What is your favorite metacognition assignment?

Briefly explain the assignment. Help others understand how you’ve used it. For example, in what level course have you used this? What is the best thing about this assignment? What is a limitation of this assignment?

Share by using the comments feature for this post. If you have a handout to share with more detail, please email it with a short note linking it to your post, and the Improve with Metacognition creators will save it as an online resource and link it to your post. If you are comfortable doing so, you can include your name and email contact so that others can contact you for further information.

What is your favorite in-class metacognition activity?

Briefly explain the activity. Help others understand how you’ve used it. For example, have you used this in small or large classes? What is the best thing about this activity? What is a limitation?

Waves of Insight about Teaching and Learning

James Rhem, Executive Editor, The National Teaching & Learning FORUM

“When I began The National Teaching & Learning FORUM” over twenty years ago, almost everyone in faculty development had heard of Bloom’s Taxonomy. I hadn’t since I was new to this beat; so I went to the University of Wisconsin’s Memorial Library and looked for it. There on the shelf was what they were talking about, the taxonomy of cognition, but right beside it was something that interested me as much if not more, the taxonomy of affect. No one (or at least no one I knew) had heard of this taxonomy or the one on the psychomotor domain that followed the one on affect. I began quietly beating the drum for an awareness of affect back in 1995 (according to a search of my old email). That was the same year Daniel Goleman’s “Emotional Intelligence” came out; so I suspected I’d stumbled onto what would become a cresting wave. That wave has grown, but it’s still heading toward a crest.

I go into all this because I think I can already see the waves of insight and meaningful rethinking of teaching and learning that will follow. Metacognition as a concept has been around for a long time, but coming to understand it and its place in learning (and thus is effective teaching) is a new thing. It’s something I’ve been increasingly covering in the FORUM and something I plan on continuing to cover. Indeed, NTLF created a series of small books with Stylus a few years back and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that one of the titles in that series is about metacognition (Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy Edited by Matthew Kaplan , Naomi Silver , Danielle LaVaque-Manty , Deborah Meizlish Foreword by James Rhem https://sty.presswarehouse.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=298776 )

I’ve linked two recent articles from the FORUM on metacognition. And I invite readers of this list who may have written (or plan to write) articles on metacognition and teaching and learning to submit material to me for wider distribution.

1. Metacognitive Skills – why bother (and how)? by Carol Hostetter and Leah Savion at Indiana University

2. Metacognition and Disciplinary Thinking by Matt Fisher at Saint Vincent College

So what’s the next wave after metacognition? The psychomotor domain. Count on it.

James Rhem, Executive Editor, The National Teaching & Learning FORUM

Meta-Teaching: Improve Your Teaching While Improving Students’ Metacognition

By Aaron S. Richmond, Metropolitan State University of Denver

To-date, many of the wonderful blogs posted on Improve with Metacognition have aptly focused on metacognition itself. They varied from classroom exercises to improve student metacognition (see Westmoreland, 2014) to increasing higher level thinking through metacognitive practices (see Nuhfer, 2014) to the merits of measuring metacognition (Was, 2014). Not yet covered is that of the secondary purpose of this website. That is, the emphasis will be the process of teaching about metacognition and teaching metacognitively. As such, there is great potential and room discourse on meta-teaching or meta-pedagogy as a way to both improve student learning of metacognition and our own teaching practices.

Yet first, it is important to begin with a solid operational definition of meta-teaching. As Chen (2013) states,

Like meta-cognition and meta-learning, meta-teaching, as ‘teaching about teaching’, can serve to design, examine and reflect on teaching. From practice-orientation, it defines what teaching activity is and what it is for, under which theoretical framework it is being carried out, and what experience and rules can be applied to it. Meanwhile, meta-teaching can assist teachers in discovering drawbacks in the teaching system and solving problems. This demonstrates that meta-teaching contains such functions such as understanding teaching, changing teaching and reflecting on teaching. (p. S64)

Therefore, by using this definition, how can we first improve our teaching using meta-teaching practices? And second, how can we use meta-teaching to specifically improve our teaching of metacognitive theory and the metacognition of our students?

Why Engage in Meta-Teaching Practices?

Drawn from the literature on meta-teaching, there are several benefits and reasons why college professors should employ meta-teaching practices. First, and foremost it promotes student learning (Chen, 2013). When teachers reflect and evaluate whether their teaching methods actually have an impact on student learning and adjust their practices accordingly, inevitably student learning and performance improves. Second, meta-teaching can invigorate and create a passion for teaching. In that, engaging in this process has been found to increase teacher’s love for the profession (Chen, 2013). Moreover, Chen states, “When the teacher takes action, he/she begins to observe and reflect on the action, impelling him/her to stay highly conscious of what he/she is doing….Without meta-teaching action, a teacher would hardly keep his /her motivation and enthusiasm for better teaching.” (p. S69) Finally, meta-teaching promotes the teaching profession through formal and informal scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). That is, SoTL cannot be conducted without proper meta-teaching practices.

Meta-Teaching Strategies Used to Improve Metacognition

Plan, strategy, monitor, and evaluate. Spring (1985) suggests that teachers should use meta-teaching strategies by properly planning lessons, critically reflecting on appropriate instructional strategies/methods to obtain instructional goals, monitor student learning, and evaluate the efficacy of the strategy. For example, in a recent study I conducted (Richmond, in press), I used meta-teaching strategies to improve pre-service education students’ knowledge of various learning strategies. See Table 1 for an illustrative example of how I employed the meta-teaching strategies of planning, instructional strategy, student monitoring, and evaluation to improve my teaching and increase my student’s knowledge of metacognitive theory (e.g., learning strategies).

Table 1. Example of Implementing Meta-Teaching to Teach Learning Strategies
Meta-Teaching Strategy	Richmond’s (in press) Educational PsychologyClassroom Example
Planning and Goals	Increase both higher and lower level learning of the learning strategies of rehearsal, organization, elaboration, spacing vs. massed practice, and distributed practice. Increase retention of the knowledge of learning strategies. Attempt to assist students in transferring these strategies to their own learning.
Instructional Strategy	Used Active learning (e.g., small group discussion, experimentation, elaboration) vs. direct instruction (e.g., lecture) to teach about learning strategies.
Monitoring Student Learning	Formally assessed prior knowledge of student’s understanding of learning strategies. Formally assessed immediate retention of knowledge of learning strategies. Formally assessed long-term retention (4-weeks) of knowledge of learning strategies. Informally assessed (e.g., why questions and a 1-minute written assessment) progress of learning about learning strategies during class.
Evaluation	Analyzed which instructional method was most effective and found that only active learning instruction increased higher-level learning. Found that students were unable to transfer strategies. Found that students taught with active learning instruction retained more information over time.

