British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29, No.

3, 2003

Developing a Pedagogy of Metacognition

and Transfer: some signposts for the
generation and use of knowledge and the
creation of research partnerships

DAVID LEAT & MEI LIN, University of Newcastle

ABSTRACT Schools and teachers in England and Wales are under pressure to raise
standards. Currently, there is little direct relationship between research activity and
support for teachers in meeting these demands. The context for the article is teaching
thinking which is being promoted as a means to raise standards by the current
government. Teaching thinking includes the concepts of metacognition and transfer in its
underpinnings but there is little practical assistance for teachers to make these concepts
a reality in the classroom. The article describes 10 roles that teachers can perform to
put these concepts into practice, which were identified by interviewing pupils who had
been taught by teachers using the innovative practice of debriefing. The article discusses
the broader issues of how teachers can be engaged in research and knowledge
production in a more satisfying relationship than is currently the norm.

Introduction
Teachers, schools and local education authorities are under pressure. This is both a
generalised pressure to raise standards and a very particular pressure from the office for
Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspections during which there is a strong focus on
accountability, results and an attempt to link observation of lessons with pupil outcomes
measures. There was an assumption in the reforms of the Conservative governments of
the late 1980s and the early 1990s that market mechanisms would deliver higher
standards. The competition engendered by league tables would force schools to improve.
The pressure of league tables has been replaced by the drive to meet targets. Higher
performance in external national examinations is an expectation of nearly all schools.
Bassey (2002) reports a study by Matthew Horne for the think tank, Demos, who had

Received 30 November 2000; resubmitted 4 May 2002; conditionally accepted 21 June

2002; accepted 15 August 2002.

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/03/030383–32 2003 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/0141192031000156015
384 D. Leat & M. Lin

interviewed 150 teachers, in which Horne states that the most important factor in
whether teachers stay in the profession is their perception of the quality of their working
conditions and ‘their opportunities for professional creativity and autonomy’. Joyce et al.
(1997) argue forcibly that teachers are doing the best they can with what they know and
that applying ‘pressure without opportunity for study and training will simply not work’.
There is a palpable need to find ways to sustain professional learning and satisfaction,
even if teachers continue to experience pressure.
In this context, school effectiveness research has teased the teaching profession, with
the lure that it can offer a formula for more effective schooling. For example, key
characteristics of effective schools distilled from a review of school effectiveness
research (Sammons et al., 1995) and presented in the Times Educational Supplement (6
October 1995) include ‘Purposeful teaching that is well organised and clear about its
objectives, well prepared, and appropriately paced and structured. Research suggests that
effective questioning is an important way of focusing pupil attention’. As a further
example, Reynolds argues in his 1998 Teacher Training Agency lecture, ‘Teacher
effectiveness: better teachers, better schools’, that Britain is harming the educational
prospects of its children by not developing an ‘applied science of teaching’. He claims
that other industrialised countries have a scientifically established knowledge base that
can guide teachers towards improving practice. He lists effective teacher behaviours
from research in ‘other countries’, which include:
• lesson clarity;
• instructional variety;
• teachers’ effective time management;
• high student levels of time on task;
• maintaining a high success rate.
Reynolds’s views have been the subject of considerable counter-argument by, among
others, Edwards (1998), who emphasises the importance of debating the educational ends
of the task that time is spent on. Scheerens (1992) states that school effectiveness
research is overdependent on cognitive outcomes in basic or core subjects, typically
English and mathematics. If other types of educational outcome were considered,
effectiveness could look very different. Furthermore, Hill (1998), writing from inside the
school effectiveness tradition, has pointed to some of the difficulties facing the move-
ment, especially in terms of bringing about improvement. In this view, school effective-
ness research tends to produce correlations and generalisations that are too general to
inform the practice of teachers and has failed to make connections with the classroom.
Another critic (Fullan, 1995) holds that research can inspire, but rarely points to specific
action that can be taken. School effectiveness research has failed to provide descriptions
of action or behaviour that teachers can put into operation. The findings may be valid
at some level, but they have not been the basis for an individual teacher to enact change
in their practice.
In reviewing the potential role of formative assessment in improving motivation and
achievement, Black and Wiliam (1998) offer a partial solution to the problem of linking
research findings to practical activity. They state that teachers will not take up
research-based ideas if they are presented as general principles, which leaves them with
the task of translating them into practice—they are too busy. They require ‘a variety of
living examples of implementation, by teachers with whom they can identify and from
whom they can both derive conviction and confidence’ (p. 16). So in the light of this call
for translation of principles, this article describes an approach to research that has been
 Metacognition and Transfer 385

highly symbiotic in informing the practice of both full-time researchers and full-time
teachers. Because the research is already being used by a large number of teachers, the
outcomes it is clear that they do help to translate general principles into practice.
Furthermore, we would wish to raise the prospect of whether certain forms of research
partnership can change the professional learning context of teachers.
We first describe the pedagogical context of teaching thinking in which the research
is set and then the more specific context of why, where, how and by whom it was
conducted. This is followed by a description of the outcomes of the research and a
broad-ranging discussion of the implications for changing teachers’ practice through
engagement with research. The conclusion returns to the issue of the relationship
between research and practice, and teachers and researchers.

Teaching Thinking, Metacognition and Transfer

The pedagogic context within which this article is set is teaching thinking. This is an
umbrella term used to describe a range of interventions, which have been classified into
three groups: context independent, such as Instrumental Enrichment (Feuerstein, et al.,
1980) and Somerset Thinking Skills (Blagg et al., 1988), subject-based programmes,
such as Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education or CASE (Adey et al., 1989)
and subject infusion (Leat, 1998). Infusion refers to teaching in which both subject
learning objectives and teaching thinking objectives are addressed in the same lessons
and intertwined. This article is not tied to a proposition that teaching thinking works as
judged by examination and test performance. The motivation is supplied by the fact that
many teachers believe that teaching thinking is worth engaging in, because pupils
respond enthusiastically and it resonates with some teachers’ beliefs about their pro-
fession.
There is a government impetus to include teaching thinking in the raft of measures to
raise standards. The White Paper, Excellence in Schools (Department for Education and
Employment [DfEE], 1997), gave some prominence to teaching thinking and suggested
the link between systematic teaching of thinking skills and positive learning outcomes.
This was followed by a DfEE research report (McGuinness, 1999). The report directed
attention to the need to go beyond what is to be learned in a curriculum to ‘how children
learn and how teachers intervene to achieve this’ (p. 1). Further, it also clarified that
curriculum materials are not teacher proof; successful implementation requires an
explicit pedagogy and good in-service support in order to create ‘thinking classrooms’.
This need became more pressing with the publication of the revised National Curriculum
(DfEE/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA], 1999), as the Handbook for
Secondary Teachers sets out a framework for embedding thinking skills in the National
Curriculum. These skills were specified as Information-processing skills, Reasoning
skills, Enquiry skills, Creative thinking skills, and Evaluation skills. All secondary
subject teachers in England are expected, therefore, to engage with the pedagogy of
teaching thinking. This expectation has been increased by the introduction of the
Teaching and Learning in Foundation subjects (TLF) strand of the Key Stage 3 Strategy
(for 11–14 year-old pupils), which encompasses both training materials related to
thinking skills and assessment for learning, and a professional development infrastruc-
ture.
Baumfield et al. (1995) identify a number of characteristics which tend to be found
in common in teaching thinking programmes. These include the promotion of coopera-
tive learning (with talk playing a significant role), promotion of challenge in learning, the
386 D. Leat & M. Lin

development of foundation concepts in subject domains, the encouragement of transfer

and stimulating pupils to think about their learning (metacognition). Transfer and
metacognition are, therefore, two of the most significant concepts in the field of teaching
thinking. CASE, for example, includes the two as very explicit parts of its theoretical
framework.
Mayer and Wittrock (1996, p. 48) define transfer as ‘when a person’s prior experience
and knowledge affect learning or problem solving in a new situation’. What is
problematic for both practitioners and researchers is pinning down what prior experience
or knowledge might affect new learning and how it is used. Mayer and Wittrock recount
four views of transfer: General Transfer of General Skill, Specific Transfer of Specific
Behaviour, Specific Transfer of General Skill and Metacognitive Control of General and
Specific Skills. They present the last as the most promising as it combines features of
the other three, thus highlighting the relationship between metacognition and transfer.
They present a picture in which effective instruction ensures that students select relevant
information, build internal connections between task information and build external
connections to other contexts and subject matter.
Hatano and Inagaki (1992) provide a different insight into transfer. Drawing on the
work of Gentner and Stevens (1983), they describe the importance of mental models in
transfer. They contrast ‘routine experts’, who can apply set procedures, with ‘adaptive
experts’, who have conceptual knowledge of the major objects in a domain or topic. The
conceptual knowledge allows the expert to run mental simulations, or models, and make
predictions for situations that have not been experienced, allowing transfer to new
contexts.
Research on metacognition has become increasingly fine-grained, as researchers
pursue the complexity of the phenomenon, thereby generating a multitude of variables
to be considered (Efklides & Vauras, 1999). Veenman and Elshout (1999, p. 510)
highlight the importance of such distinctions as follows:
Metacognitive knowledge concerns the declarative knowledge one has about
the interplay between personal characteristics, task characteristics and the
available strategies in a learning situation (Flavell, 1979). This knowledge does
not automatically lead to an appropriate problem solving behaviour. For
instance, a student may know that making a summary of a complex text is
necessary and yet refrain from performing the activity for different reasons.
The topic may be uninteresting or too difficult, or the student may lack the
necessary knowledge and skills for making a summary. Metacognitive skills,
on the other hand, concern the procedural knowledge that is required for the
actual regulation of control over one’s learning activities. Task orientation,
planning, monitoring, checking, and recapitulation are manifestations of such
skills.
Evidence suggests that classroom practice falls well short of researchers’ hopes in
relation to transfer, such as the famous example of accomplished child street traders who
cannot apply their intuitive knowledge of mathematical procedures to simple classroom
tests (Nunes et al., 1993). Desforges and Lings (1998) draw upon constraint theory
(Markman, 1990) to develop Bereiter’s (1990) notion of classroom modularity. Con-
straint theory posits that in problem-solving and learning humans have a bias to limiting
the features and information considered. Constraints are devices to highlight important
information and shut out information perceived to be irrelevant, which helps make
demanding situations manageable, and impose order on chaos. A module can be
 Metacognition and Transfer 387

conceived of as a cluster of constraints that shapes the way a person thinks and behaves
in particular contexts, such as school classrooms. The result of modularity in the
classroom is that pupils concentrate on producing ‘neat, smudge-free writing if this is
what the teacher rewards’. In effect, the complexity of the environment acts to make the
teacher shut down much of what should be possible. Leat (1999) reviews the factors that
make the implementation of teaching thinking difficult for individual teachers, which
include the forces of socialisation, their images of teaching and the need for easily
maintained routines.
Current reforms demand that teaching thinking is taught through the National
Curriculum (NC) subjects in England so that pupils can reflect on what and how they
have learned and transfer their learning to new contexts. To make this a reality pupils
must develop metacognitive knowledge and self-regulation. This is not simply a
utilitarian aim, for such outcomes also carry the prospect of achieving broader
educational goals such as learning to learning. The National Literacy and Numeracy
Strategies do provide an opportunity for the development of metacognition in the
plenary. However it seems that one of the enduring weaknesses of the strategies is the
plenary (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2002).
That teachers find enacting a pedagogy for metacognition and transfer difficult is
painfully clear. There are generalisations and insights from research that are potentially
valuable, but as emphasised in the introduction, teachers will not take up research-based
ideas if they are presented as general principles, which leaves them with the task of
translating them into practice—they are too busy. What does it mean in classroom
practice? How should motivated practitioners take their first steps in making it a reality
in their teaching? It implies that teachers help pupils develop a knowledge base about
their learning processes, that explicit learning strategies are added to it and that pupils
are encouraged to engage in self-monitoring.
For all those who wish to see a broad conceptualisation of teaching and learning being
offered to pupils, the changes to the NC offer a real opportunity. In such circumstances,
is a multicontextual view to gain an overall model as outlined by Watkins and Mortimore
(1999) a desirable or justifiable goal for all researchers? Is it not possible for research
findings to inform action more directly and cope with the variation in context that
teachers meet? How can teachers and higher education (HE) researchers work more
closely to produce knowledge which informs both their individual and collective work?
These were the broad questions informing the work described here.

