect of its design and usage that we present the
model in this article.

Metacognition: what exactly is it?

Reeves (1997) locates his conception of metacognition as a process that takes place ‘during’
learning. Metacognition has been defined as:
one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them ... For
example, I am engaging in metacognition if I notice that I am having more trouble learning A
than B; if it strikes me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact. (Flavell, 1976,
p. 232)
Although Flavell is usually credited with coining the term metacognition, the roots of this concept
can be traced back as far as Socrates (380 BC). The Socratic Method is a dialogic method of inquiry
where a teacher asks students questions that expose errors in order to improve their reasoning
processes. Since this dialogue provokes self-reflection by a student, it plays an important role in
facilitating metacognition within a group or social setting. Flavell argued that metacognitive
processes are affected by person variables (of individual and group knowledge), task variables (of
nature and difficulty of learning tasks) and strategy variables (of how to best approach learning
tasks) (Flavell, 1979). People are also emotional beings, whose reflections on experiences of
enjoyment, confusion, anxiety or frustration when learning can affect their future expectations of
success or failure and their decision on whether or how to continue learning (Flavell, 1976; Brown,
1987). People can go beyond their lived experiences by creatively imagining novel situations and
activities prior to predicting outcomes that can affect attitudes, behaviours and self-regulations
(Cook, 1998).

163
Lisa Worrall & Frances Bell

Besides being individual, social and emotional beings, humans also develop over time.
Hertzog & Hultsch argue that metacognition operates differently over an individual’s lifetime.
During youth there is a tendency to over-estimate ability to learn new information. This changes to
under-estimation in later life, based on the belief that memory and learning ability automatically
decline in old age. Unfortunately, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that reduces learning
potential. These potentially negative self-beliefs can be removed by providing learners with more
positive metacognitive insights into the learning process (Hertzog & Hultsch, 1992). As people are
living longer, lifelong learners represent a growing target group for learning, and for whom
metacognition may play an important role in their empowerment. We shall discuss later in this
article how Reeves’s original model does not include an awareness that metacognition is a lifelong
process.

Theory and Methodology

This article bases its perspective within the realm of social constructivism, a theoretical stance that
is encompassed within Reeves’s (1997) original model. Knowledge construction is seen as a random
variation of existing knowledge, metacognitive processes and the selective retention of new
knowledge that assists an individual within their specific environment. Social constructivists do not
necessarily deny the existence of objective reality. They do, however, deny the existence of
objective knowledge. Knowledge is perceived as being relative and subject to constant change
according to differing biological, psychological, social and environmental processes.
Epistemologically, social constructivists have no specific viewpoint regarding the existence of
entities, but if they do exist, they are seen as having little (or no) effect upon individuals.
Ontologically, these entities, if they exist, are perceived as being formed via processes of social
interaction.

Selection of SMEs and Learners

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and individuals from the North West Region of
England were identified from a number of contacts gained through prior research projects. The
learner base was mixed (of varying ages, sex, occupation) and the learners were given the
opportunity of using both online and CD-ROM-based courseware at home, work or anywhere
where they have access to a personal computer (PC). A courseware brochure was created to
provide an immediate source of reference when choosing courseware.
The gender distribution consisted of 26 male learners and 14 female learners aged between
the ages of 18 and 60. Twenty-one learners left during the implementation of the ADAPT project.
The formal number of participants investigated comprised 19 males and 6 females. The degree of
computer literacy ranged from those who had practically no knowledge of computers and the
Internet, to those who were quite proficient.

Apparatus
Online learning objectives and learning journal facilities were produced to enable learners to write
down their original learning objectives and motivations for learning (in line with the ‘Origin of
Motivation’ dimension). Due to project constraints, the ADAPT project was unable to provide
specific ‘Metacognitive Support’ (e.g. with a mentor or tutor). However, the learner journals were
designed as ‘self-help’ tools that enabled learners to self-reflect upon their own learning processes
and behaviours. The learners were also given an online post-course questionnaire that was used to
gain quantitative and qualitative data on the usability aspects of the courseware in line with general
SME e-learning project research targets and objectives.
The results generated by the post-course questionnaire for each training module were
analysed after being filtered through a series of excel spreadsheet templates that analysed the
positive and negative Likert ratings of learners on the usability aspects of the user interface, time
length and applicability, package support, assessment and data feedback, package multimedia and
general overview of each courseware package. These questions also included open-ended sections

164
Metacognition and Lifelong E-learning

where each learner was given the opportunity to elaborate on the reasons for their answer. A
generic qualitative and quantitative exit questionnaire was also used to assess their views, opinions
and experiences of the project-based learning process as a whole.

