Month: September 2016

A Whole New Engineer: A Whole New Challenge

by Roman Taraban, Ph.D.,  Texas Tech University

In 1973, cognitive psychologists Kahneman and Tversky (1973) wanted to present their study participants with a stereotypical description of engineers:

Jack is a 45-year old man. He is married and has four children. He is generally conservative, careful, and ambitious. He shows no interest in political and social issues and spends most of his free time on his many hobbies, which include home carpentry, sailing, and mathematical puzzles. (p. 241)

When asked if they thought Jack was an engineer, 90% of the participants thought he was.

Whatever stereotypes of engineers may persist to the present day (e.g., geek, introvert, asocial: http://www.thecreativeengineer.com/2008/12/16/a-few-engineering-myths/ ), various parts of the engineering community are trying to create “a whole new engineer” (Goldberg & Somerville, 2014). Cross-disciplinary centers have been established at universities, like iFoundry which was launched in 2008 at the University of Illinois, in order to prepare engineering students for working in the 21st century. One mandate was to promote “deep reflection and attention to the complex system in which engineering education is embedded” (https://ifoundry.illinois.edu/who-we-are/what-ifoundry ).

On a larger scale, the Franlin W. Olin College of Engineering admitted its first class in 2002 in order to implement a full-scale hands-on, project-based and design curriculum. Olin College provides students with funding for “passionate pursuits,” which are personal projects of academic value proposed by students https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_W._Olin_College_of_Engineering. STEM is being transformed to STEAM, where the addition of A represents Artful Thinking in the context of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Radziwell et al., 2015). To develop artful thinking a facilitator might present a painting and ask students: What do you see? What does it make you think? What is happening? Why do you think so? These questions help learners develop dispositions to observe, describe, question, reason, and reflect. The whole new engineer is becoming a whole lots of things, but is the new engineer becoming more metacognitive?

We know that engineering students can be metacognitive when solving textbook problems (Taraban, 2015). Indeed, by now there is an extensive corpus of research on students’ textbook problem-solving in introductory physics and other areas of STEM. Explaining the material to oneself with the knowledge that this will help one better understand it, or testing oneself with the knowledge that this will help one more reliably retrieve the information later, are examples of metacognitive processes and knowledge. Case and Marshall (1995) described a developmental pathway by which students transition towards deeper understanding of domain concepts and principles, which they labeled the conceptual deep approach to learning, and which is: “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 over the course of development students recognize that a goal of learning is to understand the material more deeply, and that this recognition guides how they learn. Draeger (2015), and others, have suggested that this kind of monitoring of the effectiveness of learning strategies and regulating one’s behavior are characteristic of metacognitive thinking.

The current re-design of the traditional engineer involves sweeping changes, in the classroom, in the university, and in professional practice, and it aims to do this, in part, by infusing more reflection into engineering training and practice. So, what is a reflective practitioner, and are reflective practitioners metacognitive thinkers?

Schön (1987) suggested that reflective practitioners think carefully about what they are doing as they are doing it. Reflective practitioners assess and revise their existing practices and strive to develop more effective behaviors. They critically assess their behavior as a means to improving it. As Schön (1987) puts it, reflective practice is a “dialogue of thinking and doing through which I become more skillful” (p. 31). Schön maintained “that there is a core of artistry, an exercise of intelligence, and a kind of knowing inherent in professional practice, which we can only learn about by carefully studying the performance of extremely competent professionals” (Osterman, 1990, p. 133).

Through reflective practice we submit our behaviors to critical analysis, asking questions like these: What am I doing? What effect is it having? (Osterman, 1990). This very much reminds one of the distinction that Draeger (2015) made between metacognition and critical thinking. Specifically, one can be a critical thinker without being metacognitive. The two processes can overlap but are not identical. Simply, to be metacognitive, one would need to think about the reflective processing itself. Metacognitions would involve knowledge of the benefits of reflective practice, how it relates to self, and metacognitive processes related to monitoring and controlling the reflective practices. Imagine observing any expert – an expert teacher, an expert golfer, an expert acrobat – and striving to mimic that expertise through carefully observing and critiquing one’s own performance. That’s reflective practice. It’s about trying to get a job done in the best possible way. In a complementary fashion, metacognitive knowledge and processing involve intentionally and consciously monitoring and regulating those reflective practices.

In A Whole New Engineer (Goldberg & Somerville, 2014) the authors assert that

Here we are calling attention to the importance of the Whole New Engineer’s ability to do three things:

  • Notice and be aware of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
  • Reflect and learn from experience.
  • Seek deeper peace, meaning, and purpose from noticing and reflection. (p. 114)

Goldberg and Somerville (2014) make a call to be more attentive and sensitive to surroundings, to notice and reflect, but not necessarily to be metacognitive in those contexts – they are not clear about the latter point. Thus, it may be safe to say that being metacognitive doesn’t automatically come through reflective practice, critical thinking, mindfulness, or artful thinking strategies. Metacognition represents a distinct type of knowledge and process that can potentially enhance the effects of the aforementioned. The whole new engineer can be a whole lot of things, but is not automatically a metacognitive engineer. Simply, an engineering student, or even a practicing engineer, can be good at certain design projects, for instance, and develop a critical eye for that work, but without necessarily developing metacognitive awareness around when to shift strategies or techniques in order to be more effective.