Context and Methods of Study

The four teacher researchers and one of the university researchers who undertook this
research are members of the Thinking Through Geography (TTG) group, an alliance of
teachers and HE tutors who engage in curriculum development, research, consultancy
and in-service training. At any one time, the group consists of a core and an additional
number with a developing or declining involvement. All teach in north-east England,
although contact is maintained with other enthusiasts elsewhere in Britain. The group
shares a belief that geography teaching should aim both to teach geography effectively
and enjoyably, and in the process develop pupils’ capacity as learners. The approach
taken by the group is that of complete infusion, using powerful and generic strategies to
transform schemes of work (Leat, 1998; Nichols & Kinninment, 2000). The theoretical
framework used by the TTG group has very eclectic roots, influenced by CASE (Adey
& Shayer, 1993), contingent teaching (Wood & Wood, 1996), Community of Enquiry
388 D. Leat & M. Lin

(Lipman et al., 1980) and Instrumental Enrichment (Feuerstein et al., 1980). The
approach, therefore, has included efforts to encourage metacognition and transfer.
It was the researchers’ collective experience from their own schools, from doing
in-service sessions and running workshops at conferences that teachers find debriefing
the most daunting part of the pedagogical change that teaching thinking demands. We
would define debriefing broadly as small group or whole class discussion, undertaken
after learning activities and designed to encourage pupils, consciously, to explore and
extend their learning. Debriefing, or some similar reflective process, would seem to be
essential if pupils are to develop self-regulation and metacognitive awareness. With the
intention of helping ourselves and others to improve their debriefing skills, the following
aim was established: to identify the features of a pedagogy that will make metacognition
and transfer a classroom reality for secondary teachers. The burning questions were,
therefore, ‘what does it look like?’ and ‘how do you do it?’ The intention was to provide
a language through which teachers can begin to describe and analyse the debriefing
process. Such a language does not exist currently and without it progressive conceptual-
isation of this important teaching function will be hindered. The research process was
made possible by a Teacher Training Agency Teacher Research Grant.
The data collection was relatively straightforward. It was intended that the four
teachers should visit each of the other three, and thus also be visited by the other three.
Because of the difficulties of planning and making visits at mutually convenient times,
last minute mishaps and pressure of work generally, only nine of these visits took place.
The debriefing part of the lesson (and in some cases the whole lesson) was
video-recorded. Immediately after the lesson the visiting teacher interviewed a small
group of pupils (between three and six) and pursued two broad questions with them. The
first question was ‘What did you learn in that lesson?’ and the second was ‘What did the
teacher do that helped you?’ The intention was to gain insights into pupils’ response to
a very deliberate pedagogic approach and thus view classroom experience through
pupils’ perspectives (Hammersley, 1992). Pupils were selected to be representative of
ability within the class and some consideration was given to selecting pupils who would
not feel unduly uncomfortable in being interviewed—the sampling was therefore
skewed. It was anticipated that it would be unrealistic and unhelpful to ask pupils to
focus only on what we might call the debriefing episodes, as this might artificially
partition the pupils’ experience of the lesson. So the teacher-interviewers made reference
to the whole lesson as it was felt that the effect of the debriefing, if detectable, would
be related to the total ecology of the lesson and so it was thought prudent to address this
larger picture.
Some general guidance was developed about the conduct of the interviews: that
leading questions would be avoided where possible, reference back to episodes in the
lesson would be used as a prompt and there would be repeated probing of general
comments from the pupils to elucidate more detail. The methodology employed by
Cooper and McIntyre (1996) was influential as it stressed the need to engage with pupils
in order to motivate open and honest responses. Thus, the interviewer strove to respond
personally to the pupils and convey the impression that they had something of real value.
Following Cooper and McIntyre, the repeated probing of what may have seemed
idiosyncratic comments was a goal as this can help to unearth otherwise difficult-to-re-
call experiences. The impression was formed in listening to and transcribing the
interviews that pupils were most candid when the interviewer revealed part of their self.
The fact that the visiting teacher, who was unknown to the pupils, conducted the
interviews was seen as an advantage as the pupils might be expected to talk more freely
 Metacognition and Transfer 389

with less inclination to give a response to ‘please their teacher’. As the research was a
preliminary investigation and constrained by the working demands of schools, there was
no attempt to develop a rigid sampling framework for the lessons observed. There were
two priorities in selecting lessons. The first was to select a range of lessons in terms of
achievement groupings (low, mixed and high), ages (11–15, Y7–Y10) and experience of
debriefing episodes. The second priority was convenience to the two teachers (host and
visitor) concerned. Equipment failure and logistical problems led to one lesson not being
video-recorded.
The interviews with pupils were transcribed. The transcripts were read and reread to
develop categories to describe both what pupils said that they had learned and what the
teachers had done that had helped them. The approach to coding was based on the
conception of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with some modifications,
largely suggested by Edwards and Talbot (1994). The category had to be present in three
of the eight lessons (50%) to be established. The exception to this is the category ‘Pupils
asking questions’, which was only mentioned in two interviews, but was included
because of its significance in changing the pattern of talk. Some initial categories for
analysing the videos were derived from CASE literature and schedules developed at
Newcastle University for observing Instrumental Enrichment lessons in further edu-
cation. These were refined and developed by repeated viewing of the videos. The whole
class episodes in the lessons were then analysed to produce totals for the categories in
each lesson. It was not the intention to undertake discourse analysis, but, rather, to
identify three dimensions of the talk:
(i) some aspects of the content of the teachers’ inputs, such as emphasising a very
important skill, e.g. constructing and asking questions (T2), or suggesting transfer
contexts (T10);
(ii) some of the character of the interaction between teachers and pupils, such as the
teacher asking pupils to expand on (T6) or justify their responses/answers (T7),
which commonly led to extended responses from pupils; and
(iii) some of the features of the pupils’ contributions, such as pupils referring to their
thinking or reasoning strategies (P3).
These aspects and features are listed in Table I.
The role of the video data was twofold. Firstly, it could provide triangulation in
respect of the interviews. If there was evidence in the videos that aligned with the sense
that we were making of the interviews, we could have some confidence that the analysis
had some validity. Secondly, the video data would provide some exemplification of the
teacher roles and action that emerged from the pupil data. This would be important in
dissemination (see discussion), as we could expect an impact on in-service education and
training (INSET) audiences through teachers in action. We became aware of one
significant methodological issue in the use of pupil interviews in that the interviews
appeared to help some pupils reflect, and it was felt that they were learning through this
reflection process.
It is possible to draw some distinctions between the role of the teacher researchers and
the university researchers. The former did the data gathering and the latter did much of
the primary analysis, but one of the university researchers (DL) worked closely with the
teacher researchers in designing the research and discussing the outcomes. This was
inevitable in a way as the work arose out of common interests and shared work in the
previous three to four years. It was not a case of one party having an idea and then
enlisting the support of the other. A number of written outcomes have ensued and this
390 D. Leat & M. Lin

TABLE I. Features of debriefed lessons analysed from video-recordings

Catagories

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 Lesson 6 Lesson 7 Lesson 8

Teachers
T1 Teacher refers 3 12 4 0 0 5 8
to major concept
T2 Teacher 1 0 4 8 2 7 14
emphasises
cognitive skills
T3 Teacher asks 0 3 5 15 5 12 2
pupils to reflect on
strategies
T4 Teacher asks 0 0 0 7 0 1 0
pupils how they
would do same
next time
T5 Teacher gives an 26 6 7 9 4 14 21
invitation to pupils
to contribute ideas, e.g.
what does anyone think?
T6 Teacher asks 4 3 6 6 3 5 1
for expansion of answer
T7 Teacher asks 0 3 3 4 6 3 6
for justification of
answer, e.g. why do
you think/say that?
T8 Teacher offers 6 5 6 3 1 9 2
one pupil’s response
to the rest of the class
T9 Teacher uses 0 0 3 0 1 2 1
an analogy
T10 Teacher refers 0 2 2 10 1 5 10
to transfer context
T11 Teacher asks 2 0 2 2 0 0 1
for clarification
from pupil
Pupils
P1 Pupils ask 0 0 2 0 1 0 14
questions
P2 Pupil refers to 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
analogy
P3 Pupil refers to 0 4 8 18 4 17 0
own thinking/strategy
P4 Pupil responds 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
directly to another
pupil
P5 Pupil refers to 0 0 2 11 0 3 2
transfer context
P6 Pupil gives 19 16 11 9 6 17 2
extended response
( ⬎ 6 seconds)
 Metacognition and Transfer 391

process has been shared, with the university researchers taking the lead. (Some readers
may find it helpful to know the context of the lessons, so brief details are given in
Appendix 1.)

What Teacher Roles Helped Pupils Learn

It is not to be expected that everything that pupils learn will be as a result of debriefing
episodes. Analysis of the transcripts has identified the following headings that begin to
describe what the study teachers were doing that helped pupils learn. They may be
considered as roles that the teachers perform. This analysis begins to provide a
descriptive language for debriefing, which in turn can be related to how teachers might
encourage metacognition and transfer.

1. Using Stimulating Strategies in Teaching

Underpinning the debriefing process is the use of challenging and stimulating activities,
for the teachers having a repertoire of teaching thinking strategies was a prerequisite of
the debriefing process because the talk and thought generated by the tasks permitted a
substance to that process. Boaler’s (1997) comparative study of mathematics depart-
ments in two secondary schools indicates the importance of pupils’ sensitivity to how
they are taught. In one department, the staff used demonstration of procedures and rules
followed by practice from textbook questions, whilst the other used very open mathemat-
ical enquiries. Pupils in the former did not engage with the subject matter, whilst the
majority in the latter were interested in mathematics and fairly positive about it. The
strategies in the study lessons help trigger higher order thinking and motivation. They
might be regarded as a necessary but not sufficient condition for metacognition. The
following two extracts emphasise the extent to which pupils were engaged.
Lesson 1. Male pupil: She comes up with, like, interesting ways of learning,
not just like answering 10 questions out of a book.
Lesson 2. Male pupil: He tries to make the lessons more enjoyable so that
people would concentrate and pay more attention and wouldn’t, like, turn
their attention to other things.