Procedure
At the beginning of each course, learners submitted learner objectives of what their original aims,
objectives and/or motivations for learning actually were. Whilst engaged in learning, they were
asked to complete an ongoing reflective learning journal. This journal had a dual role: to encourage
metacognition and to provide valuable research data. Learners were asked to outline areas such as
learner successes and problems, moments of great advances in understanding, attitudes and
feelings, thinking strategies, achievements, how easily the learning process fitted into their current
workload, and whether they thought their support needs were met. Learners were also asked to
offer their opinions of areas where they thought that improvements were needed.
After completing a course, learners were required to fill in the post-course questionnaire. This
questionnaire was designed to provide both quantitative and qualitative data from learners on
various usability aspects of the courseware that they had recently used. Learner feedback was then
gathered from an exit questionnaire (following completion of the entire learning process) to
analyse if there were any alterations in learner responses and feedback over the longer term.

The Case for ‘Mixed-Method’ Evaluation

Greene & Caracelli (1997) refer to the usage of mixed methods and the integration of diverse
paradigms when outlining the potential integration and utilisation of differing theoretical
perspectives, methodologies and research tools. They state that there are three main perspectives:
(1) the ‘purist’ stance is against combining paradigms, but uses mixed methodologies; (2) the
‘pragmatic’ stance views paradigms as useful conceptualisations, but due to practical
considerations, uses mixed methods within specific contexts, and (3) the ‘dialectical’ stance. This
stance views paradigms as being essential research frameworks that when mixed, can generate
positive tensions that provide more insightful avenues of research and deeper levels of evaluative
knowledge.
From the standpoint of Greene & Caracelli’s (1997) categorisations, we employed a
‘pragmatic’ mixed-method approach, since the research incorporated a contextually based social
constructivist perspective. However, the ADAPT ICT research strand (undertaken by the present
authors) was based within a larger ADAPT project that utilised differing researcher strand
paradigms and methodologies.
This article does not attempt to generalise the research results beyond the specific contextual
research base onto a wider societal scale, which Greene & Caracelli (1997) identify as conceptually
possible within a more ‘dialectical’ stance. In order to achieve this, a longitudinal study would be
required, based upon a much greater number of learners, and based within a greater range of
learning and training environments, backgrounds, ages, cultures, ethnic and social groupings and
so on, in order to potentially provide wider societal inferences and/or conclusions. The data
gathered is limited and largely descriptive in nature, based within specific time, space and person
groupings that have been analysed, and the research data is viewed and analysed within a social
constructivist perspective.

Cyclical Flow Model or Continuum

The work on Reeves’s dimensions has been developed by Reeves and other authors by treating
each dimension within a singular continuum (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). Kanuka & Anderson discuss
the constructivist/instructivist debate and argue for the need for a constructivist approach that
facilitates contextually rich, meaningful and authentic learning that in turn encourages self-
reflection (Kanuka & Anderson, 1999). The World Wide Web can facilitate self-reflection by
providing opportunities for people to re-examine content and concepts, and to assess how each
learning process was constructed (Hazzan, 2004). Koper & Tattersall (2004) argue that there is a

165
Lisa Worrall & Frances Bell

need to establish a Learning Network (LN) architecture of technologies that more accurately and
flexibly meets and records individual lifelong learning needs and requirements. This can be
conceptualised by extending the input–process–output shown in Figure 1 into a cyclical flow model
that can capture the complex processes and interactions occurring between and within dimensions
and learning activities over an individual’s lifetime.

