Mind Mapping: A Technique for Metacognition

by Charlie Sweet, Hal Blythe, Rusty Carpenter, Eastern Kentucky University  Downloadable

Background

The Provost at Eastern Kentucky University invited Saundra McGuire to speak on metacognition as part of our University’s Provost’s Professional Development Speaker Series. Our unit was tasked with designing related programming both before and after McGuire’s visit.   Our aim was to provide a series of effective workshops that prepared the ground for our university’s Quality Enhancement Plan 2.0 on metacognition as a cross-disciplinary tool for cultivating reading skills. The following mind mapping exercise from one of four workshops was taught to over 50 faculty from across campus and the academic ranks. Feedback rated its popularity high and suggested its appropriateness for any level of any discipline with any size class.

Scientific Rationale

The Mind Map, a term invented by Tony Buzan in The Mind Map Book (1993), “is a powerful graphic technique which provides a universal key to unlocking the potential of the brain” (9). For that reason, Buzan’s subtitle is How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential. A mind map provides a way for organizing ideas either as they emerge or after the fact. Perhaps the mind map’s greatest strength lies in its appeal to the visual sense.

We chose to share mind mapping with our faculty because according to Brain Rules (2008), rule number ten is “Vision trumps all other senses” (221). For proof, the author, John Medina, cites a key fact: “If information is presented orally, people remember about 10%, tested 72 hours after exposure. That figure goes up to 65% if you add a picture” (234). Because of its visual nature, mind mapping provides a valuable metacognitive tool.

How Mind Mapping Supports Metacognition

Silver (2013) focuses on reflection in general and in particular “the moment of meta in metacognition—that is the moment of standing above or apart from oneself, so to speak, in order to turn one’s attention back upon one’s own mental work” (1). Mind mapping allows thinkers a visual-verbal way to delineate that moment of reflection and in capturing that moment to preserve its structure. Because analysis is one of Bloom’s higher-order learning skills, mind mapping leads to deep thinking, which makes self-regulation easier.

Method

Essentially, a mind map begins with what Gerry Nosich in Learning to Think Things Through (2009) calls a fundamental and powerful concept, “one that can be used to explain or think out a huge body of questions, problems, information, and situations” (105). To create a mind map, place the fundamental and powerful concept (FPC) you wish to explore in the center of a piece of paper and circle it. If at all possible, do something with color or the actual lettering in order to make the FPC even more visual. For instance, if you were to map the major strategies involved in metacognition, metacognition is the FPC, and you might choose to write it as such:

M E T A
Cognition

Increasing the visual effect of the FPC are lines that run to additional circled concepts that support the FPC. These Sputnik-like appendages are what Buzan calls basic ordering ideas, “key concepts within which a host of other concepts can be organized” (p. 84). For example, if you were working with our metacognition example, your lines might radiate out to a host of also-circled metacognitive strategies, such as retrieving, reflection, exam wrappers, growth mindset, and the EIAG process of Event selection-Identification of what happened-Analysis-Generalization of how the present forms future practice (for a fuller explanation see our It Works for Me, Metacognitively, pp. 33-34). And if you wanted to go one step further, you might radiate lines from, for instance, retrieving, to actual retrieving strategies (e.g., flashcards, interleaving, self-quizzing).

Uses for Mind Maps

Mind mapping has many uses for both students and faculty:

  • Notetaking: mind mapping provides an alternative form of notetaking whether for students or professors participating in committee meetings. It can be done before a class session by the professor, during the session by the student, or afterwards as a way of checking whether the fundamental and powerful concept(s) was taught or understood.
  • Studying: instead of rereading notes taken, a method destined for failure, try reorganizing them into a mind map or two. Mind mapping not only offers the visual alternative here, but provides retrieval practice, another metacognitive technique.
  • Assessing: instead of giving a traditional quiz at the start of class or five-minute paper at the end, ask students to produce a mind map of concept X covered in class. This alternative experiment will demonstrate to students a different approach and place another tool in their metacognitive toolbox.
  • Prioritizing: when items are placed in a mind map, something has to occupy center stage. Lesser items are contained in the radii.

Outcomes

Mind maps are easy, deceptively simplistic, fun, and produce a deep learning experience. Don’t believe it? Stop reading now, take out a piece of paper, and mind map what you just read. We’re willing to bet that if you do so, the result will provide a reflection moment.

References

Buzan, T. (1993). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Plume Penguin.

McGuire, S. Y., & McGuire, S. (2015). Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle: Pear Press.

Nosich, J. (2009). Learning to think things through. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Silver, N. (2013). Reflective pedagogies and the metacognitive turn in college teaching.