Encourage metacognition in students. Not only can teachers use meta-teaching strategies to improve their own teaching, student learning, and to teach about metacognition, they can also model and encourage metacognitive thinking in their students. Similar to that of meta-teaching strategies, Chen suggests students should set a plan/goal for learning, develop a strategy to achieve this goal, monitor the progress of the given strategy, and finally evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy. Moreover, when teachers effectively use meta-teaching strategies they explain the reasoning behind specific pedagogical practices (e.g., formal and informal assessments, specific teaching strategies, assignments, etc.) and they explain the successes and failures of meta-teaching strategies (Chen, 2013). This process may model metacognitive practices to students. Additionally, Chen argues that teachers using meta-teaching strategies (no matter the content domain) always specifically infuse and teach metacognitive strategies to students.

Closing Meta-Remarks

I believe that many exemplar teachers inherently use meta-teaching strategies. However, for the rest of us, it is extremely important to investigate and learn how to improve our teaching through these practices. Additionally, when we convey the process to our students we are modeling metacognitive processes to students, which they too can use to improve their learning and performance in whatever endeavor they so choose.

References

Chen, X. (2013). Meta-teaching: Meaning and Strategy. Africa Education Review, 10(1), S63-S74. doi:10.1080/18146627.2013.855431

Nuhfer, E. (2104). Metacognition for guiding students to awareness of higher-level thinking (part 2). Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-for-guiding-students-to-awareness-of-higher-level-thinking-part-2/

Richmond, A. S. (in press). Teaching learning strategies to pre-service educators: Practice what we preach! In M. C. Smith, & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.). Challenges and innovations in educational psychology teaching and learning. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.

Spring, H. T. (1985). Teacher decision making: A metacognitive approach. The Reading Teacher, 290-295.

Was, C. (2014). Are current metacognition measures missing the target? Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/are-current-metacognition-measures-missing-the-target/

Westmoreland, D. (2014). Science and social controversy – A classroom exercise in metacognition. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/science-and-social-controversy-a-classroom-exercise-in-metacognition/

Promoting Student Metacognition

by Kimberly D. Tanner

This article starts out with two student scenarios with which many faculty will easily resonate (one student with poor and one with good learning skills), and which help make the case for the need to incorporate metacognitive development in college courses. Kimberly then shares some activities and a very comprehensive list of questions that instructors might ask students to answer regarding the planning, monitoring and evaluating of their own learning. While Kimberly makes a point of teaching metacognition within the disciplines, these questions are all generic enough to be used in any discipline. Of note in this article, there is a section that discusses metacognitive instruction, and includes a series of questions that faculty should ask of themselves as they plan, monitor and evaluate their teaching.

CBE—Life Sciences Education; Vol. 11, 113–120, Summer 2012

https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033

Teaching Metacognition to Improve Student Learning

By: Maryellen Weimer, PhD; published in Teaching Professor Blog October 31, 2012

This blog post offers suggestions for manageable approaches to getting students started in metacognitive types of reflection. Her suggestions are modifications of some shared by Kimberly Tanner in her article on “Promoting Student Metacognition”. Maryellen also astutely points out that, “When you start asking questions about learning, I wouldn’t expect students to greet the activity with lots of enthusiasm. Many of them believe learning is a function of natural ability and not something they can do much about. Others just haven’t paid attention to how they learn.”

http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/teaching-metacognition-to-improve-student-learning/

Promoting general metacognitive awareness

This informative article by Gregory Schraw begins with a distinction between knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (lots of great references included), continues with a a discussion of generalization and a summary of some additional research that examines the relationship between metacognition and expertise (cognitive abilities), and finishes with several strategies that instructors can use to develop both metacognitive awareness and regulation.

http://wiki.biologyscholars.org/@api/deki/files/87/=schraw1998-meta.pdf

Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 2)

by Ed Nuhfer (Contact: enuhfer@earthlink.net; 208-241-5029)

Part 1 introduced the nature of adult intellectual development in terms of the stages ascended as one becomes educated. Each stage imparts new abilities that are valuable. This Part 2 reveals why awareness of these stages is important and offers metacognitive exercises through which students can begin to engage with what should be happening to them as they become better thinkers.

A disturbingly tiny contingent of professors in disciplines outside adult education have read the adult developmental research and recognized the importance of Perry’s discovery. Even fewer pass on this awareness directly to their students. Thus, recognition that the main value of a university education does not lie in acquired knowledge of facts and formulae but rather in acquiring higher level thinking abilities remains off the radars of most students.

Given what we know from this research, a potential exists for American higher education’s evolving into a class-based higher educational system, with a few institutions for the privileged supporting curricula that emphasize developing the advanced thinking needed for management and leadership, and a larger group of institutions fielding curricula emphasizing only content and skills for producing graduates destined to be managed. Until students in general (and parents) recognize how these two educational models differ in what they offer in value and advantages for life, they will fail to demand to be taught higher-order thinking. Overcoming this particular kind of ignorance is a struggle that neither individual students nor a free nation can afford to lose.

Teaching Metacognition: Mentoring Students to Higher Levels of Thinking

One way to win this struggle is to bring explicit awareness of what constitutes becoming well educated directly to students, particularly those not enrolled in elite, selective schools. All students should know what is happening to them, which requires understanding the stages of adult intellectual development and the sequence in which they occur offers the explicit framework needed to guide students to do beneficial “thinking about thinking.” (See Part 1, Table 1.) This research-based framework offers the foundation required for understanding the value of higher-level thinking. It offers a map for the journey on which one procures specific abilities by mastering successively higher stages of adult thinking. Through learning to use this framework metacognitively, individuals can start to discover their current stage of intellectual development and determine what they need for achieving the next higher stage.

I have included two exercises for students to show how the research that informs what we should be “thinking about” can be converted into metacognitive components of lessons. These modules have been pilot tested on students in introductory general education and critical thinking courses.

The first, “Module 12 – Events a Learner Can Expect to Experience,” uses the research that defines the Perry stages (Table 1) as a basis for authoring an exercise that guides students through key points to “think about” as they start to reflect upon their own thinking. Instructors can employ the module as an assignment or an in-class exercise, and should modify it as desired. For many students, this will serve as their first exposure to metacognition. If this is the reader’s first introduction to adult intellectual development, work through this module, ideally with a colleague on a lunch break. Start to procure some of the key resources listed in the references for your personal library.