An Extension and Adaptation of Reeves’s Model

Metacognition: a ‘before’ expansion
An important question arises: To what extent does prior knowledge of metacognitive processes
(and an individual’s level of awareness, monitoring and/or regulative abilities of them) affect the
effective utilisation of e-learning technologies, learner processes and behaviours? With reference to
this specific and centrally important question, we would like to put forward the new
‘Metacognitive Processes’ dimension. It should first be stated that there is no empirical data
reported in this article to support this dimension. This is potentially a very large and specialist area
of research which was not covered within the constrained parameters of the ADAPT project.
However, the literature review highlighted that learner prior metacognitive processes can be
analysed and assessed by the usage of metacognitive assessment inventories, tools and methods
that can affect the design and delivery of effective e-learning tools, technologies and services.
Supporting literature for this dimension includes the works of Flavell (1976), who states that
metacognition consists of an awareness of an individual’s own processes and that these processes
consist of both metacognitive knowledge, experience and/or regulation. Brown (1987) states that
metacognition consists of knowledge and regulation of cognition. Cook (1998) states that in
addition to Brown’s (1987) categorisations, individuals can utilise a sub-process of ‘going beyond’
(at a meta-level) to within, for example, musical composition environments, by creatively
imagining novel situations and activities prior to learning outcomes. This dimension stipulates that
there is a conceptual need to view knowledge of metacognition as separate to knowledge of
content. An assessment of an individual’s awareness of level and type of metacognitive abilities can
facilitate (1) content learning and/or (2) metacognitive training by providing targeted insights into
learner prior abilities and areas of weakness or strength. An interesting question arises as to the
ideal balance of training in metacognition and/or content, and further work is required to ascertain
this. It could be argued that there is a great degree of cross-fertilisation between the ‘Aptitude and
Individual Differences’, ‘Origin of Motivation’ and ‘Opportunity to Construct Learning’
dimensions, as they outline the potential influence of individual characteristics regarding (inclusive
of potential ‘digital divides’) upon learning processes and behaviours. A clearer picture of learner
self-perceptions, skills and abilities can assist both learners and practitioners in guiding the prior
targeted provision of learning content, technologies and metacognitive support tools.

Metacognition: a ‘during’ expansion

Within the original model, Reeves (1997) outlines an awareness of the need to provide
‘Metacognitive Support’ and of Flavell’s (1979) arguments that metacognitive support strategies can
facilitate learners in the evaluation and progression of their learning strategies and behaviours.
Reeves (1997), however, did not centrally outline variations of ‘Self-Direction’ and for this reason
we wish to include this extended conceptualisation. Learners may (and were shown to have done
so in the ADAPT project) reject the offer of support altogether. Of the 25 learners (out of an
original starting number of 40) that completed their training, only 16 (64%) utilised any part of the
online metacognitive tools on offer. This leaves a large percentage (44%) that chose not to use the
metacognitive support tools at all. Reasons given ranged from not perceiving the benefit of using
them, to those that felt technically or metacognitively unable to use them. Of those who used
them, views ranged from, for example, learner 5006, who stated that ‘basically I find it essential to
take notes’, to learner 1005, who stated, ‘boredom ... other priorities’ and learner 1014, who stated
that they were unable and unwilling ‘to find the time’.
Flavell (1976) argues that learners continuously reflect upon their levels of ability, the nature
of the task and individual learning experiences, to assess whether there is a need to regulate/alter

166
Metacognition and Lifelong E-learning

their current learning strategy and behaviours. McKoon & Ratcliff (1992) argue that some learners
may also be unable to verbalise their metacognitive acts because some of them may have become
internalised (i.e. internally automated). Tobias & Everson (2000) argue that some learners may
over- or under-estimate their levels of understanding. Variations can also occur in technological
abilities, which result in ‘digital divides’ (in terms of how ‘usable’ technologies are to certain people
with varying levels of knowledge and skills (Davis, 1989). This dimension possesses a degree of
cross-fertilisation with the ‘Aptitude and Individual Differences’ and ‘Opportunity to Construct
Learning’ dimensions, as the level of complexity (and interest) in using various learning
technologies and support tools will affect aspects of their uptake and utilisation.

