Month: December 2015

Metacognition in STEM courses: A Developmental Path

by Roman Taraban, PHD, Texas Tech University

There is a strong focus in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses to solve problems (Case & Marshall, 2004). Does problem solving in STEM involve metacognition? I argue that the answer must surely be ‘yes’. That’s because metacognition involves monitoring the effectiveness of learning and problem-solving strategies and using metacognitive knowledge to regulate behavior (Draeger, 2015). But when does metacognition become part of problem solving, and how does it come about? Can we discern development in metacognitive monitoring and regulation? In this post, I will present some qualitative data from a study on problem-solving in order to reflect on these questions. The study I draw from was not about metacognition per se, however, it may provide some insights into the development of metacognition.

The study I conducted involved freshman engineering majors. These students were asked to solve typical problems from the course in mechanics in which they were currently enrolled (Taraban, 2015). Not surprisingly, students varied in how they began each problem and how they proceeded towards a solution. In order to gain some insight into their problem-solving strategies, I asked students to simply state why they started with the equation they chose and not some other equation, after they had solved the problems.

Students’ responses fell into at least three types, using labels from Case and Marshall (2004): surface, algorithmic, and deep conceptual. When asked why they started with their first equation, some students responded:

  • “I don’t know, it’s just my instinct”.
  • “No special reason. I’m just taking it randomly”.
  • “It’s just habit.”
  • “The first thing that came to my mind.”

Of interest here, these students did not appear to reflect on the specific problem or show evidence of modulating their behavior to the specific problemheir responses fit a surface learning approach: “no relationships sought out or established, learn by repetition and memorization of formulae” (Case & Marshall, 2004, p. 609).

Other students’ responses reflected an algorithmic approach to learning — “identifying and memorizing calculation methods for solving problems” (Case & Marshall, 2004, p. 609):

  • “I am getting three variables in three unknowns so I can solve it.”

Here the student verbally expresses a more structured approach to the problem. The student believes that he needs three equations involving three unknowns and uses that as a goal. Students who take an algorithmic approach appear to be more reflective and strategic about their solutions to problems, compared to surface problem solvers.

Case and Marshall (1995) regarded both the surface and algorithmic pathways as part of development towards deeper understanding of domain concepts and principles, the latter which they labeled the conceptual deep approach to learning: “relating of learning tasks to their underlying concepts or theory” with the intention “to gain understanding while doing this” (p. 609). Basically, their suggestion is that at some point students recognize that a goal of learning is to understand the material more deeply, and that this recognition guides how they learn. Case and Marshall’s description of conceptual deep learning fits Draeger’s (2015) earlier suggestion that monitoring the effectiveness of learning and regulating one’s behavior is characteristic of metacognitive thinking. Once students reach this level, we should be able to more readily observe students’ intentions to understand the material and observe their overt attempts to grasp the material through their explicit reflection and reasoning. Examples of this type of reflection from my study could be gleaned from those students who did not jump directly to writing equations without first thinking about the problem:

  • “If I choose the moment equation first, then directly I am getting the value of F. So in the other equations I can directly put the value of F.”

As students progress from surface to algorithmic to deep conceptual processing, there is certainly development. However, in the present examples that track that development, it is difficult to partial out students’ thinking about the problem content from their thinking-about-thinking, that is, their metacognitions. Draeger (2015) helps here by distinguishing between metacognition and critical thinking. The latter often requires domain-specific knowledge. Draeger suggests that “many students are able to solve complex problems, craft meaningful prose, and create beautiful works of art without understanding precisely how they did it” (p. 2). Basically, critical thinking is about methodology within a domain – e.g., the person knows how to format a narrative or select an appropriate statistical procedure, without necessarily reflecting on the effectiveness of those choices, that is, without metacognition. In the examples I provided above from my work with undergraduates on problem solving, there is invariably a mix of critical thinking and metacognition. Draeger’s distinction signals a need to better decouple these two distinct kinds of cognitive processes in order to better clarify the developmental trajectory of metacognitive processing in problem solving.

Finally, why do we observe such wide variance in students’ approaches to problem-solving, and, relatedly, to metacognition? One reason is that instructors may emphasize assessment and grades (Case & Marshall, 2004). As a consequence, students may focus more on gaining points for the correct answer rather than on the process. Welsh (2015) has suggested that course structure can act as a barrier to deeper learning: “high stakes assessments may overshadow resources designed for metacognitive development” (p. 2). Welsh found that students were more concerned with test performance than with reflecting upon their study strategies and implementing learning strategies recommended by the instructor.

