Year: 2014

Metacognition, Self-Regulation, and Trust

by  Dr. Steven Fleisher, CSU Channel Islands, Department of Psychology

Early Foundations

I’ve been thinking lately about my journey through doctoral work, which began with studies in Educational Psychology. I was fortunate to be selected by my Dean, Robert Calfee, Graduate School of Education at University of California Riverside, to administer his national and state grants in standards, assessment, and science and technology education. It was there that I began researching self-regulated learning.

Self-Regulated Learning

Just before starting that work, I had completed a Masters Degree in Marriage and Family Counseling, so I was thrilled to discover the relevance of the self-regulation literature. For example, I found it interesting that self-regulation studies began back in the 1960s examining the development of self-control in children. Back then the framework that evolved for self-regulation involved the interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. Later research in self-regulation focused on motivation, health, mental health, physical skills, career development, decision-making, and, most notable for our purposes, academic performance and success (Zimmerman, 1990), and became known as self-regulated learning.

Since the mid-1980s, self-regulated learning researchers have studied the question: How do students progress toward mastery of their own learning? Pintrich (2000) noted that self-regulated learning involved “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (p. 453). Zimmerman (2001) then established that, “Students are self-regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process” (p. 5). Thus, self-regulated learning theorists believe that learning requires students to become proactive and self-engaged in their learning, and that learning does not happen to them, but by them (see also Leamnson, 1999).

Next Steps

And then everything changed for me. My Dean invited Dr. Bruce Alberts, then President of the National Academy of Sciences, to come to our campus and lecture on science and technology education. Naturally, as Calfee’s Graduate Student Researcher, I asked “Bruce” what he recommended for bringing my research in self-regulated learning to the forefront. His recommendation was to study the, then understudied, role and importance of the teacher-student relationship. Though it required changing doctoral programs to accommodate this recommendation, I did it, adding a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology to several years of coursework in Educational Psychology.

Teacher-Student Relationships 

Well, enough about me. It turns out that effective teacher-student relationships provide the foundation from which trust and autonomy develop (I am skipping a lengthy discussion of the psychological principles involved). Suffice it to say, where clear structures are in place (i.e., standards) as well as support, social connections, and the space for trust to develop, students have increased opportunities for exploring how their studies are personally meaningful and supportive of their autonomy, thereby taking charge of their learning.

Additionally, when we examine a continuum of extrinsic to intrinsic motivation, we find the same principles involved as with a scale showing minimum to maximum autonomy, bringing us back to self-regulated learning. Pintrich (2000) included the role of motivation in his foundations for self-regulated learning. Specifically, he reported that a goal orientation toward performance arises when students are motivated extrinsically (i.e., focused on ability as compared to others); however, a goal orientation toward mastery occurs when students are motivated more intrinsically (i.e., focused on effort and learning that is meaningful to them).

The above concepts can help us define our roles as teachers. For instance, we are doing our jobs well when we choose and enact instructional strategies that not only communicate clearly our structures and standards but also provide needed instructional support. I know that when I use knowledge surveys, for example, in building a course and for disclosing to my students the direction and depth of our academic journey together, and support them in taking meaningful ownership of the material, I’m helping their development of metacognitive skill and autonomous self-regulated learning. We teachers can help improve our students’ experience of learning. For them, learning in order to get the grades pales in comparison to learning a subject that engages their curiosity, along with investigative and social skills that will last a lifetime.

References

Leamnson, R. (1999). Thinking about teaching and learning: Developing habits of learning with first year college and university students. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173-201.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2e). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Self-assessment and the Affective Quality of Metacognition: Part 1 of 2

Ed Nuhfer, Retired Professor of Geology and Director of Faculty Development and Director of Educational Assessment, enuhfer@earthlink.net, 208-241-5029

In The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness(1999, New York, Harcourt), Antonio Damasio distinguished two manifestations of the affective domain: emotions (the external experience of others’ affect) and feelings(the internal private experience of one’s own affect). Enacting self-assessment constitutes an internal, private, and introspective metacognitive practice.

Benjamin Bloom recognized the importance of the affective domain’s involvement in successful cognitive learning, but for a time psychologists dismissed the importance of both affect and metacognition on learning (See Damasio, 1999; Dunlosky and Metcalfe, 2009, Metacognition, Los Angeles, Sage). To avoid repeating these mistakes, we should recognize that attempts to develop students’ metacognitive proficiency without recognizing metacognition’s affective qualities are likely to be minimally effective.

In academic self-assessment, an individual must look at a cognitive challenge and accurately decide her/his capability to meet that challenge with present knowledge and resources. Such decisions do not spring only from thinking cognitively about one’s own mental processes. Affirming that “I can” or “I cannot” meet “X” (the cognitive challenge) with current knowledge and resources draws from affective feelings contributed by conscious and unconscious awareness of what is likely to be an accurate decision.

