Tag: Reflective Thinking

Contemplating Contemplative Pedagogy

by Alison Staudinger, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin – Green Bay

Like many trained in the academy, I am skeptical of “woo”– practices with trappings of scientific import, but lacking empirical evidence. This is despite my recognition that science has always been suffused by power and social hierarchy in the very framing of its questions. In my pedagogical life, this means it has taken me a long time to warm up to “mindfulness,” a powerful, relatively recent trend in education. Mindfulness is sometimes touted as the solution to many serious problems— lack of emotional constraint, student stress and even faculty burnout. Some might wonder if its popularity doesn’t merely adjust us to the difficulties of life in late capitalism, which in the classroom often appear through long days of emotional labor. But, of course, there are branches of mindfulness associated with nearly every culture and major religion on the globe, many with complex histories and practices that have clearly been important for humans long before our fears of robot overlords emerged. Still, I tend towards asking many of my students to come into more contact with the world, not less, as I feared that meditation or the like might do. Contemplation might be good for self-care, I thought— or working through one’s own “shadow self,” just like therapy, but the justice-oriented classroom requires the tools of critique and conflict. Or does it?

My above assumptions were powerfully challenged at the The Center for Contemplative Mind’s Summer Session on Contemplative Learning in August of 2017, where I spent a week exploring the “tree” of contemplative pedagogy and practice, and did more coloring and dancing than at any other academic experience to date. I want to share three important concepts that might be useful for integrating a mindful approach to metacognition into your life or classroom. Ed Nufer has already written on the focus on the “present” that mindfulness brings, and Chris Was asked us to reconsider the relationship between mindfulness and metacognition. It is my hope that these three concepts are a tiny contribution to that reconsideration, and counter the idea that mindfulness practitioners seek to move beyond the self, rather than reflect on their learning.

First, presenter Kakali Bhattacharya shared how mindfulness helps her flourish in the often hostile institutional spaces of academia. Bhattacharya uses the image of a cup overflowing, saying that you must give to others from the overflow and thus must keep your cup full. For her, mindfulness as a method of self-care was coupled with a commitment to “post-oppositional” thinking and politics. Post-oppositionality requires rejecting existing narratives that frame struggles as Machichean battles between good and evil, a move that is difficult in our partisan times. However, this ability to recognize non-absolutes in a political sense may bear dividends in an intellectual one. Drawing on this, I replaced an assignment that had students debate two contrasting positions with one where they tried to reimagine the problem, offer a variety of solutions, or response from a position of intellectual humility about their own stance. While our in-class process was messy, their ultimate papers on the topic were creative and veered away from the same two arguments I’m used to reading.

The second concept, closely related to post-oppositionality, is “negative capability,” an idea taken from John Keats’ correspondence but now popular in psychology and business. Negative capacity names the ability to tolerate uncertainty, or, as Keats says, to be “capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reach after fact and reason……”. (Cite Research). This might seem initially a strange concept to link to metacognition— it seems initially to involve not thinking about thinking, or, rather, willingly allowing yourself to think two contradictory things or to dwell in a lack of knowledge or understanding. For Keats, this is a process of imagination preferable to that of thinking, in the technical sense. Keats, as a Romantic, is generally understood as a critic of reason and fan of feeling. His poetic practice involves inhabiting the minds of his characters and even objects; he wrote that he could imagine a billiard ball enjoying “its own roundness, smoothness, volubility and the rapidity of its motion.” Cultivating these spaces of flow, or negative capability, might increase our ability to also reflect on our own learning and thinking, even as we, in those moments, refrain from committing to them or even to our own identity. Certainly an exercise to explore this idea would be easy to devise— although actually inhabiting an object is harder to do. In a class on ecology, imagining oneself as a plant and perhaps writing from that perspective might open up new vistas but also encourage negative capacity as a tendency of mind.

My mindfulness experience also left me wondering about the costs of integrating some of these practices into student learning shorn of their embeddedness into spiritual or cultural traditions, which brings me to the third concept— of avoiding treating mindfulness as a mere means to an end. Meditation is central to buddhism, but also to a variety of indigenous spiritual practices, and I wondered if they would work without this framework. Were they turned into, as one presenter worried, “McMindfulness” practices? One person I met was passionate about the notion that in meditation there is “No path, no wisdom, no gain” — a radical de-instrumentalization of the practice. To fully understand this saying would take a great deal of meditation, but I began to recognize throughout the week that the focus on the inward development that can occur in mindful practice was, paradoxically, likely to bear more fruit if not linked to specific goals or learning objectives from the outside. This realization was very hard to think about integrating in my classrooms— as each day is driven by specific goals linked to broader course objectives. My challenge for this year is to develop the negative capacity I need in order to engage in some of these practices with my students non-instrumentally while also recognizing the benefits research has shown for improving learning, happiness and health. And, I may need a commitment to post-oppositionality to navigate barriers to “woo” in some academic cultures.


Mind Mapping: A Technique for Metacognition

by Charlie Sweet, Hal Blythe, Rusty Carpenter, Eastern Kentucky University  Downloadable

Background

The Provost at Eastern Kentucky University invited Saundra McGuire to speak on metacognition as part of our University’s Provost’s Professional Development Speaker Series. Our unit was tasked with designing related programming both before and after McGuire’s visit.   Our aim was to provide a series of effective workshops that prepared the ground for our university’s Quality Enhancement Plan 2.0 on metacognition as a cross-disciplinary tool for cultivating reading skills. The following mind mapping exercise from one of four workshops was taught to over 50 faculty from across campus and the academic ranks. Feedback rated its popularity high and suggested its appropriateness for any level of any discipline with any size class.

Scientific Rationale

The Mind Map, a term invented by Tony Buzan in The Mind Map Book (1993), “is a powerful graphic technique which provides a universal key to unlocking the potential of the brain” (9). For that reason, Buzan’s subtitle is How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential. A mind map provides a way for organizing ideas either as they emerge or after the fact. Perhaps the mind map’s greatest strength lies in its appeal to the visual sense.

We chose to share mind mapping with our faculty because according to Brain Rules (2008), rule number ten is “Vision trumps all other senses” (221). For proof, the author, John Medina, cites a key fact: “If information is presented orally, people remember about 10%, tested 72 hours after exposure. That figure goes up to 65% if you add a picture” (234). Because of its visual nature, mind mapping provides a valuable metacognitive tool.

How Mind Mapping Supports Metacognition

Silver (2013) focuses on reflection in general and in particular “the moment of meta in metacognition—that is the moment of standing above or apart from oneself, so to speak, in order to turn one’s attention back upon one’s own mental work” (1). Mind mapping allows thinkers a visual-verbal way to delineate that moment of reflection and in capturing that moment to preserve its structure. Because analysis is one of Bloom’s higher-order learning skills, mind mapping leads to deep thinking, which makes self-regulation easier.

Method

Essentially, a mind map begins with what Gerry Nosich in Learning to Think Things Through (2009) calls a fundamental and powerful concept, “one that can be used to explain or think out a huge body of questions, problems, information, and situations” (105). To create a mind map, place the fundamental and powerful concept (FPC) you wish to explore in the center of a piece of paper and circle it. If at all possible, do something with color or the actual lettering in order to make the FPC even more visual. For instance, if you were to map the major strategies involved in metacognition, metacognition is the FPC, and you might choose to write it as such:

M E T A
Cognition

Increasing the visual effect of the FPC are lines that run to additional circled concepts that support the FPC. These Sputnik-like appendages are what Buzan calls basic ordering ideas, “key concepts within which a host of other concepts can be organized” (p. 84). For example, if you were working with our metacognition example, your lines might radiate out to a host of also-circled metacognitive strategies, such as retrieving, reflection, exam wrappers, growth mindset, and the EIAG process of Event selection-Identification of what happened-Analysis-Generalization of how the present forms future practice (for a fuller explanation see our It Works for Me, Metacognitively, pp. 33-34). And if you wanted to go one step further, you might radiate lines from, for instance, retrieving, to actual retrieving strategies (e.g., flashcards, interleaving, self-quizzing).

Uses for Mind Maps

Mind mapping has many uses for both students and faculty:

  • Notetaking: mind mapping provides an alternative form of notetaking whether for students or professors participating in committee meetings. It can be done before a class session by the professor, during the session by the student, or afterwards as a way of checking whether the fundamental and powerful concept(s) was taught or understood.
  • Studying: instead of rereading notes taken, a method destined for failure, try reorganizing them into a mind map or two. Mind mapping not only offers the visual alternative here, but provides retrieval practice, another metacognitive technique.
  • Assessing: instead of giving a traditional quiz at the start of class or five-minute paper at the end, ask students to produce a mind map of concept X covered in class. This alternative experiment will demonstrate to students a different approach and place another tool in their metacognitive toolbox.
  • Prioritizing: when items are placed in a mind map, something has to occupy center stage. Lesser items are contained in the radii.

Outcomes

Mind maps are easy, deceptively simplistic, fun, and produce a deep learning experience. Don’t believe it? Stop reading now, take out a piece of paper, and mind map what you just read. We’re willing to bet that if you do so, the result will provide a reflection moment.

References

Buzan, T. (1993). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Plume Penguin.

McGuire, S. Y., & McGuire, S. (2015). Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle: Pear Press.

Nosich, J. (2009). Learning to think things through. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Silver, N. (2013). Reflective pedagogies and the metacognitive turn in college teaching.