In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. Lavaque-Manty, & D. Meizlish (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning (pp. 1-17). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Sweet, C., Blythe, H., & Carpenter, R. (2016). It Works for Me, Metacognitively. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Appendix: How to Use Word to Create a Mind Map

  1. Click Insert.
  2. Click Shapes and select Circle.
  3. Click on desired position, and the circle will appear.
  4. Click on Draw Textbox.
  5. Type desired words in textbox (you may have to enlarge the textbox to accommodate words).
  6. Drag textbox into center of circle.
  7. Repeat as desired.
  8. To connect circles, click Insert Shapes and then Select Line.
  9. Drag Line between circles.

Metacognitive links connecting the Arts and STEM

by Jessica Santangelo and Ilona Pierce, Hofstra University

We may be an unlikely pair at first glance – an actor and a biologist. We met after Jess gave a talk about the role of metacognition in supporting student learning in biology. Ilona realized during the talk that, though unfamiliar with the term metacognition, what she does with theatre students is inherently metacognitive. This has led to rich conversations about metacognition, the role of metacognition in teaching, and the overlap between the arts and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and mathematics).

Here we offer a condensed version of one of our conversations in which we explored the overlap between metacognition in the arts and STEM (STEAM).

Ilona: In actor training, (or voice/speech training, which is my specialty) self-reflection is the core part of an actor’s growth. After a technique is introduced and application begins, we start to identify each student’s obstacles. In voice work, we examine different ways we tighten our voices and bodies then explore pathways to address the tension. As tension is released, I’ll typically ask, “What do you notice? How are things different than they were when we began?”  This is what hooked me in at your lecture….you worked with the students, uncovering their shortcomings (their version of TENSION) and you watched their test scores go up. It was a great thing to see, but I sat there thinking, “doesn’t every teacher do that?”

Jess: In my experience, most STEM courses do not intentionally or explicitly support students reflecting on themselves, their performance, or their learning strategies. I’m not entirely sure why that is. It may be a function of how we (college-level STEM educators) were “brought up,” that many of us never had formal training in pedagogy, and/or that many STEM educators don’t feel they have time within the course to support students in this way.

When you contacted me after the lecture, I had an “aha!” moment in which I thought “Woah! She does this every day as an inherent part of what she does with her students. It’s not something special, it’s just what everyone does because it’s essential to the students’ learning and to their ability to grow as actors.” Though you hadn’t been aware of the term “metacognition” before the talk, what you are having your students do IS metacognitive.

Ilona: Of course, the students have to be taught to notice, and prodded into verbalizing their observations. In the beginning, when I ask, “What do you notice?” I’m typically met with silence. They don’t know what they notice. I have to guide them: “How has your breathing changed? Are you standing differently? What emotions arose?” As the course goes on, I’ll ask for deeper observations like, “How does your thinking/behavior during class help you/hinder you? What patterns are arising?” It’s not unusual to hear things like, “I realized I talk fast so that people don’t have the chance to interrupt me,” or “If I speak loudly, I’m afraid people will think I’m rude.”

Jess: I think that highlights a difference in the approach that educators within our respective fields take to our interactions with students. Your class is entirely focused on the student, the student’s experience, and having the student reflect on their experience so they can adjust/adapt as necessary.

In contrast, for many years, the design of STEM courses and our interactions with students focused on the conveyance of content and concepts to students. Some STEM classes are becoming more focused on having the students DO something with content/concepts in the classroom (i.e., active learning and flipped classrooms), but that hasn’t always been the case. Nor does having an active learning or flipped classroom mean that the course intentionally or explicitly supports student metacognitive development.

Ilona: Principles and content are an important part my coursework as well, but most of it is folded into the application of the skills they’re learning. The environment helps to support this kind of teaching. My students are hungry young artists  and the class size is 16 – 18 max. This allows me to begin by “teaching” to the group at large, and then transition to doing one-on-one coaching.

When you work with your students, do you work individually or in small groups?

Jess: I am pretty constrained in terms of what I can do in the classroom as I generally have 44-66 students/section (and faculty at other institutions are even more constrained with 100+ students/section!). However, even with my class size, I generally try to minimize whole-group lecture by having students work in small groups in the classroom, prompting them to discuss how they came to a conclusion and to make their learning visible to each other. One-on-one “coaching” generally occurs during office hours.

I’m really drawn to the word “coaching” here. I feel like you literally coach students – that you work with them, meeting them wherever they are in that moment, and help them gain awareness and skills to get to some endpoint. Does that accurately capture how you view yourself and your role? How does that play out in terms of your approach to your classes and to your interactions with students?