“Blind insight” (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/11/0956797614553944) is a new term in the literature of metacognition. It confirms an unconscious awareness that manifests as a feeling that supports sensing the correctness of a decision. “Blind insight” and “metacognitive self-assessment” seem to overlap with one another and with Damasio’s “feelings.”

Research in medical schools confirmed that students’ self-assessment skills remained consistent throughout medical education (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410296.pdf.)  Two hypotheses compete to explain this confirmation.  One is that self-assessment skills establish early in life and cannot be improved in college. The other is that self-assessment skill remains fixed in post-secondary education only because it is so rarely taught or developed. The first hypothesis seems contradicted by the evidence supporting brain plasticity, constructivist theories of learning and motivation, metacognition theory, self-efficacy theory (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ815370.pdf), and by experiments that confirm self-assessment as a learnable skill that improves with training (http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf).

Nursing is perhaps the discipline that has most recognized the value of developing intuitive feelings informed by knowledge and experience as part of educating for professional practice.

“At the expert level, the performer no longer relies on an analytical principle (rule, guideline, maxim) to connect her/his understanding of the situation to an appropriate action. The expert nurse, with her/his enormous background of experience, has an intuitive grasp of the situation and zeros in on the accurate region of the problem without wasteful consideration of a large range of unfruitful possible problem situations. It is very frustrating to try to capture verbal descriptions of expert performance because the expert operates from a deep understanding of the situation, much like the chess master who, when asked why he made a particularly masterful move, will just say, “Because it felt right. It looked good.” (Patricia Benner, 1982, “From novice to expert.” American Journal of Nursing, v82 n3 pp 402-407)

Teaching metacognitive self-assessment should include an aim toward improving students’ ability to clearly recognize the quality of “feels right” regarding whether one’s own ability to meet a challenge with present abilities and resources exists. Developing such capacity requires practice in committing errors and learning from them through metacognitive reflection. In such practice, the value of Knowledge Surveys (see http://profcamp.tripod.com/KS.pdf and http://profcamp.tripod.com/Knipp_Knowledge_Survey.pdf) becomes apparent.

Knowledge Surveys (Access tutorials for constructing knowledge surveys and obtaining downloadable examples at http://elixr.merlot.org/assessment-evaluation/knowledge-surveys/knowledge-surveys2.) consist of about a hundred to two hundred questions/items relevant to course learning objectives. These query individuals to self-assess by rating their present ability to meet a challenge on a three-point multiple-choice scale:

A. I can fully address this item now for graded test purposes.
B. I have partial knowledge that permits me to address at least 50% of this item.
C. I am not yet able to address this item adequately for graded test purposes.

and thereafter to monitor their mastery as the course unfolds.

In Part 2, we will examine why knowledge surveys are such powerful instruments for supporting students’ learning and metacognitive development, ways to properly employ knowledge surveys to induce measurable gains, and we will provide some surprising results obtained from pairing knowledge surveys in conjunction with a standardized assessment measure.


Mind the Feedback Gap

by Roman Taraban (Texas Tech University)

mindthegap

The saying “Mind the Gap” originated in 1969 to warn riders on London subways of the gap between the platform and subway car. Since then, it has been broadly applied to situations in which there may be something missing or lacking between where you are and where you want to be. The cautionary message sounded loudly this semester when I realized that my undergraduate students were not particularly interested in the constructive feedback they were receiving on their bi-weekly formative evaluations over the course content, consisting of short-answer and brief essay responses. This was troubling since I was trying to promote metacognition through my feedback. But I am getting a bit ahead of myself.

Feedback in the Classroom

Technology now affords instructors easy-to-use means of providing timely and detailed feedback on work that is submitted digitally. As one example, assignments can be sent to a website and the instructor can use tools like “Track Changes” and “New Comment” in Microsoft WordTM to insert edits and comments in a clear and readable fashion. Beyond these basic digital tools, the coming of age of automated instructional tutors has brought with it a science of just-in-time feedback, synced with the computer’s best guess as to what a student knows at any given moment, and providing little to extensive feedback and guidance, depending on a student’s ability and prior experience (Graesser et al. 2005; Koedinger et al., 1997). In terms of technology, there are broad options available to instructors, from easy markup tools to software that will automatically grade papers. Indeed, there has not been a better time for developing and delivering effective feedback to students.

