Metacognition and transfer within a course or instructional design rules and metacognition

A metacognitive strategy for doing research, included transfer, was taught in a course of nine afternoons. The success of this course raised some questions. How do the students learn? How does metacognition play a role? The course was designed in accordance with several instructional principles. The course was divided into three domains in which the strategy was introduced, practised, and applied respectively. Literature research revealed four possible metacognitive variants that correlate so it was supposed that implementing them all helped to reach the objectives of the course. The relation of the metacognitive variants with the instructional principles is described. To study learning the students were divided into three groups (weak, moderate, good) by their marks for other courses. The performance of the groups in each domain was monitored by their marks, scoring of metacognitive skills, questionnaires, observations, and time keeping. The moderate students scored as high as the good ones for the strategy in the last domain, a unique result. The metacognitive development of the other metacognitive skills was not linear. The conclusions are that the success of this course can be explained by a system of double sequencing and an interaction of all metacognitive variants, and that instructional design rules for metacognitive and cognitive objectives are different