Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eB14sT914786; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:54:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:54:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <002901c05b53$c490a1c0$4ab18dcf@ncia.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: woods@ncia.net To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3299] Re: Instruction for LBLD - more ?? for Denton X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 863 Lines: 18 Thanks for the clarification, Denton, about metacognition. I think we are basically in agreement with perhaps a slight difference in semantics. Let me see if I can explain my thinking (metacognitively, of course!). Metacognitive practices make us consiously aware of thought processes that we may not have been aware that we were doing before, or that we weren't applying before. Asking and answering the question, "what do I do when I come to a word I don't know," is an example of a metacognitive question. To ask the question, it has to be conscious; we have to be aware of it. Granted, we hope that the strategies a learner develops become automatic and thus, perhaps, unsconscious. But I guess I'd argue (and this is the semantic point) that once it becomes automatic, it ceases to be metacognitive because you don't have to think about it anymore. Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:24 EST