Month: October 2014

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.


Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI): The 5 Perspectives

There are a lot of free surveys/inventories “out there” for all sorts of things, most often related to some aspect of personality. If you use them in a reflective manner, they can help you better understand yourself – your . The TPI (also free) offers a chance for you to reflect on your teaching perspectives (one aspect of metacognitive instruction). The TPI suggests 5 perspectives: Transmission, Apprenticeship, Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform.

http://www.teachingperspectives.com/tpi/


The Teaching Learning Group at CSUN

Two years ago, eight faculty at California State University, Northridge, began studying how people learn as a grassroots effort to increase student success by focusing on what instructors do in the classroom. Our website shares our efforts, Five Gears for Activating Learning, as well as supporting resources and projects developed to date (e.g., documents, videos, and a yearlong Faculty Learning Community in progress). Although all five gears interact when people learn and develop expertise, our fifth gear, the Developing Mastery gear, focuses on assisting students in developing their metacognitive skills.

http://www.csun.edu/cielo/teaching-learning-group.html


The Six Hour D… And How to Avoid It

This great essay by Russ Dewey (1997) evolved from a handout he used to give his students. He shares some common examples of poor study strategies and explains why they are unlikely to lead to deep learning (even if they are used for 6 hours…). He then shares a simple metacognitive self-testing strategy that could be tailored for courses across the disciplines.

http://www.psywww.com/discuss/chap00/6hourd.htm


Despite Good Intentions, More is Not Always Better

by Lauren Scharff, U.S. Air Force Academy*

A recent post to the PSYCHTEACH listserv got me thinking about my own evolution as a teacher trying my best to help the almost inevitable small cluster of students who struggled in my courses, often despite claiming to “have studied for hours.” The post asked “Have any of you developed a handout on study tips/skills that you give to your students after the first exam?” A wide variety of responses were submitted, all of which reflected genuinely good intentions by the teachers.

However, based on my ongoing exploration of metacognition and human learning, I believe that, despite the good intentions, some of the recommendations will not consistently lead to the desired results. Importantly, these recommendations actually seem quite intuitive and reasonable on the surface, which leads to their appeal and continued use. Most of those that fall into this less ideal category do so because they imply that “More is Better.”

For example, one respondent shared, “I did correlations of their test scores with their attendance so far, the number of online quizzes they have taken so far, and the combined number of these two things. [All correlations were positive ranging from 0.35 to 0.57.] So I get to show them how their behaviors really are related to their scores…”

This approach suggests several things that all seem intuitively positive: online quizzes are a good way to study and attending class will help them learn. I love the empowerment of students by pointing out how their choice of behaviors can impact their learning! However, the message that more quizzes and simple attendance will lead to better grades does not capture the true complexity of learning.

Another respondent shared a pre-post quiz reflection assignment in which some of the questions asked about how much of the required reading was completed and how many hours were put into studying. Other questions asked about the use of chapter outcomes when reading and studying, the student’s expected grade on the quiz, and an open-ended question requesting a summary of study approaches.

This pre-post quiz approach seems positive for many reasons. Students are forced to think about and acknowledge levels and types of effort that they put into studying for the quizzes. There is a clear suggestion that using the learning outcomes to direct their studying would be a positive strategy. They are asked to predict their grades, which might help them link their studying efforts with predicted grades. These types of activities are actually good first steps at helping students become more metacognitive (aware and thoughtful) about their studying. Yea!

However, a theme running through the questions seems to be, again, “more is better.” More hours. More reading. The hidden danger is that students may not know how to effectively use the learning outcomes, how to read, how to effectively engage during class, how to best take advantage of practice quizzes to promote self-monitoring of learning, or what to do during those many hours of studying.

Thus, the recommended study strategies may work well for some students, but not all, due to differences in how students implement the strategies. Therefore, even a moderately high correlation between taking practice quizzes and exam performance might mask the fact that there are subgroups for which the results are less positive.

For example, Kontur and Terry (2013) found the following in a core Physics course, “On average, completing many homework problems correlated to better exam scores only for students with high physics aptitude. Low aptitude physics students had a negative correlation between exam performance and completing homework; the more homework problems they did, the worse their performance was on exams.”

I’m sure you’re all familiar with students who seem to go through “all the right motions” but who still struggle, become frustrated, and sometimes give up or develop self-doubt about their abilities. Telling students to do more of what they’re already doing if it’s not effective will actually be more harmful.

This is where many teachers feel uncomfortable because they are clearly working outside their disciplines. Teaching students how to read or how to effectively take notes in class, or how to self-monitor their own learning and adjust study strategies to different types of learning expectations is not their area of expertise. Most teachers somehow figured out how to do these things well on their own, or they wouldn’t be teachers now. However, they may never have thought about the underlying processes of what they do when they read or study that allowed them to be successful. They also feel pressures to cover the disciplinary content and focus on the actual course material rather than learning skills. Unfortunately, covering material does little good if the students forget most of the content anyway. Teaching them skills (e.g., metacognitive study habits) offers the prospect of retaining more of the disciplinary content that is covered.

