Creative Education
2012. Vol.3, Special Issue, 829-839
Published Online October 2012 in SciRes (
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 829
Constructing a Metacognitive Knowledge Framework for
Post-Secondary EFL Reading Teachers’ Summarizing Strategies
Instruction with Expository Text: A Case Study, Phase I
Wei Xu1, James Carifio2, Lorraine Dagostino2
1College of International Education, Shanghai International Studies U ni v e rsity, Shanghai, China
2School of Education, Univers it y of Massachusetts, Lowell, USA
Received July 2nd, 2012; revised Au gust 5th, 2012; accepted Augus t 1 7th, 2012
This article reports on the first phase of a case study done by a Chinese post-secondary EFL reading
teacher on her exploratory inquiry into the metacognitive teaching knowledge needed by EFL Reading
teachers to teach summarizing strategies with expository text to EFL undergraduates. Guided by a for-
malized model of instructional materials development, Phase I was an exploring process, starting from
constructing a general metacognitive knowledge framework and proceeding to elaborate the detailed
framework of the actual metacognitive knowledge needed by EFL reading teachers as to summarizing
strategies instruction with expository text. The results of phase I were summarized in a monograph di-
rected at teaching post-secondary EFL Reading teachers the framework and actual metacognitive know-
ledge they needed to know. This monograph was positively reviewed by a cross-sectional panel of 6 ex-
perts. This article concludes with a critical reflection on the methodology and value of this metacognitive
knowledge exploration.
Keywords: Metacognition; Metacognitive Knowledge; Theory Creation; Instructional Materials
Development; English as a Foreign Language; Teacher Training
Since Flavell’s (1979) landmark article on metacognition,
and his seminal definition of metacognition as “knowledge and
cognition about cognitive phenomena” (p. 906), Flavell’s fuzzy
concept of metacognition has inspired an increasing number of
researchers to elaborate its component parts and explore its
applications to educational practice across all domains. In par-
ticular, since Flavell (1979) initially tied the term, metacogni-
tion, through the phrase “cognitive monitoring”, to self-regu-
lated learning, it has been established that “metacognition is a
[necessary but not sufficient] key to successful learning” (Grif-
fith & Ruan, 2005: p. 16). Therefore, as facilitators and pro-
moters of students’ success in learning, teachers need to under-
stand, both of their own and their students’ metacognition.
Flavell’s (1979) metacognition model incorporates metacog-
nitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences. Metacogni-
tive knowledge refers to the combinations of information
around three knowledge variables (i.e., self, task, and strate-
gies), while metacognitive experiences are “items of metacog-
nitive knowledge that have entered consciousness” (p. 908).
Built on Flavell’s model, past research has succeeded in por-
traying the role of metacognition in successful reading (e.g.,
Dagostino & Carifio, 1994a, 1994b; Brown et al., 1981; Brown,
1985; Baker & Brown, 1984), or in Pressley’s (2002) popular
term and definitions of what “the metacognitively sophisticated
reader” is. It is now agreed that the metacognitively sophisti-
cated readers not only have the knowledge of cognition, that is,
the knowledge about their “own cognitive resources, the read-
ing task, and the compatibility between the two”, but are capa-
ble of regulating their own cognition, namely, having “a regu-
latory mechanism”, such as “the deployment of a remedy”, to
solve comprehension problems during reading (Griffith & Ruan,
2005: p. 7).
Many studies have also been conducted on how teachers can
promote students’ metacognition during reading. For example,
some instructional methods have been demonstrated to effec-
tively develop self-regulated reading, such as Reciprocal
Teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984), Think-Alouds (Baumann,
Jones, & Seiferrt-Kessell, 1993; Baker, 2002; Massey, 2003;
Block & Israel, 2004; Israel & Massey, 2005), and Question-
Answer Relationships (Raphael, 1986). With these advances in
both metacognition theory and its application to the field of
literacy, reading teachers have been called upon to promote
students’ metacognitive development in their reading instruc-
tion (Pressley, 2002). However, this directive or recommenda-
tion is a challenging task for reading teachers, especially when
limited research in either English-speaking countries (e.g., the
United States) or non-Engli sh-speaking countries, such as China,
exists on reading teachers’ own metacognitive skills and de-
As previously stated, Pressley (2002) proposed the popular
term (and buzz word) of “the metacognitively sophisticated
reading teacher,” and hypothesized that the metacognitively
sophisticated reading teacher should know “what good readers
know, can use, and do use decoding and comprehension strate-
gies when they are needed” (p. 305), and that “the comprehend-
sion strategies used by good comprehenders can be taught,
beginning with teacher explanations and modeling of the
strategies followed by scaffolded student practice of compre-
hension strategies during reading” (p. 306). Hartman (2001)
further clarified the general idea of “teaching metacognitively”
by distinguishing teaching with metacognition from teaching
for metacognition. Teaching with metacognition refers to tea-
chers’ thinking about their own thinking regarding their teach-
ing before, during, and after conducting lessons to increase
instructional effectiveness. Teaching for metacognition indi-
cates that “teachers think about how their instruction will acti-
vate and develop their students’ metacognition, or think about
their own thinking as learners” (Hartman, 2001: p. 149). Given
this distinction, what Pressley emphasized is that the metacog-
nitively sophisticated reading teacher should teach for meta-
cognition. Nevertheless, no matter whether teaching with or for
metacognition, teachers often base their decisions, consciously
or unconsciously, on their metacognitive knowledge of using
some optional and optimal instructional methods to teach some-
thing to someone. Researchers have emphasized that metacog-
nitive knowledge is a basis for particular metacognitive experi-
ences (Flavell, 1979; Garner, 1987). Therefore, it is worthwhile
to explore what the metacognitively sophisticated reading
teacher should know; that is, what metacognitive knowledge
reading teachers should have in order to be able to teach with
metacognition and know when, how and whether or not to pro-
mote students’ metacognition during reading. As previously
stated, specific answers to the aforementioned questions are not
currently available in the research literature and just better for-
mulating these questions and finding initial tentative answers
would be a great step forward in this area. Further, given that so
little was specifically known, a case study research approach
was the best strategy to both explore and answer these ques-
tions and the evolutions of initial tentative answers given the
open ended and evolving nature of the case study method.
This article reports the design and the first phase of a case
study of a Chinese post-secondary EFL reading teacher’s ex-
ploration of metacognition and metacognitive knowledge as
both pertained specifically to defining and elucidating the meta-
cognitive skills and knowledge EFL reading teachers needed to
teach summarizing strategies with expository text to EFL un-
dergraduates. Phase I of this case study was finding, adapting
and utilizing a formal and validated model for creating a mono-
graph (referred to as The Monograph in the following) that
documented and formally codified the results and products of
the case study done. Part of this codification was documenting
the researcher’s construction of a general metacognitive know-
ledge framework and the elaboration of that framework in
terms of what exactly a post-secondary EFL reading teacher’s
metacognitive knowledge consists of as to teaching a specific
reading strategy (summarizing) with a specific genre of text
(expository text) in order to teach with metacognition to a cer-
tain group of students (Chinese EFL undergraduates). Thus,
the focus of this article is on the design of the case study and on
the process and product (The Monograph) of the metacognitive
knowledge exploration during Phase I, rather than the method,
process and findings of the product validation in Phase II. The
general cognitive and information processing model and theory
of learning used in this case study is detailed and summarized
by Carifio (2005).