With the exception of Perry Stages 7, 8, and 9, Module 12 largely addresses the cognitive realm. However, when intellectual development occurs successfully, affective or emotional development occurs in parallel as one advances through higher cognitive stages (see Nuhfer, 2008). Metacognition or “thinking about thinking” should extend also to a reflective “thinking about feelings.” Since the 1990s, we have learned that our feelings about our learning–our affective component of thinking– influence how well we can learn. Further, our affective development or “emotional intelligence” determines how well that we can work with others by connecting with the through their feelings, which is a huge determinant in work and life success.

The second “Module 4—Enlisting the Affective Domain” helps students to recognize why the feelings and emotions that occur as one transitions into higher stages are important to consider and to understand. At the higher levels of development, one may even aspire to deeply understand another by acquiring the capacity for experiencing another’s feelings (Carper, 1978; Belenky and others, 1986).

Frequent inclusion of metacognitive components in our assignments is essential for providing students with the practice needed for achieving better thinking. Guiding students in what to “think about” can help students engage in challenges that arise at the finer scales of metadisciplines, disciplines, courses, and lessons. This requires us to go beyond articulating: “What should students learn and how can we assess this?” by extending our planning to specify “What is essential that students should think about, and how can we mentor them into such thinking?”

REFERENCES CITED (additional references are provided in the two exercises furnished)

Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Belenky, M.F., B.M. Clinchy, N.R. Goldberger, and J.M. Tarule. (1986) Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, New York: Basic Books. (Reprinted in 1997).

Carper, B. A. (1978). Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science 1 1 13–24.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Journal of Adult Development (2004). Special volume of nine papers on the Perry legacy of cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development (11, 2) 59-161 Germantown NY: Periodicals Service Co.

Nuhfer, E. B (2008) The feeling of learning: Intellectual development and the affective domain: Educating in fractal patterns XXVI. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 18 (1) 7-11.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1999). Forms of intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. (Reprint of the original 1968 1st edition with introduction by L. Knefelkamp). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 1)

by Ed Nuhfer (Contact: enuhfer@earthlink.net; 208-241-5029)

When those unfamiliar with “metacognition” first learn the term, they usually hear: “Metacognition is thinking about thinking.” This is a condensation of John Flavell’s (1976) definition: “Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them…” Flavell’s definition reveals that students cannot engage in metacognition until they first possess a particular kind of knowledge. This reminds us that students do not innately understand what they need to be “thinking about” in the process of “thinking about thinking.” They need explicit guidance.

When students learn in most courses, they engage in a three-component effort toward achieving an education: (1) gaining content knowledge, (2) developing skills (which are usually specific to a discipline), and (3) gaining deeper understanding of the kinds of thinking or reasoning required for mastery of the challenges at hand. The American higher educational system generally does best at helping students achieve the first two. Many students have yet to even realize how these components differ, and few ever receive any instruction on mastering Component 3. Recently, Arum and Roksa (2011) summarized the effectiveness of American undergraduate education in developing students’ capacity for thinking. The record proved dismal and revealed that allowing the first two components to push aside the third produces serious consequences.

This imbalance has persisted for decades. Students often believe that education is primarily about gaining content knowledge—that the major distinction between freshmen and seniors is “Seniors know more facts.” Those who never get past this view will likely acquire a degree without acquiring any significantly increased ability to reason.

We faculty are also products of this imbalanced system, so it is not too surprising to hear so many of us embracing “covering the material” as a primary concern when planning our courses. Truth be told, many of us have so long taught to content and to skills necessary for working within the disciplines that we are less practiced in guiding our students to be reflective on how to improve their thinking. Adding metacognitive components to our assignments and lessons can provide the explicit guidance that students need. However, authoring these components will take many of us into new territory, and we should expect our first efforts to be awkward compared to what we will be authoring after a year of practice. Yet, doing such work and seeing students grow because of our efforts is exciting and very worthwhile. Now is the time to start.

Opportunities for developing metacognitive reflection exist at scales ranging from single-lesson assignments to large-scale considerations. In my first blog for this site, I chose to start with the large-scale considerations of what constitutes development of higher-level thinking skills.

What Research Reveals about Adult Thinking

More than five decades have passed since William Perry distinguished nine stages of thinking that successful adult intellectual development (Table 1) produces. The validity of his developmental model in general seems firmly established (Journal of Adult Development, 2004). Contained within this model is the story of how effective higher education improves students’ abilities to think and respond to challenges. Knowing this story enables us to be explicit in getting students aware of what ought to be happening to them if higher education is actually increasing their capacity for thinking. This research enables us to guide students in what to look for as they engage in the metacognition of understanding their own intellectual development.

Enhanced capacity to think develops over spans of several years. Small but important changes produced at the scale of single quarter or semester-long courses are normally imperceptible to students and instructors alike. Even the researchers who discovered the developmental stages passed through them as students, without realizing the nature of the changes that they were undergoing. For learning that occurs in the shorter period of a college course, it is easier to document measurable changes in learning of disciplinary content and the acquisition of specific skills than it is to assess changes in thinking. Research based on longitudinal studies of interviews with students as they changed over several years finally revealed the nature of these subtle changes and the sequence in which they occur (Table 1).

Table 1: A Summary of Perry’s Stages of Adult Intellectual Development

Stage 1 & 2 thinkers believe that all problems have right and wrong answers, that all answers can be furnished by authority (usually the teacher), and that ambiguity is a needless nuisance that obstructs getting at right answers.

Stage 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and does not have good answers for all questions. Thinkers at this stage respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are just about proponents’ thinking differently. Evidence to the contrary does not change this response.

Stage 4 thinkers recognize that not all challenges have right or wrong answers, but they do not yet recognize frameworks through which to resolve how evidence best supports one among several competing arguments.

Stage 5 thinkers can use evidence. They also accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the context of the situation within which a problem occurs.

Stage 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues. They can use evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often depend upon both context and value systems.

Stages 7, 8 and 9 thinkers incorporate metacognitive reflection in their reasoning, and they increasingly perceive how their personal values act alongside context and evidence to influence chosen decisions and actions.

In part 2 of this blog, we will provide metacognitive class exercises that help students to understand what occurs during intellectual development and why they must strive for more than learning content when gaining an education.

Using metacognition to uncover the substructure of moral issues

By John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

As a moral philosopher, my introductory courses revolve around various controversial issues (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, hate speech, same sex marriage, invasions of privacy in the name of national security or commerce). It is not hard to generate discussion about these topics, but important philosophical issues often to get lost in the mayhem. My students try to keep things straight by focusing on particular bits of content. They hope that a laundry list of terms and distinctions will help them make sense of particular ethical issues. For my part, however, most of the interesting stuff occurs behind the scenes. I don’t much care about which topics we discuss because at some level I don’t think that we are talking about the particular topical issues anyway. Details matter, of course, but I am most interested in helping students uncover the underlying value conflicts common to many ethical debates. This, I argue, requires developing metacognitive awareness.

