Month: November 2018

Metacognitive support for HIP student learning communities

by John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

In a previous post, I argued that metacognition can support undergraduate research because it encourages students to become aware of the inquiry process and it can help students make meaningful adjustments when things go off the rails (Draeger, 2018). Like undergraduate research, student learning communities are on the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) list of high-impact practices (HIP). They make the list because they require multiple interactions between faculty and students about substantive matters as well as frequent, constructive feedback from faculty, and regular, structured processes for reflection and integration (Kuh 2008; Kilgo, Sheets & Pascarella 2015). In a similar vein, this post argues that instructors and students can benefit from being more metacognitive about their involvement in learning communities. While learning communities can take various forms, they involve groups of students taking a common set of courses at the same time with the same instructors. Learning communities aim to integrate learning experiences across courses in the community.

Sample models of student learning communities

Some models of learning communities involve groups of students taking a collection of courses co-taught by the same instructors. The co-teaching model promotes coordination and communication between instructors about course design, instruction, and assessment. Because students and instructors are present for class sessions in each of the courses, there are plenty of opportunities to make cross-disciplinary observations. Students, for example, can watch as instructors approach a common reading from very different points of view. However, the co-teaching model is often not feasible at many institutions. Another model of learning community requires that a cohort of students take some of the same courses taught by the same instructors, but the courses are not co-taught. Because faculty are rarely in the same room at the same time, I would argue that it is all the more important that they take a metacognitive approach to their student learning community involvement.

Strategies for building metacognition into learning communities

At SUNY Buffalo State, we’ve developed a series of workshops and related materials to promote greater coordination and integration across student learning community courses. The following are just a few of those strategies. (Anyone interested in learning more about resource materials can contact me at draegejd@buffalostate.edu).

First, instructors can review the learning outcomes for each of the courses to look for points of similarity and departure. Points of convergence might be around content (e.g., themes that run through each of the courses) or around skills (e.g., reading, writing, critical thinking). Becoming aware of learning outcomes could, for example, lead to a conversation between instructors about how to reinforce what the other is doing. It could also alert them to places where they might inadvertently undermine the other’s efforts. Reviewing the learning goals emphasizes the importance of looking for opportunities to make explicit connections across each course. Awareness isn’t everything, but it can open space for the possibility of making meaningful adjustments.

Second, instructors can share the core ideas that are at the heart of their courses and that organize other course elements (Nosich, 2012). Identifying these fundamental ideas and being explicit about them with students is important because these ideas serve as anchor points, especially when students struggle. However, fundamental ideas can also serve as important landmarks across courses. Even if instructors cannot discuss another’s content with nuance, they can intentionally make connections to the big ideas. Better yet, instructors can take a “integration time-out” by asking students to relate the material in the current class to the fundamental concepts in each of the other courses. In this case, instructors are aware of the importance of integration and looking for opportunities to intentionally make connections with the key elements of another’s course.

Third, instructors can discuss how they approach giving feedback to students. It is no secret that frequent feedback promotes learning within a course, but students can also benefit from instructors being aware of what other instructors are doing. For example, instructors might use slightly different terminology to talk about similar things. Through conversation, they may decide to adopt a common lexicon. In this case, awareness promotes minor adjustments. In other cases, instructors might want to keep to their own way of doing things. However, they might be more explicit about how and why similar situations are being handled differently in different courses. The hope is that this will keep students from inadvertently going off the rails. It can also reinforce the notion that learning can be effective, albeit different, in differing contexts.

Fourth, instructors can explore why and how they promote student reflection. For example, some courses seek to exposure to new ideas, while others consider the complexity of a more focused set of ideas. Within a course, it is important to be explicit with students about the type of reflection between encouraged (e.g., deep, wide). It is also important to be explicit about structured reflections (e.g., deep, wide) across the learning community courses. Is the goal to keep a running list of the various ways the content and skills in each course are similar and different? This approach speaks to the breadth of knowledge across fields of study and captures the sense that individual students can make meaningful connections in a wide variety of ways. Or is the goal to focus on the finding the important connections between the fundamental concepts in each course? This approach speaks to the importance of sustained conversation about a narrow set of issues from multiple points of view. Both forms of reflection can be valuable, but instructors need to be intentional and explicit about structuring those experiences within and across their courses.

HIP student learning communities

If implemented well, learning communities can be HIP because they encourage students to consider the learning connections between their courses. I argue that metacognition can help instructors intentionally design and explicitly structure integrative learning opportunities. Metacognition can also help students become increasingly aware of similarities and differences across academic disciplines. In this way, metacognition and learning communities offer students the opportunity to learn how to make connections within and across fields of inquiry. Because the ability to make such connections is a hallmark of a lifelong learner, promoting metacognition through learning communities has the potential to be highly impactful in a student’s life for years to come.

References

Draeger, J. (2018). Metacognition supports HIP undergraduate research. Improve with Metacognition. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-supports-hip-undergraduate-research/

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. York: HE Academy.

Kilgo, C. A., Sheets, J. K. E., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509-525.