Students’ Perceptions of Feedback

The utility of feedback has been examined empirically, and has produced several practical suggestions (Koedinger et al., 1997; Shute, 2008). Students’ perceptions of feedback, though, have not been extensively researched; however, a few things are known. Weaver (2006) reported that students found several aspects of feedback to be unhelpful: when the comments provided were general or vague, when the comments did not provide guidance for rethinking or revising, when they focused on the negative, and when they were unrelated to the task. On a more positive note, Higgins and Harley (2002) conducted a survey of college students and reported the criteria that over 75% of students considered important:

  • Comments that tell you what you could do to improve – 92%
  • Comments that explain your mistakes – 91%
  • Comments that focus on the level of critical analysis – 90%
  • Comments that focus on your argument – 89%
  • Comments that focus on the tutor’s overall impressions – 87%
  • Comments that tell you what you have done badly – 86%
  • Comments that focus on the subject matter – 82%
  • Comments that correct your mistakes – 80%
  • Feedback that tells you the grade – 79%
  • Comments that focus on your use of supporting evidence – 79% (p. 60)

Students’ Reactions to Feedback

For several semesters I have been following Weaver’s and Higgins and Harley’s dictums, using formative evaluations in an undergraduate class that prompt critical, reflective, and evaluative thinking, for many of the questions. This semester, I dutifully edited and commented on students’ responses and electronically delivered these back to students. After the second formative evaluation, I announced to students that grades had been posted and that if they wanted more detailed comments to let me know and I would email them as I had done for the first exam. Here is the irony: only 2 out of 30 students wanted the feedback.   Assuring students that sending commented responses would not create extra work for me did not change the outcome on subsequent evaluations. Students simply did not care to hear my thoughts on their work. As it turns out, Higgins and Hartley (2002) had already anticipated my situation when they suggested that students may be extrinsically motivated to achieve a specific grade and to acquire related credentials, and may not be intrinsically motivated to reflect on their understanding of the material through the critical lens afforded by instructors’ comments.

Perceptions of Feedback – A Touchstone

Feedback may be a touchstone of metacognition. Often, to boost metacognition in the classroom, we implement tasks intended to evoke critical thinking. But what better way to increase metacognition than through developing a keener sense in students for feedback. In a way, deeply considering the teacher’s feedback requires “thinking about someone else’s thinking” in order to improve one’s own “thinking about thinking.” It appears that for too long, I have been over-estimating students’ interest in thinking critically about their own work. And as is true with the development of other cognitive abilities, several things will need to happen for change to occur. From my side, more “demandingness” may be required: to be explicit about what I want, to sensitize students to my feedback through questioning and prompting, and to scaffold the process of reflecting on feedback through directed exercises. Most importantly, the feedback needs to have carry-over value to future student work.

It is generally accepted that feedback is an essential component of learning, providing a vehicle for thinking about one’s own thinking. Logically, alerting students to their strengths and weaknesses can provide the means by which they can reflect on how they thought through a task and how to constructively modify their approach in future work. None of this will happen, though, if students fail to consider the feedback. Wojtas (1998) warned of this possibility some years ago, when he reported on the research findings in one university, suggesting that some students were concerned only with their grade and not with substantive feedback. It may be helpful to pose the same stark question to our students in order to begin to close the feedback gap: Are you only interested in your grade?

My own experience has led me to other researchers confronting similar disconcerting situations. Jollards et al. (2009) write “teachers often feel their time is wasted when it is invested in marking work and making comments on assignments, only to see work not collected in class and then left at their doorstep at the end of semester. Even if it is collected the students might not read the feedback, and even if it is read, they might not act on it. As Shute (2008) points out, “Feedback can promote learning, if it is received mindfully” (p. 172). In sum, feedback is necessary because it can give students something to think about and can prompt deeper levels of reflection. Feedback needs to be good if the gap is going to be closed. But it is also the case that good feedback alone is not enough. Metacognition is necessary if feedback is going to lead to meaningful improvement. Students must process the feedback via metacognition if they are to close the gap. (Thanks to John Draeger for these summary points!)

References

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through AutoTutor and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225–234.

Higgins, R., & Hartley, P. (2002). The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64. DOI:10.1080/0307507012009936 8

Jollands, M., McCallum, N., & Bondy, J. (2009). If students want feedback why don’t they collect their assignments? 20th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference, University of Adelaide, Australia.

Koedinger, K., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., Mark, M. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. DOI:10.3102/0034654307313795

Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394. DOI:10.1080/02602930500353061

Wojtas, O. (1998). Feedback? No, just give us the answers. Times Higher Education Supplement, September 25 1998.

 


Thinking about How Faculty Learn about Learning

By Cynthia Desrochers, California State University Northridge

Lately, two contradictory adages have kept me up nights:  “K.I.S.S. – Keep It Simple, Stupid” (U.S. Navy) and “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” (H.L. Mencken).  Which is it?  Experts have a wealth of well-organized, conditionalized, and easily retrievable knowledge in their fields (Bradford, et al., 2000).  This may result in experts skipping over steps when they teach a skill that has become automatic to them.  But where does this practice leave our novice learners who need to be taught each small step—almost in slow motion—to begin to grasp a new skill?

I have just completed co-facilitating five of ten scheduled faculty learning community (FLC) seminars in a yearlong Five GEARS for Activating Learning FLC.  As a result of this experience, my takeaway note to self now reads in BOLD caps:  (1) keep it simple in the early stages of learning and (2) model the entire process and share my thinking out loud—no secrets hidden behind the curtains!