2. Attending to Groups and Individuals

The debriefing process is not a separate entity and some of the success depends on the
attention the teacher gives to groups and individuals in the introduction, as they work on
the substantive task, or in the debriefing itself. This care seems to have the function of
persuading pupils that the purpose of the lesson is to encourage them to think and to
share that thinking. It provides them with confidence and this confidence is connected to
an understanding on the part of pupils that, to a large extent, it is their reasoning that
is being valued, although it is not the case that ‘anything goes’. We would argue that a
probable consequence of this is improved self-esteem that is so implicated in achieve-
ment (Muijs, 1997). Furthermore, the importance of interpersonal relations between
teachers and pupils has been highlighted by Brekelmans et al. (1993), who have shown
that the cooperation scales of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (Wubbels et al.,
1985) are positively related to student attitude. The extent to which pupils feel respected
and supported is illustrated as follows:
392 D. Leat & M. Lin

Lesson 3. Female pupil: She lets you have time to think about it.
Teacher: Why do you like that?
Female pupil: … if you don’t understand what she meant, well she goes
through it in stages.
Teacher: And you said that she lets you think about it. Do you like that, do
you like having a couple of minutes to think?
Female pupil: Say if she went right … if you think about something and here’s
the answer straightaway, if you have time to work it out, you can try and
suss how to do it.
Dillon (1988) strongly advocates the use of pauses and silences to give pupils space and
time to explore and elaborate ideas.
Lesson 1. Female pupil: Miss R treats you like an adult, not like a pupil, she
treats you like an equal.
[Later in interview] Female pupil: She makes sure that you understand, like
she makes sure that everyone understands before she moves on.
Male pupil: When you’re not quite sure what you’re doing she doesn’t like bite
your head off like other teachers do.
Second female pupil: She makes you feel more confident about answering
questions. Anything you say is right as long as you can explain it.
Lesson 5. Female pupil: [She was] making us understand what we were doing
at the time.
Some aspects of these descriptions are reminiscent of Boaler’s (1997) accounts of
teachers’ interactions with pupils in her description of a progressive enquiry-focused
mathematics department. This role is reflected in the analysis of videos as pupils are
frequently invited to participate in that they are asked for their opinions and thoughts
(T5).

3. Encouraging Pupils to Ask Questions

In a few lessons, pupils are encouraged to ask questions, either of the teacher or of other
pupils, and this may have some effect in helping them to develop a greater sensitivity
to what makes a good question. It also creates a different atmosphere in the classroom,
a theme explored in Brierley et al. (1992), who report on one of the investigations in the
National Oracy Project. Teachers’ questions are the cornerstone of the recitation script
or I–R–F discourse pattern (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992) in which the teacher initiates
with a closed question (I), the pupil responds (R) and the teacher evaluates and provides
feedback (F) before asking another question. Pupils asked questions in two of the lessons
to break this pattern. For example:
Lesson 8. Teacher: So what were you doing at the start of the lesson?
Male pupil: Miss told us a true story about two climbers who were in the
Andes climbing a mountain.
Female pupil: And she asked us to ask her questions …
 Metacognition and Transfer 393

Whilst it is not argued that the recitation script was demolished, the tenor of whole class
interaction was different in these lessons. Pupils asking questions is an extreme example
of how this was achieved. The significance is that the teacher cedes absolute authority
over control of knowledge and the discourse.

4. Collating Ideas
In the debriefing process the teachers drew in a range of ideas pupils have developed or
strategies that they have used in tackling tasks so that they are available for all to
consider. This is one aspect of practice that has been influenced by Lipman’s model of
a Community of Enquiry (Lipman et al., 1980). This role is evidenced from quotations
from two lessons:
Lesson 4. Teacher: When Miss J was talking about it, particularly at the end,
did that help?
Pupils: Yeah.
Teacher: In what way?
Female pupil: It showed you like more ways to be listening to her and
remember things.
Teacher: Did you learn anything from other people?
Male pupil: Like different stuff to do.
Teacher: Different stuff to do. Like what, what?
Male pupil: Like learning that we could symbolise.
Lesson 5. Female pupil: She was making us look at other people’s work to
understand, to see what they were writing about.
Collating ideas and strategies is a supportive condition for developing metacognitive
awareness because pupils can begin to appreciate that they have a choice in how they
approach a task or handle information. The role has echoes of the concept of distributed
cognition (Bruer, 1994) that suggests that more success can be achieved in group work
because the group is able to draw upon a larger collective memory and has access to a
variety of strategies for solving problems.

5. Providing Heuristics and Alternative Representations

A heuristic is a general problem-solving strategy. Strategies such as 5W (using Who,
What, Where, Why and When as stems for questions in the process of enquiry), fact or
opinion lines, concept maps and Venn diagrams are offered during lessons and, to
varying extents, pupils recognise them as generic strategies that can be used in many
other contexts. This gives them greater confidence in their ability to handle information.
For some pupils, moreover, diagrams that are constructed during the debriefing episode
act as alternative representations for remembering and understanding (Olsen & Camp-
bell, 1997). Drawings and diagrams are mentioned by Cooper and McIntyre (1996) as
two of the strategies favoured by pupils for helping them to learn. Three lessons
provided evidence of pupils’ awareness of the value of helpful strategies:
394 D. Leat & M. Lin

Lesson 8. Teacher: It was interesting what you said about the questions, do you
want to add to that at all?
Male pupil: Use the 5Ws … It helped you know what sort of questions [to
use].
Lesson 5. Teacher: In what way did she help you find more information?
Female pupil: Like 5Ws. Some people didn’t know about them.
Lesson 2. Teacher: Anything else?
Female pupil: The way he put diagrams on the board.
Teacher: What sort of diagrams were you thinking of?
Female pupil: The lines for … like a fact line and an opinion line.
Teacher: Do you think that helped you? Can you tell me a little bit more about
how that helped you?
Female pupil: So you know that a fact can be like probably true or can be in
the middle.
(Pupils had been given a range of statements on the population issue in China. They have
been asked to classify them as fact or opinion. This led them to conclude that there are
shades of opinion and degrees of proof in relation to facts. They had been offered two
lines on which to place their statements. One had poles of definite fact and possible fact
and the other of reasonable opinion and unreasonable opinion.)
Later in the interview:
Female pupil: … on some of the exam questions, it was like the diagrams that
he put on the board, it was like if you tried to picture them, then you could
answer the questions.

6. Promoting and Managing Discussion

Pupils made many references to the value of discussion, both in small groups and in the
whole class debriefing episodes. Pupils are, at times, explicit and adamant about the
value of such talk. It is evident that both talking and listening are highly valued by
pupils. They argue that it is not just collating of ideas that is happening, it is the
admixing of ideas in discussion that is so constructive. Wells (1985) has emphasised that
all knowledge has to be actively constructed by the individual and there is evidence in
the following extracts to suggest that knowledge is being constructed through talk in
these lessons, which is orchestrated by the teacher.
Lesson 1. Male pupil: You can learn things from other people in the class.
Female pupil: By listening.
Teacher: You’re sure about that?
Female pupil: Yeah, you might not have heard it from that viewpoint.
Second female pupil: Different points of view.
Third female pupil: What’s good is, like, when other people put up, like,
arguments you can see everyone’s different point of view.
 Metacognition and Transfer 395

Lesson 3. Female pupil: It’s better to have someone else’s opinion.

Teacher: Why? I don’t think that you are wrong. I want to know why?
Female pupil: Because you can put your ideas and their ideas together and
make it, like, better.
Teacher: Why is it important to talk about your ideas? If you and I sat down
now and talked about our opinions or some of our ideas, why is that better
than you deciding on your own?
Female pupil: You can find out better ideas than you had and make them better
… and make them more exciting and more serious.
Thus, while these pupils recognise the value of small group and whole class discussion,
they recognise that it is not just a matter of copying other people’s ideas, it is the
interaction between their own and others’ ideas that accelerates thinking. The descrip-
tions above suggest that the recitation script has at least been dented; the teachers are not
assuming a position of dominance with regard to knowledge. If one gives credence to
the general proposition that thought is internalised discourse (Rogoff, 1990), then such
discussion assumes particular salience.

7. Making Pupils Explain Themselves

A distinctive feature of many of the lessons was the extent to which pupils were asked
to expand on their first few words, to explain fully, to ‘go on’ or ‘say a bit more’. Pupils
report positively on this process. This characteristic stands in contrast to research on
classroom discourse which shows a normal pattern of pupils uttering only a few words
before the teacher evaluates or completes the response (Edwards & Westgate, 1987).
Lesson 3. Female pupil: Instead of just letting us write down anything, she
asked us why we wrote it down, why we thought it was a good idea …
instead of just writing it down and saying that’s right, like you’ve got to
have a reason for thinking that’s right.
Teacher: Why is it important to have a reason for it?
Female pupil: ’Cos if you didn’t have a reason why do you put it down?
[Later in the same interview]
Male pupil: … when we had the vote for it, she asked us what we meant.
Teacher: So again she asked you what you meant. So why did you find that
useful? Why did you think that was a good way of doing it?
Male pupil: Because you understand what you meant.
Teacher: … so which bit, the writing down or the saying to someone?
Male pupil: Saying it.
Female pupil: … even if other people don’t understand what we say and if she
doesn’t understand she’ll just keep asking and asking what we mean and
why we mean that.
396 D. Leat & M. Lin

Teacher: So rather than give you the answer, she keeps saying ‘Go on tell me
more’.
Female pupil: You get a better idea of what you are talking about in your
mind.
Male pupil: It’s making you learn.
One of the most significant features of the codings of the video-recordings is the extent
to which pupils are asked to clarify, extend or justify their answers. It occurs between
5 and 10 times in most of the lessons (T6, T7 and T11). Classrooms generally condition
pupils to give short responses to closed questions. Teachers will also answer their own
questions. Through debriefing episodes pupils are learning to give reasons, which in the
words of one of them helps them clarify their own thinking and leads to deeper cognitive
processing (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1989).