The good news is that there are more and more resources available for both teachers and students (check out the resources on this website). A couple great resources specifically mentioned by the listserv respondents are the How to Get the Most out of Studying videos by Stephen Chew at Samford University and the short reading (great to share with both faculty and students) called The Six Hour D… and How to Avoid it by Dewey (1997). Both of these highlighted resources focus on metacognitive learning strategies.

This reflection on the different recommendations is not meant to belittle the well-intentioned teachers. However, by openly discussing these common suggestions, and linking to what we know of metacognition, I believe we can increase their positive impact. Share your thoughts, favorite study suggestions and metacognitive activities by using the comments link below, or submitting them under the Teaching Strategies tab on this website.

References

Dewey, R. (1997, February 12) The “6 hour D” and how to avoid it. [Online]. Available: http://www.psywww.com/discuss/chap00/6hourd.htm.

Kontur, F. & Terry, N. The benefits of completing homework for students with different aptitudes in an introductory physics course. Cornell Physics Library Physics Education. arXiv:1305.2213

 

* 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.


Negotiating Chaos: Metacognition in the First-Year Writing Classroom

by Amy Ratto Parks, Composition Coordinator/Interim Director of Composition, University of Montana

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” John Hughes, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Although the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (Hughes, 1986) debuted long before our current first-year college students were born, the combined sentiment of the film remains relevant to them. If we combined Ferris’ sense of exuberant freedom with Cameron’s grave awareness of personal responsibility, and added Sloane’s blasé ennui we might see an accurate portrait of a typical first-year student’s internal landscape. Many of our students are thrilled to have broken out of the confines of high school but are worried about not being able to succeed in college, so they arrive in our classrooms slumped over their phones or behind computer screens, trying to seem coolly disengaged.

The life of the traditional first-year student is rife with negotiations against chaos. Even if we remove the non-academic adjustments of living away from home, their lives are full of confusion. All students, even the most successful, will likely find their learning identities challenged: what if all of their previous academic problem-solving strategies are inadequate for the new set of college-level tasks?

In the first-year writing classroom, we see vivid examples of this adjustment period play out every year. Metacognitive activities like critical reflective writing help students orient themselves because they require students to pause, assess the task at hand, and assess their strategies for meeting the demands of the task. Writing studies researchers know that reflection benefits writers (Yancey, 1998) and portfolio assessment, common in first-year program across the country, emphasizes reflection as a major component of the course (Reynolds & Rice, 2006). In addition, outcomes written by influential educational bodies such as National Council of Teacher’s of English (ncte.org), The Common Core State Standards Initiative (corestandards.org), and Council of Writing Program Administrators (wpacouncil.org) emphasize the importance of metacognitive skills and demonstrate a shared belief in its importance.

But students aren’t necessarily on board. It is the rare student who has engaged in critical reflection in the academic setting. Instead, many aren’t sure how to handle it. Is it busy work from the teacher? Are they supposed to reveal their deep, inner feelings or is it a cursory overview? Is it going to be graded? What if they give a “wrong” reflection? And, according to one group of students I had, “isn’t this, like, for junior high kids?” In this last question we again see the developing learner identity. The students were essentially wondering, “does this reflective work make us little kids or grown ups?”

If we want new college students to engage in the kind of reflective work that will help them develop transferable metacognitive skills, we need to be thoughtful about how we integrate it into the coursework. Intentionality is important because there are a number of ways teachers might accidentally perpetuate these student mindsets. In order to get the most from reflective activities in class, keep the following ideas in mind:

  1. Talk openly with students about metacognition. If we want students to become aware of their learning, then the first thing to do is draw their attention to it. We should explain to students why they might care about metacognitive skills, as well as the benefits of investing themselves in the work. If we explain that reflection is one kind of metacognitive activity that helps us retrieve, sort, and choose problem-solving strategies, then reflection ceases to be “junior high” work and instead becomes a scholarly, collegiate behavior.
  2. Design very specific reflective prompts. When in doubt, err on the side of more structure. Questions like “what did you think about the writing assignment” seem like they would open the door to many responses; actually they allow students to answer without critically examining their writing or research decisions. Instead, design prompts that require students to critically consider their work. For example, “Describe one writing choice you made in this essay. What was the impact of your decision?”
  3. Integrate reflection throughout the semester. Ask students to reflect mid-way through the processes of drafting, research, and writing. If we wait until they finish an essay they learn that reflection is simply a concluding activity. If they reflect mid-process they become aware of their ability to assess and revise their strategies more than once. Also, reflection is a metacognitive habit of mind (Tarricone, 2011; Yancey, 1998) and habits only come to us through repeated activity.