The Backstory

The Five Gears for Activating Learning project at California State University, Northridge, began in fall 2012. It was my idea, and I asked seven university-wide faculty leaders to join me in a grassroots effort. Our goals were to improve student learning from inside the classroom (vs. policy modifications), promote faculty use of the current research on learning, provide a lens for judging the efficacy of various teaching strategies (e.g., the flipped classroom), and develop a common vocabulary for use campuswide (e.g., personnel communications).  Support for this project came from the University Provost and the dean of the Michael D. Eisner College of Education in the form of reassigned time for me and 3-unit buyouts for each of the eight FLC members, spread over the entire academic year, 2014-15.

We read as a focus book How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (Ambrose, et al., 2010). We condensed Ambrose’s seven principles to five GEARS, one of which is Developing Mastery, which we defined as deep learning, reflection, and self-direction—critical elements of metacognition and the focus of this blog site.

On Keeping It Simple

I have been in education for forty-five years, yet I’m having many light-bulb moments with this FLC group – I’m learning something new, or reorganizing prior knowledge, or having increased clarity.  Hence, I’ve given a lot of thought to the conflict between keeping it simple and omitting some important elements versus sharing more complex definitions and relationships and overwhelming our FLC members. My rationale for choosing simple: If I am still learning about how learning works, how can I expect new faculty—who teach Political Science, Business Law, Research Applications, and African Americans in Film, all without benefit of a teaching credential—to process some eighty years of research on learning in two semesters?

In opting for the K.I.S.S. approach, we have developed a number of activities and tools that scaffold learning to use the five GEARS in our teaching; moreover, each activity or tool models explicitly with faculty some practices we are encouraging them to use with their students.  This includes (1) reflective writing in the form of learning logs and diaries, (2) an appraisal instrument to self-assess their revised (using the GEARS) spring 2015 course design, and (3) a class-session plan to scaffold their use of the GEARS.  [See the detailed descriptions given in the handout resource posted on this site.] I hope to have some results data regarding their use in my spring blog.

Looking to next semester, our spring FLC projects will likely center around not only teaching the redesigned five GEARS course but also disseminating the five GEARS campuswide.  As a direct result of the Daily Diary that FLC members kept for three weeks on others’ use and misuse of the five GEARS, they want to share our work.  [See handout for further description of the Daily Diaries.] Dissemination possibilities include campus student tour guides, colleagues who teach a common course, Freshman Seminar instructors, librarians, and the Career Center personnel.  If another adage is true, “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn” (Benjamin Franklin), our FLC faculty will likely move of their own accord along the continuum from a simple to complex understanding of the five GEARS in their efforts to teach the five GEARS to others on campus.

A Word about GEARS

Why is this blog not focusing solely on the metacognition gear, which we call Developing Mastery? The simple answer is that learning is so intertwined that all the GEARS likely support metacognition in some way.  However, any one of the activities or tools we have employed can be modified to limit the scope to your definition of metacognition.  Our postcard below shows all five GEARS:

5_GEARS_postcard


Transparency and Metacognition

by James Rhem (Executive Editor, National Teaching and Learning Forum)

Some readers may know that The National Teaching and Learning FORUM has undertaken a series of residencies on campuses across the country looking at teaching and learning at a variety of institutions, and all the efforts to support and improve it. Currently I’m at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas where Mary-Ann Winkelmas is coordinator of instructional development and research.

One of the things Mary-Ann brought to Las Vegas from her previous work at the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois is something called the Transparency Project, a project carried out in collaboration with AAC&U. To my mind this approach to increasing students’ connections with and understanding of the assignments they’re given in the courses they take seems to have a lot to do with metacognition. Perhaps it’s a homely version, I’m not sure, but I think it’s something those interested in improving student performance through metacognitive awareness ought to know about. So, that’s my post for the moment. Take a look at the impressive body of research the project has already amassed, and the equally impressive results in improved student performance, and see if you don’t agree there’s a relation to metacognitive approaches, something to take note of.

Here’s a link to a page of information on the project with even more links to the research:

http://www.unlv.edu/provost/teachingandlearning


Metacognition for Purposeful Living

by Charity Peak, U.S. Air Force Academy*

One of my most remarkable professional experiences was teaching a humanities course called “Leading Lives That Matter.” After reading a variety of philosophical texts in an anthology by the same name, students explored the meaning of their lives.  Students identified what type of monuments they would want erected in their honor and wrote their own obituaries.  Surprisingly, it wasn’t a philosophy course; it was actually quite pragmatic.  It also wasn’t a higher level course for juniors or seniors.  And it wasn’t optional.  It was a mandatory requirement for all freshmen before embarking on their educational journeys.  The course was designed to help students reflect on why they were pursuing an education and determine a potential vision for their future after obtaining their degrees.  After all, if you’re going to spend thousands of dollars over several years, why not ask the important questions first?