Design of the Case Study
As previously stated, this case study aimed to develop and
validate a monograph to enrich post-secondary EFL reading
teacher’s metacognitive knowledge of teaching summarizing
strategies with expository text to Chinese undergraduates. This
exploration of metacognitive knowledge, therefore, requires
comprehensive literature reviews and content evaluation related
to such diverse areas of research as metacognition, text com-
prehension, reading strategies instruction, TESOL and so on.
This type of educational research falls within the academic
activities conceptualized as purposive social actions, the results
of which involve both anticipated and unanticipated findings
and outcomes of varying degree during the process of inquiry
(Perla & Carifio, 2011; Merton, 1936). That is to say, the proc-
ess of developing and validating The Monograph might yield
certain theoretical frameworks, syntheses, ideas and views that
are not known beforehand besides those expected and justified
for and by defined purposes in the specific research contexts.
To parameterize and gauge emergent unanticipated findings,
together with anticipated ones during the course of this aca-
demic and theoretical exploration, a general structured model
and theory was applied to the design of this case study.
Base of the Research Design: A Formalized Model
The model applied to the research design was a formalized
model of theory or construct creation and instructional materi-
als development developed by Carifio (1975, 1977) and further
elaborated by Perla (2006) and Perla and Carifio (2011). Figure
1 shows a simplified version of Carifio-Perla model. There are
three macro components to the model (i.e., the CHQKB, ARCs
and VFTE in Figure 1). The acronym CHQKB in Box “A” in
Figure 1 stands for “Critical & High Quality Knowledge Base”
that is “selected based on a critical selection criterion” and
represents “the content that will be translated into instructional
materials” or what is referred to as Appropriate Representations
and Communications or ARCs (Perla & Carifio, 2011: p. 95).
To derive a CHQKB is the first step of any model used for
conducting most kinds of inquiry. A CHQKB can be estab-
lished and refined from the relevant literature for a field, disci-
pline or topic by data mining theory, processes and models
(Perla & Carifio, 2011). As previously stated, the ARCs in Box
“B” in Figure 1 represent “Appropriate Representations and
Communications” that “include but are not limited to instruc-
tional materials such as written instructional texts, instructor’s
manuals, laboratory exercises, charts and diagrams.” Some
form of rationale and justification of the initial selection of the
representations and communications is required. From his in-
quiry into developing instructional materials in the domain of
the nature of science, Perla pointed out that the selection proc-
ess can be informed by theories that “include but are not limited
to theories of learning, instruction, and information processing
as well as philosophical considerations related to the nature of
the material …” (Perla & Carifio, 2011: p. 95). The VFTE
component in Box “C” in Figure 1 stands for “Validation and
Field Testing for Effectiveness,” the process of which “involves
statistical psychometric procedures and principles used to gen-
erate information and data that address the actual (experimental)
appropriateness and validity of a selected instructional repre-
sentation and communication for a stipulated group” (Perla &
Carifio, 2011: p. 95).
In this macro model framework, micro models are also part
of each component including 1) data mining theories to facili-
tate the establishment, screening and refinement of what con- ,
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 831
Figure 1.
A simplified version of Carifio-Perla Model (2011) for instructional materials development. CHQKB =
Critical and high quality knowledge Base; ARC = Appropriate representations and communications;
VFTE = Validated and field-tested fo r effectiveness. See original figures in Perla and Carifio (2011).
stitutes appropriate and high quality academic materials; 2)
theories to justify the selection of the representations and
communications; and 3) testing procedures and principles to
measure “content and construct validity, logical validity, eco-
logical validity, internal and external validity and instrument or
treatment reliability” (Perla & Carifio, 2011: p. 96).
the anomalies) that are critically important as both are typically
what lead to model, theory, view and belief modifications,
revisions and changes. The development process, therefore, is
actually dynamic, and most of the time, impacted by some
important but unexpected findings and events that are “both
directly and indirectly related to developing and/or validating
instructional materials outside the scope of expectation and
execution, or at least exist along the periphery of the scope of
expectation and execution” (Perla & Carifio, 2011: p. 101). As
shown in the “unexpected” area in Figure 1, two types of un-
expected findings, Type 1 and Type 2, are postulated by Perla
and Carifio (2011), which are associated with the difficulties,
frustrations, problems and insights that occur respectively in
execution space A and B. Type 1 unexpected findings are
logical, reasoning-related and academic in character, whereas
Type 2 unanticipated findings are observational and evidence-
based in character and any inquiry may have many Type 1 and
Type 2 unanticipated findings associated with it as the two
types are not mutually exclusive and independent in character
as well as having “impeccable” logic or reasoning does not
mean that one cannot and will not have unanticipated contra-
dictory observations or evidence that indicates that one’s logic
was not as “impeccable’ as one initially thought. The Carifio-
Perla model is actually an information processing model of
inquiry processes and results that has several different meta-
cognitive elements built into it. Also, the Carifio-Perla model
has been successfully used and validated in over a dozen re-
search and development efforts and projects in several different
areas and fields (see Perla & Carifio, 2011, for further details
on these last two points).
This instructional materials development model, therefore,
begins with the development of a comprehensive and high
quality knowledge base (i.e., the CHQKB) in a particular do-
main, the key and critical features of which are then translated
into appropriate instructional materials (ARCs) for a particular
audience or set of audiences. Finally, the ARCs should be
Validated and Field-Tested for Effectiveness (VFTE), “ulti-
mately leading to high quality Instructional Materials that are
subject to revisions and modifications” (Perla & Carifio, 2011:
p. 100). Between the macro-model elements, namely, CHQKB,
ARCs and VFTE, is the execution space that “represents the
researcher’s execution and operationalization of one macro
model component (e.g., the CHQKB) to a sufficiently devel-
oped state to get to the next macro model component (e.g.,
ARC)” and so on to actual validation and field testing (Perla &
Carifio, 2011: p. 102). As shown in Figure 1, execution space
A is where the process of translating the CHQKB into ARCs
begins and ends when acceptable ARCs have been generated.
And the validation and field-testing of the ARCs is conducted
in execution space B. While executing the research, it is in the
execution spaces that the researcher “encounters the practical
limitations, difficulties, frustrations and insights of going from
theory to practice or from theory to product” (Perla & Carifio,
2011: p. 102), leading to some unexpected and unanticipated
results and findings more often than not.