Consider three possible positions on hate speech: (1) ban hate speech on college campuses because it harms individual students, (2) allow hate speech because banning it would violate the rights of individual students, (3) allow hate speech because banning it would do more harm than good in the long-run. Now consider three possible views on governmental surveillance in the name of national security: (1) allow governmental surveillance because it promotes an important good (e.g., national security), (2) ban governmental surveillance because it violates the rights of citizens (e.g., privacy), (3) ban governmental surveillance because it does more harm than good in the long-run. Note the similar underlying value structures of these positions. One favors well-being (e.g., protect individual students or a nation) over other considerations. Another favors rights (e.g., free-speech or privacy) over harms to well-being caused by the exercise of those rights. The last considers two forms of well-being (e.g., short-term and long-term).

As an instructor, I know that teaching students a process by which they can uncover underlying value structures requires scaffolding and plenty of opportunities to practice (Duron, Limback, & Waugh, 2006). Among my many activities and assignments, I ask students to answer the following questions about each of the readings: (1) what is the author’s core insight/thesis? (2) what are the core values at issue? (3) what are the central philosophical problems at issue? (4) what are the central topics at issue? It is not long before students understand that the last two questions are not actually redundant (e.g., well-being versus rights is not the same as hate speech versus governmental surveillance).

This exercise helps students focus on what I take to be most important, namely the underlying value structure. It also sets up the next exercise in which I ask students to use the resources found in one reading (e.g., hate speech) to answer the topical question raised in another (e.g., government surveillance). This can be difficult until students recognize there are values common across different topical debates and they recognize the similarities in the philosophical substructure (e.g., well-being over rights, rights over well-being, long-term well-being over short-term well-being). Because it isn’t always easy to fit one view into the structure of another, this exercise leads to many questions about each of the readings. As the semester moves along, we discuss each reading in relation to those that came before. By the end of the semester, we pick author names “at random” and discuss the connections between them.

With an understanding the underlying value structure of a particular moral issue, students can begin to “think like a philosopher.” It puts them in a position to move beyond mere coffee shop conversation and the rehash of media pundit drivel towards a more careful consideration of the issues. Through the process outlined above, they begin to notice when their discussions lapse into media drivel and thus when they need steer the conversation back towards the underlying value structure. Insofar as this exercise moves students towards the ability to consciously and explicitly understand the substructure of values underlying a wide variety of ethical issues, it moves them towards a more sophisticated understanding of those issues and towards a metacognitive awareness of their own learning.

References

Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). “Critical Thinking Framework for Any Discipline.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17 (2), 160-166.

Breaking through the barriers to learning

by David Westmoreland, U.S. Air Force Academy*

Teachers of science increasingly find themselves entangled in social controversies. This is true for physicists teaching about the origin of matter, geologists discussing the age of the planet, biologists teaching evolution, and climatologists teaching about global warming. In most cases, the science is relatively clear, and there is little controversy within the scientific community.

In my field of biology, for example, a significant percentage of students enter the classroom with preconceived notions about the theory of evolution. Public perception of this field has changed little in the past 30 years. In the most recent poll, 42% of Americans rejected evolution outright, a figure that has fluctuated between 40 and 47% for more than 3 decades (Newport 2014). Among college-educated Americans, there is greater acceptance of evolution as valid science; in 2014, about 25% espoused a creationist perspective. Still, it is surprising that one-fourth of college-educated Americans reject evolution, given the expansive effort to incorporate evolutionary biology into public education and the positive presentation of evolution in the media.

Why? One possibility is that we have we have failed to use the right approach to overcome a socially derived obstacle to learning. In undergraduate biology courses, the concept of evolution is often introduced in concert with empirical evidence supporting it, with the expectation that students will be open to ideas that, in fact, they are resistant to learn.
My research on cadets at the Air Force Academy indicates a barrier to learning evolution by about 25% of students. I sampled 147 cadet volunteers who self-categorized as creationists (rejecting evolution), theistic evolutionists (acknowledging evolutionary change with some degree of divine influence) or atheistic evolutionists (acknowledging evolution by natural processes alone). Each student responded to surveys that quantified (a) their knowledge of the subject, and (b) their perspective on evolution as science, in addition to demographic information. The results are intriguing.

Knowledge Test Score

Creationists	36	3.7A ± 0.38
Theistic evolutionists	75	6.2B ± 0.25
Atheistic evolutionists	36	6.3B ± 0.37

Despite having a similar educational background to the other groups, creationists’ knowledge scores were roughly half those of the other groups. The difference is statistically significant.

One might think that, if creationist students were more open to learning evolutionary concepts, their acceptance of evolution might rise. But think again – the correlation of knowledge and perception is not so clear. Knowledge is significantly related to acceptance for theistic and atheistic evolutionists, but not for creationists. For them, learning facts does not appear to influence perception.

This is where metacognition comes in. In a review of 26 research articles on undergraduates’ knowledge and acceptance of evolution, Lloyd-Strovas and Bernal (2012) concluded that acceptance is related to student understanding of the nature of science – that is, science as a cultural and intellectual endeavor. When students learn that science should not be regarded as a repository of absolute truth, but rather, an ongoing effort to understand and explain the natural world, the barrier to learning is breached. As emphasized by Lombrozo et al. (2008): “…Students may be more likely to accept evolution if they understand that a scientific theory is provisional but reliable, that scientists employ diverse methods for testing scientific claims, and that relating data to theory can require inference and interpretation.”

In other words, instructors must prepare the field before engaging students in social controversies. Otherwise, students are more likely to engage in social cognition – the tendency to form opinions on the basis of social identity (Bloom and Weisberg 2007). If an individual strongly identifies herself as belonging to a group that holds a common opinion on a topic, she is likely to express that opinion even in the absence of competent understanding of the subject. For such persons, empirical information is likely to be ignored due to a fundamental desire to reinforce a social network. Consider, for example, the strong relationship between political affiliation and skepticism about global warming.

College courses are no strangers to controversy. We often engage students in debate, and have them present and defend positions. What is missing, I think, is pushing our students to critically evaluate the processes they used to form the opinions in the first place.

References

Bloom, P., and D. S. Weisberg. (2007). Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science 316: 996-997.

Lloyd-Strovas, J. D., and X. E. Bernal. (2012). A review of undergraduate evolution education in U.S. universities: building a unifying framework. Evolution Education Outreach 5: 453–465.

Lombrozo, T., A. Thanukos, and M. Weisberg. (2008). The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution Education Outreach 1: 290-298.

Newport, F. (2014, June 2). In U.S., 42% believe creationist view of human origins. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com

* 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.

