Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-r8tb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-10T16:24:13.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infusing Metacognition into Advanced Linguistics Courses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Rosa Vallejos-Yopán  and
Eva Rodríguez-González
Rosa Vallejos-Yopán*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Eva Rodríguez-González*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
*
[rvallejos@unm.edu] (Vallejos-Yopán), [evarg@unm.edu] (Rodríguez-González)
[rvallejos@unm.edu] (Vallejos-Yopán), [evarg@unm.edu] (Rodríguez-González)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores the implementation of critical thinking via metacognition in linguistics courses. It employs surveys to examine strategies used by students in two courses, Morphosyntax and Field Methods, devoted to the development of analytical skills in linguistics. We hypothesized that the application of metacognition surveys would enhance students' awareness of techniques that promote critical thinking and active learning. Two surveys built in as core components in each course were deployed at different points during the semester. Students' responses indicate that metacognition surveys can help students and instructors gain greater awareness of learning concerns and capabilities and identify areas for intervention.

Keywords

linguisticsmetacognitioncritical thinkingactive learningmorphosyntaxfieldwork

Information

Type
Teaching Linguistics
Information
Language , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. e131 - e155
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Printed with the permission of Rosa Vallejos-Yopán & Eva Rodríguez-González. © 2022.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

First and foremost, we thank all of the participants in the study. We are also grateful to the LSA 2019–2021 Faculty Learning Community on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in linguistics, and to the participants at the 2021 Symposium on ‘Scholarly Teaching in the Age of COVID-19 and Beyond’ for their feedback. Thank you to the editors and two anonymous referees for their detailed comments. All omissions and misinterpretations are fully our own.

References

Anderson, Catherine. 2016. Learning to think like linguists: A think-aloud study of novice phonology students. Language 92(4). e274–e291. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelo, Thomas A., and Cross, Patricia K.. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2011. Teaching morphology. In Kuiper, 27–34.Google Scholar
Berardi-Coletta, Bernadette, Buyer, Linda S., Dominowski, Roger L.; and Rellinger, Elizabeth R.. 1995. Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21. 205–23. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.205.Google Scholar
Cao, Li. 2012. Differences in procrastination and motivation between undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 12(2). 39–64. Online: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/2018/1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2011. Teaching syntax. In Kuiper, 35–39.Google Scholar
Collins, Wes. 2011. Field methods: Where the rubber meets the road. In Kuiper, 203–21.Google Scholar
Coutinho, Savia A. 2007. The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. Educate 7(1). 39–47. Online: http://www.educatejournal.org/index.php/educate/article/view/116/134.Google Scholar
Cross, David R., and Paris, Scott G.. 1988. Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 80(2). 131–42. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Avanzo, Charlene. 2003. Application of research on learning to college teaching: Ecological examples. BioScience 53(11). 1121–28. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[1121:AOROLT]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Karee E., and Rakes, Glenda C.. 2015. Exploring online graduate students' responses to online self-regulation training. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 13(4):1. Online: http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v13/n4/1.html.Google Scholar
Ertmer, Peggy A., and Newby, Timothy J.. 1996. The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science 24. 1–24. DOI: 10.1007/BF00156001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, John H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34(10). 906–11. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox-Cardamone, Lee, and Rue, Scarlett. 2003. Students' responses to active-learning strategies: An examination of small-group and whole-group discussion. Research for Educational Reform 8(3). 3–15.Google Scholar
Georghiades, Petros. 2000. Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research 42(2). 119–39. DOI: 10.1080/001318800363773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Kathleen. 1999. Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36. 1085–1109. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10/3C1085::AID-TEA3/3E3.0.CO;2-D.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Jay R., and Weimer, Maryellen. 2015. Discussion in the college classroom: Getting your students engaged and participating in person and online. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kramarski, Bracha, and Mevarech, Zemira R.. 2003. Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal 40(1). 281–310. DOI: 10.3102/2F00028312040001281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramarski, Bracha, Mevarech, Zemira R.; and Arami, Marsel. 2002. The effect of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics 49(2). 225–50. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016282811724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad (ed.) 2011. Teaching linguistics: Reflections on practice. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Kurfiss, Joanne Gainen. 1988. Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. (ASHE/ERIC higher education report 2.) Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED304041.Google Scholar
Lai, Emily R. 2011. Metacognition: A literature review. Pearson Research Report. Online: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdf.Google Scholar
Livingston, Jennifer A. 2003. Metacognition: An overview. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED474273.) Online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474273.Google Scholar
Madix, Christina, and Oxley, Judith. 2009. What are graduate students really thinking?: A metacognitive example. Perspectives on Administration and Supervision 19(3). 114–19. DOI: 10.1044/aas19.3.114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Jennifer A. 2020. Pandemic metacognition: Distance learning in a crisis. Improve with Metacognition, April 16, 2020. Online: https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/pandemic-metacognition/.Google Scholar
Negretti, Raffaella. 2012. Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication 29(2). 142–79. DOI: 10.1177/2F0741088312438529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, Allen, and Simon, Herbert A.. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond S., Perkins, David N.; and Smith, Edward E.. 1985. The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oxford, Rebecca, and Cohen, Andrew. 1992. Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning 3. 1–35.Google Scholar
Pejcinovic, Branimir, Duncan, Donald D.; and Holtzman, Melinda. 2019. Metacognition: Are graduate students different from freshmen? Paper presented at ASEE PNW Section Conference, Corvallis, OR. Online: https://peer.asee.org/31886.Google Scholar
Pintrich, Paul R. 2002. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice 41(4). 219–25. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santelmann, Lynn M., Stevens, Dannelle D.; and Martin, Staci B.. 2018. Fostering master's students' metacognition and self-regulation practices for research writing. College Teaching 66(3). 111–23. DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2018.1446898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schraw, Gregory. 1998. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science 26. 113–25. DOI: 10.1023/A:1003044231033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schraw, Gregory, Crippen, Kent J.; and Hartley, Kendall. 2006. Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education 36. 111–39. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffe, Leslie P., and Gale, Jerry (eds.) 1995. Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tanner, Kimberly D. 2012. Promoting student metacognition. CBE—Life Sciences Education 11(2). 113–20. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Someren, Maarten W., Barnard, Yvonne F.; and Sandberg, Jacobijn A. C.. 1994. The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
White, Richard T., and Gunstone, Richard F.. 1989. Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education 11(5). 577–86. DOI: 10.1080/0950069890110509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zohar, Anat, and Barzilai, Sarit. 2013. A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education 49(2). 121–69. DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2013.847261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zohar, Anat, and David, Adi Ben. 2009. Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition Learning 4. 177–95. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-009-9044-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zohar, Anat, and Peled, Bracha. 2008. The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low and high achieving students. Learning and Instruction 18(4). 337–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar