These three sessions were followed by the IS on metacognitive strategies, that is
to say, we focused on the theory underlying point c) of Fig 7.6. In the following I∕GS in
groups of threes we discussed a task (the same for all) in order to evaluate it (which was
putting into practice the one of the metacognitive strategies). By analysing and sharing
their individual procedures with the two other members of the group, they were able to
compare their cognitive strategies and be aware of the different styles in which they
approach a task. All of this, of course, implied a metacognitive experience.
The following IS dealt with metacognitive awareness and verbal reports. After it,
there were two I∕GS dealing with metacognitive strategies. In the first one, the
participants (in groups of three) played a board game called “The Lynx” (see appendix
8). The purpose of this game is to locate the drawings that the player has in her cards
(usually she gets 3 cards) on a board that contains all of them (176 drawings in total).
After they learned about the rules of the game, they played several times with me
changing the conditions of the game each time. The first time, I gave them three cards
and after the game was over I asked them to explain to me the way they look for their
cards (retrospective self-observation and awareness of individual style). The second
time, I gave six cards and asked them to think, while playing the game, in the way they
were solving their problem. After the game, they explained their strategies (some
continued using the same strategy; some reported having tried a different one) and
compared them with the outcome (if it took longer or if they were not able to find the
drawing). The third time, I gave them nine cards and asked for the same thing. They
reported back. The fourth time, I gave them 6 cards and asked them to change their
strategies (look for colours instead of figures, for instance) and they reported back
evaluating their outcome. The last time, I asked them to look at their cards (without
seeing the board) and plan their strategy according to the cards they had got
(metacognitive strategy, planning). Then they played the game and reported their
evaluation of both the outcome and the way they played the game in relation to the way
they had planned their strategy. At the end of the session we had a discussion of the way
they were able to become aware of their strategies and manage them. Making reference
to the strategies they had reported, I was able to make the difference between cognitive
and metacognitive strategies and give several examples of both.
The second of these sessions had the purpose of working with metacognitive
strategies in a language task. Previous to the session, they had to think on different
strategies to work with a task they already had done. The purpose was to become aware
201