Change Instead of Continuity: Using Metacognition to Enhance Student Motivation for Learning

by Benjamin A. Johnson, Ph.D., Utah Valley University

“New occasions teach new duties”
James Russell Lowell

In 2020, as we start a new decade, continuity appears to have taken a backseat to change. While change rapidly spreads through and disrupts such areas as health (including a viral pandemic), education, culture, economy, and technology, continuity offers stability, knowledge gained from the past on the human condition and peoples’ capacity to flourish. In this current climate of change, the expression, “new occasions teach new duties” resonates well (Lowell, 1890, p. 184) and appears to have a double meaning for our situation: not only do the events or “new occasions,” require us to “teach new duties,” but the “new occasions” can actually teach us “new duties.” As students navigate the many disruptions in our schools and communities, they urgently need professors who encourage metacognitive strategies to assess and enhance student motivation for engagement and learning.

It seems that student resistance and motivation not to engage is often driven by the motivation to maintain continuity, to stay in safe territory, to avoid anxiety. Students are often motivated to do what is familiar, such as engaging in surface approaches to learning: to memorize, recite, or do the minimum. As students advance through their majors, they may become more intrinsically motivated because they see the courses as relevant to their career goals. Even then, they can become overwhelmed at exams, and may have other priorities that push them towards continuity. On the other hand, effective teaching and engaged learning is all about change. Considering the current pandemic and the sudden transition to online and hybrid learning, faculty and students must be metacognitively aware as never before. 

A 2-Step Framework for Change

Some students will not come prepared to class, will not engage at a high level with the assignments, and will not take owernship for their own learning. This can be extremely challenging for professors. Rather than staying frustrated, here is a two-step framework a professor could cultivate to enhance student strengths and encourage positive change:

Step 1: Become more broadly aware of student resistance behaviors, including types and contributing factors.

Step 2: Create self-assessment opportunities for students to become more self-aware of their own openness to change. 

Step 1: Identifying Student Resistance to Change

The Forms of Student Resistance Matrix (Tolman & Kremling, 2017) below offers insight on how students may reveal their motives for resistance to learning. The matrix categorizes fundamental forms of resistance, each with different emotional foundations. It shows that students in the accommodation/anxiety (“Preserving Self”) column want continuity, education delivered in the way they find comfortable and familiar, while those in the anger/frustration (“Asserting Autonomy”) column seek change and validation.

cartoon image of man showing dismay over a broken arrow

Once we have identified types of student resistance, we can effectively focus our energy on helping students think metacognitively about their own learning needs and goals, and help them evaluate their own contributions to obstacles to their success (such as use of relatively ineffective learning strategies). As they better understand their own needs and challenges through self-assessment, they are more likely to decrease their resistance to learning.

Forms of Student Resistance Matrix
Adapted from Tolman & Kremling, 2017

 

Asserting Autonomy
(Seeking Change)

Pushing against external influence
Emotions: anger, frustration, resentment

 

Preserving Self
(Seeking Continuity)

Trying to accommodate to external influence
Emotions: anxiety, fear

 

Active Resistance

  • Arguing or disagreeing with professor in the classroom
  • Repeatedly asking for the rationale for assignments
  • Saying they paid for the class and want it taught how they like
  • Inciting other students to rebel or not collaborate; disrupting class activities
  • Complaining to higher authority

 

  • Repeatedly asking for detailed clarification of grading criteria
  • Taking over group assignments to ensure an adequate grade
  • Arguing with the professor over grades received, seeking additional points or consideration
  • Focus on surface approach to learning

Passive Resistance

  • Refusing to come to class
  • Refusing to participate during in-class exercises (does not get into groups, does not comply with assignment tasks)
  • Does not turn in assignments at all or is consistently late
  • Complaining about the professor to other students

 

  • Expressing concerns about working with others
  • Avoidance of conflicts and refusing to resolve situations or bring them to the professor’s awareness
  • Minimal participation in class (withdrawn, doesn’t speak or give feedback, lets others make all decisions)

Step 2: Student Self-Assessment—Helping Students Recognize Stages of Change         

Helping students assess their own openess to adopting new behaviors is key to supporting their learning. Self-assessment helps them recognize that their own attitudes and choices shape their educational outcomes and that their learning is not simply a product of their professors’ work. One assessment tool that can help students self-assess and self-regulate is the TTM Learning Survey (Tolman & Kremling, 2017), based on Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1983) Transtheoretical Model (TTM). Most often utilized in clinical settings, TTM theory provides a useful model for understanding a person’s path towards adopting new behaviors. TTM readiness to change stages include precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.