Many students will say that they are going to school because they want to improve the lives of their families or because they hope to earn more money in a better paying job. But what do faculty do to help students see the grander vision?  What is an instructor’s role in supporting students to understand how their gifts and talents could transform the world around them?  Metacognition requires developing self-awareness and the ability to self-assess. It requires reflection about one’s education and learning – past, present, and future.  Helping students develop metacognitive skills is essential for them to become self-regulated learners with a vision for the future (Zimmerman, 2002).  Faculty, then, are ideally positioned to help students learn to leverage their self-awareness for purposeful living.

Each semester I teach, I encounter a student in distress, desperately struggling to identify how their education can help them develop into the person they wish to become. I am not a trained counselor, yet I often find myself coaching and mentoring these adults – both young and old – to determine how they can utilize their gifts to contribute to the world in some way.  As John F. Kennedy so eloquently shared with us, “One person can make a difference, and every person should try” (http://thinkexist.com).  But so many people seek higher education for such limited reasons – money and jobs.  Instead of being focused on how an education could aid students’ chances of surviving fiscally, what if faculty embraced their role of facilitating greatness?

This insight has transcended all of the settings in which I have taught throughout my career – from elementary school up through adult learning – but it has never been more evident than where I am now. Advising students at a military service academy lends itself to even more critical conversations about purpose and meaning.  These young people are receiving a “free” education, which helps their family’s financial commitment, but at a great price – risking their lives for their country.  It becomes apparent very quickly that what brings students to a military service academy is not what keeps them there.  While all college students go through a bit of an identity crisis, these students will potentially pay the ultimate price for their commitment to their country.  They must be solid in their decision, and they must evolve into an altruistic state much earlier than the average college student.  Money and job security are not enough to get you through a service academy’s rigor, let alone the life of a military officer.  As a faculty member, it is my duty to help these young people make the right choice, one that is good for them and their country.

While these metacognitive insights are quite visible at a military service academy, all faculty should commit to the duty of enabling metacognitive reflection about purposeful living at their own institutions. They should facilitate courses, or even a series of conversations, that encourage students to be metacognitive about who they want to be when they grow up – not what job they want to possess (self-seeking) but how they want to contribute (community building).  In order to venture down this path, however, we as faculty and advisors need to provide ample time and guidance for self-reflection in and out of our courses.  We should help students to gain self-awareness about their gifts and talents so that they can see their collegiate journey as a path toward purposeful living.

If vocation is “the place where deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet” (Buechner, p. 112), faculty should consider what role they play in helping students to become metacognitive about how their talents lead to majors, which guide careers, and eventually become paths to greatness. By helping our students identify how to intentionally lead lives that matter, we too can benefit vicariously by renewing our spirit to teach.  After all, many of us chose this vocation because of our own yearning to live purposefully.

References:

Buechner, F. (2006). Vocation. In Schwehn, M. R., & Bass, D. C. (Eds.), Leading lives that matter: What we should do and who we should be (pp. 111-12). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice 41(2): 64-70. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477457

 

* Disclaimer: The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U. S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Govt.


Comprehension Monitoring: The Role of Conditional Knowledge Part 2

by Antonio Gutierrez, Georgia Southern University

In my previous post, I discussed the role conditional knowledge (i.e., the why, when, and where to apply strategies given task demands) plays in learners’ ability to calibrate their performance against their actual performance. This is in light of debates about the relations between the various dimensions of metacognition. Calibration is a component of one’s ability to monitor comprehension, which is a regulatory function. Conditional knowledge, on the other hand, is part of the knowledge component of metacognition. As a researcher I often wonder whether instead of making assumptions that these various metacognitive functions are related whether perhaps we should empirically test these assumptions. In metacognitive research it is often assumed that the knowledge and regulation aspects of metacognition are related. From a theoretical perspective, this makes sense. However, for us to assume that this is the case with all samples and populations may be a stretch, especially given the diversity and individual differences among learners. In this vein, I am currently seeking ethics approval to conduct research with middle school students because this is an understudied population with respect to metacognition. In this proposed research I plan to not only investigate calibration among middle school students and the influence metacognitive strategy training has on learners’ calibration, but I plan to empirically assess the association between the eight dimensions of metacognition (Knowledge: declarative, procedural, and conditional; Regulation: planning, information management, debugging strategies; comprehension monitoring; and evaluation of learning). I will also attempt to test the predictive power of various components of metacognition on learners’ calibration. I am especially interested in empirically measuring the association between conditional knowledge and calibration as well as the predictive power of conditional knowledge on calibration. I expect that metacognitive strategy training will improve learners’ performance, confidence judgments, and also their calibration. I also suspect that those with greater conditional knowledge will have better calibration, and hence, I expect conditional knowledge to strongly predict calibration.