In M. Kaplan, N. Silver, D. Lavaque-Manty, & D. Meizlish (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning (pp. 1-17). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Sweet, C., Blythe, H., & Carpenter, R. (2016). It Works for Me, Metacognitively. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Appendix: How to Use Word to Create a Mind Map

  1. Click Insert.
  2. Click Shapes and select Circle.
  3. Click on desired position, and the circle will appear.
  4. Click on Draw Textbox.
  5. Type desired words in textbox (you may have to enlarge the textbox to accommodate words).
  6. Drag textbox into center of circle.
  7. Repeat as desired.
  8. To connect circles, click Insert Shapes and then Select Line.
  9. Drag Line between circles.

Metacognitive Reading Boosts Philosophy Exam Scores

by John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

 Downloadable

Motivations and context

I teach philosophy at a state university with approximately 10,000 undergraduates. I started incorporating the following metacognitive reading activity in order to promote the deep thinking and synthesis that students often struggle with on my essay exams. The bulk of my teaching falls within the general education curriculum where I help students develop help students develop critical skills (e.g.,close reading, careful writing, critical thinking) as well as expose them them to big concepts. I want students to see that topical topical debates over abortion, euthanasia, and hate speech often boil down to similar big conceptual issues (e.g., how to balance individual liberty against government intrusion, how to assess the benefits of individual expression against the harm to others). My exam questions typically ask students to consider the views of three authors across topical debates (e.g., one writing on abortion, one on euthanasia, one on hate speech) and then discuss which two authors are most alike and which are most different. Some students are stuck almost immediately because they have a hard time seeing how the conceptual issues could be at all alike when the topical issues are so different. These students resort to summarizing the authors. Some students can begin to see the underlying conceptual connections, but they often have difficulty developing those ideas. Both groups of students are left wondering how they could earn full credit on the exam.

Nuts and bolts

I’ve started asking students a series of questions that help make their thoughts about the writings and their own thinking about the writings more explicit, ultimately supporting their synthesis of the different authors and concepts for the exams. In order to prevent these questions from being interpreted as busy work, I introduce metacognition on the first day class. I explain that I want them to learn how to learn, and the writing assignments will help them figure out how to develop the type of thinking required for this course.

The questions fall into three categories. The first category alerts students to importance of having a reading strategy and being engaged.The second category pushes students beyond mere identification of an author’s thesis towards identifying the underlying issues. The third category prompts students to reflect on how the reading led to their identification of the underlying issues. This last category is the most metacognitively focused and important for helping them synthesize their understanding.

  1. General — what was the most challenging part of the reading? What was the most useful part? What was your reading strategy? How might you approach the reading differently next time?
  2. Conceptual issues — what was the central issue in the reading? How are the central conceptual issues related to the author’s thesis? How does this author frame the central issue compared to the other? How might this author respond to the previous author?
  3. Putting it altogether — what is a passage in the reading that illustrates the underlying issue? What is the evidence that the author takes this issue to be central? What is your strategy for uncovering these issues? How would you know if you’re correct? How would you change your approach if you’re not).

Because I want my students to be on a “steady diet” of metacognitive reflection, students are asked at least one question from each of the three categories as part of their preparation for each lesson. Responses to each question tend to be approximately a paragraph in length, and and they are graded pass/fail. Grades are determined less by the accuracy of the content, but by whether they made a “good faith” effort, which reduces the grading load.

Outcomes

Because students are required to explicitly practice with sort of thinking at the heart of the course, students are in a position to engage their own learning, which enables them to monitor their progress and make adjustments as necessary (e.g., ask questions in class, adapt reading strategies, attend office hours). When it comes time for the exam, students are better prepared for the type of thinking they are required to display and express much less confusion about what is being asked of them. As I grade the exams I am pleased to observe that many fewer of them resort to simply summarizing authors and they at least attempt to engage in the required type of thinking.

Lesson learned and future directions

Prior to this metacognitive activity, I thought that I was being clear about the type of thinking that I required of students, and I thought they were receiving plenty of opportunities to practice during class discussion. Even with this activity, however, I believe I need to provide students with more opportunities to become explicitly aware of their thinking and how to modify their strategies to achieve success.


The Mutual Benefits of Metacognition for Faculty and Students

by Dr. Marc Napolitano, U. S. Air Force Academy

I recently hosted a faculty discussion circle that was meant to serve as a capstone to the 2016-17 school year. As such, I thought that structuring this discussion around the theme of “reflection” would be most appropriate; after all, what better time than the end of term to reflect upon one’s teaching? Still, even as I announced and planned this event, I wrestled with the question of whether I was doing a disservice to the all-important process of reflection by framing it as an “end of term” activity (as opposed to framing it as a perpetual activity that one undertakes on a continuous basis over the course of a long period of time.) Reflection invariably involves turning inward, but it does not necessarily involve looking backward (despite the fact that the literal meaning of “reflect” is “to bend or turn (something) back.”)

Upon reviewing several readings to share with the faculty in the discussion circle, I noted an excellent blog post by Maryellen Weimer on Faculty Focus. In this piece, Weimer stresses how carving out time for reflection benefits college faculty in four overarching ways:

  • Integration: reflection can help us to “connect the dots” between different experiences that define our teaching.
  • Taking stock: reflection can help us to put things in perspective (especially in the case of challenging experiences).
  • Lifelong learning: reflection is intimately connected with lifelong learning and allows us to continue growing.
  • Private space: reflection allows us to turn inward and carve out a place/space for ourselves.

None of these four examples is restricted to contemplating the past (indeed, 2 and 4 deal with the present, and 3 looks toward the future.)

In light of my concerns, I was very pleased when the faculty who constituted our discussion circle steered the conversation toward sustained metacognition, as opposed to restricting the discussion to retrospective reflections. Not only did this strategy allow for a more dynamic discussion about past, present, and future, but it likewise reinforced the importance of taking a process approach to both teaching and learning. As a group, we agreed that the by taking the time to plan out what we are doing in the classroom, monitoring our own progress, and assessing the results of our endeavors, we invariably grow as teachers; students who take a similarly deliberate approach to learning often cultivate a parallel sense of progress and development.

Indeed, as our conversation progressed, I was fascinated to note how what was being said about metacognition seemed to apply equally to both faculty and students – teachers and learners. For example, on the most basic level, one faculty member pointed out how metacognition prompts him to strive toward better teaching because it promotes his cultivating an analytical insight into what he does well and what he needs to improve upon. Such insight is likewise vital to students regarding their learning processes, though as a group, we agreed that it is oftentimes necessary for faculty to carve out time for (and to model) metacognition for our pupils. Students rarely gravitate toward it instinctively. One professor noted that she frequently asks her students to explain to her “how are you trying to learn?”, and that most of her pupils are struck dumb the first time they consider the matter, for they have never before taken the time to consider learning as a process. The professor’s insightful “how?” question again made us think about the overlap between teaching and learning, and we discussed the value of asking ourselves “how do you explain this subject to someone with no familiarity or understanding of it?” Again, if we do not turn inward and think about processes, we run the risk of skipping vital steps that our students will need to take – steps that we, as experts, may take for granted – as they begin their journey in the discipline (and their journey toward lifelong learning).

One final parallel that we noted during our discussion was that metacognition promoted a vitalizing adaptability in both us and our students. By utilizing metacognition and considering how different contexts require us to employ different processes, we can develop a wide repertoire of pedagogical skills and methods for imparting the knowledge/aptitudes that constitute our disciplines. Similarly, students must be given opportunities to consider how different contexts shape and reshape the methods and processes that define their learning; they too should be encouraged to develop a broad set of learning strategies that they can utilize in a variety of contexts.

References

Weimer, M. (2011). Making time for reflection. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/making-time-for-reflection/


Keep Calm and Improve with Metacognition: reflecting on three years of reflecting

John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

As Lauren and Aaron have recently noted, Improve with Metacognition (IwM) is now three years old. The site has become a space for collaboration and conversation around a range of issues loosely coming under the heading of ‘metacognition.’ My thinking about the nature of metacognition has shifted since we launched the site. I began thinking about thinking and reflecting on reflecting, but because of conversations on the site, I have come to use the term ‘metacognition’ to refer to awareness of a process (self-monitoring) and the use of that awareness to make changes in behavior (self-regulation). I’d like to take a moment to reflect on how IwM has helped me improve in three areas of my life with greater self-monitoring and self-regulation.

First, I like to think that I’ve always been the sort of teacher that encourages his students to think about their thinking. I confess, however, that my involvement with IwM has made me aware of my shortcomings with respect to developing my students’ metacognition. While I had been pretty good at nudging students to think carefully about content, I had also consistently missed opportunities to invite students to explicitly reflect on the efficacy of these strategies. For example, I took time in class to help students learn to annotate their reading, but I did not often teach them how to monitor whether these strategies were working and find alternatives when they did not. My efforts to adapt my Just-in-Time teaching strategies to be more metacognitive (Draeger, 2014, 2015, 2016) represent one of my attempts to make meaningful adjustments based on a growing awareness of my teaching practice.

Second, I am an everyday writer. I am up early most mornings working on one project or another. From that point of view, writing a blog post of 500-1000 words should have been a piece of cake. As I started blogging, however, I quickly became aware of the need to think about audience, style, and accessibility in ways that I had not thought about these considerations before. I have learned some lessons in the last three years and I am still making adjustments as I work to find “blog-sized” topics and refine my “blog voice.” I have grown as a writer because blogging for IwM has forced me to think more carefully about my craft. Further, I have found joy in writing in this short format. Much like taking a day trip to recharge your batteries, my excursions into the blogging space take me off my normal beat and path in ways that rejuvenate my other scholarly endeavors and bring fresh perspective.

Third, I had not initially thought through the role of blog space editor prior to IwM, but I’ve been delighted by regular interactions with metacognitive bloggers from around the United States (and indeed the world). Lauren, Aaron, and I regularly offer feedback to site contributors. I enjoy the opportunity to kick around ideas each week. This is, in part, because I am a nerd and relish indulging in new ideas. It is, in part, because I enjoy the writing process and this role gives me a front row seat as I watch scholars mold their ideas. It is, in part, because I enjoy the back and forth of intellectual banter. And it is, in part, because I like knowing that I am part of a growing community of metacognitive scholars. I find that my work with the IwM community crops up in all sorts of places and informs my interactions with others, both professionally and personally.