Assigning the TTM-LS along with a Personal Learning Plan (PLP; a reflective follow-up exercise that asks the individual to identify how to improve and to plan for the semester) may help students work metacognitively to identify their readiness to change (Tolman & Kremling, 2017). Part of the PLP requires the student to evaluate their stage of readiness to change and then describe how they can move forward and overcome their own forms of resistance. I have observed that using these instruments two to three times during the semester improves student metacognition, as evidenced by student reflections.

Additionally, by working through these self-reflective activities, students become more intentional or mindful about their own motivation to change, providing them multiple opportunities to think through their own behavior and learning. Though students may advance or step up higher through the stages of change, they may also revert back to a previous stage. Professors should help them view this regression as developmental and invite them to persist.

Surveys and reflective assignments like the TTM-LS and PLP help students think more about why they might not be not willing to adopt new behaviors and help them acknowledge their own reluctance to change their learning strategies (Tolman & Kremling, 2017; Yanqun, 2019).

Using the Forms of Student Resistance matrix above (Tolman & Kremling, 2017), an actively resisting autonomous student (left column) may acknowledge in their PLP that when they become frustrated, they request the professor be available regularly to explain the rationale for assignments. On the other hand, an actively resisting preserving-self (or an anxious) student (right column) might respond with fear to conform to the expectations of the professor while arguing for a better grade. Self-assessment helps the student better understand their own motivations, fears, and goals, so they can then move forward more deliberately.

This focus on intentionality is a core aspect of genuine metacognitive thinking because it can help students accept their own role in learning—understanding that what they choose to do shapes how they learn and that the main responsibility for learning resides with them, not with the professor. Once students begin to recognize their patterns of resistence and strategies for overcoming this obstacle, they will take more ownership over their learning. Assessments like these help students to shift their education from something that is being forced on them externally (by parents, society, employers) to something that they can personally control (Perry, et al., 2019).

Asking Students to Think Metacognitively Requires Change

Due to changes in this pandemic year, we can also invite students to become more metacognitive about:

  • technology use: their feelings toward new technology used for virtual or hybrid class settings and their level of mastery of that technology
  • learning on their own (less interaction in the classroom) – what works and what doesn’t
  • monitoring their own progress and anxieties in this dynamic environment

The more we support their metacognitive skills in these areas, the more willing they may be to intentionally make this shift. For example, as universities phase into more online learning, students who are motivated not to engage in new learning strategies may struggle to adapt. They may resist actively participating in online learning in its many forms. Professors can implement surveys such as the TTM-LS and a PLP to open the door to key conversations about students’ goals, what they hope to achieve from the class, and especially, how they might need to adapt to become successful in the new modality.

Learning in itself is a process of change, and as students use metacognition to accept rather than resist learning as an individual responsibility, their motivation can shift for the better. At its core, metacognition is about being open to seeing new possibilities and being willing to change (moving from the precontemplation to contemplation stage, for instance). As students practice self-assessment, they can accept the need for change and embrace “new duties.”

References

  • Lowell, J. R. (1890). Poems. Riverside Press. (Original poem published 1844)
  • Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019) Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483-500.
  • Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.
  • Tolman, A. O., & Kremling, J. (2017). Why students resist learning: A practical model for understanding and helping students. Stylus.
  • Yanqun, Z. (2019). The Significance and Instruction of Metacognition in Continuing Education. International Forum of Teaching & Studies 15(1), 29-37.

Metacognition and the Fish in the Water

by Steven J. Pearlman, Ph.D. The Critical Thinking Initiative

As the saying goes, you cannot ask a fish about water. Having had no other environmental experience as a counter reference, the fish cannot understand what water is because the fish has never experienced what water isn’t.

Cognition—broadly meaning that the mind is working—is to homo sapiens as water is to fish. So steeped are we in the water of our own cognitive processing that we cannot recognize it. Even though we all possess an extensive list of examples of other people failing to think well, we nevertheless lack an internal reference point for being devoid of thought; every consideration we might make of what it would be like to not-think can only happen through the process of thinking about it.

cartoon drawing of a goldfish on a blue background

This is the difference between metacognition, which is being intentionally self-aware of what we are doing when we are thinking, and critical thinking, which, loosely speaking, is the capacity to reason through problems and generate ideas. In one sense, we seem to do just fine thinking critically without that metacognitive awareness. We solve problems. We invent the future. We cure diseases. We build communities. But in another all-too-real sense, we struggle, for if we lack the metacognitive acumen to understand what critical thinking is, then we equally lack the capacity to improve our capability to do it and to monitor and evaluate our progress.