Therefore, the process of developing any academic materials
is far from linear and ideal. Even when “some things” go “as
expected,” as shown in the “expected” area from points A to B
to C in Figure 1, the expected findings or results are only those
outcomes and events “that are perceived directly applicable,
useful, or related to the research (within the scope of expec-
tation and execution)” as opposed to all of the outcomes and
events that may have occurred which includes the unexpected
outcomes and events that are quite often (foolishly) ignored by
researchers, developers and daily practitioners (Perla & Carifio,
2011: p. 101). It is these unexpected outcomes and events (i.e.,
Design of the Research: A Tw o -Phase Case Study
Using the Carifio-Perla’s model, this study was designed to
consist of two phases. As previously stated, the primary focus
of this research was to develop and validate The Monograph
which synthesized post-secondary ESL/EFL reading teachers’
metacognitive knowledge of teaching summarizing strategies
with expository text. Thus, Phase I focused on the development
of The Monograph, and Phase II on its validation. Phase I, the
focus of this article, consisted of the generation of a theoretical
framework outline of metacognitive knowledge, the elaboration
of the framework outline for post-secondary ESL/EFL reading
teachers as to teaching summarizing strategies with expository
text, and then the actual development and writing of the eight
chapters of The Monograph.
The following sections then depict the execution of Phase I
study, which involves execution space A as described in Cari-
fio-Perla Model, where the research execution process begins
with the identification of a Critical and High Quality Knowl-
edge Base (CHQKB) for the domain of metacognitive knowl-
edge as to summarizing strategies and instructional techniques
for expository text that promote metacognitive development
and then proceeds to the translating of the CHQKB into Appro-
priate Representations and Communications (ARCs), namely,
The Monograph in this study, for post-secondary EFL reading
teachers. As pointed out by Perla and Carifio (2011), this re-
search process is nonlinear and highly dynamic, and findings,
both anticipated and unanticipated, keep emerging, along with
difficulties, frustrations and insights the researcher encountered.
The most important insight obtained in this case study oc-
curred during the process of identifying and reviewing school-
arly and nonscholarly literature related to metacognitive know-
ledge. That is, since metacognition is a fuzzy concept, before
delving into the details of what consists of reading teachers’
metacognitive knowledge of the above-mentioned instructional
task, the researcher realized that a general metacognitive know-
ledge framework needs to be conceptualized and constructed to
guide the translating of the CHQKB into ARCs (i.e., The
Monograph) as such a framework did not exist nor was it par-
ticularly explicit in any of the scholarly and non-scholarly
source that were of sufficient quality to be included in the
CHQKB. Therefore, the needed metacognitive knowledge
framework constructed was the first unexpected finding in this
study. Within the execution space A from the CHQKB to the
ARCs for the Phase I study, research focused first on the con-
ceptualization and construction of a general metacognitive
knowledge framework, and then on the elaboration of the
framework in terms of the specific metacognitive skills and
knowledge EFL Reading teachers needed to teach summarizing
strategies with expository text to EFL undergraduates, both of
which constituted the main content of The Monograph the first
order targeted outcome for this study. Constructing and then
particularizing this needed framework was the chief unantici-
pated road block and major problem faced in this study and it
required a comprehensive inductive-deductive reasoning and
exploratory process to successfully address, which will be dis-
cussed next.
Constructing a General Metacognitive
Knowledge Framework
The general metacognitive knowledge framework conceptu-
alized and constructed was inductively derived from Flavell’s
metacognitive knowledge model, and other researchers’ cate-
gorization of cognitive knowledge.
Flavell’s Conceptualization of Metacognitive
Flavell (1979) characterized metacognitive knowledge as
stored world knowledge that “has to do with people as cogni-
tive creatures and with their diverse cognitive tasks, goals, ac-
tions, and experiences” (p. 906) and he conceptualized his gen-
eral definition into three macro variables—person, task, and
strategy variables (as mentioned earlier). Since Flavell’s (1979)
seminal work the notion of metacognition has been applied to
learning across content areas. Using Flavell’s model of meta-
cognition Brown (1985) and Baker and Brown (1984) applied
the concept to the area of reading comprehension instruction
and discussed the relations between metacognition and reading
comprehension. Thus, it is more than reasonable to take Flav-
ell’s model of metacognitive knowledge as a theoretical base to
investigate the metacognitive knowledge of a particular group
of reading teachers and on a particular task in reading compre-
hension instruction.
Since this study was focused on a particular group—Chinese
post-secondary EFL reading teachers, their metacognitive
knowledge of person variables must involve their knowledge or
belief about their own nature as EFL teachers, as well as the
nature of their students (i.e., EFL learners) who are learning to
read and/or reading to learn in English. The complexity and
complications of discussing this aspect of metacognitive know-
ledge, namely, person variables, is undoubtedly beyond the
scope of this study. Therefore, the focus of this study was only
on the discussion of task variables and strategy variables of
metacognitive knowledge.
Metacognitive knowledge of task variables includes know-
ledge about the nature of the task as well as the types of proc-
essing demands they place upon the individual. What a person
knows about task variables is mostly related to the relative dif-
ficulty of the tasks (Garner, 1987: p. 17). For this study, task
variables were related to the teaching task—summarizing
strategies with expository text to be done by EFL undergradu-
ates (a metacognitive skill and task to be done by the EFL un-
dergraduate reader) as well as the target task itself (i.e., suc-
cessfully reading and understanding the expository text). For
example, the reading teacher might (meta-cognitively) know
that expository text is usually more difficult to understand than
narrative text, which in turn leads to considerations of strategies
that might be used by the EFL undergraduate reader (person
variable) to read and understand the expository text success-
fully. Metacognitive knowledge about strategy variables, there
fore, would also include ways of conducting teacher training
instruction effectively with the EFL teacher so that their think-
ing and reasoning about teaching expository reading to EFL
undergraduates would include consideration and selection of
effective strategies (i.e., appropriate pedagogical knowledge).
This later type of metacognitive knowledge about strategy vari-
ables for successfully teaching EFL teachers would be peda-
gogical knowledge about teaching pedagogical knowledge or
metacognitive pedagogical knowledge. Such knowledge would
include both cognitive and metacognitive strategies, as well as
information about when and where it is appropriate to use those
strategies as knowledge to be learned by the EFL teacher and
knowledge to be taught by the EFL teacher trainer. For instance,
scanning an article before reading it in detail is one important
cognitive strategy, while reminding oneself to check one’s
comprehension of a text after reading and then actually doing
this activity is treated as a metacognitive strategy. This latter
example can be discussed as a learning acquisition task for the
EFL teacher, a learning usage or application task for the EFL
teacher, and also as a teaching strategy task for the EFL teacher
or the trainer of EFL teachers. Specifying which of these three
variants of the general concept or category of metacognitive
strategies is actually being focused upon and discussed in a
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
particular context, application or exegesis. This is a needed and
helpful clarification, modification, and change that were re-
quired to Flavell’s model to make it more practical and useful
in the current and other contexts. This same type of clarification
and modification was needed for Flavell’s person and task
macro variables as well.