How are we to understand this discord between concern with test performance and metacognition? At some level, when students set goals to do well on tests they are regulating their behavior. Metacognitive resources from the instructor may be in competition with students’ perceived resources (e.g., access to old tests, study buddies, cramming the night before). The instructor can facilitate change, but the leap from surface and algorithmic learner to deep conceptual learner must be undertaken by the student.

Passion and commitment to a topic are strong motivators to find the means to access and acquire deeper conceptual understanding. One measure of teacher success is class test performance, but another can be found in student comments. Here is one that I recently received that I found encouraging: Despite the fact that I was a bit uninterested in the subject matter, this was one of my favorite classes. By the end of the semester, not only was I interested in the subject matter, I was fascinated by it. Perhaps as instructors we need to facilitate good metacognitive practices but also nurture interest in what we teach in order to motivate students to pursue it more deeply through more effective metacognitive practices.

References

Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605-615.

Draeger, J. (2015). Two forms of ‘thinking about thinking’: metacognition and critical thinking. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/two-forms-of-thinking-about-thinking-metacognition-and-critical-thinking/ .

Taraban, R. (2015, November). Transition from means-ends to working-forward problem solving. 56th Annual Conference of the Psychonomic Society. Chicago, IL.

Welsh, A. (2015). Supports and barriers to students’ metacognitive development in a large intro chemistry course. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/supports-and-barriers-to-students-metacognitive-development-in-a-large-intro-chemistry-course/


Lean Forward, but Do It Metacognitively!

by Lauren Scharff, Ph.D. (U. S. Air Force Academy)

As the Director for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) at my institution, a large part of my job description involves helping faculty intentionally explore new approaches and how they impact student learning. In other words – I work with forward-leaning faculty who are ready to try new things. So, I think a lot about how, when, and why faculty members adopt new pedagogies, tools, and activities, and about when, for whom, and in what contexts these new approaches enhance learning. This work dovetails nicely with the development and goals of metacognitive instruction.

As a reminder if you’re relatively new to our site, one of the premises we’ve previously shared here (e.g. Scharff, March 2015) and elsewhere (Scharff and Draeger, NTLF, 2015) is that Metacognitive Instruction involves the intentional and ongoing interaction between awareness and self-regulation, specifically with respect to the pedagogical choices instructors make as they design their lessons and then as they carry them out.

I was happy to see these connections reinforced last month at our 7th Annual SoTL Forum. Dr. Bridget Arend was invited to give a morning workshop and the keynote address. Along with James R. Davis, she is co-author of Facilitating Seven Ways of Learning: A Resource for More Purposeful, Effective and Enjoyable College Teaching. In her workshop Bridget dug into how to facilitate critical thinking, promote problem-solving, and support the building of skills (3 of the 7 ways of learning), while in her keynote she focused more strongly on the concept of matching student learning goals with the most effective teaching methods. She went beyond the usual discussion of tips and techniques to explore the underlying purpose, rationale, and best use of these [pedagogical] methods.

Dr. Bridget Arend giving the keynote address at the 7th Annual SoTL Forum at the U. S. Air Force Academy
Dr. Bridget Arend giving the keynote address at the 7th Annual SoTL Forum at the U. S. Air Force Academy

7_Ways_of_Learning
Books such as these can help support metacognitive instruction.

While Bridget did not explicitly use the term “metacognitive instruction,” it struck me that her message of purposeful choice of methods directly supported key aspects of metacognitive instruction, especially those related to awareness of our pedagogical decisions. We (instructors) should not incorporate pedagogies (or new tools or activities) just because they are the ones typically used by our colleagues, or because they are what was “done to us as students and it worked for us,” or because they are the “new, latest-greatest thing” we’ve heard about. Rather, we should carefully review our learning goals and consider how each possible approach might support those goals for our students and our context.

We should also be mindful of other factors that might influence our adoption of new approaches. For example, administrators or institutions often reward faculty who are leading the adoption of new technologies. Sometimes the message seems “the more new technologies incorporated the better” or “out with the old and in with the new” so a program or institution can market itself as being the most cutting edge in education. However, while many of us appreciate being rewarded or showcased for new efforts, we also need to pause to consider whether or not we’re really supporting student learning as well as we could with these practices.

Questions we should ask ourselves before implementation include, How will our new pedagogical approach or a new app really align with the learning goals we have for our students? Will all of our choices complement each other, or might they work at cross-purposes with each other? Realistically, there are a limited number of learning outcomes we can successfully accomplish within a lesson or even across a semester.