This particular study is one among a series of scientific investigations on the validity of theoretical claims made when researchers discuss metacognition. In my attempt to provide educators a toolkit of domain-general metacognitive strategies they can readily apply in their classrooms, this series of studies will help me provide the empirical evidence necessary to demonstrate the utility and relevance of metacognitive strategies to not only scholars but practitioners as well. These strategies have been adapted from an unpublished pilot study I conducted prior to my dissertation. This research will help me to continue to refine these strategies to better suit adolescents. Moreover, it will shed some light on the link between conditional metacognitive knowledge and calibration, which is a topic that began with earlier posts. Stay tuned for preliminary results of my first investigation.


Measuring Metacognitive Judgments

In Gregg Schraw’s (2009) chapter, Measuring Metacognitive Judgments, he artfully provides a taxonomy of calibration measures that attempt to assesses metacognitive judgment of learning. For more information, follow the hyperlink below.

Schraw, G. (2009). Measuring Metacognitive Judgments. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, &  A. C. Graesser (Eds.). Handbook of metacognition in education, 415.


Effects of Strategy Training and Incentives on Students’ Performance, Confidence, and Calibration

“This study examined the effect of strategy instruction and incentives on performance, confidence, and calibration accuracy. Individuals (N = 107) in randomly assigned treatment groups received a multicomponent strategy instruction intervention, financial incentives for high performance, or both. The authors predicted that incentives would improve performance, while strategy instruction would improve performance, confidence, and calibration accuracy as a result of better monitoring and self-regulation of learning. The authors compared pre- and posttest items and 20 new posttest-only items. They found significant effects for strategy training on performance, confidence, and calibration accuracy, as well as the interaction between strategy training and time on calibration accuracy. Incentives improved performance and calibration accuracy, either directly, or through an interaction with strategy training. Implications for future research are discussed.” For more information about this article, follow the link below.

Gutierrez, A. P., & Schraw, G. (2014). Effects of Strategy Training and Incentives on Students’ Performance, Confidence, and Calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-19.


Four cornerstones of calibration research: Why understanding students’ judgments can improve their achievement

“The target articles make significant advances in our understanding of students’ judgments of their cognitive processes and products. In general, the advances are relative to a subset of common themes, which we call the four cornerstones of research on metacognitive judgments. We discuss how the target articles build on these cornerstones (judgment bases, judgment accuracy, judgment reliability, and control) and how they are relevant to improving student achievement.” (p. 58) For more information about this article, follow the link below.

Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four cornerstones of calibration research: Why understanding students’ judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58-61.


Advancing Task Involvement, Intrinsic Motivation and Metacognitive Regulation in Physical Education Classes: The Self-Check Style of Teaching Makes a Difference

In a metacognitive field study, Papaioannou, Theodosiou, Pashali, and Digeelidis (2012) found that having 6th grade students use metacognitive techniques (self-check) significantly improved several mastery oriented variables over that of a practice technique in a physical education course. For more information about the article, please see the reference below.

Papaioannou, A., Theodosiou, A., Pashali, M., & Digelidis, N. (2012). Advancing task involvement, intrinsic motivation and metacognitive regulation in physical education classes: the self-check style of teaching makes a difference. Advances in Physical Education, 2(03), 110-118.


A Mindfulness Perspective on Metacognition

by Chris Was, Kent State University

If you have any interest in metacognition, you have likely come across the description of metacognition as thinking about one’s thinking. A number of posts to this blog (including my own) provide evidence to support the conclusion that metacognition can be “learned” and improved. Further, improved metacognition leads to improve self-regulation and positive academic outcomes. There is also a good deal of evidence that training in mindfulness improves cognitive function and attention (e.g., Chambers, Lo, & Allen, 2008). Flook, et al (2010) found that mindfulness-training program improved executive functions in young elementary school students. Zeidan, et al (2010) found that mindfulness training improved executive function and metacognitive insight. This post will focus on the relationship between metacognition and mindfulness.

Let me preface by stating that mindfulness need not refer to esoteric religious beliefs, but it is often defined as a mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present moment and acknowledging one’s feelings, thoughts and bodily sensations. Kabat-Zinn (1990) describes mindfulness as bringing attention to moment-to-moment experience. In my own work on metacognitive knowledge monitoring, I have required students to make moment-to-moment (more accurately, item-by-item) judgments of their knowledge.. Hypotheses, such as cue-familiarity, provide reasonable explanations for how students and research participants rate feelings of knowing (FOK), judgments of learning (JOLs), judgments of knowing (JOK), etc. However, the simple fact is one must attend to these feelings and thoughts to provide a judgment. In psychological and educational literature, we refer to one using metacognition to make these judgments. Clinical psychology programs such as mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) refer to the patient/participant as being mindful about their emotions, thoughts, and actions. Although the majority of research and application of mindfulness has occurred in clinical settings, there is a great deal of potential in examining the relationship between mindfulness and metacognition.