As I reflect on the last three years, I believe there will always be room for me to grow as a teacher, writer, and scholar. But I want to thank the IwM community for prompting me to think more carefully about these areas of my life. Improved awareness has led me to make subtle changes and these changes have led to improved performance. As we move into our fourth year together as an IwM community, I am coming to trust that I can keep calm, carry on, and improve with metacognition.

 

References

Draeger, J. (2014). “Just-in-Time for Metacognition.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/just-in-time-for-metacognition.

Draeger, J. (2015). “Using Just-in-Time assignments to promote metacognition.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/using-just-in-time-assignments-to-promote-metacognition.

Draeger, J. (2016). “Fine-tuning Just-in-Time assignments to encourage metacognition.” Retrieved from  https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/fine-tuning-just-time-assignments-encourage-metacognition/

 


Glimmer to Glow: Creating and Growing the Improve with Metacognition Site

by Lauren Scharff, Ph.D., U. S. Air Force Academy *

It’s been three years since Improve with Metacognition (IwM) went live, but the glimmer of the idea started more than a year prior to that, and we still consider it a work in progress. The adventure started with a presentation on metacognition that Aaron Richmond and I gave at the Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA) convention in 2013. We both had independently been working on projects related to metacognition, and decided to co-present in the teaching track of the conference. We had good attendance at the session and an enthusiastic response from the audience. I made the suggestion of forming some sort of online community in order to continue the exchange of ideas, and passed around a sign-up sheet at the end of the session.

I have to say that my initial idea of an online community was very limited in scope: some sort of online discussion space with the capability to share documents. I thought it would be super quick to set up. Well, the reality was not quite so easy (lol) and our ambitions for the site grew as we discussed it further, but with help from some friends we got it going just in time to unveil it at the SWPA 2014 convention. Along the way I pulled in our third co-creator, John Draeger, who helped shape the site and presented with us at the 2014 convention.

As Aaron mentioned in his reflection last week, during the past three years we have shared information about the site at a variety of conferences both within the United States and beyond. The response has always been positive, even if not as many people go the next step and sign up for updates or write guest contributions as we’d like. One common line of questioning has been, “This is fantastic! I am interested in doing something similar on the topic of X. How did you get it going?”

We do hope that IwM can serve as a model for other collaboration sites, so here are a few things that stand out for me as I reflect on our ongoing efforts and the small glow we have going so far.

  • Partnerships are essential! John, Aaron, and I have some different skill sets and areas of expertise relevant to running the site, and our professional networks reach different groups. Further, with three of us running it, when life gets nuts for one of us, the others can pick up the slack. I can’t imagine trying to set up and maintain a site like IwM all on my own.
  • Practice metacognition! The three of us periodically join together in a Skype session to reflect on what seems to be working (or not), and share ideas for new features, collaboration projects, etc. We use that reflection to self-regulate our plans for the site (awareness plus self-regulation –> metacognition). Sometimes we’ve had to back off on our initiatives and try new strategies because the initial effort wasn’t working as we’d hoped. A long-time saying I’m fond of is, “the only way to coast is downhill.” Any endeavor, even if wildly successful at first, will require some sort of ongoing effort to keep it from coasting downhill.
  • Be open and provide an environment that supports professional development! (And realize this requires time and effort.) We want to encourage broad involvement in the site and provide opportunities for a wide variety of people interested in metacognition to share their ideas and efforts. We also hope to have a site that is viewed as being legitimate and professional. This balancing act has been most apparent with respect to the blog posts, because not everyone has strong writing skills. And, we believe that even those with strong writing skills can benefit from feedback. Thus, we provide feedback on every submitted post, sometimes suggesting only minor tweaks and sometimes suggesting more substantial revisions. The co-creators even review each other’s drafts before they are posted. As anyone who provides feedback on writing assignments or reviews journal articles knows, this process is a labor of love. We learn a lot from our bloggers – they share new ideas and perspectives that stimulate our own thinking. But, providing the appropriate level of feedback so as to clearly guide the revisions without squashing enthusiasm is sometimes a challenge. Almost always, at least two of the co-creators review each blog submission, and we explicitly communicate with each other prior to sending the feedback, sometimes combined and sometimes separate. That way we can provide a check on the tone and amount of feedback we send. Happily, we have received lots of thanks from our contributors and we don’t have any cases where a submission was withdrawn following receipt of our feedback.

Upon further reflection, my overall point is that maintaining a quality blog, resource, and collaboration site requires more than just getting people to submit pieces and posting articles and other resources. We hadn’t fully realized the level of effort required when we started, and we have many new ideas that we still hope to implement. But, on so many levels all the efforts have been worthwhile. We believe we have a fantastic (and growing) collection of blogs and resources, and we have had several successful collaboration projects (with more in the works).

We welcome your suggestions, and if you have the passion and time to help us glow even brighter, consider joining us as either a collaboration-consultant or as a guest blogger.

Lauren

* Disclaimer: The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U. S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Govt.


Metacogntion: Daring Your Students to Take Responsibility for Their Own Successes and Failures.

by Harrison Fisher

The Education Endowment Foundation in Britain claims that metacognitive styles of learning ‘have consistently high levels of impact, with pupils making an average of eight months’ additional progress’ (Education Endowment Foundation, 2016). This seems to be particularly the case with older pupils, e.g. those of university level, and particularly when used in a group setting, so learners can support each other. Metacognition refers to the process of reflecting on learning itself, as opposed to merely learning by rote or memorizing. Think about it, if you knew exactly what was hindering your learning, your learning experience would be more profound. Put simply, you would learn more!shutterstock_124813237

It is so important in metacognitive learning that students take responsibility for their own progress. However, to students, there can sometimes be a perception that the professor is solely responsible for their learning. Metacognition can help to shift this perception and empower students to take more responsibility by encouraging them to reflect on the learning process while making necessary adjustments to their learning methods.

Metacognition for students is about reflecting on the most appropriate methods of learning, using different methods as needed, and subsequently revising their learning process. If we are realistic, students’ performance and learning is measured by their final course mark. So, students are on a continuous path to decipher how different learning methods work for them, and which to apply given the expected assessment. The question that arises at this point is whether the traditional forms of assessment used in higher education allow students to improve their metacognition, and whether they are representative of the challenges that will arise for students once they enter the workforce. There has been a lot of research on the relative benefits of various forms of assessment, but to a certain extent they miss the point that this itself will depend on students’ metacognitive engagement, and effective strategies will depend on students reflecting on what works for them.

One of the key goals of education is preparing students for employment. It follows that professors should be exposing students to the broadest range of assessments, ones that are more indicative of the challenges that they will encounter in their chosen fields. This will lead to students who are more dynamic in how they approach given problems and tasks. For example, take the multiple-choice exam. Is this type of assessment representative of the metacognitive skills required to handle customer complaints? Are the metacognitive skills needed to answer short answer questions similar to the leadership and teamwork skills sought by top employers? The short answer is no! What employers do not want is a worker who can merely remember facts, or who can ace an exam. What they do want is a flexible employee who can solve problems, who can be proactive, who can realize what their weaknesses are through reflection and respond to them.

One strategy to broaden students’ learning and development could be to allow students to reflect on their own learning. This could include asking students to keep a reflective log of their progress, keeping track of what they found difficult, and, more importantly, why they found it difficult. In this way, students are not focused on the content, but on the process of learning. Students can as a result change this in future. For example, if students are given a choice of assessment task or methods, they can ask themselves ‘What works for me?’ and ‘Why is it that this works?’ Each student is an individual with very different strengths and weaknesses, and assessment methods should reflect this. In a global affairs class for example, you could ask your students ‘How will the British decision to leave the European Union impact North America, and how could this impact be minimized?’ To assess this question, you could allow your students freedom in the way in which they present their answers. Some of these might include recorded video oral presentations, essays, creative infographics, recorded Mp3’s, slide decks and so on. This will allow your students to play to their strengths, and to make progress more quickly.

In giving freedom to students as far as which medium they submit their work, you can empower the student to discover what works for them. In other words, if you as a tutor let them present their work in a format they choose (for example: an essay, a vlog, a newspaper report etc.) this will surely allow them to reflect on how they learn and how they wish to present their work, which will then enrich their understanding. For example, in the case of assessing through Vlog, students may have what Gardner (1983) in his theory of Multiple Intelligences called linguistic intelligence, in that they are good with words and verbalizing their thoughts. As a result, they may feel that a Vlog, which involves recording a video presentation, is a perfect way to present their learning, rather than the more traditional exam or essay.

Likewise, another useful strategy could be to allow students to talk to each other about how they learn best. What strategies do they use, and which is most effective for them? Why is this? How would they advise each other to proceed in order to be more successful? One of the most valuable ways to learn is from others, and this will allow your more successful or confident students to have a positive effect on others. This allows students to both take responsibility for their learning, but also will allow students to reflect upon methods that they never would have thought of without the help of their peers.

These are by no means the only strategies that could sharpen students’ metacognition, but they are effective, tried and tested methods. Too often, independent learning comes off as a gimmick, something that is said without having any real meaningful outcome. Metacognitive strategies can change this. In fact, one of the most influential names in the field of metacognition, John Flavell (1987), believed, being influenced by the developmental theories of Jean Piaget, that metacognition is the process that drives all learning and development. As a result, we as professionals would definitely be missing out by not using this knowledge in our practice.