8. Providing Feedback
A particular feature of whole class debriefing is the extent to which it provides feedback
to individuals, on their thoughts and explanations. Whilst one might not immediately
associate this feedback as a form of assessment, it can be argued that it is fulfilling the
formative function of assessment that is so important in informing learning. Black and
Wiliam’s (1998) review article provides strong evidence of the power of such feedback
in raising attainment.
Lesson 7. Teacher: How did your teacher help you? What did he do that made
you learn?
Female pupil: He tried to make everyone make a comparison.
Male pupil: He was like getting one person to have a go and he was trying to
get them to …
Female pupil: To improve it.
Later in the same interview the pupils explain that the feedback can come from other
pupils and why the feedback process is so useful.
Teacher: So what was Mr K doing then?
Female pupil: Trying to get us to answer … add points to it.
Male pupil: The next time we do it, what things to do, what things not to do.
Teacher: So it was helpful getting you in the class to improve Craig’s point?
Pupils [strongly]: Yeah.
In the videos, all the lessons have examples of pupils’ responses being offered to the rest
of the class for comment, with an average over four occasions. It is important to state
that this is never done to ridicule, but to help pupils to respond to each other. The notion
that pupils want critical feedback is somewhat at odds with the perception that pupils
want praise—they may do, but they do not want it uncritically. Dweck (1999), in
summarising her and her colleagues’ work on self-theories, has highlighted the import-
ance of feedback in the ‘mastery’ orientation to learning.
 Metacognition and Transfer 397

9. Making Connections
This is potentially one of the most powerful effects of debriefing, because it is the
foundation of helping pupils to transfer their learning. In CASE, the term ‘bridging’
(Adey et al., 1993) is used for the occasions when the teacher provides a context where
pupils might be able to apply their new learning. The teachers in some lessons are
offering analogies or parallels in the context of pupils’ everyday lives or popular culture
which help them understand the geographical content. For some pupils this is very
successful and helps them make sense of the content. This encourages the pupils to make
their own connections.
Lesson 7. Teacher: Is that the only way he got you to learn about comparisons?
Female pupil: That question on the board … the jeans.
(The lesson has been about comparing the effect of hurricanes and in the debriefing
process he generates a discussion about how pupils use comparing in the process of
buying a pair of jeans.)
Lesson 2. Teacher: … anything else he tried to do?
Female pupil: He gave examples.
Teacher: Can you expand on that? What sort of examples?
Female pupils: Like Newcastle United and the Spice Girls.
(In this case these two examples are used to show that opinions differ about these
popular icons and that opinions may differ from factual statements. This connection is
used to illuminate the difference between fact and shades of opinion in China on
population policy.)
Analogies and transfer contexts (T9 and T10) are used by teachers in all but one
lesson and pupils refer to transfer contexts in four of the lessons.

10. Communicating the Purpose of Lessons

This point overlaps with the one above. Through helping pupils to make connections
between the content of lessons and their experiences, the debriefing process helps create
conditions that allow pupils to see the purpose of both individual lessons and geography
courses. Boaler (1997) contrasts the learning experiences of students who were taught
mathematics as a set of disconnected procedures to be learned and practised with
students who were taught using a problem-solving approach in which solutions and
generalisations were arrived at inductively with the support of teachers. The latter pupils
generally had a broader conception of mathematics, enjoyed it, could apply it and did
better in General Certificate of Secondary Education examinations. The debriefing
episode helps pupils see the point of the lesson. This may be in very direct terms such
as examinations, or in terms of life skills, or most generally in terms of understanding
the world as they experience it. It is evident that this is promoted by the discussion that
takes place during debriefing.
Lesson 2. Male pupil: He talks about stuff … he tells you what you’re doing.
Lesson 3. Female pupil: We discuss everything.
Teacher: And you think that helps?
398 D. Leat & M. Lin

Female pupil: Yeah because then we understand what we’re doing and why
we’re doing it.

Lesson 7. Teacher: Why do think Mr K’s bothered about you knowing this?

Female pupil: So people don’t jump to conclusions.

Teacher: Why do you think that’s important?

Female pupil: If people jump to conclusions other people might not believe
them and it’ll just turn into an argument about something.
The centrality of purpose is to some extent evident in the number of references by the
teacher to important concepts (T1, such as cause, effect, planning and evidence/proof)
and information processing skills (T2, listening, comparing, framing questions, classify-
ing etc.) in their contributions to lessons.

Concluding Comments on Teacher Roles, Metacognition and Transfer

It is possible to further categorise the 10 roles to provide a framework for understanding
their function. The first three roles, Using Stimulating Strategies, Attending to Groups
and Individuals, and Encouraging Pupils to Ask Questions, might be considered as the
foundations of developing metacognition through providing the classroom climate in
which it can flourish. The next two, Collating Ideas and Providing Heuristics and
Alternative Representations, are teacher roles which increase the range of cognitive
resources available to pupils, which in turn can encourage a sense for pupils of there
being a choice in how they undertake tasks. The next three roles, Managing Discussion,
Making Pupils Explain Themselves and Providing Feedback are perhaps the most crucial
in creating the appropriate talk environment for metacognitive awareness to flourish,
especially if social talk is a precursor to inner speech. Making Connections is a very
specialised role and one that makes peculiar and heavy demands on teachers’ subject
knowledge, but it is important in encouraging transfer and thus in creating broad
conceptions of learning. Communicating the Purpose of Lessons is strongly tied to the
previous role, but it also serves to summarise the overall impact of the pedagogy on
some pupils.
The pedagogical skeleton depicted in the list of teacher roles may, indeed, begin to
subvert the classroom modularity described by Bereiter (1990) and Desforges and Ling
(1998). The use of challenging pedagogical strategies, an emphasis on shared thinking
and reasoning, the use of existing knowledge and the exploration of the application and
transfer of learning reduces the constraints and changes the learning culture. There were
examples in the interviews of pupils indicating unusually far-reaching learning outcomes
(see later). These interviews provide a strong echo of Black and Dockrell’s (1980)
reference to background intended learning outcomes which contrast with the modular
subject-specific ones. They mention that while background outcomes are often regarded
by teachers as the most important, they are rarely made explicit, which indicates that
some of these debriefed lessons are unusual. Black and Dockrell cite the development
of a critical approach to data, the development of the skills of discussion, criticism and
comparison and the development of self-confidence as examples of background intended
outcomes. Such outcomes are represented in the following two extracts.
Lesson 1. Female pupil: I wouldn’t say that we’ve learnt anything specific
 Metacognition and Transfer 399

today, it’s like we’re relearning things that we’ve done in the past, that
we’ve been learning over two years.
Teacher: Such as?
Female pupil: Such as discussion and things like that.
Second female pupil: Background and trigger.
Teacher: Background and trigger. Right. Is that useful? You’re not going to get
a question in a geography exam that says um …
Second female pupil: In projects and stuff. It can help you. For writing essays
and stuff, you have all the reasons, the background and the trigger reasons,
it can help you sort of arrange an essay and write it.
Third female pupil: And if you’re going to college you can use it. Like … ‘I
think this happened because of the background’.
(A distinction has been made relating to causation between long-term, abstract, back-
ground factors that provide the necessary conditions for events and short-term or trigger
factors, which provide the spark for an event at a particular place and time.)
Lesson 3, which required a consideration of resolving conflicts over weather prefer-
ences, sees one pupil making a very sophisticated connection from the weather
management context to political representation, which was not mentioned in the lesson.
Teacher: Anything else you’ve learned?
Female pupil: We have learned like different ways that you can solve
arguments.
Teacher: Keep going. Tell me more about that.
Female pupil: If you think about it, all the things we have put on the board
leave some people unhappy … and if you’ve voted, like say, if they’ve
voted for Prime Minister, even if one Prime Minister wins by a long way,
there’s still like the minority of people who aren’t happy, ’cos the one that
they wanted didn’t win.
These interviews provide strong evidence that some pupils are matching the descriptions
of students engaged in metacognition and transfer provided by Mayer and Wittrock
(1996) and Hatano and Inagaki (1992) outlined earlier. Mayer and Wittrock highlight
selecting relevant information, building internal connections between the information
and building external connections to other contexts and subject matter. Hatano and
Inagaki (1992) compare ‘routine experts’, who can apply set procedures, with ‘adaptive
experts’, who on the basis of conceptual knowledge and mental models can make
predictions for situations that have not been experienced, allowing transfer to new
contexts.
Teaching thinking is predicated upon a social constructivist perspective: learning and
understanding are inherently social activities, in which most learning and higher order
thinking are dependent on talk and interaction. The evidence in the interviews suggests
that the debriefing plenary gives some realisation to the idea of cognitive apprenticeship
developed by Resnick (1987) and Lave and Wenger (1991) in which pupils may be
inducted into the practice of thinking in particular and beneficial ways. In reciprocal
teaching (Brown & Campione, 1990), which draws on the idea, students are trained in
400 D. Leat & M. Lin

groups to adopt certain strategies in interacting with text, information or problem

scenarios. They learn to question, clarify, summarise and predict and through discussion
built around this framework they sort out many individual misunderstandings through
joint construction of understanding.
However, while the concept has some seductive power, its realisation in a classroom
depends on certain conditions. Roth’s (1996) study provides some pointers to the
conditions that are directly dependent on the teacher’s role. Roth studied an innovative
design (technology) curriculum project. It was observed that factual information and
tool-related processes readily spread through the class and this was driven by the
students. However, ‘intellectual’ practices were relatively slow to spread and this process
was largely attributed to teacher action. This study would suggest that teachers have a
crucial role in classrooms as a receiver and transmitter of ideas—an intellectual relay
station. Whilst small groups might achieve some benefit from collaboration, the larger
scale sharing of thinking is dependent on the teacher. Furthermore, Cobb et al. (1991)
found that it might take a teacher five months to create a climate in which children
showed persistence with problems, became proficient in explaining to their partner and
tried to resolve differences in perspective. Intensive ethnographic study (O’Connor,
1998) shows that learning opportunities are mediated by interpersonal contexts. It is
common in problem-solving contexts for helpful and constructive contributions to be
dismissed by others because power, social climate or interpersonal relationships inter-
cede.
One might conclude that learning that is fuelled by social processes is highly
dependent on the teacher’s intervention. It is necessary to induct pupils into social
processes and create the acceptance that exposing one’s ideas and listening to the ideas
of others is a critical part of learning. Teachers have to learn to tune in to the reasoning,
strategies and solutions that are being generated so that they can help pupils display them
in whole class discussion, thus extending their availability beyond the small group. It is
more common for teachers to be searching for responses that are a good fit to model
answers based on ‘correct’ subject knowledge. Lastly, it may be necessary for teachers
to work consistently to overcome barriers created by interpersonal relationships as small
groups of pupils can gain an ascendancy in determining the atmosphere within a class.
Developing debriefing skills gives attention to social processes.

Changing Teachers’ Pedagogy

Two broad themes warrant discussion in the light of the title of the article: firstly, the
impact of the outcomes, as described earlier, on teachers’ pedagogy, and secondly, the
study teachers’ opportunities for learning and what they signify for the relationships
between research and practice, and researchers and teachers.