Even with these clarifications and modifications of Flavell’s
view of metacognitive knowledge in terms of person, task and
strategy variables, it was still difficult to discuss metacognitive
knowledge in terms of concrete specifics and specific situations.
Therefore, other researchers’ analyses of the nature and catego-
ries of knowledge since Flavell’s (1979) seminal work were
Other Researchers’ C onceptu alization of
Metacognitive Knowledge
Paris, Lipson, and Wixson (1994) described the “what”,
“how”, “when”, “where”, and “why” of metacognition. The
“what”, “how”, “when”, “where”, and “why” of knowledge,
cognition, metacognition and metacognitive knowledge are
significant and the focus of the information-processing para-
digm of learning which conceptualizes learning as “the flow of
information in and out of a system of mental structures”
(Hacker, 1998: p. 5). This description of the nature of knowl-
edge and learning is echoed in the categorization of knowledge
structures by cognitive psychologists (e.g., Squire, 1987) when
analyzing the nature of human memory where such knowledge
and processes reside and their machines form analogs in the
areas of artificial intelligence and knowledge engineering. Most
theorists in this paradigm assume that “people have records
corresponding to four types of knowledge: declarative, proce-
dural, conceptual, and episodic [stored in memory]” (see review
by Byrnes, 2001: p. 45).
Declarative knowledge or “knowing that/what” is “a compi-
lation of facts,” while procedural knowledge or “‘knowing
how” is “a compilation of linear action sequence that people
perform to attain goals” (Byrnes, 2001: p. 29). Thus, knowing
certain procedures of summarizing an article belongs to decla-
rative knowledge, while being actually able to summarize the
article is procedural knowledge. One’s conceptual knowledge,
known as “knowing why,” is stated as a form of representation
that reflects ones’ understanding of his/her declarative and pro-
cedural knowledge (Byrnes, 2001: p. 45). A person with con-
ceptual knowledge can explain accurately why certain declara-
tive facts are true or false, or why certain procedures work or
fail as they do. One’s episodic knowledge refers to “knowing
when and where,” which represents “the source of the informa-
tion” in one’s memory: 1) Where a person was when something
happened to him/her (e.g., one’s first driving test); and 2) when
this event took place in one’s life (e.g., in the October of 2004).
Clearly, knowing a fact (e.g., that the place Ground Zero is
related to 9/11) differs from knowing how a person came to
know the fact (e.g., hearing it on TV, being informed by a
teacher, or reading it in a magazine).
Other cognitive psychologists have proposed different know-
ledge (and memory) types as well. For example, in the early
1980s psychologist Endel Tulving grouped declarative and
conceptual knowledge under the category of semantic memory,
which is “associated with language skills (e.g., reading, writing,
comprehending)” (Byrnes, 2001: p. 45). However, no matter
what terms are used to categorize knowledge (or in cognitive
psychologists’ term, memory) or how knowledge is categorized,
the discussions of its nature or contents always involve the
“what,” “how”, “when,” “where,” and “why” of the information.
In fact, many educational researchers have grouped the “when,”
“where,” and “why” knowledge together to form the category
of “conditional knowledge” while discussing metacognition
since 1980s (see Baker, 1989; Garner, 1987, 1990; Glaser &
Chi, 1988; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Reynolds,
1992; Schneider & Pressley, 1989). In studies on reading com-
prehension instruction, these three categories, that is, declara-
tive, procedural, and conditional knowledge, are commonly
used to discuss metacognitive knowledge in reading and read-
ing instruction (Reynolds, 1992; Jones, 2007). These views and
categories were a great improvement on Flavell’s metacogni-
tive knowledge model and a very useful way to supplement
Flavell’s views as well as easier to work with and use practi-
Thus, for this study, these three categories of knowledge,
namely, declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge
became the second and cross-indexing dimension of conceptu-
alizing metacognitive knowledge. Moreover, since metacogni-
tive knowledge is considered as second-level knowledge ap-
plied to plan, monitor, and evaluate the process of cognitive
enterprises, these three knowledge categories used at the meta-
cognitive level are then termed as metacognitive declarative,
procedural, and conditional knowledge.
To summarize and codify the above-discussed taxonomy of
metacognitive knowledge, a two-dimensional matrix was de-
signed to integrate Flavell’s task and strategy variables with the
three categories of metacognitive declarative, procedural, and
conditional knowledge (Table 1).
From Table 1, one can see that Flavell’s one dimensional
view of metacognitive knowledge (i.e., task variables and stra-
tegy variables) can be analyzed respectively from the other
dimension of metacognitive knowledge, namely, declarative,
procedural, and conditional knowledge, and vice versa. Ac-
cording to this inductively derived Metacognitive Knowledge
Framework (MKF), any task variables and strategy variables
can then be discussed from the six aspects numbered “1” to “6”
in Table 1. For the teaching task of this study—teaching sum-
marizing strategies with expository text to EFL undergraduates,
and from the perspective of post-secondary EFL reading teach-
ers, their metacognitive knowledge could thus be approached in
six areas listed in Table 2.
According to Table 2, to elaborate this MKF in terms of
post-secondary EFL reading teachers’ summarizing strategies
instruction with expository text (the general term “reading
teacher” is used hereafter for conciseness), four questions were
raised respectively from the dimension of declarative know-
ledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge as
Table 1.
A two-dimentional matrix of metacognitive knowledge framework (mkf).
Metacogniti ve Knowledge
Categories Task
Variables Strategy
Declarative Knowledge 1 2
Procedural Knowledge 3 4
Conditional Knowle d ge 5 6
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 833
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Table 2.
A two-dimentional matrix of M K F f o r po s t - s e c o n da r y EFL reading teachers’ teaching summarizing strategies with expository text.
Metacognitive Knowledge C ategoriesTask Variables Strategy Varia bles
Declarative Knowledge 1. Knowing what summ arizing strategies
instruction with expository text consists of
2. Knowing what instructional s t r ategies/approaches of teaching
summarizing stra tegies with expo sitory text they have in their
knowledge repertoire, and what these strategies entail
Procedural Knowledge 3. Knowing how to u se the above declarativ e
knowledge to conduct their teaching 4. Knowing how to appl y those instructional
strategies/approaches available to them in their teaching
Conditional Knowledge
5. Knowing w h y, when and where to use the above
declarat ive and procedural knowl edge of
summarizing strategies instruction with exposit ory
text in their tea ching
6. Knowing why, when and where to use the above declarative
and procedural knowledge of instructional strate g i es available in
their teaching
What do reading teachers know about the nature of teaching
summarizing strategies with expository text as well as the
type of teaching demands that will place upon them?
What do reading teachers know about the instructional
strategies/approaches that they have in their knowledge
repertoire to teach summarizing strategies with expository
text, and what these strategies/approaches entail?