This is why the responsibility for learning needs to rest on the shoulders of the student. Learning will be more profound and more lasting, and, though it is hard work, the pay-off will be huge. Go on, dare your students to take responsibility for their own learning by using metacognition to monitor their successes and failures.

 

References

Flavell, J. H. (1987) Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.21 – 29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Education Endownment Foundation. (2016). Meta-cognition and self-regulation. Education Endowment Foundation.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.


Do Your Questions Invite Metacognition?

By Arthur L. Costa and Bena Kallick, Co-founders, International Institute for Habits of Mind

Our ‘inner voice’ is what we use to reflect on what we do, how and why we behave in the way we do, how we critique ourselves and how we connect the knowledge, ideas, concepts and concept frameworks developed using each of our four learning systems. It is the voice that challenges us to strive further and the voice that condemns our foolishness.

Mark Treadwell, Learning: How the Brain Learns (2014)

One of a teacher’s most important practices is designing and posing questions.   Wise teachers pose questions consciously with deliberate intentions. They know that questions engage sometimes subtle and overt responses from students.   Questions are the powerful stimuli that evoke cognitive, behavioral and emotional responses in students. They initiate a journey in the mind. Indeed questions are the backbone of instruction. They must be employed with care (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

Building a Thinking Vocabulary

Because thinking words may not be used in students’ homes or in previous classrooms, thinking vocabulary may be a “foreign language” to them. They may not know how to perform the specific thinking skills that a given term implies. It is imperative, therefore, that students develop a vocabulary with which to express their metacognitive processes.

When adults speak usiing mindful language, using specific, cognitive terminology and instructing students in ways to perform certain skills, students are more inclined to be able to both name and use those skills. For example,

Instead of saying: Use Metacognitive language by saying:
“Let’s look at these two pictures.” “As you COMPARE these two pictures…”
“What do you think will happen when . . . ?” “What do you PREDICT will happen when . . . ?”
“How can you put those into groups?” “How might you CLASSIFY . . . ?”
“Let’s work this problem.” “Let’s ANALYZE this problem.”
“What do you think would have happened if… ?” “What do you SPECULATE would have happened if… ?”
“What did you think of this story?” “What CONCLUSIONS can you draw about this story?”
“How can you explain . . . ?” “What HYPOTHESES do you have that might explain . . . ?”
“How do you know that’s true?” “What EVIDENCE do you have to sup-port . . . ?”
“How else could you use this . . . ?” “How could you APPLY this . . . ?”
“Do you think that is the best alternative? “As you EVALUATE these alternatives….”

As students hear these cognitive terms in everyday use and experience the cognitive processes that accompany these labels, they internalize the words and use them as part of their own  metacognitive vocabulary. Teachers will also want to give specific instruction and provide awareness of experiences so that students recognize and know the meaning of the terminology.

Invite metacognitive responses.

Teachers can deliberately invite students to become spectators of their own thinking by posing questions that invite a metacognitive response. Some questions invite a behavioral response, others can invite a thought-full response. Notice how behavioral questions can be transformed into questions that invite thinking:

Questions That Invite a Behavioral Response Questions That Invite Metacognitive Responses
“Why did you do that?” “What were you thinking when you did that?”
“What did the author mean when . . . ?” “What cues were you aware of?”
“What are your plans for . . . ?” “As you envision . . . what might be…..”
“When will you start . . . ?” “How will you decide when to start . . ?”
“Was that a good choice?” “What criteria did you have in mind to make that choice?”

If teachers pose questions that deliberately engage students’ cognitive processing, and let students know why the questions are being posed in this way, it is more likely that students will become aware of and engage their own metacognitive processes.

Making Internal Dialogue External

Students can become spectators of their own thinking when they are invited to monitor and make explicit the internal dialogue that accompanies their thinking.

They reveal their own thinking as they consider questions such as:

  • “What was going on in your head when……?”
  • “What were the benefits of……?”
  • “As you evaluate the effects of . . . ?”
  • “By what criteria are you judging…..?”
  • “What will you be aware of next time?”
  • “What did you hear yourself saying inside your brain when you were tempted talk but your job was to listen?”

Keep Students Thinking About Their Thinking

While such questions will initiate students’ metacognitive journey, you will also want to sustain that momentum by:

Causing Students to Monitor their Accuracy

  • “How do you know you are right?”
  • “What other ways can you prove that you are correct?

Pausing and Clarifying but not Interrupting

  • “Explain what you mean when you said you ‘just figured it out'”.
  •  “When you said you started at the beginning, how did you know                                where to begin?”

Providing Data, Not Answers (As soon as you confirm that an answer is correct, there is no need to think further about it!)

  • “I think you heard it wrong; let me repeat the question………………”
  • “You need to check your addition.”

Resisting Making Value Judgments Or Agreeing With Students’                  Answers.

  • “So, your answer is 48. Who came up with a different answer?”
  • “That’s one possibility. Who solved it another way?”

Remaining Focused On Thinking Processes

  • “Tell us what strategies you used to solve the problem”
  • “What steps did you take in your solution?”
  • “What was going on inside your head as you solved the problem?”

Encouraging Persistence

  • “Success! You completed step one. Now you’re ready to forge ahead.”
  • “C’mon, you can do it” Try it again!”

Ultimately, the intent of all this is to have students monitor and pose their own questions that promote thinking in themselves and others. Questioning, monitoring and reflecting on our experiences are requisites for becoming a continuous, lifelong learner. When we teach students to think about their thinking, we help make the world a more thought-full place.

References

Costa, A & Kallick, B. (2008) Learning and Leading with Habits of Mind: 16 Characteristics for Success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Treadwell, M (2014) Learning: How the brain learns. www.MarkTreadwell.com/products


A Whole New Engineer: A Whole New Challenge

by Roman Taraban, Ph.D.,  Texas Tech University

In 1973, cognitive psychologists Kahneman and Tversky (1973) wanted to present their study participants with a stereotypical description of engineers:

Jack is a 45-year old man. He is married and has four children. He is generally conservative, careful, and ambitious. He shows no interest in political and social issues and spends most of his free time on his many hobbies, which include home carpentry, sailing, and mathematical puzzles. (p. 241)

When asked if they thought Jack was an engineer, 90% of the participants thought he was.

Whatever stereotypes of engineers may persist to the present day (e.g., geek, introvert, asocial: http://www.thecreativeengineer.com/2008/12/16/a-few-engineering-myths/ ), various parts of the engineering community are trying to create “a whole new engineer” (Goldberg & Somerville, 2014). Cross-disciplinary centers have been established at universities, like iFoundry which was launched in 2008 at the University of Illinois, in order to prepare engineering students for working in the 21st century. One mandate was to promote “deep reflection and attention to the complex system in which engineering education is embedded” (https://ifoundry.illinois.edu/who-we-are/what-ifoundry ).

On a larger scale, the Franlin W. Olin College of Engineering admitted its first class in 2002 in order to implement a full-scale hands-on, project-based and design curriculum. Olin College provides students with funding for “passionate pursuits,” which are personal projects of academic value proposed by students https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_W._Olin_College_of_Engineering. STEM is being transformed to STEAM, where the addition of A represents Artful Thinking in the context of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Radziwell et al., 2015). To develop artful thinking a facilitator might present a painting and ask students: What do you see? What does it make you think? What is happening? Why do you think so? These questions help learners develop dispositions to observe, describe, question, reason, and reflect. The whole new engineer is becoming a whole lots of things, but is the new engineer becoming more metacognitive?

We know that engineering students can be metacognitive when solving textbook problems (Taraban, 2015). Indeed, by now there is an extensive corpus of research on students’ textbook problem-solving in introductory physics and other areas of STEM. Explaining the material to oneself with the knowledge that this will help one better understand it, or testing oneself with the knowledge that this will help one more reliably retrieve the information later, are examples of metacognitive processes and knowledge. Case and Marshall (1995) described a developmental pathway by which students transition towards deeper understanding of domain concepts and principles, which they labeled the conceptual deep approach to learning, and which is: “relating of learning tasks to their underlying concepts or theory” with the intention “to gain understanding while doing this” (p. 609). Basically, their suggestion is that over the course of development students recognize that a goal of learning is to understand the material more deeply, and that this recognition guides how they learn. Draeger (2015), and others, have suggested that this kind of monitoring of the effectiveness of learning strategies and regulating one’s behavior are characteristic of metacognitive thinking.

The current re-design of the traditional engineer involves sweeping changes, in the classroom, in the university, and in professional practice, and it aims to do this, in part, by infusing more reflection into engineering training and practice. So, what is a reflective practitioner, and are reflective practitioners metacognitive thinkers?

Schön (1987) suggested that reflective practitioners think carefully about what they are doing as they are doing it. Reflective practitioners assess and revise their existing practices and strive to develop more effective behaviors. They critically assess their behavior as a means to improving it. As Schön (1987) puts it, reflective practice is a “dialogue of thinking and doing through which I become more skillful” (p. 31). Schön maintained “that there is a core of artistry, an exercise of intelligence, and a kind of knowing inherent in professional practice, which we can only learn about by carefully studying the performance of extremely competent professionals” (Osterman, 1990, p. 133).

Through reflective practice we submit our behaviors to critical analysis, asking questions like these: What am I doing? What effect is it having? (Osterman, 1990). This very much reminds one of the distinction that Draeger (2015) made between metacognition and critical thinking. Specifically, one can be a critical thinker without being metacognitive. The two processes can overlap but are not identical. Simply, to be metacognitive, one would need to think about the reflective processing itself. Metacognitions would involve knowledge of the benefits of reflective practice, how it relates to self, and metacognitive processes related to monitoring and controlling the reflective practices. Imagine observing any expert – an expert teacher, an expert golfer, an expert acrobat – and striving to mimic that expertise through carefully observing and critiquing one’s own performance. That’s reflective practice. It’s about trying to get a job done in the best possible way. In a complementary fashion, metacognitive knowledge and processing involve intentionally and consciously monitoring and regulating those reflective practices.