Kilgo, C. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Does independent research with a faculty member enhance four-year graduation and graduate/professional degree plans? Convergent results with different analytical methods. Higher Education, 71(4), 575-592.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Nosich, G. (2012) Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the disciplines. Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

 


Addressing Student Resistance to Engaging in their Metacognitive Development

by Patrick Cunningham, Ph.D., Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

You may be familiar with the quip,

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

Perhaps you can’t, however, my grandfather argued, “but you can put salt in its oats!” We can advise students on the importance of setting specific learning goals and accurately monitoring both their level of understanding and their learning processes. And I believe we should teach them how to be more metacognitive, but we can’t make them do any of it. Nor do I think we should. Students should own their learning. They should experience agency and efficacy in their learning (i.e., they should own their learning). But I can put “salt in their oats!” In this post I want to explore our role, as educators, in encouraging and providing opportunities for students to grow their metacognitive awareness and skills (i.e., our role as purveyors of “learning salt”).

I recently found the book Why Students Resist Learning (Tolman & Kremling, 2017). While written about resistance to learning in general, it is relevant to student resistance to engaging in their metacognitive development. Student resistance is complex with multiple interacting components. In my reading so far I have been challenged by two overarching themes. First, student resistance isn’t just about students. It’s about us, the educators, too. Our interactions with students can exacerbate or ameliorate student resistance. Second, student resistance is a symptom of deeper issues, not a student characteristic itself. For example, a student may be trying to preserve their sense of self and fear admitting a learning deficiency or a student may have had prior experiences that affirm surface approaches to learning and therefore they resist the idea that they need strategies to develop deeper learning.

We, as educators, need to recognize and deal with our role in student resistance to metacognitive development. Our interactions with our students are largely influenced by our beliefs and attitudes about our students. My colleagues and I have sought to address this in the B-ACE framework for giving formative feedback in support of metacognitive development. The ‘B’ represents an attitude of Believing the best about students. When we prepare to give feedback, we are responding to what they have written or said, which may or may not be accurate or complete. Believing the best acknowledges that we have incomplete information and need to reserve judgement. This attitude embodies sincere curiosity and seeks understanding. The remaining letters represent actionable elements of feedback, Affirm-Challenge-Encourage. Implementing our belief in the best about our students, we should seek to authentically affirm positive behaviors and growth, however small. Then explore and seek to understand the broader contexts and details of their statements by asking questions. In this way, you can provide gentle challenge to think more deeply or to discover incongruities between learning goals and behaviors. Finally, close by encouraging them. Let your students know you believe in their abilities to become more skillful learners, with effort and perseverance. If you say it, make sure you mean it. You can also point them to potential strategies to consider. Let’s see how we can implement the B-ACE framework as “learning salt”.

In my teaching, I provide a variety of opportunities for my students to engage in their metacognitive development. At some point I ask something like, “What have you been doing differently since we last talked? How is it helping you be a more skilled and efficient learner?” One common type of response I get from engineering students is exemplified by:

“I am continuing to work practice problems to get ready for exams. I try to work through as many as I can. It works best for me.”

Okay. No change. I’m disappointed. First, I need to make sure I don’t assume they are just memorizing and pattern matching, i.e., relying on surface learning approaches. Or, if they are memorizing and pattern matching, I need to believe it is in honest effort to learn. Further, change is hard and they may be trusting what is familiar and comfortable, even if it isn’t the most effective and efficient. Now I need to ACE the rest of the feedback.

[Affirm] Good! You are taking intentional steps to prepare for your exams. [Challenge] How do you know it works best? What other strategies have you tried? [Encourage] Keep being intentional about your learning. You may want to try recall-and-review, explaining-to-learn, or creating your own problems to measurably test your understanding.

There will be a difference between written feedback and oral feedback, but notice that both include an opening for further interaction and prompt metacognitive reflection. In a face-to-face dialogue, there might be other questions depending on the responses, such as, “How are you working the problems? What will happen if the problem is asked in a way that is different from your practice?” In written feedback, I may want to focus on one question instead of a list, so as not to overwhelm the student with challenge. Notice that these questions are seeking additional information and pointing the student to make connections. Still the student may or may not take my suggestions to try something different. However, I argue this type of response is “saltier” than just settling for this response or telling them directly their approach isn’t as effective, and it may lead to further dialogue later on.

In a recent post, Aaron Richmond questions if well-intentioned metacognitive instruction can, in specific cases, be unethical (Richmond, 2018). John Draeger provides counterpoint in his response, but acknowledges the need to recognize and address possible adverse reactions to metacognitive instruction (Draeger, 2018). The B-ACE feedback framework both encourages student metacognition and is an expression of Ethical Teaching, summarized by Richmond (Richmond, 2018). It acknowledges students’ autonomy in their learning, seeks to avoid harm and promote their well-being, and strives to be unbiased and authentic. Further, it can address adverse reactions, by helping students to discover the deeper issues of their reaction.

In caring for our students, we want to see them grow. They aren’t always ready. Prochaske, Norcross, and DiClemente (1994) delineate six stages of change, and it starts with the lack of awareness and willingness to change. Change takes time an effort. Even so, let’s commit to making interactions with our students “salty”! Let’s gently, quietly, and persistently encourage them in their metacognitive development.

References

Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for Good. New York: Harper Collins.

Tolman, A. & Kremling, J. (Eds.). (2017). Why Students Resist Learning: A Practical Model for Understanding and Helping Students. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Acknowledgements

This blog post is based upon metacognition research supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1433757 & 1433645. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.