Metacognitive coaching is a fuzzy, fluid and complex concept and practice. Our research team, composed of seven researchers, is involved in a three-year research grant on the learning modes of university students. Metacognitive coaching is an important external variable of our study and is examined in individual and collective settings. At one point in our reflection we wondered if our conceptualization of this variable was convergent and aligned with the current definition in the literature. This question led to a study conducted among ourselves, that is, doing a construct analysis of our collective understanding of metacognitive coaching. Two principal objectives inspired this study. The first is methodological. Following training in the Social Analysis System paradigm (see www.SAS2.net) we wanted to experiment one of the tools, construct analysis, inspired by the work of George Kelly (1955). A second objective of our study was to come to a collective understanding of the concept of metacognitive coaching. Thus, two research questions motivated this study. The first question, “What are the characteristics of metacognitive coaching?” was essentially conceptual while the second, “What are the advantages and disadvantages of construct analysis when used with experts?” was essentially methodological. As amethodology, construct analysis in a problemdomain is a technique which examines how people view existing problems or actions using words and characteristics that participants themselves choose and define. With regards to the first research question, the dimensions of metacognitive coaching found in the current definitions of coaching were identified but a novel characteristic was expressed. With regards to the second research question four advantages and three disadvantages were expressed and will be discussed.