In A Whole New Engineer (Goldberg & Somerville, 2014) the authors assert that

Here we are calling attention to the importance of the Whole New Engineer’s ability to do three things:

  • Notice and be aware of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
  • Reflect and learn from experience.
  • Seek deeper peace, meaning, and purpose from noticing and reflection. (p. 114)

Goldberg and Somerville (2014) make a call to be more attentive and sensitive to surroundings, to notice and reflect, but not necessarily to be metacognitive in those contexts – they are not clear about the latter point. Thus, it may be safe to say that being metacognitive doesn’t automatically come through reflective practice, critical thinking, mindfulness, or artful thinking strategies. Metacognition represents a distinct type of knowledge and process that can potentially enhance the effects of the aforementioned. The whole new engineer can be a whole lot of things, but is not automatically a metacognitive engineer. Simply, an engineering student, or even a practicing engineer, can be good at certain design projects, for instance, and develop a critical eye for that work, but without necessarily developing metacognitive awareness around when to shift strategies or techniques in order to be more effective.

References

Draeger, J. (2015). Two forms of ‘thinking about thinking’: metacognition and critical thinking. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/two-forms-of-thinking-about-thinking-metacognition-and-critical-thinking/ .

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034747

Osterman, K. F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education and Urban Society, 22(2), 133-152.

Radziwill, N. M., Benton, M. C., & Moellers, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Reframing what it means to learn. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), Article 3.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Taraban, R. (2015). Metacognition in STEM courses: A developmental path. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-in-stem-courses-a-developmental-path/


How to train reflection-in-action?

by Dr. Dominique Verpoorten, Lecturer (Learning Sciences), IFRES-University of Liège, Belgium

In this post, I’d like to introduce the notion of « reflection amplifier » in relationship with the notion of “reflection-in-action”.

Common sense tells us that reflection lies somewhere around the notion of learning and thinking. People learn as a result of reflecting. Reflection is practised in order to consider an object in more detail (Amulya, 2004).

Objects about which reflection can be amplified are innumerable. One can boost thinking on life, space, love, germs, fossils, butterflies or any content topic. This post addresses one specific topic of reflection: oneself as a learner.

Taking learning as an object of reflection is assumed to be an essential factor of expert learners (Ertmer & Newby, 1996). Reflective practice in formal learning contexts is supposed to gradually increase learners’ awareness of what helps and hampers a consistent orchestration of the various dimensions of their learning processes.

There are a number of methods that are held to encourage reflection on learning. These include learning diaries, portfolios, discussions of learning strategies, use of video and observers in a learning context, etc. These highly valuable approaches address post-practice reflection or what Schön (1983) refers to as “reflection on action”, that is a thinking episode taking place after the event and re-evaluating it so as to gain insight for improvement in the future.

But what about the training of “reflection in action”? Here come the reflection amplifiers (RAs). They present as deliberate, well-considered, and structured opportunities for students to examine and evaluate aspects of their learning experience as they occur. Unlike post-practice introspection assignments (portfolios, learning blogs…), RAs are nested in the study material and offered to individuals during learning activities. In the temporal flow of learning, their contiguity to student’s doings commits them to reflection-in-action more than to reflection on action, though Schön’s (1983) distinction is relative: even a reflection that takes place “in-action” bears on a pre-existing context. But in the case of a RA the interval is supposed to be a matter of seconds or minutes rather than hours. A typical feature of RAs is that they focus learners’ instant reflection on aspects of the learning experience they are currently committed to. RAs therefore present as brief, structured and repeated reflection affordances, interspersed in the learning material and activated during its internalization. These built-in opportunities for reflection are purposed to offer stop-and-think episodes in the course of learning. Examples of reflections amplifiers assigned to students in the course of their learning could be:

  • Rate your current mastery of the study material
  •  Give the degree of confidence you have in the correctness of your answer
  •  For one minute, evoke mentally the content at hand
  •  Give an estimation of your feeling of learning
  •  Write down a question that the teacher could ask on this topic

The word “amplifier” is used intentionally to convey the idea that enacting such affordances for reflection in the course of learning expands the mental context of the task at hand and discloses aspects of it that would otherwise be left untouched.

Reflection amplifiers have in common that they are harnessed to a first-order learning assignment. They serve it but are not confused with it due to their brevity and their meta-learning dimension. Reflection amplifiers are intended to support students at examining aspects of their learning experience in the moment of learning. They induce regular mental tinglings for evaluating “what is going on” (Salmon & al. 2007) and for nurturing internal feedback (Butler & Winne, 1995). They invite learners to think about what they are doing while they are doing it. Through establishing a practice of reflection during learning, RAs provide students with an opportunity to develop a habit of and a positive attitude towards thinking about learning.
By providing students with deliberate and structured opportunities to examine and evaluate their own learning while this learning unfolds, RAs instantiate a form of “split screen teaching” (Claxton, 2006), that consists in maintaining a dual focus on the content of the lesson and the learning dispositions and processes that are in play. Do you practice split screen teaching by sometimes providing reflection amplifiers to your students? What do they look like?

References

Amulya, J. (2004). What is Reflective Practice? Cambridge, MA: MIT – Center for Reflective Practice.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

Claxton, G. (2006, September). Expanding the capacity to learn: a new end for education? Opening keynote address presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, UK.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1-24.
Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383.

Salmon, P., Stanton, N., Jenkins, D., Walker, G., Young, M., & Aujla, A. (2007). What Really Is Going on? Review, Critique and Extension of Situation Awareness Theory. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 4562, 407-416.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

More about RAs:

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/186755

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151345

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/169931

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/156417

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151799,

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151374


Metacognition for Scholars: How to Engage in Deep Work

By Charity S. Peak, Ph.D. (Independent Consultant)

True confession: I’m addicted to shallow work. I wouldn’t say I’m a procrastinator as much as I am someone who prefers checking small things off my list or clearing my inbox over engaging in more complex tasks. I know I should be writing and researching. It’s just as much of my job as teaching or administrative duties, but I get to the end of my day and wonder why I didn’t have time for the most critical component of my promotion package – scholarship.

It turns out I’m not the only one suffering from this condition (far from it), and luckily there is a treatment plan available. It begins with metacognition about how one is spending time during the day, self-monitoring conditions that are most distracting or fruitful for productivity, and self-regulating behaviors in order to ritualize more constructive habits. Several authors offer suggestions for how to be more prolific (Goodson, 2013; Silvia, 2007), especially those providing writing prompts and 15-minute exercises, but few get to the core of the metacognitive process like Cal Newport’s (2016) recent Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Newport, a professor of computer science at Georgetown and author of 5 books and a blog on college success, shares his strategies for becoming a prolific writer while balancing other faculty duties.

Newport claims that deep work is the ability to focus without distraction on a cognitively demanding task. It is arguably the most difficult and crucial capability of the 21st century. Creative thinking is becoming progressively rare in our distracted world, so those who can rise above shallow work are guaranteed to demonstrate value to their employers, especially colleges and universities. In order to be creative and produce new ideas, scholars must engage in deep work regularly and for significant periods of time. Instead, Newport argues that most people spend their days multitasking through a mire of shallow work like email, which is noncognitively demanding and offers little benefit to academia, let alone an individual’s promotion. In fact, he cites that “a 2012 McKinsey study found that the average knowledge worker now spends more than 60 percent of the workweek engaged in electronic communication and Internet searching, with close to 30 percent of a worker’s time dedicated to reading and answering e-mail alone” (Newport, 2016, p. 5). Sound like someone you know?

The good news is that if you carve out space for deep work, your professional career will soar. The first step is to become metacognitive about how you are spending your time during the day. One simple method is to self-monitor how you use your work days by keeping a grid near your computer or desk. At the end of every hour throughout your day, record how much time you actually spent doing your job duties of teaching (including prep and grading), writing and research, and service. Like a food diary or exercise journal, your shallow work addiction will become apparent quickly, but you will also gain metacognition about when and under which conditions you might attempt to fit in time for deep work.

Once you have a grasp of the issue at hand, you can begin to self-regulate your behavior by blocking off time in your schedule in which you can engage in a deeper level of creative thinking. Each person will gravitate toward a different modality conducive to an individual’s working styles or arrangements. The author offers a few choices for you to consider, which have been proven to be successful for other scholars and business leaders:

  • Monastic: Eliminate or radically minimize shallow obligations, such as meetings and emails, in an effort to focus solely on doing one thing exceptionally well. Put an out-of-office response on your email, work somewhere other than your workplace, or take a year-long sabbatical in order to completely separate from frivolous daily tasks that keep you away from research and writing. Most teaching faculty and academic leaders are unable to be purely monastic due to other duties.
  • Bimodal: Divide your time, dedicating some clearly defined stretches to deep pursuits and leaving the rest open to everything else. During the deep time, act monastically – seek intense and uninterrupted concentration – but schedule other time in your day for shallow work to be completed. One successful scholar shared the possibility of teaching a very full load one semester but not teaching at all during the next as an example of engaging deeply in both critical duties.
  • Rhythmic: Also called the “chain method” or “snack writing,” create a regular habit of engaging in deep work, such as every morning before going into work or at the end of each day. Blocking off one’s calendar and writing every day has been proven to be one of the most productive habits for scholars attempting to balance their research with other duties (Gardiner & Kearns, 2011).
  • Journalistic: Fit deep work into your schedule wherever you can – 15 minutes here, an hour there. Over time you will become trained to shift into writing mode on a moment’s notice. This approach is usually most effective for experienced scholars who can switch easily between shallow and deep work. Inexperienced writers may find that the multitasking yields unproductive results, so they should proceed cautiously with this method.