Metacognition: an ‘after’ expansion

Reeves (1997) did not demonstrate awareness that learning and knowledge construction is not a
singular journey. Knowledge construction is strengthened through its re-application, reflection and
utilisation. For this reason, we would like to add a ‘Metacognitive Analyses’ dimension. This
dimension brings forward the affective, cyclical and adaptive conceptualisation of learning
(inclusive of whether or not an ‘input’ necessarily leads to a completed ‘output’).
Self-reflections are not just based upon a learner’s increased awareness of strategies and
processes of learning, but also upon whether they consider their learning to be targeted, relevant
and interesting. For example, learner 2003 viewed their training to be irrelevant to their needs and
so abandoned their course and stated ‘I realised this was the wrong thing to do, so have called it a
day’. Learners can also affectively self-reflect upon their prior experiences and this will invariably
impact upon present and future expectations of success or failure and learner processes and
behaviours (Flavell, 1979). An example of this can be found from learner 5003, who stated that their
‘experience gained’ from a prior training package directly affected their decision to receive further
courseware.
Literature review insights support this viewpoint. Ayer ([1936] 1995) argues that what we
refer to here as ‘metacognitions’ are experiential. Popper ([1972] 1979) argues that knowledge is
gained with the modification of prior knowledge and with critical investigation. Wittgenstein
(1953) utilises the analogy of learning as that of an individual who criss-crosses a landscape in a
journey of critical discovery where they revisit and reflect upon learning content from many
differing directions, in order to further their understanding of it. Learner 1003 outlined an example
of this process by stating that they learned more deeply when they ‘go over’ content from many
differing perspectives. Learner 2018 stated that they liked the design of the technology that enabled
them to ‘go back and review the section again to understand the reasoning behind the correct
answers’.
Hertzog & Hultsch (1992) state that metacognitive knowledge and affective expectations
continually evolve over an individual’s lifespan. According to Pask (1975), an individual’s ability to
remember and retain knowledge is affected by social and contextual parameters. Similar arguments
are also outlined by theorists like Goodyear (2001), Goodyear et al, 2004) and Steeples & Jones
(2002). There was evidence in the journals that learners had reflected upon how they had learned
with regard to their individual learning styles (Gardner, 1999). Learner 1003 exemplifed ‘Visual
spatial’ thinking by stating that ‘The visual learning for me has been very beneficial, my memory
tends to recall pictures and events ... the graphics are easier for me to recall’.
A further question arises: To what extent do learning technologies have an effect upon an
individual’s metacognitive analyses? Luckin & du Boulay (2002) argue that interactivity can occur
between peers, tutors and interactive and communicative digital systems. Salmon (2002, [2000]
2004) states that the e-moderator can facilitate learner self-reflections within computer-mediated
communications (CMC) and Twidale (2000) observes that these interactions can also incorporate
physical ‘over the shoulder’ collaborations with other learners. Jonassen & Reeves (1996) and
Reeves et al (2002) outline the importance of designing authentic and reflexive learning. Chi et al
(1989) argue that learners can vary in terms of both their metacognitive processes and their
technological abilities. ‘Digital divide’ issues of knowledge and skills also surround usability aspects
of technologies (Davis, 1989). Jonassen et al (1998) state the need to aid the facilitation of
metacognition with the design of computer based ‘mindtools’.

167
Lisa Worrall & Frances Bell

The list of theorists and models is by no means exhaustive, but it serves to highlight that there
is already a large body of thought that shows an awareness of the concept of incorporating
‘Metacognitive Awareness’ within current (and future) models of lifelong e-learning. It could also
be argued that there is a strong degree of cross-fertilisation with the ‘Aptitude and Individual
Differences’, ‘Collaborative Support’ and ‘Opportunity to Construct Learning’ dimensions, as,
whether simulated, facilitated or real, learner reflexivity and constructed learning is facilitated
through use of a range of differing types of systems. Ascertaining the efficiency and effectiveness of
learning with regard to differing individual abilities, mechanisms, metacognitive facilitations and
designs and modes of delivery would constitute an interesting area of future research.
Within Figure 2, the unbroken lines represent Reeves’s (1997) original dimensions. The short
dashed lines represent amended/extended dimensions. The long dashed lined boxes represent new
conceptual dimensions. The double-ended arrows connecting the dimensions illustrate a generic
awareness of the cross-fertilisations that occur both within and between dimensions (i.e. the
conceptualisation of how one dimension may potentially impact upon another).

Figure 2. Amended and adapted version of Reeves’s (1997) model.

The dashed double-lined flow arrows (surrounding the right side, lower and left side of the model
and travelling in a clockwise direction) represent e-learning as being a lifelong cyclical process,
rather than the singular ‘input/output’ process as conceptualised in Reeves’s (1997) original model.
Within any singular learning activity, an ‘input’ does not necessarily lead to a completed ‘output’.
Individuals are not a tabula rasa (i.e. clean tablet) onto which learning content can be written. This
amended and extended model presents e-learning as a lifelong and cyclical process, supported by
self-reflection processes before, during and after each learning activity. Learning processes and
behaviours can ‘succeed’ or ‘fail’ and each subsequent cyclical event can affect an individual’s
present and future expectations and learning behaviours over the course of their lifetime.