As we implement these new approaches and tools, we should ask additional questions. How are they actually impacting aspects of student engagement, attitudes towards learning, and ultimately, the learning itself? How might they be adjusted (either “in the moment” or in future lessons) as we use them in order to better support our learning goals for our students in our context? No group of students is the same, and the context also shifts over time. What worked well in the past might need adjusting or more radically changing in the future.

In sum, we know that no single approach is going to work for all learning goals or all students across all situations. But if we build our awareness of possibilities using resources such as Facilitating Seven Ways of Learning (and many other published papers and texts) to help guide our pedagogical choices; if we carefully attend to how our approaches affect students and student learning; and we if modify our approach based on those observations (and maybe using systematic data if we’re conducting a SoTL research project), then we WILL be more likely to enhance student learning (and our own development as metacognitive instructors).

Thus, lean forward as instructors, but do it metacognitively!

————————-

Davis, James R. & Arend, B. (2013). Facilitating Seven Ways of Learning: A Resource for More Purposeful, Effective and Enjoyable College Teaching. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.

Scharff, L. & Draeger, J. (September, 2015). Thinking about metacognitive instruction. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 24(5), p. 4-6. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ntlf.2015.24.issue-5/issuetoc


Teaching a new course requires metacognition

by John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

One of the joys of being an academic philosopher is the freedom to explore new ideas. For example, the recent retirement of a colleague left a gap in my department’s usual offerings. I agreed to take over a course on the philosophy of love and sex. While I have written scholarly articles on related topics, I confess that teaching this new material had me feeling the sort of constructive discomfort that I seek to foster in my students (Draeger 2014). As a result, I experienced a heightened sense of awareness concerning what I was doing and why. In particular, I came to believe that teaching a new course requires metacognition.

As I sat down to construct the course, I was guided by the thought that philosophy can help students learn to have careful conversations about ideas that matter. With respect to this new course, I wanted students to learn to ask tough questions. Can we really promise to love someone forever? Can sex ever be meaningless? Is becoming emotionally attached to someone other than your partner worse than sleeping around? Is it possible to love more than one person at the same time or does romantic love require some form of exclusivity? Such questions prompt students to consider whether commonly held beliefs are actually justified. If these views withstand scrutiny, then students have the conceptual resources to offer a proper defense. If not, then students can begin searching for ideas worth having. Such questions can also open up a larger conversation about related concepts (e.g., trust, intimacy, respect, jealousy, loyalty).  Because much of the course material was new to me, I had not always thought through the various permutations and implications of each philosophical position. I often found myself learning “on the fly” along with my students as I reflected on my own assumptions and preconceived ideas in “real time” while the discussion unfolded in front of me.

In an earlier post (Draeger 2015), I argued that “critical thinking involves an awareness of mode of thinking within a domain (e.g., question assumptions about gender, determine the appropriateness of a statistical method), while metacognition involves an awareness of the efficacy of particular strategies for completing that task.” As I reflect on my philosophy of love and sex course, I realize that my heightened awareness contained elements of both critical thinking and metacognition. Because the material was largely new to me, I was more aware of my own critical thinking processes as I engaged in them and more “tuned into” what my students were grappling with (e.g., assumptions about love and sex, related concepts, implications of the view we are considering). I also found myself metacognitively evaluating whether my students were critically engaged and whether my choices were moving the conversation in philosophically fruitful directions. I like to think that this sort of monitoring happens in all of my classes, but I was acutely aware of its importance given that the material was unfamiliar and my discussion prompts were untested. Moreover, I like to think that I never resort to autopilot and that I am always keenly aware of fluid learning environments. However, because the material was so fresh, I could not help but engage in self-regulation. I did not have a reliable stock of examples and responses at my fingertips. Even more than usual, I found myself making intentional changes to my approach based on “in-the-moment” feedback from students (Scharff 2015).

Teaching a new course always rejuvenates me because it reminds me how much I love to learn. As the teacher, however, I was responsible for more than my own learning. Effective teaching requires thinking about the critical thinking processes of all the learners in the room, including my own. It also requires monitoring fluid learning environment and making intentional changes (often in-the-moment changes) if students are to have careful conversations about ideas that matter (e.g., love, sex). While teaching with metacognition is generally a good idea, this semester taught me that teaching a new course requires metacognition.

Teaching a new course requires metacognition Share on X

References

Draeger, John (2015). “Two forms of ‘thinking about thinking’: metacognition and critical thinking.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/two-forms-of-thinking-about-thinking-metacognition-and-critical-thinking

Draeger, John (2014). “Cultivating a habit of constructive discomfort.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/cultivating-a-habit-of-constructive-discomfort
Scharff, Lauren (2015). “What do we mean by ‘metacognitive instruction?” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/what-do-we-mean-by-metacognitive-instruction/