Creating a Metacognitive Movement for Faculty

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

Faculty often complain that students don’t complete reading assignments. When students do read, faculty yearn for deeper analysis but can’t seem to get it. With SAT reading scores reaching a four-decade low (Layton & Brown, 2012) and nearly forty percent of postsecondary learners taking remedial coursework (Bettinger & Long, 2009), it’s not surprising that college students are increasingly unable to meet the reading expectations of professors. Faculty sense the waning reading abilities of their students, but they struggle to identify how to address the problem. After all, they weren’t trained to be reading teachers.

In February 2012, a group of faculty gathered for a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Circle at the U.S. Air Force Academy to discuss how to get students to read more critically. The topic spurred such great interest that an interdisciplinary faculty learning community on Reading Critically was formed to investigate the issue and share strategies to use in the classroom. What evolved was a collective movement by faculty to become metacognitively aware of why and how they were assigning and apprenticing students to read more critically within their disciplines.

Our first meeting tackled the big question, “What do we want to know about college reading?” Despite our interdisciplinary nature, we easily identified several common areas of concern: Compliance (completing reading assignments), Comprehension (understanding what they read), and Critical Analysis. These Three C’s of College Reading guided our discussions over the next two academic years and eventually led to the creation of a website to assist other faculty members struggling with the same issues.

As academics, our first inclination was to dive into the literature to determine what other institutions had discovered about this issue. Surely we weren’t the only faculty grappling with these concerns. Not surprisingly, the research literature confirmed that the vast majority of college students do not read assignments ahead of time and do not consider the textbook to be a critical component of learning (Berry et al., 2010). In fact, a number of studies find that college students only read textbooks about six hours per week (Spinosa et al., 2008), with just 20-30% reading compliance for any given day and assignment (Hobson, 2004). Faculty hoping to set the stage prior to class and engage learners in meaningful discussions during class must first address reading compliance among students.

Unfortunately, reading is not indicative of comprehension. The combination of students’ weak reading abilities (particularly marginalized students) and difficult textbook structure produce unskilled learners, which faculty are unprepared to handle. Hobson (2004) explains that most college teachers – content specialists – do not realize their students are struggling to comprehend assigned texts. Furthermore, if faculty insist on emphasizing reading as part of their course structure, then “helping students improve their reading skills should be the responsibility of every college-level teacher” (p. 4). Without specific strategies to address the reading needs of students, typically far outside the spectrum of the usual subject area specialist, faculty are rendered helpless in creating deep thinking environments in the classroom.

Because low reading compliance predicts nonparticipation (Burchfield & Sappington, 2000), college faculty must address the issue in an effort to drive deeper learning. Over the course of two years, our Reading Critically faculty learning community identified and shared several research-based strategies to assist faculty in improving reading compliance, comprehension, and critical analysis. With no budget and nothing more than a dedication to the cause, we invited speakers to our meetings from our own institution to share how they were apprenticing readers within their courses. We discovered the value of pre-class reading guides, concept mapping, equation dictionaries, and even reading aloud in class. The interdisciplinary connectedness and learning through a common academic concern became a welcome respite from the typical silos that exist in higher education.

By the end of our first year together, our faculty learning community had gathered a wealth of research-based practices that could be implemented in courses across all disciplines. While each of the group’s participants had learned a great deal, we weren’t sure how to spread the word and continue the movement. Then, we discovered Carnegie Mellon’s Solve a Teaching Problem website. Alas, a model for us to follow! We set out to design a website for faculty to Solve a Reading Problem. Collaboratively, we created a step-by-step way for faculty to address reading issues they were encountering in their courses:

Step 1: Identify a reading problem

Step 2: Investigate a reason for the problem

Step 3: Initiate a strategy to address the problem

Our learning community pooled resources together by suggesting various problems and solutions along with research-based literature to support our ideas. Faculty then submitted lesson ideas and classroom strategies they found successful in their own courses to support better reading compliance, comprehension, and critical analysis. While the website is still very much a work in progress, it represents two years of metacognition around why faculty assign readings and how to maximize those opportunities in the classroom.

Ultimately, our faculty learned that we have a responsibility to be metacognitive about our own teaching practices in order to improve learning. This group’s commitment to the cause created an interdisciplinary metacognitive movement among our faculty that is still developing. What metacognitive movement can you lead at your institution?

References:

Berry, T., Cook, L., Hill, N,. & Stevens, K. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31-39.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared college students: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736-771.

Burchfield, C. M., & Sappinton, J. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 58-60.

Hobson, E. H. (2004). Getting students to read: Fourteen tips. IDEA Paper No. 40. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Layton, L., & Brown, E. (September 24, 2012). SAT reading scores hit a four-decade low. Washington Post. Washington, D.C.

Spinosa, H., Sharkness, J., Pryor, J. H., & Liu, A. (2008). Findings from the 2007 administration of the College Senior Survey (CSS): National aggregates. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

* 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.

Are College Students Picky About Using Metacognitive Reading Strategies?

by Roman Taraban, Texas Tech University

“Picky, picky” is a phrase we use to gently chide someone for being overly selective when making an apparently simple choice. However, being picky is not always a bad thing, as I will try to show. Oddly enough, this phrase comes to mind when thinking about thinking about thinking, i.e., thinking about metacognition. To explain the connection, I would like to consider the idea of being picky from two perspectives: research on metacognition and students’ metacognitive behaviors.

My students and I were first attracted to research on metacognition upon reading the work of Michael Pressley and colleagues, which focused on metacognitive strategies for reading comprehension. Noteworthy in those early efforts were projects involving elementary school teachers and classroom interventions geared toward young students in an effort to teach them how to be more metacognitive in their daily schoolwork (Pressley et al., 1995). Other work by Pressley and colleagues analyzed adult metacognitions when reading, using a think-aloud method (e.g., Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), and metacognitions of experts when reading in their discipline (Wyatt et al., 1993). This research made a lot of sense, as it fit nicely within the broader constructs of active learning and constructivism — the belief that students needed to actively engage materials in order to benefit from study. A simple inference to make is that the application of any active learning strategy will benefit students. That was our assumption when we constructed and tested the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire (MRSQ) (Taraban et al., 2000), drawing on the work of Pressley and others. Data from 324 undergraduates from a variety of majors and levels were telling. Of the 35 strategies that we tested, only seven were significantly associated with students’ grade-point averages (GPA). The strategies were Evaluate text for goals, Set goals for reading, Draw on my prior knowledge, Vary reading style based on goals, Search out information for goals, Infer information, and Look for important information (here presented in order of greatest to smallest effect sizes). It was clear that all metacognitive strategies did not predict GPA equally well, and that the successful strategies were mostly related to reading goals. The significant correlations of academic proficiency, measured by GPA, with goal-related reading strategies, are consistent with Garner’s (1987) suggestion that skilled readers know multiple strategies and also know when to apply them.