How the Findings Have Been Used

The outcomes have already been used by a considerable number of teachers, having been
the focus of dozens of in-service education sessions and numerous conference contribu-
tions. It is not possible to evaluate their impact objectively, but a substantial number of
teachers have acted on the findings and reported back on their progress. They have been
incorporated into the training of teacher coaches in the North East School-Based
Research Consortium (Baumfield, 2001). Further, the findings are to be incorporated into
the support materials
 Metacognition and Transfer 401

h具ttp://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/keystage3/典 prepared for the Key State 3 (11–14

year-olds) strategy for foundation subjects (those outside of mathematics, science and
English). If McGuinness (1999) created an agenda for applied research in teaching
thinking, focusing on how teachers intervene to achieve pupil learning, then this research
has made a contribution. It begins to describe an explicit pedagogy in order to create
‘thinking classrooms’.
The original videotapes have played an important part in the in-service training. In
broad terms, video has yet to play a truly significant part in the reporting of research
findings. Huberman (2001, p. 152) notes that ‘few modes of learning have shown
themselves to be as consequential as observational learning, when observations are
focused and related to one’s own experience’. Where research is summarising or
generalising from classroom observation, then the opportunity to relate the general to a
particular instance is part of the process of making sense. Where research has an applied
focus, as was the case here, then providing a mental picture of the action described is
critical to many observers and puts flesh on the bones of the generalisation.
Franks and Jewitt (2001) have drawn attention to the importance of understanding
action in classrooms as a sociocultural phenomenon. Physical action can realise meaning
and reify (Wenger, 1998) what is elusive when only words are used. Action can
challenge conceptions and create resources with which to create and shape ideas. The
videos appear to bring a satisfaction to an audience and teachers have been heard to say
‘I see what you mean’. They notice the use of hands to invite participation, the leaning
of a body as the teacher listens, the smile as a teacher invites a pupil to contribute in the
knowledge that the expected contribution is exciting. Franks and Jewitt list eye
movement, direction and gaze, facial expression, hand and arm movements/
configurations, the use of the whole body to make gestures, body posture, the position
of people in the room and their use of space, the location and context of action as the
phenomena to be recorded. They help construct ‘thick’ descriptions which detail how
action, visual and linguistic resources work together to make meanings. In this way,
small gestures, such as hand movements and body inclination, can be understood as
having a wider significance within the ecology of the classroom. Whilst video carries the
danger of detaching classroom action from its sociocultural setting, it has greater validity
in representing certain aspects of teaching than a written generalisation. It is interesting
to note the idea prompted by research in developmental psychology that action leads to
intuitive knowledge and that action-based knowledge may follow a different develop-
ment path from verbalisable knowledge in young children (Goswami, 1998). It will be
important in the future to explore the role of video in representing action, and through
it practice and research, perhaps through depicting examples and non-examples and
prototype cases. It is interesting too that the aspects of the pedagogy are so generic that
there is little difficulty in showing the videos to primary teachers or secondary teachers
of any subject. This attention to action is especially important if teachers are strongly
influenced by their apprenticeship as learners, which leaves them with powerful con-
structs or images about teaching (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Knowles, 1992). Change
is difficult unless teachers are presented with some alternative models.
Some teachers have made the findings of the study the starting point for their own
action research. For example, DfEE Best Practice Research Scholarships are being used
to explore whether debriefing changes the focus of pupils’ individual target setting,
informs their understanding of the demands of examination questions or impacts on their
conceptions of learning. Other teachers have reported that having started using teaching
thinking strategies they then develop their debriefing practice by consciously asking open
402 D. Leat & M. Lin

questions to get pupils’ solutions. Their next step is to use prompts and supplementary
questions to encourage pupils to expand their answers. Once they gain confidence in this
aspect they redirect their attention to other roles, such as managing discussion, which
might involve building a conflict between opposing views. They also report that
generating analogies, stories and transfer contexts is sometimes beyond them. A number
have commented that what we have termed ‘caring for groups and individuals’ is critical,
justifying its status as part of the foundation of this pedagogic style. Pupils are unlikely
to risk exposing their ideas and thoughts if they are not convinced that they will be
valued. This accounts for the reports from some who say that pupils find debriefing
difficult as they are not used to working in this way. All those who have a chance to
watch the videos or colleagues have testified to the value, both in practical terms and in
reinforcing the belief that it is achievable. Moreover, the language to describe the
pedagogy has been critical.
In the ecology of classrooms, skills are not discrete entities that can be practised and
perfected in isolation; action triggers reaction. Turmoil is not uncommon (Rich, 1993),
created by upsetting the ‘Normal Desirable State’ (Brown & McIntyre, 1993) that
teachers tend to use as their barometer for gauging the success of lessons. One has to
offer change that accords with teachers’ beliefs or helps change them, which does not
sacrifice order in the long haul, which motivates and interests pupils and has associated
routines which can be developed and appreciated by teachers and pupils. Without this
support for change it is likely that teachers will experience considerable frustration as
they feel they ought to be teaching differently but cannot bring it about; they develop
a ‘knot’ (Wagner, 1987). In such circumstances, research, in the round, has to do more
than disseminate and provide insights and a broader picture, as suggested by Watkins
and Mortimore (1999), if it is to influence practice.
So, in introducing the findings to teachers it has been useful to refer to the model
outlined in the report on Effective Teachers of Numeracy (Askew et al., 1997) because
it provides an explanation of how a knowledge of new ‘approaches’ can impact on their
pedagogical content knowledge, their beliefs and their practice, through the effect that
the new approach ultimately generates in pupils. These impacts can be understood to
operate as through a system. If teachers change their classroom practice as a conse-
quence of being introduced to new approaches, then it is likely that pupils will respond
in some way—being more engaged, giving longer answers in discussion, moaning about
wanting to do ‘proper’ work, coming up with creative ideas, being bemused by
something challenging etc. Pupil response is a critical concept in understanding the
individual teacher grappling with change in the classroom (Leat & Higgins, in press).
Progression from their starting point is inevitably varied. Many teachers begin by
planning more teaching thinking lessons. Some teachers begin to ask questions about
their practice and its effects on pupils’ learning. They may challenge some of their own
assumptions about teaching, such as what their pupils may be learning, what they might
learn, what they are capable of and the role of discursive talk in education. Many are
keen to read more about metacognition. Some, of course, find it all too difficult and give
up. The Effective Teachers of Numeracy model can provide an explanation to teachers
of the systemic changes that are occurring, perhaps even impinging on their beliefs. The
model is part of the process of offering teachers more control in the pursuit of change,
as they can appreciate the source of anxiety and stress that they experience and develop
a metaawareness of their condition.
The impact of the work provokes some thoughts concerning how to connect research
to teachers’ practice. Eraut (1994) has made the point that learning knowledge and using
 Metacognition and Transfer 403

knowledge are the same process. This is one of those statements that appears so
deceptively simple that its profound importance is easily overlooked. If the statement is
accepted as having any validity, then it can be contended that if knowledge from
research findings is to be learned or integrated into the practice of teachers, it has to be
used, which demands that it is usable or actionable. We suggest that actionable research
has the following characteristics:
• that it is widely applicable and not too sensitive to context;
• that it has face validity so that teachers recognise the value to their practice;
• that it includes starting points accompanied by practical routines (ideally in some form
of progression) which have the potential to replace those which are being given up in
the adoption of the findings;
• that it is related to educational ends, not just means, as teachers need to judge whether
it serves their purpose;
• that it is accompanied by a framework of underpinning ideas that provides a rationale.
• that it is provisional—it is to be tested, refined, extended or rejected;
• that the tensions and dilemmas that are likely to be encountered in the application are
outlined—forewarned is forearmed;
• that implications for both teachers and school managers are addressed;
• that it is supported by video, metaphors, examples and non-examples which help
provide associative images.
Actionable outcomes can provide a middle ground or language to connect the world of
practice and the world of abstraction, broad vision and generalisation that is the medium
of many researchers. Desforges (2000) in the Desmond Nutall/Carfax Memorial Lecture
states that teachers want working examples of success, which include descriptions of
how it got to work and ‘research results converted as far as possible into the technologies
of education—into curriculum or other pedagogic materials’. Whilst the term technolo-
gies might not be most appropriate, giving attention to the translation of research
outcomes in a form that can be taken up is vital but it requires an effort. The actionable
aspects of this research have been developed further elsewhere (Leat & Kinninment,
2000).

Teachers as Learners, Teaching as Learning

It is virtually impossible to create and sustain over time conditions for
productive learning for students when they do not exist for teachers. (Sarason,
1990, p. 45)
Against this background, therefore, it is instructive to examine the conditions and
processes that characterised the learning of the teacher researchers for what they may
indicate about the likely conditions for research partnerships. We have drawn upon some
of the headings used to describe teacher roles in facilitating pupil learning to describe
the teachers’ learning. In doing so, we are not saying the circumstances and processes
are the same, but we would wish to reinforce the link between teachers’ and pupils’
learning, especially from a social constructivist perspective.

Challenging Activities
In a deliberate attempt to construct a community of practice (Palincsar et al., 1998), it
was observed that teachers joined because of their interest in improving their classroom
404 D. Leat & M. Lin

practice. They wanted to be challenged by implementing inquiry-based learning. Huber-

man (1989) has tellingly described satisfied teachers in a Swiss study as ‘productive
tinkerers’, who invest in small-scale classroom-level experiments such as new material,
different pupil groupings and the like. This satisfaction contrasted with those who did not
experiment or who had been involved in large-scale reform. Elsewhere, Huberman
(2001), in elaborating the power of collaborative networks, highlights the importance of
‘didactic leads’ whose function is to provide ‘alternative scenarios’ which put ‘flesh and
bones on the conceptual inputs and suggest small manageable experiments’. The teacher
researchers were in such a position, challenging themselves with a conscious attempt to
develop a difficult area of practice. In the words of one, ‘It’s actually trying things that
helps—going outside your comfort zone’. For another of the teachers it was a chance to
step out of their view of teaching as it ‘forced me to look at other people’s perspectives’.
However, didactic leads have to be good. They have to accord with fundamental beliefs
about teaching. In a long-term study of an attempt to support teachers in one school in
their use of mastery learning (Postlethwaite & Haggarty, 1998), it appears that some staff
rejected the innovation because it did not accord with their beliefs about teaching their
subject. One of the teacher researchers (Leat, 1996) has always believed that good
teachers relate geography to current affairs and everyday life and, further, that lessons
should be fun. Teaching thinking and debriefing gave her the perfect outlet for this
aspiration.
General support for this contention is provided by Cousins & Leithwood (1993), who
examined a large array of factors in a study to explain educators’ use of information for
improvement purposes. They found, in particular, that the relevance, timeliness, source
of help and perceived value of the content were found to impact on use. In the British
context, teaching thinking and teaching for metacognitive awareness may be felt to be
timely by some teachers as an antidote to the heavy prescription of the National
Curriculum.