Ilona: I think it’s “teacher” first and then I transition to “coach”.  But I also use one-on-one coaching to teach the entire class. For example, one student gets up to share a monologue or a poem.  Afterwards, I ask a question, maybe a couple: ”What did you notice about your breathing? Your body? Your emotions?” If the student has difficulty answering, I’ll guide them to what I noticed: “Did you notice… i.e. your hands were in fists the whole time?” I might turn to the class and say, “Did you guys notice his hands?” The class typically will notice things the performer doesn’t. I’ll ask the class, “As an audience member, how did his clenched hands make you feel (emotionally, physically)? Did you want him to let them go, or did it help the piece?”  So the coaching bounces from the individual to the group, asking for self-reflection from everyone.

Jess: It sounds like we do something similar in that, as I prompt one student in a small group to explain how they arrived at a conclusion, I’m using that as an opportunity to model a thought process for the rest of the group. Modeling the thought process alone isn’t necessarily metacognitive, but I take it a step farther by asking students to articulate how the thought process influenced their ability to come to an accurate conclusion and then asking them to apply a similar process in other contexts. I’m essentially coaching them towards using thought process that is inquisitive, logical, and evidence-based – I’m coaching them to think like a scientist.

When I reflect on my title: professor/teacher/instructor/educator versus coach, I’m struck that the title brings up very different ideas for me about my role in the classroom – it shifts my perspective. When I think of professor/teacher/instructor/educator, I think of someone who is delivering content. When I think of a coach, I think of someone standing on the sidelines, observing an athlete perform, asking the athlete to do various exercises/activities/drills to improve various aspects of their performance. You seem to fit squarely in the “coach” category to me – you are watching the students perform, asking students to reflect on that performance, and then doing exercises to improve performance via the release of tension.

Ilona: I definitely do both. Coaching to me implies individualized teaching that is structured in a way to foster independence. Eventually, a coach may just ask questions or offers reminders. It’s the last stop before students leave to handle things on their own. Like parenting, right? We start with “hands on”, and over time we teach our children to become more and more independent, until they don’t need us anymore.

Jess: I wonder how often STEM educators think of themselves at coaches? How does viewing oneself as a coach alter what one does in the classroom? Is there a balance to be struck between “teaching” and “coaching”? How much overlap exists between those approaches?

In thinking about myself, I can wear both hats depending on the circumstance. I can “teach” content and “coach” to help students become aware of their level of content mastery. When I think of myself as a teacher, I feel responsible for getting students to the right answer. When I think of myself as a coach, I feel more responsible for helping them be aware of what they know/don’t know and supporting their use of strategies to help them be successful. Isn’t that the point of an athletic coach? To help an athlete be aware of their bodies and their abilities and then to push an athlete to do and achieve more within their sport? The academic analogy then would be to push a student to be aware of what they know or don’t know and to effectively utilize strategies to increase their knowledge and understanding. The goal is to get students doing this on their own, without guidance from an instructor.   

The other piece to this is how the students respond and use the metacognitive skills we are trying to help them develop. I wonder: Are your students, who are being encouraged to develop strong metacognitive skills in their theatre classes, naturally transferring those skills and using them in other disciplines (like in their bio class!)? If not, and if they were prompted to do so, would they be more likely to do so (and do so successfully) than non-theatre students who haven’t been getting that strong metacognitive practice?

Ilona: One would hope so. My guess is that when they get into non-acting classes, they revert to the student skills they depended on in high school. Although, I often get “metacognitive success stories” after summer break. Students will report that during their lifeguard or food-service gig, they realized their growing skills of self-awareness helped them to do everything from using their voices differently to giving them greater insight into their own behavior. If they can make connections like this during a summer job, perhaps they can apply these skills in their bio class.

 


Metacognition and Teacher-Student-Curriculum Relationships

by Steven Fleisher, Ph.D., California State University Channel Islands

I have heard many express that teacher-student relationships have nothing in common with families. But while teacher-student relationships are best described as collegial, at least within higher-education, this author believes that much can be learned from family theories and research. In particular, family research provides insights into how to support the development of trust in this context rather than relationships based principally on compliance. In other words, a classroom “is” a family, whether it’s a good one or a bad one. In this posting, we will explore metacognitive processes involved in building and maintaining stable relationships between students and the curriculum, teachers and the curriculum, and between teachers and students.

Family systems theory (Kerr & Bowen, 1988), though originally developed for clinical practice, offers crucial insights into not only teacher-student relationships but teaching and learning as well (Harrison, 2011). While there are many interlocking principles within family systems theory, we will concentrate on emotional stability, differentiation of self, and triangles.

The above triangle provides a representation for the following relationships: students-curriculum, teacher-curriculum, and teacher-students. Although any effective pedagogy would work for this discussion, we will focus specifically on the usefulness of knowledge surveys in this context (http://elixr.merlot.org/assessment-evaluation/knowledge-surveys/knowledge-surveys2) and their role in building metacognitive self-assessment skills.[1] Thus, what are some of the metacognitive processes involved in the relationships on each leg of our triangle? And, what are some of the metacognitive processes that would support those relationships in becoming increasingly stable?