Recent work on text recall (Schumacher & Taraban, 2014) with an undergraduate sample similar to the earlier study gave us another opportunity to examine students’ strategy use. We asked students to read and study two expository texts and to recall as much as they could either immediately or after a 48-hour delay. After they recalled the information, we asked them to report the strategies they used to learn the information. We organized the specific self-reported strategies into five types, as shown in the table below. A hypothesis that application of any of these strategies would benefit subsequent performance was again not supported. Of the five strategy types, Self-Testing was the only one that was significantly and positively correlated with recall. We might infer that for this sample of readers and the criterion measure, which was recall, the most appropriate strategies were those related to Self-Testing.

Key Types of Self-Reported Strategies

1. REPETITION: Re-Reading; Memorize; Repetition

2. FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ELEMENENTS: Key words; Key concepts; Grouping terms or sentences; Identifying related concepts; Parts that stood out; Parts that were difficult

3. SELF TESTING: Summarizing; Recalling; Quizzing self; Forming acronyms

4. GENERATING COGNITIVE ELABORATIONS: Activating prior knowledge; Recalling related experiences; Re-explaining parts of the text in other ways; Comparing and contrasting ideas; Using analogiesusing mental imagery

5. SEGMENTATION: Grouping sentences for purposes of study; Divide by paragraph

In conclusion, we can draw a few observations. As researchers, as instructors, as students, it is important to be cognizant of three interacting factors when students choose and apply metacognitive reading strategies: the criterion measure, reader-selected goals in light of the criterion measure, and readers’ sense of their own ability as it affects their choices of strategies.

The assumption that the application of any metacognitive strategy will always enhance performance is too simplistic. It does not acknowledge the complexity of strategy choice, and it does not do justice to picky students, who are attempting to choose appropriate strategies for specific circumstances. Some strategies lead to better retention of information and some to better grades. While these will often go together, it might further be the case that picky students know when to employ which strategy. So maybe sometimes it’s good to be picky.

References

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norword, NJ: Ablex.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P. B., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that students need: Instruction fostering constructively responsive reading. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 215-224.

Schumacher, J., & Taraban, R. (2014, April). Strategy use complements testing effects in expository text recall. Paper presented at Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA) Conference. San Antonio, TX.

Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2000). College students’ academic performance and self-reports of comprehension strategy use. Journal of Reading Psychology, 21, 283-308.

Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P., Stein, S., Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when experts read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 49-72.

Metacognitive Strategies: Are They Trainable?

by Antonio Gutierrez, Southern Georgia University

Effective learners use metacognitive knowledge and strategies to self-regulate their learning (Bol & Hacker, 2012; Bjork, Dunlosky & Kornell, 2013; Ekflides, 2011; McCormick, 2003; Winne, 2004; Zeidner, Boekaerts & Pintrich, 2000; Zohar & David, 2009). Students are effective self-regulators to the extent that they can accurately determine what they know and use relevant knowledge and skills to perform a task and monitor their success. Unfortunately, many students experience difficulty learning because they lack relevant knowledge and skills, do not know which strategies to use to enhance performance, and find it difficult to sequence a variety of relevant strategies in a manner that enables them to self-regulate their learning (Bol & Hacker, 2012; Grimes, 2002).

Strategy training is a powerful educational tool that has been shown to overcome some of these challenges in academic domains such as elementary and middle school mathematics (Carr, Taasoobshirazi, Stroud & Royer, 2011; Montague, Krawec, Enders & Dietz, 2014), as well as non-academic skills such as driving and anxiety management (Soliman & Mathna, 2009). Additional benefits of strategy training are that using a flexible repertoire of strategies in a systematic manner not only produces learning gains, but also empowers students psychologically by increasing their self-efficacy (Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009). Further, a common assumption is that limited instructional time with younger children produces life-long benefits once strategies are automatized (McCormick, 2003; Palincsar, 1991; Hattie et al., 1996).

In addition to beginning strategy instruction as early as possible, it should be embedded within all content areas, modeled by teachers and self-regulated students, practiced until automatized, and discussed explicitly in the classroom to provide the greatest benefit to students. Pressley and Wharton-McDonald (1997) recommend that strategy instruction be included before, during, and after the main learning episode. Strategies that occur before learning include setting goals, making predictions, determining how new information relates to prior knowledge, and understanding how the new information will be used. Strategies needed during learning include identifying important information, confirming predictions, monitoring, analyzing, and interpreting. Strategies typically used after learning include reviewing, organizing, and reflecting. Good strategy users should possess some degree of competence in each of these areas to be truly self-regulated.

Additional strategies have been studied by Schraw and his colleagues (Gutierrez & Schraw, in press; Nietfeld & Schraw, 2002). They demonstrated that a repertoire of seven strategies is effective at improving undergraduate students’ learning outcomes and comprehension monitoring, a main component of the regulatory dimension of metacognition. Table 1 contains the seven strategies explicitly taught to students. Moreover, these strategies can function not only in contrived laboratory settings but also in ecologically valid settings, such as classrooms.

Table 1. Summary of Metacognitive Strategies and their Relation to Comprehension Monitoring

Strategy	LearningProcesses	Hypothesized Influence on Comprehension
Review main objectives of the text and focus on main ideas and overall meaning	Review and monitor	Enhance calibration through clarifying misunderstandings and tying details to main ideas
Read and summarize material in your own words to make it meaningful; use elaboration and create your own examples	Read and relate	Enhances calibration by transforming knowledge into something personally meaningful
Reread questions and responses and reflect on what the question is asking; go through and take apart the question paying attention to relevant concepts	Review, relate, and monitor	Purposefully slowing information processing allows for a more accurate representation of the problem, thus decreasing errors in judgment
Use contextual cues in the items and responses, e.g., bolded, italicized, underlined, or capitalized words	Relate	Using contextual cues allows the mind to focus on salient aspects of the problem rather than seductive details, thereby increasing accuracy
Highlight text; underline keywords within the question to remind yourself to pay attention to them; use different colors to represent different meanings	Review, relate, and monitor	Highlighting and underlining can assist one to focus on main ideas and what is truly important, increasing accuracy; however, relying too much on this can be counterproductive and may potentially increase errors
Relate similar test questions together and read them all before responding to any	Relate and monitor	Relating information together provides a clearer understanding of the material and may highlight inconsistencies that need to be resolved; it may point to information the learner may have missed, increasing accuracy
Use diagrams, tables, pictures, graphs, etc. to help you organize information	Review and relate	These strategies help simplify complex topics by breaking them down to their constituent parts; this increases accuracy by decreasing errors

Adapted from Gutierrez and Schraw (in press).