Social Learning
The pupils provide considerable evidence that much of their learning comes through the
medium of talk and is the result of the social construction of meaning. Cousins and
Leithwood argue that schools and school districts (in the North American context) are
social organisations in which knowledge is socially constructed. They identify collabora-
tive design and delivery of interventions, follow-up activities and regular interaction with
those able to provide personal support as important processes. Without opportunities for
social learning Cousins and Leithwood contend that organisational learning will not
occur. The researchers had just such an opportunity for structured and focused interac-
tion, although they were based in four schools, not one. In the talk that ensued they were
able to compare practice, ask questions, clarify meaning, develop a language and
exchange ideas. Professional development takes place through the medium of conver-
sation. It focuses on the particulars of teaching, learning, subject matter, and students. By
engaging in professional discourse grounded in the contexts and tasks of classrooms with
like-minded colleagues, teachers can deepen their knowledge of their subject curriculum,
refine their teaching repertoire, sharpen their capacity for professional learning and
become critical colleagues. Being critical is a crucial component as it rises above sharing
and encouragement. Talk is the central vehicle for sharing and analysing ideas, values,
and practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2000). Ball and Cohen (1999) stress, however, that
professional development is best situated in the artefacts of teaching such as videotapes,
 Metacognition and Transfer 405

curricular materials and samples of work as they provide a common referent for
discussion. The use of specific evidence helps develop a more descriptive and discrim-
inating language for communication and knowledge generating. These accounts are
echoed by one of the teachers: ‘Discussion helps. Watching videos and debating what it
was we were looking at, what it was that was going on. I didn’t realise that I planned
as much as I do, I thought it just happened, and it helps you verbalise what you do’.
Reference was made in relation to pupils’ learning to the concept of distributed
cognition (Bruer, 1994). Distributed cognition brings greater cognitive resource to a task
and emphasises the interaction of ideas as group members spark thought in one another.
The teacher researchers had some opportunities for learning which reflect these pro-
cesses. For example, in one of their early meetings they designed a planning sheet for
the debriefing process. This brought to the fore different ideas that were new to some.
One person contributed the notion of key thinking words and another suggested the
planning of analogies to support pupil understanding. These ideas were explained,
discussed and refined. Interestingly, none of the teachers adopted the sheet in the long
run, because they quickly discovered its weaknesses and adapted it, but all claimed that
it had been a useful focus for their discussion. In a similar vein, watching the videos
allowed the featured teacher to explain decisions they had made and for all to comment
on what they found interesting, worth copying, thought-provoking or just different. The
idea of carrying a piece of paper and a pen while pupils worked in groups had particular
significance. Not only was it of immense practical value in allowing the jotting of notes
on what had been heard and seen, which allowed the researchers to manage whole class
discussion more effectively, it took on a symbolic meaning. The paper or notebook
encapsulated the new role as mediator that the teacher researchers were trying to
develop. The paper represented the role and holding the paper acted as a reminder to stay
away from groups who were working effectively.
Moreover, psychological safety was an important component of the learning process
for the researchers, as with the pupils. In the discussions that took place in planning the
project and the planning sheet, viewing videos, during the visits and in analysing the data
there was an openness about practice. Huberman (2001) quotes Wallach et al. (1962) in
relation to group dynamic theory to suggest that experimenting groups of teachers are
more likely to take risks than individuals without mutual support. The teachers ex-
changed experiences that included lessons which felt like failures and had been
video-recorded. As Huberman (p. 153) notes, ‘since what is being tried out is new to all,
temporary difficulties, even failures, are socially legitimate’. The research was the
embodiment of risk, stepping out of the known, just as it is for pupils in venturing their
reasons and opinions. Whilst no one person, in the case of the researchers, was
responsible for their welfare, the feeling of safety was important in the process of social
learning.

Getting Feedback
Watkins (2000) has made the point that most feedback that teachers get is highly
evaluative (OFSTED inspections, performance management etc.) and is couched nor-
mally in terms of judgements. He links this trend with Dweck’s work on pupils’
self-theories (1999), which contrasts the effects of performance orientation and learning
orientation. Performance orientation incites more negative views about abilities and more
helplessness, while learning orientation encourages a positive view of the self. Watkins
406 D. Leat & M. Lin

argues that if teachers behave towards each other as hostile witnesses they put at risk the
trust and learning orientation required to build professional communities.
Each teacher researcher got feedback in this project. There were two very sharp forms
of feedback, the video-recordings and the interviews with pupils. They were confronted
with a form of reality of their teaching behaviours and persona and the impact of these
on pupils. Drawing on Chi (1996), Watkins argues that in a collaborative approach
feedback takes on a more multiple view where many parties interact and continuously
produce and receive feedback. One of the researchers noted that, apart from the
discussion, there were four types of information that made her think. They were
watching how someone else did their debriefing, interviewing pupils for other teachers
(which made her reflect on her own teaching), reading transcripts from her own pupils
and watching herself on video. She commented, ‘I got more idea about the effects of my
teaching and teaching generally in three months than I had got in the previous three
years—by a mile’. Another of the group clearly stated that seeing himself on video and
reading transcriptions of the interviews made the most impact on his thinking. Thus, the
research process was rich in feedback, but it was not in an evaluate form embedded in
a power relationship. There was a collective process of generating data for a group of
peers, all of whom were potentially vulnerable, but who instead benefited from mutual
support.

Making Connections
Just as there is concern that pupils are poor in transferring learning, so the same concerns
exist for teachers. Some description has already been given of the ways the findings have
been shared with wider audiences. However, one can also make some observations about
the learning trajectory of the teacher researchers. It must be emphasised that this research
was neither a starting point nor a finish, it was part of a development process that
continues. Before the project, all had contributed to a book generated through curricu-
lum-focused action research (Leat, 1998). Since the research, all four teachers and the
wider group have continued their research, curriculum development and in-service
education activities. One became the school coordinator in the Teacher Training Agency
(TTA) funded North East School Based Research Consortium, a member of the TTA’s
teacher panel and the National Educational Research Forum. Two, by strange coinci-
dence, have been appointed as coordinators for teaching thinking for their respective
school partnerships (all the local schools that feed into a high school for 13–18
year-olds) with a strong onus on action research. Two have been trained as teacher
coaches for teaching thinking. Three have held Best Practice Research Scholarships. One
is researching pupils’ conceptions of learning, one the role of peer assessment in
improving examination answers and the third the contribution of teaching thinking to
pupils’ understanding of geographical concepts. All have contributed to a second TTG
group book (Nichols & Kinninment, 2001). Between them they have become relatively
knowledgeable on topics such as metacognition, learned helplessness, teachers’ beliefs,
pupils’ literacy, action research, diagnostic and formative assessment and managing
group work. Interestingly, none has yet decided to pursue a higher degree.
Although the literature is not extensive, it seems that once teachers have been able to
articulate their practice they are in a position to benefit from more generalised theoretical
perspectives as they hold their conceptualised practice against the theoretical frames.
Wood and Bennett (2000) worked with a group of reception class teachers examining the
match between their espoused theories and their practice. In the process the teachers
 Metacognition and Transfer 407

reflected on practice, watched videotapes of their teaching and developed a thirst for new
theoretical insights from other research, which was provided by the HE researchers.
Transforming one’s practice from the mass of unarticulated particulars to some form of
generalisation puts it into a form where it can be understood within a much wider frame
and can be connected to many other issues and agendas. Doherty and Elliott (1999) have
also found that when staff report back the findings of their action research they are
provoked into exploring how those findings could be interpreted through reference to
research literature. Kershner (1999) suggests that when teachers are involved in the
interpretation of their own findings they can develop a better understanding of the claims
made by HE based researchers. Baumfield and McGrane (2000) go further and suggest
that the catalyst for engagement with research is basically engagement in research. The
process of using action research to transform implicit knowledge into some explicit
statement of principles underpinned by evidence can create a readiness in teachers for
wider thought and engagement, circumstances permitting. This seems to be associated
with a shift in enquiry focus from their performance to wider issues about teaching and
learning. It may even be connected to the process of shifting out of one’s classroom and
being able to see teaching and learning from other perspectives, both in other teachers’
classrooms and other venues such as discussions and conferences. It is appealing to see
this in terms of constraint theory. As one is able to distance oneself from one’s routine
environment so the blinkers on thinking are removed, opening the way to a broader view
of teaching and learning. As another local teacher, who has been involved in teaching
thinking and action research, states on a DfEE video (2001b) ‘it certainly opened my
eyes’.

Conclusions
It is not difficult to identify a number of imperatives that are creating a need for
educational partnerships in which full-time researchers, policy-makers and teachers
interact and where research is part of the currency. The DfEE commissioned report on
research on schools (Hillage et al., 1998) was largely critical—fragmentation, lack of
impact, inaccessible, supply driven and poor dissemination were some of the perceived
failings. It recommended the creation of ‘mediation infrastructure, i.e. people and
processes through which research is interpreted and assimilated into the actions and
decision-making of those engaged in developing, implementing and carrying out educa-
tional policies’ (p. 53). Secondly, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
programme on Teaching and Learning, with over £10 million funding, is well under way.
Four of the five programme aims have impact as a central concern:
• to support high quality research, in partnership with practitioners and with a clear
focus on raising learners’ attainment;
• to transform research findings collaboratively into practical action which can be used
to deliver higher achievement;
• to ensure the work is disseminated as widely as possible and has maximum impact;
• to build partnerships with the teaching, learning and research communities to gain
wide support for these aims.
Thirdly, the recent DfEE (2001a) strategy for professional development has action
research and collaboration as recurrent themes. It is recommended that teachers are
encouraged to experiment with new ideas in the classroom, with the opportunity also to
engage with the theoretical frameworks behind the ideas. Finally, the National College
408 D. Leat & M. Lin

of School Leadership is running a programme of Networked Learning Communities

(groups of schools linked to their education authorities, higher education or other
agencies) that are expected to have a research element.
The late Peter Foster wrote (1999) a sharply critical review of teacher research funded
by the Teacher Training Agency. Foster’s review makes valid points but he polarises
research and teaching in a way that is unhelpful. He states, citing Hammersley (1993)
and McIntyre (1997), that research and teaching are different roles which depend upon
different types of knowledge, skill and disposition, and concludes that expecting teachers
to take over the task of doing educational research underestimates the task and expertise
required. Such a view would seem to leave researchers in a dominant role, producing
relevant knowledge for practitioners to consume. There is a concern, expressed in
aspects of the debates around the ESRC TLRP, to find what works so that teachers can
implement in the sure and certain knowledge that it will have the desired impact.
However, as has been discussed earlier, researchers are struggling to formulate their
work in a way that is particular enough to initiate action on the part of teachers. In the
consideration of the potential effectiveness and impact of research there has been an
emphasis on the supply side. If one could achieve better research designs, use ran-
domised controlled trials, use larger data sets, do repeat studies and find better
dissemination tools, it is suggested, then the situation would be improved. There is little
consideration of the consumer or the demand for research. Currently, there is very little
real thirst for research outcomes amongst British teachers, although there may be a latent
demand. Maintaining a sharp distinction carries the danger of encouraging teachers and
researchers to be separate communities who seek identity through distinctiveness.
Part of the answer to creating a demand for research is to blur the boundaries between
researchers and teachers. It is enormously healthy for professionals who work in the
same domain to share language, exchange perspectives and engage in collective
problem-solving. Engestrom et al. (1995) argue that boundary crossing and polycontex-
tuality are key concepts in developing a new, broader view of expertise demanded in
settings too complex to be reduced to rule following. In their view experts operate in and
move across parallel activity contexts. The process of boundary crossing confronts one
with difference and unfamiliarity and thus may stimulate collective concept formation.
This can be understood partly in terms of combining tools, perspectives and practices as
different constituencies explain and listen to each other as they try to make meaning and
solve problems. Research partnerships, which grow into communities of practice, hold
the prospect of producing knowledge about teaching and the processes of production
because they encourage boundary crossing. One can see the teacher researchers had
many opportunities of boundary crossing in this project, not least in entering into the
pupils’ world through conducting and analysing interviews and having to explain their
teaching to others. The university researcher had similar opportunities in working closely
with the teachers and making sense of their practice through pupil interview and video.
In the USA there is considerable interest in Wenger’s (1998) concept of communities
of practice to the point where attempts are being made to construct such communities
amongst teachers (Palincsar et al., 1998, Thomas et al., 1998). The appeal of the concept
is that such communities are seen to be essential for making meaning by professionals.
Some of the infrastructural components of communities of practice as described by
Wenger are given in Table II along with some parallels in the work of the researchers
in this study (both teacher researchers and university researchers).
Critical factors in cementing partnerships between teachers and university researchers
are trust, respect, reciprocity and personal relationship. These are hard won. There are
 Metacognition and Transfer 409