It isn’t clear how metacognition and mindfulness are related. Some argue that metacognition is not mindful because a true expert in mindfulness does not need to reflect upon his or her thinking, but only to attend to what they are presently doing. I am not convinced. Much of the work on metacognitive improvement has focused on semester long training to improve students knowledge monitoring. The mindfulness research has focused on training students to focus on their moment-to-moment experiences and thoughts. Clearly, there is a relationship between metacognition and executive function, but I have yet to see evidence that training in one improves the other.

One argument made to dissociate mindfulness from metacognition is that metacognitive processes are by necessity reflective or retrospective and that truly being mindful does not require reflection. For example, for a student to practice metacognition during study, she must ask herself, “Do I understand this concept?” Then, depending on the answer the student may or may not adjust the cognitive actions in which she is engaged to learn. This cycle is simply explained by the Nelson and Narens (1990). Now let’s think about a practitioner of mindfulness meditation. While meditating he may chose to focus his attention on the breath. Noticing when he is breathing in and noticing when he is breathing out. During this practice his mind may wander (this is true of even the most practiced at meditation). When this happens, he will gently bring his attention back to the breath. This process, just like that of the studying student, requires one to observe the cognitive processes and exert control over those processes when necessary. This to fits nicely into the metacognitive model offered by Nelson and Narens.

Imagine you are reading a novel on summer vacation. The book is enjoyable, but not a challenging read. Your are enjoying the sun and the sounds on the beach as you read, but suddenly notice you have not really attended to the last couple of pages and are not sure what has transpired in the plot. You choose to reread the last couple of pages and pay more attention. Imagine now you are a student. You are reading a very dull textbook chapter with the TV on and your smart phone near by. A student with little metacognitive resources (whether it be due working memory capacity, attentional control, executive function, etc.) is likely to mind wander (Hollis & Was, 2014). Students in my classes have often told me the hardest part of studying is staying focused, even when the topic is of interest. Ben Hollis and I found that students watching a video as part of an online course were often distracted by thoughts of checking the social media outlets. Not distracted by checking, but just thought of checking them. What if students were practiced at focusing attention, noticing when their minds wander and bringing the attention back to the task at hand?

It seems to me that if metacognition is knowledge and control of one’s cognitive processes and training in mindfulness increases one’s ability to focus and control awareness in a moment-by-moment manner, then perhaps we should reconsider, and investigate the relationship between mindfulness and metacognition in education and learning.

 

References

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V.,    Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D. and Devins, G. (2004), Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,     11: 230–241. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bph077

Chambers, R., Lo, B. C. Y., & Allen, N. B. (2008). The impact of intensive mindfulness training on attentional control, cognitive style, and affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(3), 303-322.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.

Flook, L., Smalley, S. L., Kitil, M. J., Galla, B. M., Kaiser-Greenland, S., Locke, J., … &  Kasari, C. (2010). Effects of mindful awareness practices on executive functions in elementary school children. Journal of Applied School         Psychology,26(1), 70-95.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your mind to face    stress, pain and illness. New York : Dell.

Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian, P. (2010).  Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: evidence of brief mental training.Consciousness and cognition, 19(2), 597-605.


A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions

In an extremely comprehensive meta-analytic review, Zohare and Barsilai (2013) analyzed 178 studies of metacognition in science education (mainly K-12). They identified several key trends and made suggestions for future research. One of their findings was that the use of metacognitive cues was the most common metacognitive intervention for learning science content.  For more information, please see the reference below.

Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169. doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.847261


“Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices

In this quasi-experimental study by Brady, Seli, and Rosenthal (2013), the authors demonstrated that through the use of “clickers” they could increase metacognition and exam performance. For more information please see the reference below.

Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56-63. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.001


How do students really study (and does it matter)?

In this article by Regan Gurung (2005), he investigated specific study techniques and how they correlated with academic performance (exam scores). Not surprisingly, Gurung found that effective study techniques (i.e., elaboration) were positively correlated with performance, while ineffective study techniques (i.e., listening to music) were negatively correlated withe academic performance. For the full article, see reference and hyperlink below.

Gurung, R. A. (2005). How do students really study (and does it matter)?. Education, 39, 323-340.


The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1993). This measure has been cited in over 1600 articles and is a very well established measure of not only metacognition, but motivation. The MSLQ is split into two main scales. The Motivation Scale is comprised of the Intrinsic Goal Orientation, Extrinsic Goal Orientation, Task Value, Control of Learning Beliefs, Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance, and Test Anxiety sub-scales. the Learning Strategies Scale is comprised of the Rehearsal, Elaboration, Organization, Critical Thinking, Metacognitive Self-Regulation, Time and Study Environment, Effort Regulation, Peer Learning, and Help Seeking sub-scales. For more information on the MSLQ please refer to the reference and hyperlink below.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.