What do reading teachers know about how to apply to their
teaching their declarative knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of
the nature, teaching demands and instructional strategies/
approaches) of summarizing strategies instruction with ex-
pository text? And,
What do reading teachers know about why, when, and
where the preceding declarative and procedural knowledge
of summarizing instruction with expository text as well as
available instructional strategies can work effectively in
their teaching?
Clearly, the process of answering these questions is the pro-
cess of elaborating the MKF generated above for a particular
teaching context and particular set of teaching learning tasks
and situations. The process of developing and elaborating an-
swers to the four key questions stated above is briefly discussed
in the next section.
Elaborating the Constructed Metacognitive
Knowledge Framework (MKF)
To explore answers to the above questions, a distinction be-
tween “knowledge for teachers” and “knowledge of teachers”
needs to be made first. The two terms were put forward by
Fenstermacher (1994) with “knowledge for teachers” referring
to formal knowledge that is primarily known and produced by
researchers for teachers rather than practical knowledge,
namely, “knowledge of teachers” that is principally known and
generated by teachers themselves as a result of their experience
as teachers and their reflections on those experiences. To know
“knowledge of teachers”, surveys and on-site observations
should be conducted on large samples of targeted group. This
approach was not adopted in this study. The focus of elaborat-
ing the MKF in this study was on the metacognitive knowledge
for reading teachers. Specifically, the sources of this elabora-
tion were based on the syntheses and analyses of various re-
searchers’ research and studies on areas related to the current
topic, i.e., reading teachers’ metacognitive knowledge of sum-
marizing strategies instruction with expository text to EFL un-
dergraduates. The relevant areas examined to answer these
questions included metacognitive knowledge, text comprehen-
sion models, comprehension strategies instruction, summariz-
ing instruction, expository text comprehension, and so on. The
closely connected scholarly and nonscholarly literature for the
above areas was then established, screened, weeded and refined
into a CHQKB for the metacognitive knowledge domain iden-
tified in this study. The following section, therefore, is about
how the sources of the elaboration (i.e., the CHQKB) were
identified, what the general features are of the completed
monograph which is the ARCs developed for this study ac-
cording to Carifio-Perla Model (2011), and how the content
outline of The Monograph was finalized.
The Identification of the Critical and High Quality
Knowledge Base
The previous four questions served as focused research ques-
tions, guiding the pursuit of relevant material to form the
CHQKB of metacognitive knowledge for post-secondary EFL
reading teachers in terms of summarizing strategies instruction
with expository text.
Since little literature directly related to this focused topic
came up from various database searches (e.g., ProQuest, EB-
SCOhost, SAGE, JSTOR), conceptual parameters were reset to
locate the relevant research reports, journal articles, scholarly
books, presented papers, dissertations and so on to ensure a
systematic search of the universe of possible relevant docu-
ments. The conceptual parameters consisted of such research
areas as teachers’ metacognitive knowledge development, read-
ing strategies instruction, summarization, and expository text.
These four conceptual parameters are represented with num-
bers from 1 to 4 respectively in Figure 2. The letter A in the
center of the figure indicates the combined answers to the pre-
vious four focused questions, which are actually a synthesized
CHQKB of metacognitive knowledge consistent with the meta-
cognitive knowledge framework derived for this study. Rele-
vant sources were then located with key terms and the different
combinations of the key terms, in the previously-mentioned
four areas. Some key terms used to search relevant research
evidence are listed in Table 3 in terms of the above four re-
search areas.
Moreover, to ensure the “content validity” of both the meta-
cognitive knowledge base, upon which the majority of The
Monograph was based, and The Monograph itself, selection
criteria for including, reviewing, evaluating, and closely ana-
lyzing relevant literature were also specified. Since there was
no easy way to determine the current validity of the documents
finally selected, the views and opinions of experts, together
with their citation frequencies, in the area of metacognition,
cognition, learning theory and reading comprehension instruc-
Table 3.
Key terms for database search.
1 2 3 4
Research Area Teachers’ meta cognitive
knowledge de velopment Reading strategies
instruction Summariza tion Expository text instruction
Key Terms
Teachers’ knowledge base
Metacognitive knowl edge; rea ding
teachers’ knowledge base; reading
teachers’ metacognition; reading
teachers’ professional
developme nt, etc.
Reading models reading
instruction; teaching reading
strategies; summarizing
strategies instruction;
post-secondary EFL/ESL
education/instruction, etc.
Summarizing strategies;
summarizing proced u res;
teaching summarization;
summarization in
EFL/ESL education, etc.
The nature of expository text;
expository text structure;
teaching expository text;
expository text comprehensio n ;
Summarizing expository text,
4 A
Figure 2.
Conceptual parameters for source iden-
tification to elaborate the Metacognitive
Knowledge Framework (MKF). 1 = tea-
chers’ metacognitive knowledge devel-
opment; 2 = reading strategies instruct-
tion; 3 = summarization; 4 = expository
text; A = synthesized base of metacog-
nitive knowledge.
tion were also included in the CHQKB and its critical analyses.
Further, to ensure that the views, opinions, and models consid-
ered and included in The Monograph reflected the specific
purpose of this study, triangulation between domains and expert
opinions was done to weigh and select sources.
Because it was quite tentative and novel to synthesize a
metacognitive knowledge base from several areas and because
the concept “metacognition” itself has been a “fuzzy” one, the
syntheses were thus largely based on the researcher’s own un-
derstanding. This fact is also why panels of expert reviewers
were convened during the second phase of the study to review
and evaluate The Monograph independently, and to cross-vali-
date (or not validate) the various decisions and selections made
in the development of the work. This reviewing process pro-
vided some independent empirical information about the con-
tent of The Monograph so as to validate its content validity.
This kind of research design, initiated by Carifio (1975, 1977)
has been done successively and successfully by Perla (2006),
Erikson (2006), Kwong (2008) and several other researchers
before them.
Using the key search terms and selection criteria described
above, research sources/evidences resulting from this identifi-
cation process was put together, organized, analyzed and syn-
thesized to be the content of The Monograph. For this study,
the priority of choosing research evidence was given to the area
of EFL education. If there was not any, then sources in ESL
education would be considered, or even those from the field of
teaching English as a native language. This decision was made
guided by the belief that some educational principles would be
universal no matter what instructional setting there is. More-
over, The Monograph itself would go through a reviewing
process for validation upon its completion which would quality
control all guiding beliefs and decisions one way or the other.
Thus, it was reasonable to consider studies against a backdrop
of ESL or mainstream English teaching as part of the research
evidence for the synthesis of a metacognitive knowledge base
presented and elucidated in The Monograph as there was an
independent expert panel check and review on doing so.