TABLE II. The study teachers as a community of practice

Some characteristics of communities of Comparable characteristics among

practice (after Wenger) teacher researchers

Joint tasks: things to do together; Planning debriefing and analysing videos

availability of help with the support of the HE researcher
Peripherality: boundary encounters; ways Visiting other schools; researchers and
of belonging, entry points; observation, teachers working in each others’
casual encounters, open houses. institutions, meeting as a declared group
Initiative and knowledgeability: activities Working together to share ideas about
that bring about knowledgeability of planning debriefing, identifying
engagement; occasions for applying debriefing ‘roles’, doing in-service
skills, devising solutions; problems that training for other teachers and for other
engage energy, creativity and academics
inventiveness.
Tools: artifacts that support competence; The piece of paper to record observations
discourses, terms and concepts. whilst pupils work; the extended pupil
answer, analogies
Models and representations of patterns; The 10 roles, comparing debriefing
facilities for comparisons with other discourse with other classroom talk
practices; retreats, time off, phenomena; time to reflect on the project
conversations;
Common focus, cause or interest, A commitment to teaching thinking and
direction, vision; shared understanding, developing debriefing as a mode for
creed, values and principles encouraging metacognition and transfer
Boundary facilities: boundary practices, (Boundary practice) recording and
brokers, boundary objects, support for analysing video (being of significant
multi-membership value to both understanding practice and
describing it)
Feedback facilities: data collection, Playing the videos, counting the number
accounting, measurements. of open and closed questions and the
length of pupil contributions

times when it is difficult to communicate across professional boundaries as one may not
fully appreciate the perspective of the other. It is important for a teacher researcher to
be able to contact a university researcher and ask a question about procedure or ideas
and feel that they are not being stupid or naïve, or to share a concern or to explain a
gaffe. It is important for a researcher to be able to telephone a teacher and seek
clarification, sound out an idea or ask a favour. This boundary crossing carries a price
however, as one is stepping outside the norms of one’s institution (Snyder, 1994). This
is most obvious in the case of schools where a teacher’s commitment to research will
often clash with meeting patterns, workloads, and the expectations set by departmental
and school improvement plans. It can be just as sharp in a university where the
investment of time in such partnerships may be completely unfunded. Whilst the
collaboration may lead to a funded project, there is a considerable lead-time and morally
and practically one cannot easily take up and put down such relationships. Involvement
with teachers creates a certain expectation about future working. Such relationships and
their cost in time are not necessarily recognised in the methods used to assess research
or research funding applications. There are some differences here with the model
recently drawn by Torrance and Pryor (2001) where teacher researchers are recruited
410 D. Leat & M. Lin

into a funded project and parity of status may take longer to effect. The processes
outlined here arise from an existing and lengthy relationship.
Cousins and Leithwood (1993) contrast control strategies and empowerment strategies
in the pursuit of change. Control strategies attempt to direct and shape the actions of
implementers while empowerment strategies aim to restructure work settings to foster
their capacity for ‘knowledge utilisation’. They go further in quoting Louis and Simsek
(1991) on organisational learning:
[which] involves the creation of socially constructed interpretation of facts and
knowledge that enter into the organisation from the environment, or are
generated from within. In other words, organisations cannot learn in the
absence of ‘social processing’ of information. (p. 8)
Wood and Bennett (2000) propose that groups of teachers engaging in shared reflective
practice can be empowered to improve pedagogy that can be an antidote to top–down
models of change in which they are seen as implementers or technicians. They argue that
‘the relevance of the knowledge that teachers produce about teaching cannot be
underestimated in the wider political context which, in England and elsewhere, is
producing a reductionist view by portraying professional expertise as a set of skills and
competencies to be attained’. However, there is a danger that bottom–up approaches to
knowledge creation can be narrow, uncritical and divorced from what is already known
(Huberman, 1983). Research partnerships that join teachers and HE researchers might
avoid many of the disadvantages of the extremes of control and empowerment strategies.
The tension between these extremes has been expressed well in the interim evaluation
of the National Literacy and National Numeracy Strategies (NLNS) in England (Earl et
al., 2000, p. 10):
it will not be sufficient to have high quality training and strong support from
headteachers. In addition, it will be essential to create strong professional
learning communities at the school level. Teachers’ individual knowledge and
skills must be put to use, not only in individual classrooms, but also across the
school as a whole. A strong professional learning community includes shared
goals for pupil learning, collaboration and collective responsibility among
teachers, reflective professional inquiry and opportunities for staff members to
influence the school’s activities and policies.
Research relationships between teachers, schools and higher education researchers can
be part of the answer in creating professional learning communities, in encouraging
innovation, reflective enquiry, articulation of practice and its rationale with an ongoing
exposure to ideas from the outside. This process is a challenge to school managers
because as teachers become more confident in their practice so they are more likely to
demand access to school policies and procedures. They are more likely to assert that
particular school policies are inconsistent with the outcomes of their work or the research
consensus. They are also a challenge to research managers and funders who do not
automatically fathom their value, cost or relevance.
Within the context of an evidence-based profession there is a need for a reappraisal
of the relationships between the practice of teachers, evidence that might inform them
and researchers whose prime motive is to produce that evidence. For the research
community the key is in the word relationship. For research to reach its potential to
inform practice it is vital to move beyond communicating or disseminating findings, or
even involving teachers in formulating questions and collecting data. The role of
research is to help teachers to solve the endemic problems they face. So one relationship
 Metacognition and Transfer 411

to address is that between research findings and educational practice and we believe the
concept of action is the key to this. The other relationship is that with practitioners,
where lasting structures must be developed in which teachers and researchers become
part of a shared community of practice.

Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Liz Evans (Haydon Bridge School, Northumberland), David Kinnin-
ment (Blyth Community College, Northumberland), Julie McGrane (St Thomas More
High School, North Shields) and Amber Riches (formerly Harton School, South Shields)
on whose teaching and research this article is based. Thanks also to our colleague,
Kathryn Ecclestone, for her invaluable comments on drafts. The original research was
funded by a Teacher Training Agency Teacher Research Grant.

Correspondence: David Leat, Department of Education, University of Newcastle, St

Thomas Street, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK.

REFERENCES
ADEY, P. & SHAYER, M. (1993) Really Raising Standards (London, Routledge).
ADEY, P., SHAYER, M. & YATES, C. (1989) Thinking Science: the curriculum materials of the CASE
project (London, Macmillan).
ASKEW, M., BROWN, M., RHODES, V., JOHNSON, D. & WILIAM, D. (1997) Effective Teachers of Numeracy
(London, King’s College).
BALL, D. L. & COHEN, D. K. (1999) Developing practice, developing practitioners: towards a practice-
based theory of professional education, in: G. SYKES & L. DARLING-HAMMOND (Eds) Teaching as the
Learning Profession: handbook of policy and practice (San Francisco, CA, Jossey–Bass).
BASSEY, M. (2002) Letter (unpublished) to the Daily Mail: ‘How about reporting the research of
Richards, Horne and Wiliam?’ Research Intelligence, 78, p. 21.
BAUMFIELD, V. (2001) Draft Final Report of the Teacher Training Agency Funded North East School
Based Research Consortium (Newcastle, Newcastle University Department of Education).
BAUMFIELD, V. & MCGRANE, J. (2000) Teachers using evidence and engaging in and with research: one
school’s story, paper given at British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff, Septem-
ber 2000.
BAUMFIELD, V., STANCLIFFE, D., ATKINS, M. & LEAT, D. (1995) Improving Students’ Performance—a
guide to thinking skills programmes in education and training (Gateshead, Tyneside Training and
Enterprise Council).
BEREITER, C. (1990) Aspects of an educational theory, Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 603–624.
BLACK, H. & DOCKRELL, W. (1980) Diagnostic Assessment in Geography—a teacher’s handbook
(Edinburgh, Scottish Council for Research in Education).
BLACK, P. & WILIAM D. (1998) Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment
(London, King’s College).
BLAGG, N., BALLINGER, M. & LEWIS, R. (1988) Somerset Thinking Skills Course: handbook (Oxford,
Basil Blackwell).
BOALER, J. (1997) Experiencing School Mathematics (Buckingham, Open University Press).
BREKELMANS, M., WUBBELS, T. & LEVY, J. (1993) Student performance, attitudes, instructional strategies
and teacher-communication style, in: T. WUBBELS & J. LEVY (Eds) Do You Know What You Look
Like? Interpersonal Relations in Education (London, Falmer Press).
BRIERLEY, L., CASSAR, I., LOADER, P., NORMAN, K., SHANTRY, I., WOLFE, S. & WOOD, D. (1992) ‘No, We
Ask You Questions’, in: K. NORMAN (Ed.) Thinking Voices, the Work of the National Oracy Project
(London, Hodder & Stoughton).
BROWN, A. L. & CAMPIONE, J. C. (1990) Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other
412 D. Leat & M. Lin

name, in: D. KUHN (Ed.) Developmental Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills.
Contributions to Human Development Series (Basle, Karger).
BROWN, S. & MCINTYRE, D. (1993) Making Sense of Teaching (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).
BRUER, J. (1994) Classroom problems, school culture and cognitive research, in: K. MCGILLY (Ed.)
Classroom Lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (Cambridge, MA, MIT
Press).
CALDERHEAD, J. & ROBSON, M. (1991) Images of teaching: student teachers’ early conceptions of
classroom practice, Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, pp. 1–8.
CHI, M. T. H. (1996) Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring, Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10 (Special Issue), pp. 33–49.
COBB, P., WOOD, T. & YACKEL, E. (1991) Analogies from philosophy and sociology of science for
understanding classroom life, Science Education, 75, pp. 23–44.
COOPER, P. & MCINTYRE, D. (1996) Effective Teaching and Learning: teachers’ and students’ perspec-
tives (Buckingham, Open University Press).
COUSINS, J. & LEITHWOOD, K. (1993) Enhancing knowledge utilisation as a strategy for school improve-
ment, Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization, 14, pp. 305–333.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1997) Excellence in Schools (London, HMSO).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (2001a) Learning and Teaching—a strategy for
professional development (DfEE 0071/2001) (London, DfEE).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (2001b) Continuing Professional Development
Video Case Studies (DfEE 0242/2001) (London, DfEE).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT/QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (DfEE/
QCA) (1999) The National Curriculum—handbook for secondary teachers in England Key Stages 3
and 4 (London, DfEE/QCA).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DfES) (2002) Making Good Use of the Plenary (DfES
0192/2002) (London, DfES).
DESFORGES, C. (2000) Familiar challenges and new approaches: necessary advances in theory and
methods in research on teaching and learning—the Desmond Nuttall/Carfax Memorial Lecture,
British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff, 2000 (Nottingham, BERA).
DESFORGES, C. & LING, P. (1998) Teaching knowledge application: advances in theoretical conceptions
and their professional implications, British Journal of Educational Studies, 46, pp. 386–398.
DILLON, J. (1988) Questioning and Teaching: a manual of practice (London, Croom Helm).
DOHERTY, P. & ELLIOTT, J. (1999) Engaging teachers in and with research: the relationship between
context, evidence and use, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Confer-
ence, Sussex, September 1999.
DOYLE, W. C. (1977) Learning in the classroom environment: an ecological analysis, Journal of Teacher
Education, 28, pp. 51–55.
DWECK, C. (1999) Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality and development (Philadelphia, PA,
Psychology Press).
EARL, L., FULLAN, M., LEITHWOOD, K., WATSON, N. WITH JANTZI, D., LEVIN, B. & TORRANCE, N. (2000)
Watching and Learning. OISE/UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the National Literacy and
Numeracy Strategies (Ontario, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto).
EDWARDS, A. & TALBOT, R. (1994) The Hard-pressed Researcher: a research handbook for the caring
professions (London, Addison Wesley Longman).
EDWARDS, A. & WESTGATE, D. (1987) Investigating Classroom Talk (London, Falmer Press).
EDWARDS, T. (1998) Critique of ‘Teacher effectiveness: better teachers, better schools’ (David Reynolds),
Research Intelligence 66, pp. 29–30.
EFKLIDES, A. & VAURAS, M. (1999) Introduction, European Journal of Psychology of Education (Special
Issue: Metacognitive Experiences and Their Role in Cognition), pp. 455–459.
ENGESTROM, Y., ENGESTROM, R. & KARKKAINEN, M. (1995) Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in
expert cognition: learning and problem solving in complex work activities, Learning and Instruction,
5, pp. 1–17.
ERAUT, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence (London, Falmer Press).
FEIMAN-NEMSER, S. (2000) From Preparation to Practice: designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching (New York, Bank Street College of Education).
FEUERSTEIN, R., RAND, Y., HOFFMAN, M. B. & MILLER, R. (1980) Instrumental Enrichment: an interven-
tion for cognitive modifiability (Baltimore, MD, University Park Press).
FLAVELL, J. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring, American Psychologist, 45, pp. 906–911.
 Metacognition and Transfer 413

