by Gina Burkart, Ed.D., Learning Specialist, Clarke University
The recent shift to online learning has resulted in class discussions taking place on an online discussion board; while some may not realize it, the discussion board can be a strategic resource for facilitating metacognition in the classroom (Burkart, 2010). This practice is supported by a range of pedagogical research. Eflkides (2008) reminded us of the interrelatedness of self and social within the workings of metacognition. And, research shows that metacognition grows based on the continuous flow of information through cognitive systems of self and other. This growth is further enriched through the use of language for reflection upon and communication of these processes with others (Efklides, 2008; Burkart, 2010; Ruffman, Slade, & Crow, 2002). Additionally, assigned discussion on the online discussion board fulfills the criteria that VanZile-Tamsen and Livingston (1999) found to increase positive motivation in students: self-efficacy, sense of control, relevance, emphasis on learning.
Creating Metacognitive Prompts
Key to the success of this approach is the creation of effective discussion prompts. Fostering metacognitive awareness and self-regulation begins with a reflection of self within the context of the course curriculum and then calls for a reflection of self through the lens of others by prompting for a response to a classmate’s discussion post (Burkart, 2010). In a literature course this might look something like:
“Which character of the story did you relate with most? Why? Also, respond to one of your classmates using text from the story for support.”
In responding to another student’s post, students see themselves through the lens of other. Crossley (2000) reminded us in her explorations of narrative analysis that reflection of self is also social. How we see ourselves “relies on the feedback and evaluations we receive from others” (p. 12). Crossley (2000), like Bogdan and Biklen (2003), used George Herbert Mead’s (1962/1934) research on self. She referred to Mead’s (1962/1934) metaphor of “the looking glass self” (p. 12) to illustrate our tendency to see ourselves through the eyes of others. To further this metaphor, one might imagine the online discussion board as “a looking glass self.” This provides instructors and students with a useful tool for not only examining how students perceive their selves and their learning, but also for how students interact with others and influence each other as they engage in the reflexive behavior of learning (Burkart, 2010).
Looking at students’ responses to each other allows students to use their classmates’ experiences to frame their own experiences. For example, consider the following student’s response to a classmate:
I’ve struggled with my anxiety as well and test taking has always been my weakness. Maybe if you try to relax and take deep breathes in and out before a test it can help with your test anxiety. This has helped me in the past, by doing this I realized that I was more calm than usual especially when I try to get my mind off things.
By sharing awareness of their own anxiety and struggles, the student is reflecting upon herself in relation to the other student’s experience. The student then reflects upon strategies that she has tried and offers the other student guidance. This online sharing allows the student to find value in strategies that she has already tried and also reinforces to both students (and the entire class) that they are not alone in their struggles with anxiety.
In this reflexive and reflective behavior, students are metacognitively making choices about their behaviors and their classmates’ behaviors without realizing they are engaging in metacognition. This shows that curriculum can seamlessly embed metacognition into learning, and the online discussion board is a useful tool for doing so.
Student Discussion as a Tool for Monitoring Metacognitive Processing
As a professor, the online discussion is also a tool for monitoring students’ metacognitive processing. It allows teachers to adjust teaching based on the needs of the class, i.e. engage in metacognitive instruction. For example, after seeing several posts and responses regarding anxiety, I often choose to focus on anxiety and resources for dealing with anxiety and test anxiety in the next class period. In this regard, the discussion board also becomes an important tool in meta-motivational monitoring (Miele & Scholer, 2018). It allows the professor to oversee the accuracy of the students’ “self, task and strategy knowledge” (p. 3) and intervene or reinforce through responses to the students on the discussion board or in shaping and/or reshaping of curriculum in the classroom.
For example, in an introductory literature course, the discussion board was used to help students reflect on self and how self unfolded in their narratives while they used literary techniques and strategies to shape their narratives and connect with an audience. They also were to reflect specifically on the writing and revision process. After students wrote their creative nonfiction narrative, they were asked to respond to the following question in 150 words and then to a classmate’s post in 50 words:
“What new self-epiphanies emerged for you while writing and revising your narrative?”
The student responses to the prompt revealed that the creative nonfiction narrative assignment was a powerful tool for metacognition in that it made them think about their writing choices more intentionally. In the revision and editing processes, the students had to rethink self and rethink the shape of their narrative and how they told it based on feedback they received from their audience. This online activity guided students in a powerful metacognitive reflection while they commented on how their story connected or did not connect with an audience, revisions they would make in the use of literary devices to better connect with their audience, and revisions they needed to make in writing technique.
With each reading of their narrative and reflection of comments from classmates in regards to their narratives, the students reflected on self and perception of self. Additionally, students reflected on self while they read each other’ posts and comments. As mentioned previously, this reflexive, mirror effect also results in a metacognitive reflection of self. When students read about how other students are changing and growing, they are prompted to reflect on and make similar changes of self. Thus, self, revision of the narrative, revision of technique, revision of the narrative, and revision of writing all became intertwined on the discussion board and prompted metacognitive growth.
References
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed). Boston: Pearson Education Group, Inc.
Burkart, G. (2010, Dec). First-Year College Student Beliefs about Writing Embedded in Online Discourse: An Analysis and Its Implications to Literacy Learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA.
Burkart, G. (2010, May). An analysis of online discourse and its application to literacy learning, The Journal of Literacy and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/uploads/1/3/6/8/136889/jlt_v11_1.pdf#page=64
Crossley, M. (2000). Introducing narrative psychology: Self, trauma, and the construction of meaning. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13 (4), 277-287. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232452693_Metacognition_Defining_Its_Facets_ad_Levels_of_Functioning_in_Relation_to_Self-Regulation_and_Co-regulation
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Miele, D. B. & Scholer, A. A. (2018). The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation, Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 1-21.
Ruffman, T., Slade, L., & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children’s and mothers’ mental state language and theory-of-mind understanding. Child Development, 73, 734-751.
VanZile-Tamsen, C. & Livingston, Jennifer. J. A. (1999). The differential impact of motivation on the self-regulated strategy use of high- and low-achieving college student. Journal of College Student Develompment, (40)1, 54-60. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232503812_The_differential_impact_of_motivation_on_the_self-regulated_strategy_use_of_high-_and_low-achieving_college_students