168
Metacognition and Lifelong E-learning

Conclusion: a model for what and for whom

In this article we have pursued enhancement of Reeves’s model to extend the concept of learner
metacognitions, and in subsequent publications we shall introduce additional enhancements to the
model. We have argued that learners’ experiences can be improved by engaging in metacognitive
activities before, during and after each learning activity. Tutors and learning technologists who
configure e-learning environments can include relevant metacognitive activities and support
resources, bearing in mind learner differences in skills, knowledge, abilities and preferences for
metacognition. This is particularly important for individual learners who may engage in solo
learning activities without the benefit of social interaction with other learners.
Learners may experience ‘leaps’ of understanding in their self-awareness of their thinking
strategies, and this may be seen as more important than advancements in content knowledge.
However, the question arises as to what is the ideal balance between content knowledge and skills
acquisition, and the training of effective metacognitive knowledge and skills. The cyclical nature of
the model raises questions with each individual’s learning experience of: How did this occur? How
was it facilitated or hindered? How (if possible) can it be improved? The autonomy of lifelong
learners is a key factor. So is awareness of their differing levels of skills, knowledge and abilities in
communicating their metacognitive processes and acts, as well as their ability to utilise
technological support tools and technologies on offer. Learning activities are unlikely to proceed
according to a ‘grand plan’ owned by an employer or some other agency. Hence, it is essential that
learners ‘own’ this cyclic model of their personal development alongside a ‘dialogue’ with the
learning practitioner within a ‘constructivist shift’, i.e. towards constructivism that facilitates
learner managed and directed, collaborative usage (i.e. dynamic and ‘real world’ applicable,
knowledge based and holistic systemic approaches) (Goodyear, 2001). This targeted and dialogic
contextualised design and delivery approach holds great relevance when considering the time and
resource-based constraints within SMEs.
The literature review and limited empirical analysis of Reeves’s (1997) original model have
indicated that the lifelong, cyclical and flexible aspects of metacognitive processes within e-learning
are largely absent within current areas of practical and theoretical debate. The concept that an
‘input’ does not necessarily lead to a completed ‘output’, as varying factors and dimensions may
help or hinder the learning process, is also largely absent. In response, the contribution of this
article puts forward a flexible, adapted and extended version of Reeves’s (1997) model. Our
research has provided a partial testing of the adapted and extended model within an extended
literature review and we encourage practitioners to apply the model to their own practice in the
light of the discussion above.

References
Ayer, A.J. ([1936] 1995) Language, Truth and Logic, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, A.L. (1987) Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation and Other More Mysterious
Mechanisms, in F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds) Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding. Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Carroll, J.B. (1963) A Model of School Learning, Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R. (1989) Self-explanations: how students study
and use examples in learning to solve problems, Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
Cook, J. (1998) Mentoring, Metacognition and Music: interaction analyses and implications for intelligent
learning environments, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 45-87.
Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008 (accessed 30 June 2007).
Driscoll, M. (2002) Blended Learning: let’s get beyond the hype.
http://elearningmag.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=11755 (accessed 2 May 2006).
ELLI (2001) European Lifelong Learning Initiative. http://www.noesis.se/ (accessed 15 March 2006).
Flavell, J.H. (1976) Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving, in L.B. Rensick (Ed.) The Nature of Intelligence.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.