However, while the studies by Shaw and colleagues have shown that teachers can effectively use these strategies to improve students’ comprehension monitoring and other learning outcomes, they have not thoroughly investigated why and how these strategies are effective. I argue that the issue is not so much that students are not aware of the metacognitive strategies, but rather that many lack the conditional metacognitive knowledge−that is, the where, when, and why to apply a given strategy taking into consideration task demands. Future research should investigate these process questions, namely when, how, and why different strategies are successful.

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-447.

Bol, L. & Hacker, D. J. (2012). Calibration research: where do we go from here? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-6.

Carr, M., Taasoobshirazi, G., Stroud, R., & Royer, J. M. (2011). Combined fluency and cognitive strategies instruction improves mathematics achievement in early elementary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 323–333.

Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ekflides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6-25.

Grimes, P. W. (2002). The overconfident principles of economics students: An examination of metacognitive skill. Journal of Economic Education, 1, 15–30.

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.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99-136. doi: 10.3102/00346543066002099

McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 79-102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Montague, M., Krawec, J., Enders, C. & Dietz, S. (2014). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle-school students of varying ability. Journal of Educational Psychology,106,469 – 481.

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

Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Scaffolded instruction of listening comprehension with first graders at risk for academic difficulty. In A. M. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Toward the practice of theory-based instruction (pp. 50–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 448-466.

Soliman, A. M. & Mathna, E. K. (2009). Metacognitive strategy training improves driving situation awareness. Social Behavior and Personality,37, 1161-1170.

Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41,466-488. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.012

Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zohar, A., & David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition & Learning, 4(3), 177-195.

Webinar Slides: From ‘Student’ to ‘Informed Consumer’ of Learning

by Ed Nuhfer and Karl Wirth

http://www.calstate.edu/itl/documents/ITLFeb72014EN_KW_final.pdf

This very informative and useful set of webinar slides (supported by the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning) starts with a discussion of metadisciplines, pointing out that “A realization that arises from becoming educated: every metadiscipline offers a valuable way of knowing.” Following that, the presenters discuss three types of learning (knowing, skills and reasoning), and assert that “Ideally, a curricula should help students become mindful of how to distinguish the three and how to learn all three effectively.” They present data showing that most courses in reality emphasize knowledge, followed by skills, and have very little emphasis on developing reasoning. They then propose that metacognition is a means by which to help develop reasoning, and share some specific metacognitive tools and some data that indicate the usefulness of incorporating these tools into our courses.

Predictors of college retention/success.

In a recent investigation completed with Randy Isaacson and Tara Beziat, it was found that high school GPA and SAT scores did not predict retention as well as GPA in the first semester. It was also found that first semester GPA was a good predictor of retention and student progression. Now, this is not surprising. What is important, is that individual differences in students’ knowledge monitoring accuracy was correlated with student GPA. Further, knowledge monitoring accuracy increased following a semester of simple training.

This article is accessible from the following links:

http://nrmera.org/researcher.html

http://nrmera.org/PDF/Researcher/Researcherv26n1Beziat_et%20al.pdf

The effects of distraction on metacognition and metacognition on distraction

Beaman CP, Hanczakowski M and Jones DM (2014) The effects of distraction on metacognition and metacognition on distraction: evidence from recognition memory. Front. Psychol. 5:439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00439

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00439/abstract (open source full text)

According to the authors (p. 11), “The results documented in our study with free-report tests also reveal that effects of distraction do not end with impairing memory processes. Auditory distraction has important consequences for how accurate people are in monitoring their memory processes, as revealed by impaired resolution of confidence judgments under distraction. Even more importantly, auditory distraction modifies metacognitive control and thus shapes performance when the “don’t know”option is available in a memory test. Participants seem to be aware that auditory distraction is harmful for memory as they become much less confident in their correct responses when distraction is present (see also Ellermeier and Zimmer, 1997; Beaman, 2005b).

Metacognition distinguishes Good from Great Learners

In the thought-provoking blog post, Why Good Students Do “Bad” in College: Impactful Insights by Leonard Geddes, he discusses why a large percent of good students in college do not live up to their potential. In this post, he makes the statement that “metacognition is where good students and great learners differ most. In fact, research shows that students who are not metacognitively aware will struggle in college (Caverly D.C., 2009).” He goes on to share a couple great resources to help students develop their metacognitive abilities.

Are Current Metacognition Measures Missing the Target?

by Chris Was, Kent State University

Clearly, there is some agreement as to what metacognition is, or how to define it. In layman’s terms we often hear metacognition described as “thinking about thinking.” It is often defined as knowledge of and control of one’s cognitive processes.

There is also agreement that metacognition is necessary for one to successfully learn from instruction. Models such as Nelson and Naren’s (1990) model and that presented by Tobias and Everson (2009) stress the importance of knowledge of one’s state of knowledge as a key to learning.

In laboratory settings we have a number of “measures” of metacognition. Judgments of knowing, judgments of learning, feelings of knowing, etc. are all research paradigms used to understand individuals’ ability to assess and monitor their knowledge. These measures are demonstrated to predict differences in study strategies, learning outcomes and host of other performance measures. However, individuals in a laboratory do not have the same pressures, needs, motivations, and desires as a student preparing for an exam.

How do we measure differences in students’ ability to monitor their knowledge so that we can help those who need to improve their metacognition? Not in the lab, but in the classroom. Although much of the research I have conducted with colleagues in metacognition has included attempts to both measure and increase metacognition in the college classroom (e.g., Isaacson & Was, 2010, Was, Beziat, & Isaacson, 2014), I am not convinced that we have always successfully measured these differences.

Simple measures of metacognitive knowledge monitoring administered at the beginning of a semester long course account for significant amounts of variance in end of the semester cumulative final exams (e.g,, Hartwig, Was, Dunlosky & Isaacson, 2013). However, the amount of the variance for which metacognitive knowledge monitoring in the models accounts is typically less than 15% and often much less. If knowledge monitoring is key to learning why then is it the case that it accounts for so little variance in measures of academic performance? Are the measures of knowledge monitoring inaccurate? Do scores on a final exam depend upon the life circumstances of the student during the semester? The answer to both questions is likely yes. But even more important, it could be that students are aware that their metacognitive monitoring is inaccurate and they therefore use other criteria to predict their academic performance.

The debate over whether the unskilled are unaware continues (cf. Krueger & Dunning, 2009; Miller & Geraci, 2011). Krueger and Dunning have provided evidence that poor academic performers carry a double burden. First, they are unskilled. Put differently, they lack the knowledge or skill to perform well. Second, they are unaware. That is, they do not know they lack the knowledge or skill and therefore have a tendency to be overconfident when predicting future performance.