Student-Curriculum Relationships

Along one leg of the triangle, students would increase the stability of their relationships with the curriculum as a function of becoming ever more aware of their learning processes. Regarding the use of knowledge surveys, students would self-assess their confidence to respond to given challenges, compare those responses with their developed competencies, and follow with reflective exercises to discover and understand any gaps between the two. As their self-assessment accuracy improves, their self-regulation skills would improve as well, i.e., adjusting, modifying, or deepening learning strategies or efforts as needed. So, the more students are aware of competencies in the curriculum and the more aware they are of their progress towards those competencies, the better off students will be.

As part of a course, instructors can also guide students in exploring how the material is useful to them personally. Activities can be designed to support exploration and discovery of ways in which course material relates, for example, to career interests, personal growth, interdisciplinary objectives, fostering of purpose, etc. In so doing, the relationships students have with the material can gain greater stability. Ertmer and Newby (1996) noted that expertise in learning involves becoming “strategic, self-regulated, and reflective”, and by bringing these types of exercises into the course, students are supported in the development of all these competencies.

Teacher-Curriculum Relationships

These relationships involve teachers becoming more aware of their practices, their student’s learning, and the connection between their practices and their student’s learning. In other words, the teacher is trying to ensure fit between student understanding and curriculum. Regarding knowledge surveys, teachers would know they are providing a pedagogical tool that supports learning and offers needed visibility for students.

In addition, once teachers have laid out course content in their knowledge surveys, they can look ahead and anticipate which learning strategies would be the best match for upcoming material. Realizing ahead of time the benefits of, let’s say, using structured group work for a particular learning module, teachers could prepare themselves and their students for that type of activity.

Teacher-Student Relationships

These relationships involve the potential for the development of trust. When trust develops in a classroom, students not only know what the expectations involve but are set more at ease to explore creatively their understanding and ways of understanding the material. For instance, students may well become aware of the genuine and honest help being provided by chosen learning strategies. Knowledge surveys are particularly useful in this regard as students have a roadmap for the course and a tool structured to facilitate the improvement of their learning skills.

Teachers also have an interpersonal role in supporting the development of student trust. Family systems theory (Bowen & Kerr, 1988) holds that we all vary in our levels of self-differentiation, which involves how much we, literally, realize that we are separate from others, especially during emotional conflict. In other words, people vary in their abilities to manage emotional reactivity (founded in anxiety) with being able to use one’s intellect to compose chosen and valued responses. Harrison (2011), in applying these principles in a classroom, noted that when teachers are aware of becoming emotionally reactivity (i.e., defensive), but are also aware of using their intellect, as best as possible, to manage the situation (i.e., remaining thoughtful and unbiased in their interactions with students), they are supporting emotional stability and trust.

Kerr and Bowen (1988) also reported that self-differentiation involves distinguishing between thoughts and feelings. This principle gives us another metacognitive tool. When we are aware, for example, that others do not “make” us feel a certain way (i.e., frustrated), but that it involves also our thinking (i.e., students are just being lazy), this affects our ability to manage reactivity. If we are aware of becoming reactive, and aware of distinguishing thoughts and feelings, we can notice and reframe our thoughts (i.e., students are just doing what they need to do), and validate and own our emotions (i.e., okay I’m frustrated), then we are better positioned to respond in ways that attune to our needs as well as those of our students. In this way, we would increase our level of self-differentiation by moving toward less blaming and more autonomy.

Final Note

Kerr and Bowen (1988) also said that supporting stability along all the relationships represented by our triangle not only increases the emotional stability of the system, but provides a cushion for the naturally arising instabilities along individual legs of the triangle. This presence of this stability also serves to further enhance the impact of effective pedagogies. So, when teachers are aware of maintaining the efficacy of their learning strategies, and are aware of applying the above principles of self-differentiation, i.e. engaging in metacognitive instruction, they are better positioned to be responsive and attuned to the needs of their students, thus supporting stability, trust, and improved learning.

References

Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1-24. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/journal/11251

Harrison, V. A. (2011). Live learning: Differentiation of self as the basis for learning. In O.C. Bregman & C. M. White (Eds.), Bringing systems thinking to life: Expanding the horizons for Bowen family systems theory (pp. 75-87). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kerr, M. E. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Image from: https://www.slideshare.net/heatherpanda/essay-2-for-teaching-course-4

[1] Knowledge surveys are comprised of a detailed listing of all learning outcomes for a course (perhaps 150-250 items). Each item begins with an affective root (“I can…”) followed by a cognitive or ability challenge expressed in measurable terms (“…describe at least three functions of the pituitary gland.”). These surveys provide students with a roadmap for the course and a tool structured for building their confidence and accuracy in learning skills.