These three strategies are a very basic beginning to integrating metacognitive activities into a curriculum. Not only do they help students evaluate the effectiveness of their attempts at problem solving, but they can also direct the students’ attention toward the strategies they’ve already brought to the class, thereby creating a sense of control over their learning. In the first-year writing classroom, where students are distracted and worried about life circumstance and learner identity, the sense of control gained from metacognitive work is especially important.

 

References

Chinich, M. (Producer), & Hughes, J.H. (Director). (1986). Ferris Beuller’s day off.[Motion picture]. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Reynolds, N., & Rice, R. (2006). Portfolio teaching: A guide to instructors. Boston, MA: Bedford St, Martin’s.

Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. New York: Psychology Press.

Yancey, K.B. (1998). Reflection in the writing classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press.

(2013). First-year writing: What good does it do? Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/nctefiles/resources/journals/cc/0232-nov2013/cc0232policy.pdf

(2014). Frameworks for success in postsecondary writing. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/framework

(2014). English language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/


Comprehension Monitoring: The Role of Conditional Knowledge

By Antonio Gutierrez, Georgia Southern University

In my previous post, Metacognitive Strategies: Are They Trainable?, I explored the extent to which metacognitive strategies are teachable. In my own research on how well students monitor their comprehension during learning episodes, I discovered that students reported already having a repertoire of metacognitive strategies. Yet, I have often found, in my own teaching and interaction with undergraduate and even graduate students, that having metacognitive declarative knowledge of strategies is often not sufficient to promote students’ comprehension monitoring. For instance, students may already know to draw a diagram when they are attempting to learn new concepts. However, they may not know under which circumstances it is best to apply such a strategy. When students do not know when, where and why to apply a strategy, they may in fact be needlessly expending cognitive resources for little, to no, benefit with respect to learning.

Schraw and Dennison (1994) argued that metacognition is divided in to knowledge and regulation components. Knowledge is comprised of declarative knowledge about strategies, procedural knowledge of how to apply them, and conditional knowledge about when, where, and why to apply strategies given task demands. The more that I engage students, inside and beyond my classes, the more that I become convinced that the greatest lack in metacognitive knowledge lies not in declarative or procedural knowledge, but in conditional knowledge. Students clearly have a repository of strategies and procedures to apply them. However, they seem incapable of applying those strategies effectively given the demands of the learning tasks in which they engage. So how can we enhance students’ conditional knowledge? Let’s assume that Sally is attempting to learn the concept of natural selection in her biology lesson. As Sally attempts to connect what she is learning with prior knowledge in long-term memory, she realizes she may have misconceptions regarding natural selection. She also understands that she has a variety of strategies to assist her in navigating this difficult concept. However, she does not know or understand which strategy will optimize her learning of the concept. Thus, she resorts to a trial-and-error utilization of the strategies she thinks are “best” to help her. Here we see a clear example of lack of adequate conditional knowledge. Much time and cognitive effort can be saved if we enhance students’ conditional knowledge. Calibration (the relationship between task performance and a judgment about that performance; Boekaerts & Rozendaal, 2010; Keren, 1991), a related metacognitive process, but distinct from conditional knowledge, involves the comprehension monitoring element of metacognitive regulation. As I continue my scholarship to deepen my understanding of calibration, I wonder whether conditional knowledge and calibration are more closely associated than researchers assume.

In my recent research on calibration I have often asked why the body of literature on calibration is inconclusive in its findings with respect to the effects of metacognitive strategy training on calibration. For instance, some studies have found positive effects for calibration (e.g., Gutierrez & Schraw, in press; Nietfeld & Schraw, 2002) while others have demonstrated no effect for strategy training on calibration (e.g., Bol et al., 2005; Hacker et al., 2008). This inconclusive evidence has frustrated me not only as a scholar but as a teacher as well. I suspect that these mixed findings in the literature on calibration may be due in part because researchers on calibration have neglected to address participants’ metacognitive conditional knowledge. How can we possibly hope as instructors to improve students’ comprehension monitoring when the findings on the role of metacognitive strategy instruction plays on calibration are inconclusive? So, perhaps as researchers/scholars of metacognition we are asking the wrong questions? I argue that by improving students’ metacognitive conditional knowledge, we can improve their ability to more effectively determine what they know and what they do not know about their learning (i.e., better calibrate their performance judgments to their actual performance). If students cannot effectively apply strategies given the demands of the learning episode (a conditional knowledge issue) how can we expect them to adequately monitor their comprehension (a regulation of learning issue)? Perhaps the next line of inquiry should exclusively focus on the enhancement of students’ conditional knowledge?

 

References

Boekaerts, M., & Rozendaal, J. S. (2010). Using multiple calibration measures in order to capture the complex picture of what affects students’ accuracy of feeling of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 372-382. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.03.002

Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy, and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269-290.

Gutierrez, A. P., & Schraw, G. (in press). Effects of strategy training and incentives on students’ performance, confidence, and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education: Learning, Instruction, and Cognition.

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition Learning, 3, 101-121.

Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77(2), 217- 273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(91)90036-Y

Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy explanation on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131-142.