References

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/ .

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034747

Osterman, K. F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education and Urban Society, 22(2), 133-152.

Radziwill, N. M., Benton, M. C., & Moellers, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Reframing what it means to learn. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), Article 3.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Taraban, R. (2015). Metacognition in STEM courses: A developmental path. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-in-stem-courses-a-developmental-path/


Fine-tuning Just-in-Time assignments to encourage metacognition

By John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

In two previous posts, I’ve argued that instructors can improve metacognition through Just-in-Time teaching (JiTT) assignments (Draeger, 2014; Draeger, 2015). Just-in-Time assignments require that students complete short assignments prior to class and instructors review those assignments before class begins (Novak, 1999). Students in my philosophy classes, for example, are required to answer several questions about the reading and submit those answers electronically the night before our class meets. I read their answers prior to the class session and use their responses to tailor class discussion. JiTT assignments have many benefits, including improving the likelihood that students will do the reading. For the last five semesters, I’ve been experimenting with ways to use JiTT assignments to help students improve their metacognition.

In my early attempts to incorporate metacognition into JiTT assignments, I asked asked a variety of questions: What is your reading strategy? Was the current reading more challenging than the last? How would you know if your strategy as effective? Student answers were often informative, but they tended to focus on the content of the reading. For example, students would report that they found certain sections of the reading to be especially confusing or they found that an author’s view rested on a spurious assumption. While helpful in adjusting class time to hone-in on the parts of the material most in need of discussion, these questions did not always prompt students to reflect on their individual learning process. Consequently, I have continued to tweak my JiTT questions in an attempt to focus student attention more explicitly on aspects of the learning process. As I work to fine-tune my JiTT assignments, I often think about my own attempts to become more aware of my teaching practice and then I can see parallels to the kind of metacognition that I seek to encourage in my students. (Scharff & Draeger, 2015). I have come to believe that building questions on metacognition into JiTT assignments have at least three broad benefits.

First, metacognitive questions serve as an easy conversation starter about the aims of learning. For example, I have asked students: What are your goals in this course? What are your goals for the week? How does last night’s reading fit into one of your goals for the week? Most students respond that they hope to understand the readings, remember the relevant information for the exam, and get good grades. These answers are unsurprising. However, such pedestrian responses give me an opportunity to revisit my goals for the course, namely my desire to help students learn to uncover philosophical substructure (Draeger, 2014). They also provide me with an opportunity to encourage them to think more carefully about what they hope to achieve. I encourage them to think about their own motivations (or lack of) and their reasons for engaging in course content. While I wouldn’t need their JiTT responses to talk about various learning goals, students seem to be more responsive to those conversations when I am responding to their own answers to pre-class assignments.  Such conversations have led me to ask new JiTT questions: How does this course fit into your degree program? What would you tell a parent about why this course is worth taking? How might this course might be relevant to your life 30 years from now? Students often report that my courses are irrelevant to their degree programs because my courses satisfy a general education requirement. This has led to fruitful conversations about the connection between their general education courses and their program of study, as well as how philosophy might figure into a student’s quest for employability and my desire to help them become lifelong learners.

Second, metacognitive questions prompt students to think about their learning processes. For example, I have asked students: What skills do you hope to develop this semester? How have your reading practices evolved as the semester has progressed? Are your annotation strategies effective? What is your strategy for revising papers? What is one thing you learned about the last round of revisions that you hope to carry through to the next round? Even though some student responses are less than illuminating and even when we don’t discuss their answers in class, students are still being prompted to think about their learning process multiple times a week. I have to believe that it reminds students that they need multiple learning strategies and they need to monitor their effectiveness. I have also seen student answers become more nuanced as the semester progresses. For example, students who reported being “confused by the reading” at the beginning of the semester often reported being “confused by” some particular feature of the reading (e.g., examples within the text, references to views not previously discussed) later in the semester.

