In the second post of “The Evolution of Metacognition in Biological Sciences” guest series, Dr. Katie Boyd describes the activities the year prior to the Metacognition Massacre. These early activities started with the Learning Improvement Initiative that marked the beginning of the collaboration between Biology, Office of Academic Assessment, and the Biggio Center. She also describes how the initial definition of the metacognition learning outcome came about, how the department came to a greater understanding of metacognition, and how that understanding prompted a redefinition of what they believe metacognition is and should be within their context.
by Katie Boyd, Associate Director of the Office of Academic Assessment
Luckily, the work of the Department of Biological Sciences to increase their graduating students’ metacognitive skills did not simultaneously begin and end with the “Metacognition Massacre” of 2018! If we back up just one year, the department was coming off of a strong fall faculty retreat and was ready to turn attention to the thoughtful examination of their curriculum and the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of all students graduating from their program(s).
In 2017, each undergraduate degree program in the Department of Biological Sciences (Marine Biology, Microbial, Cellular, & Molecular Biology, and Organismal Biology) had two (2) student learning outcomes and they addressed critical reading, information literacy, and communication skills. Metacognition had only just entered the conversation: it had not been a thoughtful component of the curriculum nor was it a learning outcome for their graduating students. The Department of Biological Sciences needed help.
Partnering with the Teaching & Learning Center
Enter Auburn University’s Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, and Office of Academic Assessment. That fall semester the two offices joined forces to support programs interested in evidencing learning improvement and jointly issued a request for learning improvement proposals.
The learning improvement initiative was a way for programs to demonstrate a positive impact by showing how investment in innovative curricular experiences could lead to the improvement of student learning. The Biggio Center and Office of Academic Assessment wanted to help programs evidence this improvement. Of note, most departments redesign their curriculum too infrequently or do not have data to inform their curricular redesign, thus delaying their ability to showcase the improved preparedness of their graduates. We anticipated that the joint support of a teaching and learning center AND an assessment office would provide programs with many benefits, such as:
- A streamlined approach to aligning assessment processes with curricular innovation(s)
- The possibility of improving their students’ learning
- Strengthened program reputation
- Faculty satisfaction with process and outcome(s)
- Demonstrated good stewardship of departmental/college resources
- Opportunity for presentation/publication
Biological Sciences submitted a proposal asking for support to define, measure, and improve metacognition amongst their graduates and they were chosen as one of six programs to participate in the inaugural cohort of learning improvement teams. Their specific reasons for choosing this outcome effort for their Learning Improvement Project are outlined below:
- Metacognition was an element in the Action Plan developed by departmental representatives at the PULSE Institute in June 2016. It was selected for the Action Plan because it was a neglected element in our curricular planning.
- This SLO was a new one on the department-wide list of SLOs, and of all the SLOs was the one with which faculty were least familiar. Specifically, the program felt they would need the most assistance integrating that into their degree programs.
- A final reason was the hope that working with the Office of Academic Assessment and Biggio Center on improving students’ metacognition would eventually provide a model by which Biological Sciences could plan and implement curricular changes for their other SLOs.
Writing the Learning Outcomes
Thus began the learning improvement project and, throughout the Fall semester, the Office of Academic Assessment facilitated a number of Biological Sciences curriculum committee meetings to re-write all of the department’s student learning outcomes (SLOs). The committee made incremental progress with bi-weekly meetings led by the Department’s intrepid chair. The department chair quickly led the committee to write six of the seven student learning outcomes, but conversation continued around the metacognition outcome.
A number of committee members advocated for the importance of metacognition and reflection and admitted to embedding reflection components into weekly lectures and/or assignments. On another hand, the former department chair advocated for a definition that would be easily measurable and liked the idea of students being able to identify the level/type of learning being assessed in specific types of questions on exams or similar instruments (knowledge, comprehension, application). Bloom’s taxonomy drove a lot of this conversation.
Eventually, the committee finalized a metacognition SLO (6) and completed their list of seven department-wide SLOs (8 or 9 if you include major-specific outcomes). At the time, the metacognition SLO was defined by the curriculum committee as:
Students will develop metacognitive skills and be able to distinguish between broad categories of metacognition as applied to their major. In particular, they will distinguish between foundational (i.e., knowledge recall) and higher order (i.e., creative, analysis, synthesis) metacognitive skills.
The list of outcomes was shared with all program faculty during a fall faculty meeting and they voted to accept the list as the new set of outcomes. There were few questions regarding the outcomes during this meeting. However, I think we can all agree that this is pretty typical when these sorts of items/topics are brought up in faculty meetings.
Creating the Curriculum Map
A secondary goal of the curriculum committee was to draft a curriculum map aligning the new student learning outcomes with the required courses in each of the three undergraduate curricula. The first few meetings allowed the committee to finalize the list of classes they wanted to include in the map and a subsequent discussion about how accurate a curriculum map would be when drafted by a subset of the faculty. The curriculum committee entered the curriculum mapping conversations with some apprehension because the faculty in the room did not represent or teach all of the courses within the curriculum map.
Eventually, it was decided that they would draft an aspirational curriculum map in which the ideal alignments would be suggested and discussed in a future faculty retreat. When it came to the metacognition outcome, the committee strongly felt as though it should be covered in each required course and that each course truly should be contributing to the students’ lifelong learning.
Starting to Consider Assessment
With a set of student learning outcomes agreed upon, and a drafted curriculum map, the learning improvement conversation finally began to move towards assessment and measurement. Essentially, there needed to be a way to evaluate whether students were thinking about thinking and knowing about knowing. Enter the Office of University Writing. It was at this point that Biological Sciences seriously considered ways in which ePortfolios could be used to both teach and assess metacognition.
Initial conversations targeted ePortfolios as a way to encourage reflective writing and simply “house” student assignments. This idea has blossomed and become much more than a data warehouse, and Chris Basgier (Office of University Writing) will expand on this in the next blog post. This brings us to the Fall 2018 faculty retreat, which allowed for a guided and thoughtful discussion around each outcome and the aspirational curriculum map. It was this thoughtful discussion that led to the very effective massacre of SLO 6, ultimately pointing to the need for a better definition of metacognition as a learning outcome.