The key is to do something! You must ritualize whichever method you choose in order to optimize your productivity. This may take some trial and error, but with your new-found metacognition about how you work best and some alternative strategies to try, you will be more likely to self-regulate your behaviors in order to be successful in your scholarly pursuits. If you try new approaches and are still not engaging in enough deep work, consider joining a writing group or finding a colleague to hold you accountable on a regular basis. Again, like diet and exercise, others can sometimes provide the motivation and deadlines that we are unable to provide for ourselves. Over time, your addiction to shallow work will subside and your productivity will soar… or so they tell me.

Resources:

Gardiner, M., & Kearns, H. (2011). Turbocharge your writing today. Nature 475: 129-130. doi: 10.1038/nj7354-129a

Goodson, P. (2013). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing. Los Angeles: Sage.

Newport, C. (2016). Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.


Metacognition in Academic and Business Environments

by Dr. John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

I gave two workshops on metacognition this week — one to a group of business professionaIMG_20160107_103443740_HDRls associated with the Organizational Development Network of Western New York and the other to faculty at Genesee Community College. Both workshops began with the uncontroversial claim that being effective (e.g., in business, learning, teaching) requires finding the right strategy for the task at hand. The conversation centered around how metacognition can help make that happen. For example, metacognition encourages us to be explicit and intentional about our planning, to monitor our progress, to make adjustments along the way, and to evaluate our performance afterwards. While not a “magic elixir,” metacognition can help us become more aware of where, when, why, and how we are or are not effective.


As I prepared for these two workshops, I decided to include one of my favorite metacognition resources as a key part of the workshop. Kimberly Tanner (2012) offers a series of questions that prompt metacognitive planning, monitoring, and evaluation. By way of illustration, I adapted Tanner’s questions to a familiar academic task, namely reading. Not all students are as metacognitive as we would like them to be. When asked to complete a reading assignment, for example, some students will interpret the task as turning a certain number of pages (e.g., read pages 8-19). They read the words, flip the page, and the task is complete when they reach the end. Savvy students realize that turning pages is not much of a reading strategy. They will reflect upon their professor’s instructions and course objectives. These reflections can help them intentionally adopt an appropriate reading strategy. In short, these savvy students are engaging in metacognition. They are guided by Tanner-style questions in table below.  

 

Table: Using metacognition to read more effectively (Adapted from Tanner, 2012)

Task Planning Monitoring Evaluating
Reading What do I already know about this topic?

How much time do I need to complete the task?

What strategies do I intend to use?

 What questions are arising?

Are my strategies working?

What is most confusing?

Am I struggling with motivation or content?

What other are strategies are available?

 To what extent did I successfully complete the task?

To what extent did I use the resources available to me?

What confusions do I have that still need to be clarified?

What worked well?
Big picture Why is it important to learn this material?

How does this reading align with course objectives?

 To what extent has completing this reading helped me with other learning goals? What have I learned in this course that I could use in the future?

 

After considering the table with reference to student reading, I asked the business group how the table might be adapted to a business context. They pointed out that middle managers are often flummoxed by company initiatives that either lack specificity or fail to align with the company’s mission and valIMG_3929ues. This is reminiscent of students who are paralyzed by what they take to be an ill-defined assignment (e.g., “write a reflection paper on what you just read”). Like the student scrambling to write the paper the night before, business organizations can be reactionary. Like the student who tends to do what they’ve done before in there other classes (e.g., put some quotations in a reflection paper to make it sound fancy), businesses are often carried along by organizational culture and past practice. W hen facing adversity, for example, organizational structure often suggests that doing something now (anything! Just do it!) is preferable to doing nothing at all. Like savvy students, however, savvy managers recognize the importance of explicitly considering and intentionally adapting response strategies most likely to further organizational goals. This requires metacognition and adapting the Tanner-style table is a place to start.

When I discussed the Tanner-style table with the faculty at Genesee Community College, they offered a wide-variety of suggestions concerning how the table might be adapted for use in their courses. For example, some suggested that my reading example presupposed that students actually complete their rIMG_3939eading assignments. They offered suggestions concerning how metacognitive prompts could be incorporated early in the course to bring out the importance of the reading to mastery of course material. Others suggested that metacognitive questions could be used to supplement prepackaged online course materials. Another offered that the he sometimes “translates” historical texts into more accessible English, but he is not always certain whether this is good for students. In response, someone pointed out that metacognitive prompts could help the faculty member more explicitly formulate the learning goals for the class and then consider whether the “translated” texts align with those goals.

In both business and academic contexts, I stressed that there is nothing “magical” about metacognition. It is not a quick fix or a cure-all. However, it does prompt us to ask difficult and often uncomfortable questions about our own efficacy. For example, participants in both workshops reported a tendency that all of us have to want to do things “our own way” even when this is not most effective. Metacognition puts us on the road towards better planning, better monitoring, better acting, and better alignment with our overall goals.

 

Thinking about thinking in both business and academic environments Share on X

References

Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113-120.


Teaching a new course requires metacognition

by John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

One of the joys of being an academic philosopher is the freedom to explore new ideas. For example, the recent retirement of a colleague left a gap in my department’s usual offerings. I agreed to take over a course on the philosophy of love and sex. While I have written scholarly articles on related topics, I confess that teaching this new material had me feeling the sort of constructive discomfort that I seek to foster in my students (Draeger 2014). As a result, I experienced a heightened sense of awareness concerning what I was doing and why. In particular, I came to believe that teaching a new course requires metacognition.

As I sat down to construct the course, I was guided by the thought that philosophy can help students learn to have careful conversations about ideas that matter. With respect to this new course, I wanted students to learn to ask tough questions. Can we really promise to love someone forever? Can sex ever be meaningless? Is becoming emotionally attached to someone other than your partner worse than sleeping around? Is it possible to love more than one person at the same time or does romantic love require some form of exclusivity? Such questions prompt students to consider whether commonly held beliefs are actually justified. If these views withstand scrutiny, then students have the conceptual resources to offer a proper defense. If not, then students can begin searching for ideas worth having. Such questions can also open up a larger conversation about related concepts (e.g., trust, intimacy, respect, jealousy, loyalty).  Because much of the course material was new to me, I had not always thought through the various permutations and implications of each philosophical position. I often found myself learning “on the fly” along with my students as I reflected on my own assumptions and preconceived ideas in “real time” while the discussion unfolded in front of me.

In an earlier post (Draeger 2015), I argued that “critical thinking involves an awareness of mode of thinking within a domain (e.g., question assumptions about gender, determine the appropriateness of a statistical method), while metacognition involves an awareness of the efficacy of particular strategies for completing that task.” As I reflect on my philosophy of love and sex course, I realize that my heightened awareness contained elements of both critical thinking and metacognition. Because the material was largely new to me, I was more aware of my own critical thinking processes as I engaged in them and more “tuned into” what my students were grappling with (e.g., assumptions about love and sex, related concepts, implications of the view we are considering). I also found myself metacognitively evaluating whether my students were critically engaged and whether my choices were moving the conversation in philosophically fruitful directions. I like to think that this sort of monitoring happens in all of my classes, but I was acutely aware of its importance given that the material was unfamiliar and my discussion prompts were untested. Moreover, I like to think that I never resort to autopilot and that I am always keenly aware of fluid learning environments. However, because the material was so fresh, I could not help but engage in self-regulation. I did not have a reliable stock of examples and responses at my fingertips. Even more than usual, I found myself making intentional changes to my approach based on “in-the-moment” feedback from students (Scharff 2015).

Teaching a new course always rejuvenates me because it reminds me how much I love to learn. As the teacher, however, I was responsible for more than my own learning. Effective teaching requires thinking about the critical thinking processes of all the learners in the room, including my own. It also requires monitoring fluid learning environment and making intentional changes (often in-the-moment changes) if students are to have careful conversations about ideas that matter (e.g., love, sex). While teaching with metacognition is generally a good idea, this semester taught me that teaching a new course requires metacognition.

Teaching a new course requires metacognition Share on X

References

Draeger, John (2015). “Two forms of ‘thinking about thinking’: metacognition and critical thinking.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/two-forms-of-thinking-about-thinking-metacognition-and-critical-thinking

Draeger, John (2014). “Cultivating a habit of constructive discomfort.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/cultivating-a-habit-of-constructive-discomfort
Scharff, Lauren (2015). “What do we mean by ‘metacognitive instruction?” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/what-do-we-mean-by-metacognitive-instruction/


Two forms of ‘thinking about thinking’: metacognition and critical thinking

by John Draeger (SUNY Buffalo State)

In previous posts, I have explored the conceptual nature of metacognition and shared my attempts to integrate metacognitive practices into my philosophy courses. I am also involved in a campuswide initiative that seeks to infuse critical thinking throughout undergraduate curricula. In my work on both metacognition and critical thinking, I often find myself using ‘thinking about thinking’ as a quick shorthand for both. And yet, I believe metacognition and critical thinking are distinct notions. This post will begin to sort out some differences.

My general view is that the phrase ‘thinking about thinking’ can be the opening move in a conversation about either metacognition or critical thinking. Lauren Scharff and I, for example, took this tack when we explored ways of unpacking what we mean by ‘metacognition’ (Scharff & Draeger, 2014). We considered forms of awareness, intentionality, and the importance of understanding of various processes. More specifically, metacognition encourages us to monitor the efficacy of our learning strategies (e.g., self-monitoring) and prompts us to use that understanding to guide our subsequent practice (e.g., self-regulation). It is a form of thinking about thinking. We need to think about how we think about our learning strategies and how to use our thinking about their efficacy to think through how we should proceed. In later posts, we have continued to refine a more robust conception of metacognition (e.g., Scharff 2015, Draeger 2015), but ‘thinking about thinking’ was a good place to start.