There is however, a good deal of evidence that low-performing students are aware that when they are asked to predict how they will perform on an examination their predictions are overconfident. When asked to predict how well they will do on a test, the lowest performing students often predict scores well above how they eventually perform, but when asked how confident they are about their predictions these low performing students often report little confidence in their predictions.

So why does a poor performing student predict that they will perform well on an exam, when they are not confident in that prediction? Interestingly, my colleagues and I have (as have others) collected data that demonstrates that many students scoring near or above the class average under-predict their scores, and are just as uncertain as to what their actual scores will be.

An area we are beginning to explore is the relationship between ego-protection mechanisms and metacognition. As I stated earlier, students in a course, be it k-12, post-secondary or even adult education, are dealing with demands of the course, their goals in the course and the instructors goals, their attributes of success and failure in the course, and a multitude of other personal issues that may influence their performance predictions. The following is an anecdotal example from a student of mine. After several exams (in one of my undergraduate courses I administer 12 exams a semester plus a final exam) which students were required to predict their test scores, I asked a student why she consistently predicted her score to be 5 – 10 points lower then the grade she would receive. “Because when I do better than I predict, I feel good about my grade,” was her response.

My argument is that to examine metacognition of our students or to try to improve the metacognition of our students in isolation, without attempting to understand the other factors (e.g., motivation) that impact students’ perceptions of their knowledge and future performance, we are not likely to be successful in our attempts.

Isaacson, R., & Was, C. A. (2010). Believing you’re correct vs. knowing you’re correct: A significant difference? The Researcher, 23(1), 1-12.

Krueger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but aware: reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, doi:10.1037/a0021802

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.

Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2009). The importance of knowing what you know: A knowledge monitoring framework for studying metacognition in education. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education. (pp. 107-128). New York, NY: Routledge.
Beziat, T. R. L., Was, C. A., & Isaacson, R. M. (2014). Knowledge monitoring accuracy and college success of underprepared students. The Researcher, 26(1), 8-13.

What do we mean when we say “Improve with metacognition”? (Part Two)

by John Draeger (SUNY Buffalo State) and Lauren Scharff (U.S. Air Force Academy*)

The nature and many benefits of metacognition might seem obvious to those of us working in the field. But because our casual conversations had revealed some “fuzziness” in how the term was interpreted, we asked a convenience sample at our institutions (30 faculty and 11 students) what they believe the term ‘metacognition’ means and why it might be important. As summarized in Part I of this two-part exploration, most respondents offered “thinking about thinking” as a rough shorthand for the meaning of metacognitive processes. Beyond that general response, many faculty offered refinements that we grouped into the categories of awareness, intentionality and understanding. While that conversation is ongoing, this week’s post will focus on responses to the second question in our “survey”, “why might it be important for students and instructors to know about metacognition and perhaps incorporate it in their classes?”

When considering the benefits, the majority of our respondents affirmed importance of metacognition in academic settings. In particular, metacognition was reported to be beneficial because it “improves student learning” and “improves teaching.” As in our last post, where we argued that, while defining ‘metacognition’ as “thinking about thinking” can be a helpful way to get the conversation started but is too simplistic, the goal in this post also is to move toward more useful refinements.

Refinements to “improved student learning” can be grouped into two categories:

(1) Metacognition improves student learning by increasing efficiency and prompting students to take ownership of their own learning

“As a student, if you can understand how you think and learn, then you can more easily choose the method that will work for you.”
Metacognition can “help [students] create strategies to enhance their study of new concepts to increase their retention of the concepts.”
“I can study faster and more efficiently …”

“Metacognition forces students to take positive control of their own development. Much like the first step to getting your finances in order is to see where your money is going, metacognitive questions help a learner assess whether s/he has actually increased his/her level of understanding or knowledge.”
“…they [learners] become more independent in their learning…”

(2) Metacognition increases the depth of learning engagement with material and supports critical thinking

“By reflecting on our understanding we’re more likely to improve that understanding and make connections between bodies of knowledge.”
“…figuring out why the wrong answers (and the reasoning behind them) are wrong. This is often more important than getting the right answer. It is by repairing errors in our thinking that we learn surprising things we didn’t know we were ignorant about…”
“[Metacognition is] an important step in the critical thinking process. If I am not aware of how I am thinking about something, the context, the role and the perspective, then it is difficult to think critically”
“The issue is being able to use critical-thinking skills to sift through the mass of information to develop appropriate conclusions, theses, etc. Metacognition enables us to analyze how we’re doing this and thus, do it better.”
“If we can get students to think about thinking, their own and others, it will help them to be better thinkers. It might also encourage them to be more slow, careful and deliberate in their thinking / writing / speaking.”

Refinements to “improves teaching” can be grouped into two categories:

(1) The more instructors understand about their students’ learning processes and are aware of their state of learning, the more then they can adapt to the needs of their students.

“I also have to be able to teach in different ways for people who learn differently than me, and have an idea how they learn”
“…helps us [instructors] structure our teaching to best support student learning”
“It’s important as instructors because if we understand how our cadets [students] think, we can tweak our teaching methods appropriately. “
“Because the more aware that students and teachers are about how each other thinks and learns, the more effective classroom learning techniques can be.”

(2) The more instructors communicate about metacognition, the better they can help students become better learners.

“…if professors and students communicate about metacognition it can allow the instructors to use every resource available to them to better convey information to the students.”
“…It’s one thing to be aware of how you learn something or think through complex issues. However, even better is to have the ability to identify which processes are most effective for you. Metacognition becomes important when it informs us about how to improve, how to be more efficient, and how to “sift the wheat from the chaff,” so to speak… This self-awareness is not always obvious to a student and thus is most likely enhanced when facilitated by faculty members…”

In conclusion, both teaching and learning are dynamic processes that interact with each other. Thus, we must continue to adapt to the ever-changing circumstances of our current students’ state of learning and help them do so also. Because instructors are not ever-present in students’ lives, our ultimate goal as instructors should be to help develop independent learners.

Metacognition can play a crucial role in both teaching and learning because it prompts us to be “tuned into” these dynamic processes and because it reminds us to be on the lookout for ways to improve and promote deep, life-long learning. These goals are especially important given recently reported shortcomings in higher-education (e.g. Arum & Roksa, 2011). Students need to know how to think critically and communicate well. The term ‘metacognition’ can be understood in a variety of ways and there are many benefits to metacognition. However, they boil down to supporting deep learning goals (beyond mere memorization) and critical thinking at a time when students in higher-education need it most.

References:

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

* 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.