FOSTER, P. (1999) ‘Never mind the quality, feel the impact’: a methodological assessment of teacher
research sponsored by the Teacher Training Agency, British Journal of Educational Studies, 47, pp.
380–398.
FRANKS, A. & JEWITT, C. (2001) The meaning of action in learning and teaching, British Educational
Research Journal, 27, pp. 201–218.
FULLAN, M. (1995) A very moral purpose, Times Educational Supplement, 6 October.
GENTNER, D. & STEVENS, A. L. (1983) Mental Models (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
GLASER, B. & STRAUSS, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Chicago, IL, Aldine).
GOSWAMI, U. (1998) Cognition in Children (Hove, Psychology Press).
HAMMERSLEY, M. (1992) What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological Explorations (London,
Routledge).
HATANO, G. & INAGAKI, K. (1992) Desituating cognition through the construction of conceptual
knowledge, in: P. LIGHT & G. BUTTERWORTH (Eds) Context and Cognition (Hemel Hempstead,
Harvester Wheatsheaf).
HILL, P. (1998) Research-driven school reform, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, pp.
419–436.
HILLAGE, J., PEARSON, R., ANDERSON, A. & TAMKIN, P. (1998) Excellence in Research on Schools
(London, Department for Education and Employment).
HUBERMAN, M. (1983) Recipes for busy kitchens: a situational analysis of routing knowledge use in
schools, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4, pp. 478–510.
HUBERMAN, M. (1989) The professional life cycle of teachers, Teachers College Record, 91, pp. 31–58.
HUBERMAN, M. (2001) Networks that alter teaching: conceptualization, exchanges and experiments, in:
J. SOLER, A. CRAFT & H. BURGESS (Eds) Teacher Development—exploring our own practice (London,
Paul Chapman).
JOYCE, B., CALHOUN, E. & HOPKINS, D. (1997) Models of Learning—tools for teaching (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
KERSHNER, R. (1999) The role of school-based in helping teachers to extend their understanding of
children’s learning and motivation, Journal of In-Service Education, 25, pp. 423–445.
KNOWLES, J. G. (1992) Models for understanding pre-service and beginning teachers’ biographies, in: I.
GOODSON (Ed.) Studying Teachers’ Lives (London, Routledge).
LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Cognition: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
LEAT, D. (1996) Geography student teachers and their images of teaching, International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 5, pp. 63–68.
LEAT, D. (1998) Thinking through Geography (Cambridge, Chris Kington).
LEAT, D. (1999) Rolling the stone uphill: teacher development and the implementation of thinking skills
programmes, Oxford Review of Education, 25, pp. 387–403.
LEAT, D. & HIGGINS, S. (in press) Powerful pedagogical strategies—their role in teacher development,
Curriculum Journal.
LEAT, D. & KINNINMENT, D. (2000) Learn to debrief, in: C. FISHER & T. BINNS (Eds) Issues in Geography
Teaching (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
LEAT, D. & NICHOLS, A. (1999) Mysteries Make You Think (Sheffield, Geographical Association).
LIPMAN, M., SHARP, A. M. & OSCANYAN, F. S. (1980) Philosophy in the Classroom (Philadelphia, PA,
Temple University Press).
LOUIS, K. & SIMSEK, H. (1991) Paradigm shifts and organisational learning: some theoretical lessons for
restructuring schools, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council of Educational
Administration, Baltimore, MD.
MARKMAN, E. (1990) Constraints children place on word meanings, Cognitive Science, 14, pp. 57–77.
MAYER, R. & WITTROCK, M. (1996) Problem-solving transfer, in: D. BERLINER & R. CALFEE (Eds)
Handbook of Educational Psychology (New York, Simon & Schuster Macmillan).
MCGUINNESS, C. (1999) From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms: a review and evaluation of
approaches for developing pupils’ thinking. DfEE Research Report RR115 (London, Department for
Education and Employment).
MCINTYRE, D. (1997) The profession of educational research, British Educational Research Journal, 23,
pp. 127–140.
MUIJS, R. D. (1997) Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept: a longitudinal
perspective, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, pp. 263–277.
NICHOLS, A. & KINNINMENT, D. (2001) More Thinking through Geography (Cambridge, Chris Kington).
414 D. Leat & M. Lin

NUNES, T., SCHLIEMANN, A. D. & CARRAHER, D. W. (1993) Street Mathematics and School Mathematics
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
O’CONNOR, M. C. (1998) Managing the intermental: classroom group discussion and the social context
of learning, in: D. SLOBIN, J. GERHARDT, A. KYRATZIS & J. GUO (Eds) Social Interaction, Social Context
and Language: essays in honor of Susan Ervin Tripp (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
OLSEN, D. & CAMPBELL, R. (1997) Constructing representations, in: C. PRATT & A. F. GARTON (Eds)
Systems of Representations in Children (Chichester, John Wiley).
PALINCSAR, A. S., MAGNUSSON, S. J., MARANO, N., FORD, D. & BROWN, N. (1998) Designing a community
of practice: principles and practices of the GisML community, Teaching and Teacher Education, 14,
pp. 5–19.
POSTLETHWAITE, K. & HAGGARTY, L. (1998) Towards effective and transferable learning in secondary
school: the development of an approach based on mastery learning, British Educational Research
Journal, 24, pp. 333–353.
RESNICK, L. (1987) Learning in school and out, Educational Researcher, 16, pp. 13–20.
REYNOLDS, D. (1998) Teacher effectiveness: better teachers, better schools, Annual Teacher Training
Agency Lecture.
RICH, I. (1993) Stability and change in teacher expertise, Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, pp.
137–146.
ROGOFF, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: cognitive development in social context (New York,
Oxford University Press).
ROTH, W. M. (1996) Communities of practice and actor networks: an analysis of the diffusion of
knowledge in an elementary classroom in terms of changing resources and practices, paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim.
SAMMONS, P., HILLMAN, J. & MORTIMORE, P. (1995) Key Characteristics of Effective schools: a review of
school effectiveness research (London, Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED]).
SARASON, S. (1990) The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: can we change course before it’s
too late? (San Francisco, CA Jossey–Bass).
SCARDAMALIA, M. & BEREITER, C. (1989) Intentional learning as a goal of instruction, in: L. RESNICK
(Ed.) Knowledge, Learning and Instruction (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
SCHEERENS, J. (1992) Effective Schooling: research, theory and practice (London, Cassell).
SINCLAIR, J. & COULTHARD, M. (1992) Towards an analysis of discourse, in: M. COULTHARD (Ed.)
Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (London, Routledge).
SNYDER, J. (1994) Perils and potentials: a tale of two professional development schools, in: L.
DARLING-HAMMOND (Ed.) Professional Development Schools: schools for developing a profession
(New York, Teachers College Press).
THOMAS, G., WINEBURG, S., GROSSMAN, P., MYRHE, O. & WOOLWORTH, S. (1998) In company of
colleagues: an interim report on the development of a community of teacher learners, Teaching and
Teacher Education, 14, pp. 21–32.
TORRANCE, H. & PRYOR, J. (2001) Developing formative assessment in the classroom: using action
research to explore and modify theory, British Educational Research Journal, 27, pp. 615–631.
VEENMAN, M. & ELSHOUT, J. (1999) Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills
during the acquisition of expertise, European Journal of Psychology of Education (Special Issue:
Metacognitive Experiences and Their Role in Cognition), pp. 509–524.
WAGNER, A. (1987) ‘Knots’ in teachers’ thinking, in: J. CALDERHEAD (Ed.) Exploring Teachers’ Thinking
(London, Cassell).
WALLACH, M., KOGAN, N. & BEM, D. (1962) Group influence on individual risk-taking, Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, pp. 75–86.
WATKINS, C. (2000) Feedback between teachers, in: S. ASKEW (Ed.) Feedback for Learning (London,
Routledge/Falmer).
WELLS, G. (1989) Language, Learning and Education (Slough, NFER Nelson).
WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of Practice—learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
WOOD, D. & WOOD, H. (1996) Vygotsky, tutoring and learning, Oxford Review of Education, 22, pp.
5–16.
WOOD, E. & BENNETT, N. (2000) Changing theories, changing practice: exploring early childhood
teachers’ professional learning, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, pp. 635–647.
WUBBELS, T., CRÉTON, H. & HOOYMAYERS, H. (1985) Discipline problems of beginning teachers,
interactional teacher behaviour mapped out, paper presented at the American Education Research
Association Conference, Chicago.
 Metacognition and Transfer 415

Appendix 1. Brief Details of the Video-recorded Lessons

In Lesson 1, the Y9 pupils did a ‘Mystery’ (Leat & Nichols, 1999) concerning the death, apparently
suicide, of a Lake District farmer whose personal life and financial circumstances have become severely
strained.
In Lesson 2, a Y10 class did a ‘Fact or Opinion exercise (see Leat, 1998) on Chinese population policies.
In Lesson 3, a Y8 class did a task in which they were asked to devise possible methods of resolving
conflicts if we had the power to control the weather, because different people would want different types
of weather.
In Lesson 4, the focus was on developing strategies for active listening with a Y8 class, stimulated by
an activity in which they transcribe the words of a song, played from a tape.
Lesson 5 has a focus on enquiry, encouraging Y8 pupils to formulate questions about Japan.
In Lesson 6, a Y7 class was asked to select, with constraints, from a list what they would take on a trip
to the Antarctic, with a strong emphasis on giving reasons and strategies.
Lesson 7 focused on comparing the effects of Hurricane Hugo on the USA and the Caribbean with a Y10
class, also using a ‘Mystery’.
In Lesson 8, a Y7 class was asked to formulate questions, stimulated by a story of a climbing accident
in the Andes, leading to discussion of what makes a good question.