Likewise, the phrase ‘thinking about thinking’ can be the opening move in conversations about critical thinking. Given the wide range of program offerings on my campus, defining ‘critical thinking’ has been a challenge. Critical thinking is a collection of skills that can vary across academic settings and how these skills are utilized often requires disciplinary knowledge. For example, students capable of analyzing how factors such as gender, race, and sexuality influence governmental policy may have difficulty analyzing a theatrical performance or understanding the appropriateness of a statistical sampling method. Moreover, it isn’t obvious how the skills learned in one course will translate to the course down the hall. Consequently, students need to develop a variety of critical thinking skills in a variety of learning environments. As we began to consider how to infuse critical thinking across the curriculum, the phrase ‘thinking about thinking’ was something that most everyone on my campus could agree upon. It has been a place to start as we move on to discuss what critical thinking looks like in various domains of inquiry (e.g., what it means to think like an artist, biologist, chemist, dancer, engineer, historian, or psychologist).

‘Thinking about thinking’ captures the idea students need to think about the kind of thinking skills that they are trying to master, and teachers need to be explicit about those skills that if their students will have any hope of learning them. This applies to both metacognition and critical thinking. For example, many students are able to solve complex problems, craft meaningful prose, and create beautiful works of art without understanding precisely how they did it. Such students might be excellent thinkers, but unless they are aware of how they did what they did, it is also possible that they got just lucky. Both critical thinking and metacognition help ensure that students can reliably achieve desired learning outcomes. Both require practice and both require the explicit awareness of the relevant processes. More specifically, however, critical thinkers are aware of what they are trying to do (e.g., what it means to think like an artist, biologist, chemist, dancer, engineer, historian, psychologist), while metacognitive thinkers are aware of whether their particular strategies are effective (e.g., whether someone is an effective artist, biologist, chemist, dancer, engineer, historian, psychologist). Critical thinking and metacognition, therefore, differ in the object of awareness. Critical thinking involves an awareness of mode of thinking within a domain (e.g., question assumptions about gender, determine the appropriateness of a statistical method), while metacognition involves an awareness of the efficacy of particular strategies for completing that task.

‘Thinking about thinking’ is a good way to spark conversation with our colleagues and our students about a number of important skills, including metacognition and critical thinking. In particular, it is worth asking ourselves (and relaying to our students) what it might mean for someone to think like an artist or a zoologist (critical thinking) and how we would know whether that artist or zoologist was thinking effectively (metacognition). As these conversations move forward, we should also think through the implications for our courses and programs of study. How might this ongoing conversation change course design or methods of instruction? What might it tell us about the connections between courses across our campuses? ‘Thinking about thinking’ is a great place to start such conversations, but we must remember that it is only the beginning.

References

Draeger, John (2015). “Exploring the relationship between awareness, self-regulation, and metacognition.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/exploring-the-relationship-between-awareness-self-regulation-and-metacognition/

Scharff, Lauren & Draeger, John (2014). “What do we mean when we say “Improve with metacognition”? (Part One) Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/what-do-mean-when-we-say-improve-with-metacognition/

Scharff, Lauren (2015). “What do we mean by ‘metacognitive instruction?” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/what-do-we-mean-by-metacognitive-instruction/Thinking about two forms of thinking about thinking: Metacognition and critical thinking Share on X


Dr. Derek Cabrera – How Thinking Works

“Dr. Derek Cabrera is an internationally recognized expert in metacognition (thinking about thinking), epistemology (the study of knowledge), human and organizational learning, and education. He completed his PhD and post-doctoral studies at Cornell University and served as faculty at Cornell and researcher at the Santa Fe Institute. He leads the Cabrera Research Lab, is the author of five books, numerous journal articles, and a US patent. Derek discovered DSRP Theory and in this talk he explains its benefits and the imperative for making it part of every students’ life.”

DSRP consists of four interrelated structures (or patterns), each structure has two opposing elements. The structures and their elements are:

  • Making Distinctions – which consist of an identity and an other
  • Organizing Systems – which consist of part and whole
  • Recognizing Relationships – which consist of action and reaction
  • Taking Perspectives – which consist of point and view

https://youtu.be/dUqRTWCdXt4  (15 minutes)


An Aristotelian conception of metacognition (Part One)

by John Draeger (SUNY Buffalo State)

As I prepare for my philosophy courses this fall, I find aristotlemyself thinking about both Aristotle and metacognition. Aristotle’s theory of virtue figures prominently in my course on the history of ethics. Metacognition is one of the skills that I am trying to cultivate in all my courses, including the history of ethics. In previous posts, I have discussed how and why I have tried to promote metacognition. In the post, I want to consider what Aristotle might say about that endeavor.

According Aristotle, living well requires pursuing excellence. It requires cultivating various intellectual and emotional traits that reliably lead to sought after outcomes (e.g., health, happiness). Aristotle asks us to consider whether those outcomes are things we ought to want as well as how best to achieve them. For convenience, we can refer to this collection of traits as practical wisdom. By ‘practical,’ Aristotle has in mind both the fact that this sort of wisdom is useful (e.g., it serves a practical purpose) and the fact that developing wisdom requires practice. Likewise, learning well requires pursuing excellence. It requires cultivating various intellectual and emotional traits that reliably lead to sought after learning outcomes. Metacognitive practices encourage us to explicitly articulate our goals, monitor our progress, and make changes when necessary (e.g., self-regulation).

Suppose, for example, that my doctor tells me that I need to watch my diet. She has identified a desired outcome (e.g., lower cholesterol) and she is encouraging me to develop the wherewithal to achieve that end. In some ways, she wants me to be more metacognitive about my diet. I need to engage in self-monitoring (e.g., becoming aware of whether a food choice will help or hurt my cholesterol levels) and self-regulation (e.g., make choices that help my cholesterol levels). Aristotle would add that this is holistic endeavor.

Understanding Aristotelian practical wisdom requires distinguishing between a list of actions  that reliably lead to a desired outcome (e.g., what I  should do in a particular circumstance) and a more holistic conception of living well (e.g., what sort of person I am trying to become). The first approach tells me what I should do is to eat right and exercise. This is surely good advice.  The second approach, however, encourages me to make holistic changes in my daily activities as well as holistic changes in how I conceive of food consumption. I need to be vigilant about my food choices. Keeping a food journal might make me more aware of my eating patterns, but I might also need to examine the how my emotions and my environment influence those patterns. I might even need to develop auxiliary skills (e.g., the tact to politely turn down dessert at a dinner party and the fortitude to resist that third glass of red wine). It will take time and effort across a spectrum of personal behaviors and attitudes to develop better eating habits, but, if I use a holistic approach, the hope is that I will see progress through time.

Like my doctor setting a goal that will promote my physical health, teachers and students can set various learning goals that will promote intellectual health (e.g., reading, writing, critical thinking). Achieving these goals requires being clear about the goal, monitoring progress, and making the necessary adjustments. Recent work on metacognition provides us with empirically tested techniques for achieving those ends. Aristotle, however, would remind us that promoting both intellectual and physical health is a holistic endeavor.

Identifying techniques that reliably lead to desired outcomes (e.g., self-testing, peer tutoring, scaffolding) can contribute to learning excellence, especially if learners are actively monitoring the effectiveness of these strategies and regulating their behavior accordingly. These techniques are most welcome. However, Aristotle would remind us that even if learners master these techniques in isolation, they will not yet have achieved learning excellence. The ultimate goal, he would argue, is to transform the various intellectual and emotional traits that combine to form a person’s conception of herself as a learner. Of course, I doubt that many scholars of metacognition would deny that learning is a holistic enterprise. Scholars choose to isolate techniques in order to test their efficacy. Aristotle would welcome both the methods and the findings. But it is worth remembering that excellent intellectual and physical health requires attending to many interlocking components.

In my next post, I will discuss how this Aristotelian conception of metacognition might offer practical advice to students and teachers in their effort to achieve learning excellence.

John Draeger offers an Aristotelian conception of metacognition. Share on X

Teacher-led Self-analysis of Teaching

Clinical Supervision is a model of supervisor (or peer) review that stresses the benefits of a teacher-led self-analysis of teaching in the post-conference versus a conference dominated by the judgments of the supervisor.  Through self-reflection, teachers are challenged to use metacognitive processes to determine the effects of their teaching decisions and actions on student learning.  The Clinical Supervision model is equally applicable to all levels of schooling and all disciplines. This video walks you through the process.


Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection, Anyone?

By Cynthia Desrochers, California State University Northridge

I once joked with my then university president that I’d seen more faculty teach in their classrooms than she had. She nodded in agreement. I should have added that I’d seen more than the AVP for Faculty Affairs, all personnel committees, deans, or chairpersons. For some reason, university teaching is done behind closed doors, no peering in on peers unless for personnel reviews. We attempted to change that at CSU Northridge when I directed their faculty development center from 1996-2005. Our Faculty Reciprocal Peer Coaching program typically drew a dozen or more cross-college dyads over the dozen semesters it was in existence. The program’s main goal was teacher self-reflection.

I believe I first saw the term peer coaching when reading a short publication by Joyce and Showers (1983). What stuck me was their assertion that to have any new complex teaching innovation become part of one’s teaching repertoire required four steps: 1) understanding the theory/knowledge base undergirding the innovation, 2) observing an expert who is modeling how to do the innovation, 3) practicing the innovation in a controlled setting with coaching (e.g., micro-teaching in a workshop) and 4) practicing the innovation in one’s own classroom with coaching. They maintained that without all four steps, the innovation taught in a workshop would likely not be implemented in the classroom. Having spent much of my life teaching workshops about using teaching innovations, these steps became my guide, and I still use them today. In addition, after many years of coaching student teachers at UCLA’s Lab School, I realized that they were more likely to apply teaching alternatives that they identified and reflected upon in the post-conference than ones that I singled out. That is, they learned more from using metacognitive practices than from my direct instruction, so I began formulating some of the thoughts summarized below.

