By Jennifer A. McCabe, Ph.D., Goucher College

Just before the start of this spring semester, I decided to make a change in the structure of readings and discussions in my upper-level seminar course on Cognition, Teaching, and Learning. I had recently read James Lang’s (2016) book, Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning, and was inspired to include it in my class. Instead of jumping into a discussion of research articles, with a few popular press articles or book chapters included toward the end of the semester as examples of translational science writing, I flipped the order and instead started the course with three weeks reading, discussing, and applying the information from Lang’s book (syllabus available upon request).

As described in my previous blog post (Small Metacognition I) the premise of Small Teaching is that evidence-based, incremental shifts in how teachers structure and deliver educational experiences can have a large pay-off in terms of student learning and engagement. The book speaks to multiple aspects of teacher metacognition (knowing about (students’) knowing, thinking about (students’) thinking, and learning about (students’) learning), even though the term itself is never mentioned.

My students were assigned to read one Small Teaching chapter per class day. For each, they prepared ‘Reading Responses’ consisting of three short paragraphs – from the perspective of a student, an educator, and a cognitive psychologist. At the start of each class period, they completed a ‘Comprehension Check’ question meant to give them feedback on their own learning of the day’s readings. This was self-graded with a check-plus/check/check-minus system, and was low-stakes in that only effort and completion counted. I mostly led these class periods, administering the Comprehension Check, engaging them in some type of active learning activity relevant to the day’s topic, and facilitating a discussion of the reading based on their Reading Responses. This first portion of the class was designed to help them learn about effective teaching through Lang’s book, and also through modeling my own class design and delivery.

This became important because after we finished the nine book chapters, we then shifted into primary source readings of research articles related to applied memory and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. During each class period with an article assigned, two students took the role of Discussion Leader; using what they learned from Small Teaching, and in consultation with me ahead of time, they curated and led a class period that included a Comprehension Check question (which should be effective for learning based on findings from memory research on testing as described in Lang’s Retrieving chapter), an active learning exercise (known to be effective based on ideas from the Connecting chapter), and an interactive discussion (relevant to elaboration-based strategies described in the Self-Explaining chapter). Students engaged in conversation about how the current article related to their reading of Small Teaching earlier in the semester (which itself highlighted the usefulness of spacing and mixing of topics, as described in the Interleaving chapter).

During these student-led class periods, I essentially became a member of the class, participating in demonstrations and discussions as a contributor but not as a leader. The Discussion Leaders were empowered in their choices of how to make the class period effective and engaging for their peers. Following the class, I provided feedback to the groups, with a particular emphasis early in the semester on strategies for the next time they led the class. The Discussion Leader experience helped to develop their metacognition by thinking intentionally about the most effective learning experiences, and then how to design and deliver them. There were also times when they had to change teaching/learning strategies midstream, if something was not working well (another component of sophisticated metacognition).

In order to better understand the student experience of reading Small Teaching, which is not aimed at an undergraduate audience, and also to more directly connect to topics in metacognition, I gave the thirteen students in my class an optional free-response survey completed during our final class period. In the spirit of transparency, I had them read my Small Metacognition I blog post first, and explained my plan to write a follow-up post about the class experience with Lang’s book. Each decided whether or not to allow me to use their responses. Though I use names below, pseudonyms are used as needed to reflect my students’ preference.  (Students, if you’re reading this, thank you for contributing to this post!)

I first asked about the most important or memorable lessons from Small Teaching. Several mentioned specific topics or chapters that were impactful, namely retrieving, interleaving, practicing, motivating, growing, and expanding. Many wrote about using evidence to inform teaching in ways that are incremental rather than complete overhauls. For example, Elise wrote, “The current way courses are structured are pretty terrible for durable learning. In order to better structure courses, professors can implement small but impactful techniques to encourage better learning in class as well as guide students towards more empirically supported learning and study methods.” Though metacognition did not come up directly, several responses were related. Anna wrote, “The most important lesson is that learning is complex and that there are many factors at play in the classroom.” Megan commented that it is critical that “both parties (teacher and student) understand exactly why they are doing what they do to learn.” And Katherine noted, “It made me reflect on my own experience in academics and my growth as a learner.”

Next I asked in what ways they think that Small Teaching has (or will) changed the way you think or act in the world. Here students clearly referenced metacognitive development, with Addy saying it “introduced a more metacognitive approach in education to me,” and Samantha noting, “I now have this toolbox of ways I can implement effective strategies.” Noah said, “I feel I have a better understanding of how my mindset can affect my ability to learn.” Anna’s response captured multiple aspects of metacognition: “As a student, Small Teaching (and our larger course discussions) has already shifted the way I think about and articulate my learning experiences. I really think the metacognitive awareness of learning how to learn has helped me to think about the strategies I have used and would like to further implement in my future learning.” Two additional students commented on improved metacognitive awareness.

Finally students were asked whether they would recommend keeping Small Teaching as a core reading in this seminar course. Every student responded positively. They appreciated the book coming at the start of the class as a foundation for the research articles they would be reading, as a way to take an educator’s perspective on learning and memory research, and as an example of a translational piece (they created their own translational projects later in the semester).

I came away from this experience feeling pleased with my decision to incorporate Small Teaching into this class, and also feeling as though I myself had a significant learning (and metacognitive!) experience. Hopefully my students – most of whom were seniors, and some of whom will become teachers – will leave this course with a more sophisticated metacognitive perspective not only toward their own learning, but also toward purposeful and transparent design of educational experiences that effectively support others’ learning.

Recommended Reading

Lang, J. M. (2016). Small Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.