The Need for Cognition Scale

A classic personality measure of metacognition was developed by John Cacioppo and Richard Petty (1982) entitled, The Need for Cognition Scale (NCS). This is a widely used 18-item Likert scale that assesses “the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking” (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982, p. 116). The NCS has been cited in over 3000 articles and has well established psychometric properties. For more information please read the original article by Cacioppo and Petty (1982).

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116.

 


The Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

Berry and colleagues (1989) developed the Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (MSEQ). This metacognitive measure is a cross between a self-report and actual measure of metacognition. It requires respondents to rate their confidence of remembering grocery lists, phone numbers, pictures, locations, words, and digit span. Essentially, in the MSEQ, respondents are given up to 10 pictures (or grocery items), then they are asked how confident they are in remembering 2 items, then 4 items, then 6 items, then 8 items, then all 10 items. It has been found to be both reliable and valid in many populations. For more information check out the original article by Berry et al. (1989).

Berry, J. M., West, R. L., & Dennehey, D. M. (1989). Reliability and validity of the Memory Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 701.


Just-in-Time for Metacognition

By John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

This post brings metacognition to an already valuable teaching tool. Just-in-time techniques require that students submit short assignments prior to class. Instructors review those answers before class and use them to shape class time. In my philosophy classes, for example, I assign two short questions via a course management system (e.g., Blackboard). At least one of the questions is directly related to the reading. Students are required to submit their answers electronically by 11:00 p.m. the night before class. When I wake up in the morning, I read through their responses and use them to make decisions about how class time will be used. If students seemed to grasp the reading, then I spend less time reviewing the basic arguments and more time exploring deeper content and connections. If student responses displayed a misunderstanding of the reading, then we spend class time carefully examining passages in the text and digging out the relevant arguments.

Just-in-Time techniques have been used in a variety of disciplines and they have been shown to increase the likelihood that students will complete their reading assignments, read more carefully, and take ownership over their learning (Novak 1999; Simkins & Maier, 2009; Schraff et al. 2011). However, just-in-time assignments are typically used to prompt students to complete their assigned reading pages and gauge their basic comprehension. While both are valuable, I argue that the technique can also be used to promote other important skills.

For example, pre-class questions can be used to develop higher-order thinking skills. Students can be asked to examine an author’s point of view, underlying assumptions, or the implications of her view. Such questions prompt students to move beyond their knowledge of what is contained in the text towards active engagement with that text. Students can be asked to apply concepts in the reading (e.g., stereotype bias) to something in the news. And students can be asked to analyze the connections between related course ideas. In a previous post, “Using metacognition to uncover the substructure of moral issues,” I argued that students begin to “think like a philosopher” when they can move beyond the surface content (e.g., hate speech and national security) and towards the underlying philosophical substructure (e.g., rights, well-being, dangers of governmental intrusion). Like other skills, developing higher-order thinking skills requires practice. Because just-in-time assignments are a regular part of a student’s week, incorporating high-order thinking questions into just-in-time assignments can give students regular opportunities to practice and hone those skills.

Likewise, pre-class assignments can give students a regular outlet to practice and develop metacognition. Students can be asked to reflect on how they prepared for class and whether it was effective (Tanner 2012). Pre-class questions might include: how long did you spend with the reading? Did you finish? Did you annotate the text? Did you write a summary of the central argument? Did you formulate questions based on the reading for class discussion? Was this reading more difficult than the previous? If so, why? Did you find yourself having an emotional reaction to the reading? If so, did this help or hinder your ability to understand the central argument? Are your reading techniques adequately preparing you for class? Or, are you finding yourself lost in class discussion despite having spent time doing the reading? If pre-class questions related to higher-order thinking ask students to do more than simply “turn the pages,” then pre-class questions related to metacognition ask students to do more than simply engage with the material, but also engage with their own learning processes.

When just-in-time questions are a regular part of the ebb and flow of a course, students must regularly demonstrate how much they know and instructors can regularly use that information to guide course instruction. These techniques work because there is a consistent accountability measure built-in. I suggest that just-in-time assignments can also be used to give students regular practice developing both higher-order thinking and metacognition skills. I have been incorporating higher-ordering thinking into just-in-time assignments for years, but I confess that I have only given metacognition prompts when things have “gone wrong” (e.g., poor performance on exams, consistent misunderstanding of the reading). Responses to these questions have led to helpful conversation about the efficacy of various learning methods. Writing this blog post has prompted me to see the potential benefits of asking such questions more often. I pledge to do just that and to let you know how my students respond.

 

References

Novak, G., Patterson, E., Gavrin, A., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scharff, L., Rolf, J. Novotny, S. and Lee, R. (2011). “Factors impacting completion of pre-class assignments (JiTT) in Physics, Math, and Behavioral Sciences.” In C. Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations. Oxford Brookes University, UK.

Simkins, S. & Maier, M. (2009). Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Stylus Publishing, LLC..

Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113-120.