The Problem and the Need

Case in point, even though research shows that critical thinking is typically listed among necessary outcomes at educational institutions, “it is not supported and taught systematically in daily instructions” because “teachers are not educated in critical thinking” (Astleitner, 2002). Worse than that, one study of some 30 educators found that not a single one could provide “a clear idea of critical thinking” (Choy & Cheah, 2009). Thus, even though “one would be hard pressed to construct a serious counterargument to the claim that we would like to see students become careful, rigorous thinkers as an outcome of the education we provide them. … By most accounts, we remain far from achieving it” (Kuhn, 1999).

But we do need to achieve that rigorous thinking, because nothing is arguably more important than improving our overall capacity to think. To do so, we must seek to understand the relationship between critical thinking and metacognition, for though interrelated, they’re not the same. In fact, we can think critically without being metacognitive, but we cannot be metacognitive without thinking critically. And that might make metacognition the seminal force of true critical thinking development.

Some Classroom Examples

Consider, for example, asking a student, “What is your thinking about the assigned readings about the Black Lives Matter movement”? Were the student to respond with anything substantive, then we could loosely say the student exercised at least some critical thinking, such as some analysis of the sources and some evaluation of their usefulness. For example, were the student to state that “by referencing statistics on black arrests, source A made a more compelling argument than source B,” then we could rightly say that the student generated some critical thinking. But we cannot say that the student engaged in any metacognitive effort.

But what if the student responded, “Because of its use of statistics on black arrests, Source A changed my thinking about the Black Lives Matter because I was previously unaware of the disparities between white arrest rates and black arrest rates”? Is that metacognitive? Not truly. Even though the student was aware of a change in their own thoughts, they expressed no self-awareness of the internal thinking process that catalyzed that change. There is not necessarily a meaningful distinction between what that student did and someone who says that they had not liked mashed potatoes until they tried these mashed potatoes. They recognized a shift in thought, but not necessarily the underlying mechanism of that shift.

However, if the student responded as follows, we would begin to see metacognition on top of critical thinking: “I realized upon reading Source A that I held a tacit bias about the issue, one that was framed from my own experience being white. I had been working under the assumption that race didn’t matter, and it wasn’t until the article presented the statistics that my thinking was impacted enough for me to become aware of my biases and change my position.” In that sentence, we see the student metacognitively recognizing an aspect of their own thinking process, namely their personal biases and the relationship between those biases and new information. As Mahdvi (2014) said, “Metacognitive thoughts do not spring from a person’s immediate external reality; rather, their source is tied to the person’s own internal mental representations of that reality, which can include what one knows about that internal representation, how it works, and how one feels about it.” And that’s what this example demonstrates: the student’s self-awareness of “internal mental representations of … reality.”

The Value of Metacognition to Critical Thinking

When metacognition is present, all thinking acts are critical because they are by nature under reflection, and scrutiny. While one could interpret a love poem without being metacognitive, one could not be metacognitive about why they interpret a poem a certain way—such as in considering one’s biases about “love” from their personal history—without thinking critically. Since metacognition can only happen when we are monitoring our thinking about something, the metacognition inherently makes the thinking act critical.

Yet, even though metacognition infuses some measure of criticality to thinking, metacognition nevertheless isn’t synonymous with critical thinking. Metacognition alone does not successfully critique existing ideas, analyze the world, develop meaningful questions, produce new solutions, etc. So, we can think without being metacognitive, but if we want to improve our thinking—if we want to understand and enhance the machinations of our mind—then we must seek and attain the metacognitive skills that reveal what our mind is doing and why it is doing it.

Accomplishing that goal requires an introspective humility. It means embracing the premise that our own thinking process is at best always warped, if not often mortally wounded, by our biases, predisposition, and measures of ignorance. It means that we often cannot efficiently solve problems unless we first solve for ourselves, and that’s not easy to do for a bunch of fish who are steeped in the waters cognitive.

References

Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching Critical Thinking Online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 53-76.

Choy, S.C. & Cheah, P.K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198-206.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-25.

Madhavi, M. (2014). An Overview: Metacognition in Education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 2.