Third, regular metacognitive questions help me (as the instructor) develop a learning profile of my students both individually and collectively. For example, I have asked students: What type of learning is required in this course? What are their personal characteristics that help or hinder their learning? Interestingly, students rarely point to personal characteristics that helped their learning.  Further, many of the “hinder” answers tend to be predictable (e.g., I procrastinate, I have a busy schedule). However, other answers paint a picture of the individual learners in the seats in front of me. For example, some students report some version of “I am not a big reader outside of class and so long readings intimidate me” and quite a few talk about difficulties taking notes in a discussion class. These are not surprising observations, but it helps knowing which students are having which troubles (e.g., if someone asked me “choose the students that don’t like to read,” I would not always be able to correctly identify them). Likewise, some students offer some version of “I need entertaining examples because I get bored easily” while others report some version of “I am intellectually curious about most everything and I get distracted easily.” It is not surprising that students would be distracted, but the JiTT metacognition responses allow me to understand a little more about why particular students are struggling. This emerging profile helps me make course adjustments before, during, and after class.

There are many ways to encourage student metacognition. I am not suggesting that you adopt Just-in-Time techniques simply because they can encourage students to reflect on their learning process and facilitate conversation. I am doing JiTT assignments anyway. Fine-tuning my questions has been a way of using an existing teaching strategy to promote metacognition. Rather, I encourage you to think about how you might tweak your current teaching strategies to promote student metacognition. In my case, because students complete JiTT assignments multiple times a week and because I now include questions on metacognition within every JiTT assignment, students have many opportunities to reflect on their learning and to practice metacognition. The emerging picture of my students has also encouraged me (as the instructor) to be more metacognitive about my teaching process. While I need to continue fine-tuning my assignments, I am becoming ever more convinced that regular incorporation of activities that promote reflection on learning are a means by which to improve with metacognition.

References

Draeger, J. (2014a). “Just-in-Time for Metacognition.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/just-in-time-for-metacognition.

Draeger, J. (2014b), “Using metacognition to uncover the substructure of moral issues.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/using-metacognition-to-uncover-the-substructure-of-moral-issues

Draeger, J. (2015). “Using Just-in-Time assignments to promote metacognition.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/using-just-in-time-assignments-to-promote-metacognition.

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

Scharff, L. and Draeger, J. (2015). “Thinking about metacognitive instruction” National Teaching and Learning Forum 24 (5), 4-6.


Developing Mindfulness as a Metacognitive Skill

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

A simple concept for enhancing learning is to engage more of the brain in more of the students. “Interactive-engagement,” “collaborative/cooperative learning,” “problem-based learning” and an entire series of active learning pedagogies use the concept to optimize learning. Research shows that active learning works. While frequently espoused as “student-centered learning,” advocates frequently use the active learning terms to promote particular kinds of pedagogy as “student-centered.”

However, active learning is neither the only way to enhance learning nor is it usually as student-centered as advocates claim. Whether the design occurs by the course instructor or with an involvement of a more recent profession of “learning designers,” the fact is that the emphasis is on pedagogy and on student learning. As such, they are more focused on student learning than were older traditional methods of content delivery, but the reach to proclaim most learning-centered pedagogies as student-centered leaves a bit of a gap. Metacognition is the factor missing to help close the gap needed to make learning-centered practices more student-centered.

While pedagogy focuses on teaching, mindfulness focuses on knowing of one’s present state of engagement. Mindfulness develops by the learner from within, and this makes it different from the learning developed through a process designed from without. Metacognition is very student centered, and mindfulness could be the most student-centered metacognitive skill of all.

Because mindfulness involves being aware in the present moment, it can engage more of the brain needed for awareness by enlisting the parts of the brain concurrently distracted by our usual “default mode.” Operating in default mode includes thinking of imagined conversations, playing music inside of one’s head, unproductive absorption in activities in which one is not presently engaged, or thinking of responses to a conversation while not attending fully to hearing it.

Mindfulness receives frequent mention as a method of stress management, particularly when it enlists the parts of the brain that would otherwise be engaging in worrying or in preparing an unneeded flight-or-fight reaction. The need to manage stress by today’s college students seems greater than before. However, its value to student success extends beyond managing stress to enhancing cognitive learning through improving concentration and increasing the ability to focus and to improve interpersonal communication by enhancing ability to listen.

Mindfulness has its roots in Zen meditation, which laypersons easily perceive as something esoteric, mystical, or even bordering on religion. In reality, mindfulness is none of these. It is simply the beneficial outcome of practice to develop metacognitive skill. It is simple to learn, and measurable improvements can occur in as little as six weeks.

For blog readers, an opportunity to develop mindfulness is fast approaching on September 19, 2016, when Australia’s Monash University again offers its free massive open online course (MOOC) in mindfulness. Rather than gurus dressed in costumes, the instructors are psychology professors Drs Craig Hassed and Richard Chambers, who occasionally appear in ties and sportcoats. The course is immensely practical, and the two professors are also authors of a highly rated book, Mindful Learning, which is likely of interest to all members of this particular metacognitive blogosphere. Perhaps we’ll see each other online in Australia!

**This blog contribution is a short derivation from “Mindfulness as a Metacognitive Skill: Educating in Fractal Patterns XLVII” by the author and forthcoming in National Teaching and Learning Forum V25 N5.