The Finalization of the Content of the Monograph
As depicted in Carifio-Perla Model (2011), the finalization of
the content outline and the content of The Monograph (i.e., the
ARCs for this study) was an iterative, spiral and dynamic proc-
ess because new ideas kept evolving with each addition of dif-
ferent research evidences and each revision of previous analy-
ses and syntheses. Nevertheless, the primary audience of The
Monograph was always kept in mind. They are in-service post-
secondary EFL reading teachers, whose students speak English
as a foreign language.
The Monograph in its final pre-expert-panel-review form
was eight chapters with the first seven chapters laying out a
theoretical background for post-secondary EFL reading teach-
ers about what metacognitive knowledge of summarizing
strategies instruction with expository text entails, and the last
chapter providing a scenario of applying the metacognitive
knowledge to the design of summarizing strategies instruction.
The layout of the content of The Monograph was basically
designed as the following:
Each chapter in The Monograph started with the key objec-
tives of the chapter followed by the elaboration of a list of
key terms, principles, facts and opinions.
Tables, charts, figures and other graphics were used to
support the explanations in all chapters.
When appropriate, a list of references was provided beyond
those cited in each chapter or for The Monograph in general.
These references included further reading, useful websites,
available resources and available instructional activities.
The general reading level of the text was appropriate for
post-secondary EFL reading teachers since it was written by the
researcher who was once a post-secondary EFL teacher. The
appropriateness of the reading level and the quality of the writ-
ing of the text in The Monograph was also confirmed by the
independent review panel.
The finalized content for the version of The Monograph re-
viewed in phase II of the study had eight chapters. Based on an
overview of past research on teachers’ professional knowledge
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 835
and metacognitive knowledge, Chapter 1 outlined and summa-
rized the focus of the monograph. Chapter 2 presented the gen-
eral Metacognitive Knowledge Framework (MKF) for the study
after a thorough analysis of other researchers’ conceptualization
of “metacognition” and “metacognitive knowledge”. In Chapter
3, to support the constituents of MKF, a reading model was
presented and elaborated to help reading teachers better under-
stand the nature and process of summarizing complex text and
expository text comprehension at the post-secondary level. To
further elaborate the theoretical MKF for reading teachers on
teaching summarizing strategies in ESL/EFL instructional con-
texts, an instructional model focused on maximizing compre-
hension along with a range of comprehension improving strate-
gies is synthesized in Chapter 4 to meet the particular needs of
ESL/EFL learners, who are greatly different from mainstream
students in the United States. Chapter 5 explores the constructs
and teaching demands of summarizing strategies instruction
with expository text, which comprises the metacognitive de-
clarative knowledge of task variables in MKF. The specifics
and details of teaching summarizing strategies with expository
text (Category 2 in the model) is addressed and illustrated in
Chapter 6, with a strong focus on the sub-teaching tasks of
summarizing strategies instruction. This focus on specifics and
details is continued in Chapter 7 which concentrates on the
selection of cognitive and metacognitive strategies with some
accompanying conditional knowledge involved in teaching
summarizing strategies.
To apply the previously discussed metacognitive knowledge,
Chapter 8 provides scenarios to show how a reading teacher’s
metacognitive knowledge can be translated into designing a
lesson plan for teaching certain summarizing strategies with
expository text to ESL/EFL undergraduates. These scenarios
only serve as a platform to inspire reading teachers to be aware
of their own metacognitive knowledge and to be creative in
using it for any lesson plan design of their own. The scenarios
and lesson plans provided concrete models for ESL/EFL teach-
ers to learn from and for their work to be compared to by their
Constant revision and polishing of the above content outline
occurred as expected as soon as the actual writing process be-
gan and some feedbacks from other experts were obtained. The
same kind of constant revision and changing of the original
content outline also occurred throughout Phase I of other docu-
ment and monograph creation case studies using this research
and document creation model by such researchers as Erikson
(2006), Flores (2005), Kwong (2008), Pellitier (2004), and
Perla (2006). Therefore, with a much-revised version of the
content outline and the content itself during Phase I, the final-
ized version of The Monograph was then released to the re-
viewing process during Phase II of this case study.
In Phase II, The Monograph, together with a modified formal
review protocol (Carifio, 2003), was sent chapter by chapter to
two formal reviewer panels (i.e., one panel of seven reading
teachers and another panel of seven teacher educators) in China
for external third party reviewing. Reviewers critiqued and
commented on the appropriateness of the constructed metacog-
nitive knowledge framework (MKF) and the effectiveness of its
application in the development of each chapter as well as the
whole monograph. The Monograph was specifically reviewed
in terms of such 7 criteria as 1) Accuracy, Saliency and Rele-
vance of Content, 2) Thoroughness, 3) Quality of Supporting
Theory, Research, and Scholarship, 4) Presence of Multiple and
Alternative Views, 5) Tone, 6) Clarity of Writing Relative to
Audiences, and 7) Specificity and Concreteness of Key Points
and Recommendations.
Results from Phase II revealed that all reviewers judged that
the MFK was appropriately constructed and effectively repre-
sented and communicated in The Monograph. This judgment
supported the high quality and consistency of The Monograph.
That is to say, the ARCs developed and reflected in The Mono-
graph were successfully constructe d and written to a high stan-
dard of quality from the perspective of this group of reviewers,
although several revisions were made to finalize the finalized
monograph to improve it. The specific and detailed findings
from Phase II of this case study will be presented and discussed
in full in another article. However, a few key findings of Phase
II will be presented here to illustrate the importance of this
phase and the consensus expert findings generated by it.
The first key consensus finding of the expert panel was that
only through a thorough understanding of metacognitive know-
ledge and the specific metacognitive knowledge needed in a
given situation, can a reading teacher effectively design a les-
son plan to teach summarizing strategies with expository text,
starting from analyzing the teaching task to specifying each
sub-teaching task and especially so for ESL/EFL undergraduate
students. The consensus of the expert panel was that the model
and knowledge presented in the Monograph should be part of
the training for preparing in-service ESL/EFL teachers.
The second key consensus finding of the expert panel was
that teachers should be able to decompose instructional tasks
into major and minor sub-teaching tasks which included the
metacognitive knowledges and strategies needed to effectively
teach the task and subtasks, and that further Monographs like
the one produced for teaching expository text comprehension
and summarizing skills were needed and should be developed.