169
Lisa Worrall & Frances Bell

Flavell, J.H. (1979) Metacognition and Cognition Monitoring: a new area of psychological inquiry, American
Psychologist, 34, 906-911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 (accessed 30 June 2007).
Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence Reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Goodyear, P. (2001) Effective Networked Learning in Higher Education. Notes and Guidelines. Centre for
Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Lancaster University. http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/ (accessed
15 April 2007).
Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F. & Rusman, E. (2004)
Towards a Pattern Language for Networked Learning. Paper presented at Networked Learning
Conference 2004.
http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/individual_papers/good
year_et_al.htm (accessed 30 June 2007).
Greene, J.C. & Caracelli, V.J. (1997) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: the challenges and benefits of
integrating diverse paradigms, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, W. (2002) Grand Challenge: lifelong e-learning.
http://www.nesc.ac.uk/esi/events/Grand_Challenges/panelc/c15.pdf (accessed 5 September 2006).
Hazzan, O. (2004) Mental Constructions of Web Site: learner and teacher points of view, British Journal of
Educational Technology, 35(3), 323-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00392.x (accessed 30
June 2007).
Hertzog, C. & Hultsch, D.F. (1992) Metacognition in Adulthood and Old Age, in F.I.M. Craik &
T.A. Salthouse (Eds) Handbook of Cognitive Aging, 417-466. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D.H. & Reeves, T.C. (1996) Learning with Technology: using computers as cognitive tools, in D. Jonassen
(Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Simon Schuster
Macmillan.
Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H.P. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical
Thinking, TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Jones, C. (2004) Theory and Practices of Learning Technology. Paper presented at Networked Learning
Conference 200.
http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium1/
jones.htm (accessed 12 October 2006).
Kanuka, H. & Anderson, T. (1999) Using Constructivism in Technology-Mediated Learning: constructing
order out of the chaos in the literature, The International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic
Publication (ICAAP). http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html (2
December 2006).
Koper, R. & Tattersall, C. (2004) New Directions for Lifelong Learning Using Network Technologies, British
Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 689-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00427.x
(accessed 30 June 2007).
Lankshear, C. (2006) Freedom and Sharing in the Global Network Society, E-Learning, 3(3), 396-410.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.3.396 (accessed 30 June 2007).
Luckin, R. & du Boulay, B. (2002) Construction and Abstraction: contrasting methods of supporting model
building, in P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning & A. Tiberghien (Eds) The Role of Communication in Learning to
Model. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Luckin, R., Coultas, J. & Boulay, B.(2004) Learning with E’s: putting technology in its place, in P. Isaias,
P. Kommers & M. McPherson (Eds) Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference, 903-906.
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/bend/papers/esociety2004.pdf (accessed 10 April 2007).
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992) Inference during Reading, Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440 (accessed 30 June 2007).
Open University (2001) Open Learning. http://www.open.ac.uk/text-only/spotlight.html (accessed17 March
2006).
Pask, G. (1975) Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier.
Popper, K.R. ([1972] 1979) Objective Knowledge, revised edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reeves, T.C. (1997) A Model of the Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning on the World Wide Web,
Proceedings of Interakiivinen Koulutuksessa (ITK). Hameenlinna: Finland.
http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/WebPaper.pdf 23-31 (accessed 5 August 2006).
Reeves, T.C. & Reeves, P.M. (1997) Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning on the World Wide Web,
in B.H. Khan (Ed.) Web-Based Instruction, 59-66. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

170
 Metacognition and Lifelong E-learning

Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2002) Authentic Activities and Online Learning, in A.J. Goody,
J. Herrington & M. Northcote (Eds) Quality Conversations. Research and Development in Higher Education,
25, 562-567. Perth: HERDSA.
Salmon, G. ([2000] 2004) E-Moderating: the key to teaching and learning online, 2nd edn. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Salmon, G. (2002) Mirror Mirror On My Screen – exploring online reflections, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(4), 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00275 (accessed 30 June 2007).
Schoenfeld, A. (1999) Looking toward the 21st Century: challenges of educational theory and practice,
Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1176136 (accessed 30 June 2007).
Socrates (380 BC) Meno: by Plato, trans. B. Jowett, 1871. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html (accessed 2
August 2006).
Steeples, C. & Jones, J. (2002) Networked Learning: perspectives and issues. London: Springer-Verlag.
Tobias, S. & Everson, H. (2000) Assessing Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring, in G. Schraw & J. Impara
(Eds) Issues in Measurement of Metacognition, 147-222. Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Twidale, M.B. (2000) Interfaces for Supporting Over-the-Shoulder Learning, in M. Benedict (Ed.) Proceedings
on Human Interaction with Complex Systems, 33-37. Chicago: University of Illinois.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.

LISA WORRALL is a Research Fellow at the University of Salford, United Kingdom. Her research
interests include metacognition and lifelong e-learning and she has recently gained a PhD within
this area involving the development of cyclical model concepts. She is currently involved in a
number of research projects that facilitate the encouragement of organisational diversity.
Correspondence: Lisa Worrall, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Maxwell
Building, The Crescent, Salford M5 4WT, United Kingdom ([email protected]).

FRANCES BELL is Senior Lecturer in Information Systems at the University of Salford, United
Kingdom. Her research interests include staff and student international online collaboration (see
http://www.cabweb.net) and the application of information system theories to online learning and
education, both formal and informal. She is currently involved with two projects, one where older
people use the Internet to learn more about living with coronary heart disease; and another ‘Know
and Network’ project that researches the diversity of the information needs of women.

171

View publication stats