intraindividual differences, interindividual differences and universals of cognition. Task, the
second type of metacognitive knowledge consists of the nature of the information to be
cognitively processed and of the task that this cognitive work involves. In the case of
language learning, it involves the concept of language as a system and the task of learning
the language. The third element, strategy, is related to the knowledge that we have, as
cognitive beings, about the way we carry out the cognitive task, which in this case is
learning a language. Basically, it refers to the learning strategies involved and the rationale
for choosing them (Cotterall; 1995, 201).
According to Brown (1987,69), the difference between person, task and strategy is
that the first two refer to beliefs about knowledge of cognition while the third implies beliefs
about regulation of cognition. This difference allows us to make a link with the concepts of
declarative and procedural knowledge. In this way it can be said that person and task refer to
metacognition about declarative knowledge while strategy implies metacognition about
procedural knowledge.
Fig. 3.3 is a visual explanation of the way I see the interaction between cognitive
strategies, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies in relation to the learning
task. The inner shadowed circle corresponds to the task. This is the only part of the diagram
that represents observable behaviour. Everything else is in the learners' mind, hence
invisible to the researcher. The next two circles symbolise the learning strategies, with the
metacognitive strategies at a higher level. The outer, dark, irregular layer corresponds to all
those elements that affect learning and that cluster together forming the metacognitive
knowledge. The arrows show the way the outer circles affect and control the inner ones.
It is perhaps logical to find that the same discussion about the instruction of learning
strategies should exist also for metacognitive strategies. While some people are completely
against the instruction of strategies (Kellerman; 1991,158), others strongly believe that
metacognitive strategies can be taught. (Chamot and Rubin; 1994, O'Malley and
Chamot; 1990). In Clemente (1996b), I carried out empirical research dealing with the
acquisition of metacognitive strategies. I worked with 6 learners of a self-access centre and
taught them metacognitive knowledge related to language and language acquisition
(variability, interlanguage, fluency, accuracy, complexity, etc) and learning (metacognitive
57