The third consensus finding of the expert panel was that the
Monograph produced by the research model used in this study
was an exemplary model for producing such monographs, and
the monograph produced was an excellent training manual for
both the production process and the knowledge produced on
effective strategies for enhancing the expository text compre-
hension and summarizing skills of ESL/EFL undergraduate
The fourth key consensus finding of the expert panel was
that the most complete and coherent view of summarizing text
was the ability to construct from one’s reading and understand-
ing of the gist of the text the appropriate summarizing view that
conveyed the important information for a particular reading
purpose to the different degrees ranging from disclosing the
author’s intention to fulfilling the reader’s own goals and inter-
ests, or goals assigned to the reader by external sources or de-
The above definition of summarizing text is supported by
Kintsch’s (1998) Construction-Integration (CI) model, a model
of text comprehension that consists of a two-phase process of
constructing and integrating the meaning of a text. Kintsch’s
model also proposes three types of mental representations that
occur during comprehension: 1) surface form representations
(decoding and encoding the exact text wording and meanings),
2) textbase representations (actively constructing an integrated
network of propositions that characterize the text and its mean-
ings), and 3) developing a situation model for the text (actively
constructing and elaborating the situation described by the
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
The textbase in Kintsch’s model, it should be noted, also has
two parts and is comprised of the (a) the microstructure of the
text (the sentence-by-sentence information that is processed by
the reader or the “local structure” of the text) and the macro-
structure of the text, which refers to a hierarchically-ordered set
of propositions, derived by the reader from the microstructure;
namely, the “global structure” of the text.
In Kintsch’s view and model, the macrostructures of the text
are reflected in summarizing words as the gist of the text. Thus,
a summary would be an ideal text expression of macrostruc-
tures, which, according to Kintsch, are generated from the mi-
crostructures via three macro-rules.
These three macro-rules are: 1) the deletion rule (omission of
unimportant and irrelevant information); 2) the generalization
rule (substitution of details into higher level categories); and 3)
the construction rule (integration of details into topic sentences).
A detailed explication of these three macro-rules, it should be
noted, is given in Van Dijk, 1980, and Van Dijk and Kintsch,
With a detailed understanding of Kintsch’s CI model, the
reading teacher will come to know and understand that to use
the strategy of summarizing, students should first determine the
important information in the text, and then condense it and put
it in their own words. Some basic rules for summarizing text
include: 1) delete trivial and irrelevant information; 2) delete
redundant information; 3) provide a superordinate term for
members of a category; 4) find and use generalizations the au-
thors have made; and 5) create your own generalizations when
the author has not provided them. Using this operational defini-
tion of summarizing and its associated heuristic rules set, the
reading teacher can then decompose the overall teaching task
into three major sub-teaching tasks: 1) teaching how to specify
the type of summary to be composed; 2) teaching how to iden-
tify important information in a text; and 3) teaching how to
generate the gist of a text via macro-rules and their associated
heuristic sub-rules.
Each major sub-teaching task, moreover, can further be bro-
ken down into several minor sub-teaching tasks depending on
the reading teachers’ metacognitive knowledge of person vari-
ables in a particular situation (i.e., their EFL undergraduates
and their individual personal profiles), which is not the focus of
The Monograph. The focus of The Monograph is on teaching
the student (and the student’s teacher) that the first metacogni-
tive task is making a decision about whether the task at hand is
one of generating an author-based or reader-based summary of
the text, as this decision drives everything else. This decision
influences the identification and inclusion of what important
information is actually germane and key in the summary of the
text for the specific purpose at hand.
The reading teacher should help students understand that the
differences between author-based summaries, which cover the
author’s intentions mostly, and reader-based summaries, which
indicate the reader’s interests mostly, is key in a given context,
and both determine and drive cognitive processing and behav-
iors, even though the difference between the two types of
summaries is sometimes somewhat fuzzy and overlapping.
This particular metacognitive processing decision is not a de-
cision the student should be passively making unconsciously or
by default, with the student later claiming that she or he “mis-
understood” the task. The reading teacher needs to teach the
student how to assess and analyze the summarizing task at hand,
and then how to decide and consciously control the focus of a
summary to meet various academic purposes.
This kind and type of conscious control could be characterized
as a very elementary and fairly convergent form of creative
control, but the learning of creative control, and conscious crea-
tive control, must begin someplace, and be present in as many
places in the curriculum and activities students experience as
possible, as from many small and elementary “practice” acorns,
far more complex behaviors and more creative decision-making
skills are grown and invoked over time.
As part of reading teachers’ metacognitive knowledge of
summarization instruction, what types of summaries are tar-
geted in their instruction should not only be clear for them, but
also be explicitly stated in their classrooms because different
kinds of summaries may demand different ways of teaching.
This type of explicitness, moreover, will also help to both as-
sess and ensure that the types of summaries that ESL/EFL un-
dergraduates write, learn to write and write consciously and
purposefully using the metacognitive skills they have been
taught in their programs will be both appropriate and adequate
for them to 1) learn better from their textbooks, 2) write better
papers in their courses, and 3) write an acceptable thesis for the
partial fulfillment of a degree. Therefore, from all that has been
said and elucidated above, it would seem fairly reasonable to
say at this point that helping teachers to pay better attention to
students’ metacognitive knowledge and their own metacogni-
tive teaching knowledge should help to bring about more crea-
tive and effective instruction and education, and that mono-
graphs such as the one developed and described in this study is
one mechanism and strategy for achieving both of these goals
in a relatively low cost but quality controlled way.
This study was an exploratory case study on an individual
EFL teacher’s growth in different kinds of meta-cognitive
knowledge that occurred during the model-driven and guided
process of completing and validating a monograph on the
knowledge and the meta-cognitive teaching knowledge needed
by EFL Reading teachers to teach summarizing strategies with
expository text to EFL undergraduates. Being an exploratory
inquiry and seminal investigation, the study itself has several
methodological limitations which need to be considered when
drawing conclusion about and implications from it.
First, in view of the highly fuzzy nature and differing views
of meta-cognition outlined briefly in this article but in more
depth and detail in The Monograph, the conceptualization and
operationalization processes of selecting, characterizing and
particularizing EFL reading teachers’ needed meta-cognitive
and pedagogical knowledge may be somewhat tentative, as all
such first attempts are, and in need of more empirical confirma-
tion beyond the views of the two review and validation panels
used in this study, and such confirmatory studies should indeed
be done. Further, in terms of certain kinds of generalizations
one might like to make, this study is limited by one researcher’s
attempt to conceptualize the role of metacognitive knowledge
and to apply it to a specific teaching area. A different researcher
might come to different conclusions and suggestions even ana-
lyzing the same literature and high quality CHKB and using the
same guiding model and the same methodology. Given the
fairly homogeneous and consensus views of the two review
panels used, however, the probability that a markedly different
view would be observed is quite low, although such a study
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 837
should be done to confirm this point and further validate the
view that has emerged from this study. Further, as the bounda-
ries between cognitive and metacognitive knowledge are gen-
erally not clear-cut, and usually depend on the purpose of their
application in practical situations, it should not surprise profes-
sionals and teacher-educators in the EFL as well as other areas
that the particulars and the details of specific task or sub-do-
main foci will vary to some degree when the model outlined in
this article is applied and instantiated. This fact adds to the
complexity of developing and validating meta-cognitive know-
ledge descriptions and characterizations in specific EFL areas
and subareas for both EFL students and EFL teachers and for
developing monographs for post-secondary EFL reading teach-
ers on the specific knowledge and meta-cognitive teaching
knowledge they need for teaching particular kinds of reading
skills for specific kinds of texts such as messages on a cell
phone or a web page never mind the wide variety of traditional
text forms that the student need to learn how to read. This
problem, however, is similar to the problem of dialects in lan-
guage and the “normalization” processes one uses to understand
the speech of others. What will emerge from various investiga-
tions such as this one and the ones outlined above will be
“normalized” knowledge and meta-cognitive teaching know-
ledge in these areas for EFL students and teachers over time
that will be broadly applicable and highly valuable, if research-
ers and researcher-practitioners do the various work that is
needed and have the patience to allow such “normalized” know-
ledge and meta-cognitive teaching knowledge to emerge.
