metacognition and learning

Teaching methods is a bit of a hobby of mine and something I have long contemplated, however I have not gone as far into the research/study of it as I have for some other things as much as cobbled something together by myself/talking to others which also teach people. Similarly the gamification of education, despite it being something of a fad or a buzzword for a lot of people right now, is very much on my radar and something I hope takes off. Slightly related to that watching people play alternate reality games which are conducted on the live internet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Bees being a nice one), things like hackmes and hacker challenge programs, easter egg hunting ( http://www.slashgear.com/new-battlefield-4-dlc-has-an-insane-easter-egg-hidden-inside-24419853/ ), and a lot of the "hidden" things in games like Fez ( http://uk.ign.com/wikis/fez/Walkthrough ) are all nice examples of incomplete/unbounded problems and people solving them.
Also I forget the site it was on but the other day I was playing with a reading/logical analysis thing that they give to would be job candidates (read this passage, here is a statement related to it, using only the info in the passage you have multiguess answers for the statement consisting of "true, false, lack the info to say". Most of it was awful (a lot of the questions using vague units or none and saying things like a few, and for the job in question the exact thing you have domain experts for, to say nothing of the nature of three choice multiple answer questions) but it did look like it aimed to test for this sort of thing.

I was never one to ask when will I use this in real life, I did however resent not being taught certain things that would help there* (my dad had taught me how to fix and analyse things quite early on) and that caused friction from time to time. Fortunately most tests are memory tests prior to tertiary education around here so that was never a great problem, doubly so when I learned to analyse exams and problems (exam technique being the term I heard a lot).

*I might have mentioned before my old chemistry teacher's/unit's setup, took me a while to realise what was done as well. The stuffed a bunch of us in the "second" set and taught enough to do the exam but then decided to actually teach chemistry rather than getting us to memorise a list of flame colours and the like. These days I also like to teach like this, usually by teaching people something cool and how to make it better -- chemistry is explosions so you teach how to make bigger, more stable, more flames... I might phrase it as learn the logic of things, and possibly the science above the level you are playing at (and this works whether you are an accountant, a cook, a mechanic, a scientist or anything remotely skilled really), and the rest will follow.
Speaking of chemistry a thing that lodged itself in my head. 18 at the time (second year of A level if you want UK terms) and doing something about orders of reactions. Textbook has a line in it which reads something like "if you find yourself solving a problem with squared variables (x = -b... and all that) then you have gone wrong somewhere as the need to solve that is not in the curriculum". That speaks more to my misgivings with the different levels and fractures/splits/lack of coherence between subjects (it was chemistry and not maths, and high order reactions are rarer than proportional ones but not absent, especially not to square powers, and maths at the same level was not a requirement for that and in fact that didn't really exist, the main entry requirements being the results you got when you were 16).

Two things which stuck with me from university.
First year, design class (so most people that were not electrical, chemical or civil engineering). "How many of you have pulled apart an engine?" Myself and three others raised their hands. The others all did well and all had the ability to analyse things better than the others, at least until some caught up. To this day there is no way I allow new engineering types a go in any machine shop I am nominally responsible for anything in.

Also first year. Fluid dynamics class. Professor (of fluid dynamics and for the unaware that is one of the harder disciplines) asks a class how the plane wing works. When I relay the story I have to preface with a quote from reservoir dogs.
"You got four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black, but they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down."
It was like that but with nerds trying to impress the teacher (again a well established professor, and professor still means something in the UK, so the chances of a first year, first semester even student saying something he finds remotely impressive are not good) and also a variation on the ancient Chinese Go tournament -- story goes that China likes Go (you probably know but for the sake of others reading it is a very hard game that computers have not really cracked to this day for some of the more complex themes and only this year for some of the lesser ones). Way back when the people in the big cities had got bored of playing each other so they send out to the provinces and organise a tournament. Short version is the years in the big cities had honed play far more than those in the country, something people saw again with competitive computer games prior to online games.
Guy stands up and proud as punch relays the basic science textbook thing of longer and shorter paths paths over the wing and consequently different pressures creating lift.
Professor responds "the man on the street knows that, you are going to have to try harder".
Probably not that relevant here but has informed a lot of how I approach things since.

Today I teach people from time to time. What I do here varies, however I am very much a fan of old school engineering training if the person can handle it. Mostly fails on those too young and cocksure but more recently those which were brought up being told they were a good boy, a smart boy, you can do anything you want, and then actually believe it do seem to struggle when the real world hits. You basically allow people to make mistakes and then quiz them on what went wrong, or if you prefer then humble them but don't break them. The ultimate form which many would see is known as the 500 quid banger around here if you are becoming a car mechanic. Idea is you get a £500 car or van or something (not necessarily a scrap price but not far off), you get a budget such that is probably not worth the time and effort if you are selling it on but this is training so you do it. You then do teardowns, full services, some crazy mod... even if it is pointless. Some leave it at that but when it is done or just done you either go find a problem with it, make one, you say there is a problem with something, or if you are a super arsehole (yo) you fake one*. The faking things is also a nice interview technique, one you see in programming a lot as the response of the person will tell you a lot (defiance and anger, methodical analysis, fear...). If that fails then you can do here are a list of techniques, learn them and you will probably get on OK and be useful to people. It scales quite well too.
A variation on the theme I often find when teaching people computers. I have to try to break them of being afraid of trying things for fear they in turn will break something, I will try to ensure they have a grounding first of all but after that... https://xkcd.com/627/ is the ultimate goal but few get there.

*favourite story for this one. Guy finishes doing sports (late 20s/early 30s) and becomes a mechanic. Replaces his first real diesel head gasket (more complex than petrol for some and certainly usually done to tighter tolerances and with more trouble if something does go wrong, diesel engines here having a rather high compression). Goes off to find a friend of mine to show. Another then goes under the car (it is on a ramp) when he is off finding him. Starts it up, knocking noise comes from within the engine, shuts the engine. Friend has seen what is happening but plays along "oh now you must have done something wrong, try turning it on again". Tapping returns. Short version is the guy under the engine was tapping it with a spanner, it ended amusingly but that is a story for another time.

I also like pulling things apart and if I am fixing something for someone, or just tearing it apart as I am bored, I will usually take the time to teach one of the kids around what goes. Getting them to do basic analysis of items is surprisingly useful and something they don't do so often -- simple things like "that bit is connected to that bit so it is probably going to be the thing controlling it".

Classically I imagine the thing you are speaking of would get framed as book learning vs practical skills. Still is for a lot of people. Anyway I have waffled enough for now, hopefully there is something of minor merit at least within that. If you fancy sharing it when you are done I will be up a for a read.