The study was also limited by resources available and the
ability of researchers who do work and case studies such as this
one to have access to actual educational situations to conduct
empirical research (Phase III of the model outlined in this arti-
cle) in any EFL instructional contexts. The EFL area needs to
speak up to support work such as this case study and to open up
the access that is needed to conduct Phase III empirical research
studies so that effectives data may be generated to incorporate
into the model and revise it if necessary.
In spite of all of its limitations, this case study of one
teacher’s exploration of the meta-cognitive teaching knowledge
needed by EFL reading teachers to teach summarizing strate-
gies with expository text to EFL undergraduates and the proc-
ess used to validate the answers found via other fellow teachers
has shown the possibility of nurturing teachers’ and educators’
professional growth via such type of educational communica-
tion and cognitive apprenticeship and the intellectual and spiri-
tual support the researcher received from other educational
experts and the external independent reviewers during this ex-
ploratory study. The model outlined here, therefore, is not only
a model of how to develop high quality instructional and schol-
arly materi als, but a model of how to train others to do so and a
model that may be used for pre-service and in-service teacher
training and professional development as well in some more
simplified form. Furthermore, the general research design and
panel methodology of the study, together with other studies
(See Erikson, 2006; Flores, 2005; Kwong, 2008; Perla, 2006)
was most certainly a successful adaptation and implementation
of a formalized model of academic materials development initi-
ated by Carifio (1975, 1977) and later elaborated by Perla
(2006) and further again in Perla and Carifio (2011).
Further research is needed to acquire more evidence and
feedback from other educators, education researchers and re-
searcher-practitioners to validate further the model outlined in
this study in terms of the academic and professional develop-
ment growth that obtains in those who use this model as well as
the model’s abi lity to go from theory to product for the enrich-
ment of EFL reading teachers and their students.
Wei Xu received financial support from Shanghai Interna-
tional Studies University (Grant KX171251) for the publication
of this article.
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and adult
reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C.
Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-
based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: Guilford Press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In
P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Hand-
book of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Baumann, J. F., Jones, L. A., & Seifert-Kessell, N. (1993). Monitoring
reading comprehension by thinking aloud. Athens, GA: National
Reading Research Center, University of Georgia.
Block, C., & Israel, S. (2004). The ABCs of performing highly effec-
tive think-alouds. The Rea ding Tea cher , 58, 154-167.
Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: The development of selective
attention strategies for learning from texts. In H. Singer, & R. B.
Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed.
501-526). Newark: International Reading Association.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. (1981). Learning to learn: On
training students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10, 14-
21. doi:10.3102/0013189X010002014
Byrnes, J. P. (2001). Cognitive development and learning in instruc-
tional contexts (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Carifio, J. (1975). A standard and command-wide model for developing
scientific and technical instructional materials. Alexandria, VA:
United States Office of Naval Research.
Carifio, J. (1977). Toward a macro model of instructional components.
Boston, MA: Annual Meeting of Eastern Educational Research As-
Carifio, J. (2003). An instructional text evaluation protocol. Annual
Conference of the New England Educational Research Organization.
Portsmouth, NH: The New England Educational Research Organiza-
Carifio, J. (2005). Towards a standard integrated information process-
ing/cognitive model of learning. The 8th Biennial Conference of the
International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group.
Leeds: The International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996). The cognitive academic
language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse class-
rooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 259-273.
Dagostino, L., & Carifio, J. (1994a). Evaluative Reading and Literacy:
A Cognitive View. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bac o n.
Dagostino, L., & Carifio, J. (1994b). Establishing the logical validity of
instructional activities for teaching reading evaluatively. Journal of
Reading Improvement, 31, 14-22.
Erikson, L. (2006). An integrated approach to citizenship education for
grades 1-8 in the 21st century. Ed.D. Thesis, Lowell, University of
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and known: The nature of
knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research on Teaching,
20, 3-56.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 839
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new
area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,
906-911. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.34.10.906
Flores, M. (2005). Instructional strategies, conditions, characteristics,
and contexts for successfully teaching Hispanic Caribbean students.
Ed.D. Thesis, Lowell, University of Massachu s etts.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strate-
gies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research,
60, 517-529. doi:10.3102/00346543060004517
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.
Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 15-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what
should be its role in literacy instruction? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block,
K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in
literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional
development (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J.
Hacker, J. Dunloky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.) , Metacognition in edu-
cational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.),
Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 149-172). Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Israel, S., & Massey, D. D. (2005). Think alouds as a means for build-
ing metacognition with middle schoolers. In C. C. Block, S. E. Israel,
K. Kinnucan-Welsch, & K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition and
literacy learning (pp. 183- 199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, R. C. (2007). Making sense in social studies: What? How? When?
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kwong, B. (2008). The development and validation of a research-based,
tiered new teacher induction program guide for Massachusetts pub-
lic schools. Ed.D. Thesis, Lowell, University of Massachusetts.
Massey, D. D. (2003). A comprehension checklist: What if it doesn’t
make sense? The Reading Teacher, 57, 81-84.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive
social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894-904.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of com-
prehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and In-
struction, 1, 117-175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y. & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a stra-
tegic reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 788-811). Newark:
International Reading Association.
Pellitier, P. (2004). Towards a reader-text-context theoretical model for
reading literary work. Ed.D. Thesis, Lowell, University of Massa-
Perla, R. J. (2006). Use and augmentation of a formal model and theory
to develop instructional material to teach undergraduates about the
nature of science, scientific knowledge and scientific change. Ed.D.
Thesis, Lowell, University of Massachusetts.
Perla, R., & Carifio, J. (2011). Theory creation, modification, and test-
ing: An information-processing model and theory of the anticipated
and unanticipated consequences of research and development. Jour-
nal of Multidiscipli nary Evaluation, 7, 84-110.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension.
In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuel (Eds.), What research has to say
about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291-309). Newark: Interna-
tional Reading Association. doi:10.1598/0872071774.13
Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive
strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowl-
edge. Annals of Child Development, 4, 89-129.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships. The
Reading Teacher, 39, 516-522.
Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theo-
retical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4,
345-391. doi:10.1007/BF01332144
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between 2
and 20. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Squire, L. R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University
Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of
global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse com-
prehension. New York: Academic Press, Inc.