Fast forward many years to this past year, where I co-facilitated a yearlong eight-member Faculty Learning Community (FLC) focused on implementing the following Five Gears for Activating Learning: Motivating Learning, Organizing Knowledge, Connecting Prior Knowledge, Practicing with Feedback, and Developing Mastery [see previous blog]. With this FLC, we resurrected peer coaching on a voluntary basis in order to promote conscious use of the Five Gears in teaching. All eight FLC members not only volunteered to pair up for reciprocal coaching of one another, but they were eager to do so.

I was asked by one faculty member why is it called coaching, because an athletic coach often tells players what to do, versus helping them self-reflect. I responded that it’s because Joyce and Showers’ study looked at the research on training athletes and what that required for skill transfer. They showed the need for many practice sessions combined with coaching in order to achieve mastery of any new complex move, be it on the playing field or in the classroom. However, their point of confusion was noted, so now I refer to the process as Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection. This reflective type of peer coaching applies to cross-college faculty dyads who are seeking to more readily apply a new teaching innovation.

Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Refection applies all or some of the five phases of the Clinical Supervision model described by Goldhammer(1969), which include: pre-observation conference, observation and data collection, data analysis and strategy, post-observation conference, and post-conference analysis. However, it is in the post-conference phase where much of the teacher self-reflection occurs and where the coach can benefit from an understanding of post-conference messages.

Prior to turning our FLC members loose to peer coach, we held a practicum on how to do it. And true to my statement above, I applied Joyce and Showers’ first three steps in our practicum (i.e., I explained the theory behind peer coaching, modeled peer coaching, and then provided micro-practice of a videotaped lesson taught by one of our FLC members). But in the micro-practice, right out of the gate, faculty coaches began telling the teacher how she used the Five Gears versus prompting her to reflect upon her own use first. Although I gently provided feedback in an attempt to redirect the post-conferences from telling to asking, it was a reminder of how firmly ingrained this default position has become with faculty, where the person observing a lesson takes charge and provides all the answers when conducting the post-conference. The reasons for this may include 1)prior practice as supervisors who are typically charged with this role, 2) the need to show their analytic prowess, or 3) the desire to give the teacher a break from doing all the talking. Whatever the reason, we want the teacher doing the reflective analysis of her own teaching and growing those dendrites as a result.

After this experience with our FLC, I crafted the conference-message matrix below and included conversation-starter prompts. Granted, I may have over-simplified the process, but it illustrates key elements for promoting Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection. Note that the matrix is arranged into four types of conference messages: successful and unsuccessful teaching-learning situations, where the teacher identifies the topic of conversation after being prompted by the coach (messages #1 and #3) and successful and unsuccessful teaching-learning situations, where the coach identifies the topic of conversation after being prompted by the teacher (messages #2 and #4). The goal of Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection is best achieved when the balance of the post-conference contains teacher self-reflection; hence, messages #1 and #3 should dominate the total post-conference conversation. Although the order of messages #1 through #4 is a judgment call, starting with message #1permits the teacher to take the lead in identifying and reflecting upon her conscious use of the Gears and their outcome –using her metacognition—versus listening passively to the coach. An exception to beginning with message #1 may be that the teacher is too timid to sing her own praises, and in this instance the coach may begin with message #2 when this reluctance becomes apparent. Note further that this model puts the teacher squarely in the driver’s seat throughout the entire post-conference; this is particularly important when it comes to message #4, which is often a sensitive discussion of unsuccessful teaching practices. If the teacher doesn’t want another’s critique at this time, she is told not to initiate message #4, and the coach is cautioned to abide this decision.

Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection

The numbered points under each of the four types of messages are useful components for discussion during each message in order to further cement an understanding of which Gear is being used and its value for promoting student learning: 1) Identifying the teaching action from the specific objective data collected by the coach (e.g., written, video, or audio) helps to isolate the cause-effect teaching episode under discussion and its effect on student learning. 2) Naming the Gear (or naming any term associated with the innovating being practiced) increases our in-common teaching vocabulary, which is considered useful for any profession. 3) Discussing the generalization about how the Gear helps students learn reiterates its purpose, fostering motivation to use it appropriately. And 4) crafting together alternative teaching-learning practices for next time expands the teacher’s repertoire.

The FLC faculty reported that their classroom Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection sessions were a success. Specifically, they indicated that they used the Five Gears more consciously after discussing them during the post-conference; that the Five Gears were beginning to become part of their teaching vocabulary; and that they were using the Five Gears more automatically during instruction. Moreover, unique to message #2, it provided the benefit of having one’s coach identify a teacher’s unconscious use of the Five Gears, increasing the teacher’s awareness of themselves as learners of an innovation, all of which serve to increase metacognition.

When reflecting upon how we might assist faculty in implementing the most promising research-based teaching-learning innovations, I see a system where every few years we allot reassigned time for faculty to engage in Reciprocal Peer Coaching for Self-Reflection.

References

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development though research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

 

 

 

 

 


So what if ‘metacognition’ is vague!

by John Draeger (SUNY Buffalo State)

When Lauren Scharff invited me to join Improve with Metacognition last year, I was only vaguely aware of what ‘metacognition’ meant. As a philosopher, I knew about various models of critical thinking and I had some inkling that metacognition was something more than critical thought, but I could not have characterized the extra bit. In her post last week, Scharff shared a working definition of ‘metacognitive instruction’ developed by a group of us involved as co-investigators on a project (Scharff, 2015). She suggested that it is the “intentional and ongoing interaction between awareness and self-regulation.” This is better than anything I had a year ago, but I want to push the dialogue further.

I’d like to take a step back to consider the conceptual nature of metacognition by applying an approach in legal philosophy used to analyze terms with conceptual vagueness. While clarity is desirable, Jeremy Waldron argues that there are limits to the level of precision that legal discourse can achieve (Waldron, 1994). This is not an invitation to be sloppy, but rather an acknowledgement that certain legal concepts are inescapably vague. According to Waldron, a concept can be vague in at least two ways. First, particular instantiations can fall along a continuum (e.g., actions can be more or less reckless, negligent, excessive, unreasonable). Second, some concepts can be understood in terms of overlapping features. Democracies, for example, can be characterized by some combination of formal laws, informal patterns of participation, shared history, common values, and collective purpose. These features are neither individually necessary nor jointly sufficient for a full characterization of the concept. Rather, a system of government counts as democratic if it has “enough” of the features. A particular democratic system may look very different from its democratic neighbor. This is in part because particular systems will instantiate the features differently and in part because particular systems might be missing some feature altogether. Moreover, democratic systems can share features with other forms of government (e.g., formal laws, common values, and collective purpose) without there being a clear boundary between democratic and non-democratic forms of government. According to Waldron, there can be vagueness within the concept of democracy itself and in the boundaries between it and related concepts.

While some might worry that the vagueness of legal concepts is a problem for legal discourse, Waldron argues that the lack of precision is desirable because it promotes dialogue. For instance, when considering whether some particular instance of forceful policing should be considered ‘excessive,’ we must consider the conditions under which force is justified and the limits of acceptability. Answering these questions will require exploring the nature of justice, civil rights, and public safety. Dialogue is valuable, in Waldron’s view, because it brings clarity to a broad constellation of legal issues even though clarity about any one of the constituents requires thinking carefully about the other elements in the constellation.

Is ‘metacognition’ vague in the ways that legal concepts can be vague? To answer this question, consider some elements in the metacognitive constellation as described by our regular Improve with Metacognition blog contributors. Self-assessment, for example, is feature of metacognition (Fleisher, 2014, Nuhfer, 2014). Note, however, that it is vague. First, self-assessments may fall along a continuum (e.g., students and instructors can be more or less accurate in their self-assessments). Second, self-assessment is composed of a variety of activities (e.g., predicting exam scores, tracking gains in performance, understanding personal weak spots and understanding one’s own level of confidence, motivation, and interest). These activities are neither individually necessary nor jointly sufficient for a full characterization of self-assessment. Rather, students or instructors are engaged in self-assessment if they engage in “enough” of these activities. Combining these two forms of vagueness, each of the overlapping features can themselves fall along a continuum (e.g., more or less accurate at tracking performance or understanding motivations). Moreover, self-assessment shares features with other related concepts such as self-testing (Taraban, Paniukov, and Kiser, 2014), mindfulness (Was, 2014), calibration (Gutierrez, 2014), and growth mindsets (Peak, 2015). All are part of the metacognitive constellation of concepts. Each of these concepts is individually vague in both senses described above and the boundaries between them are inescapably fuzzy. Turning to Scharff’s description of metacognitive instruction, all four constituent elements (i.e. ‘intentional,’ ‘ongoing interaction,’ ‘awareness,’ and ‘self-regulation’) are also vague in both senses described above. Thus, I believe that ‘metacognition’ is vague in the ways legal concepts are vague. However, if Waldron is right about the benefits of discussing and grappling with vague legal concepts (and I think he is) and if the analogy between vague concepts and the term ‘metacognition’ holds (and I think it does), then vagueness in this case should be perceived as desirable because it facilitates broad dialogue about teaching and learning.

As Improve with Metacognition celebrates its first year birthday, I want to thank all those who have contributed to the conversation so far. Despite the variety of perspectives, each contribution helps us think more carefully about what we are doing and why. The ongoing dialogue can improve our metacognitive skills and enhance our teaching and learning. As we move into our second year, I hope we can continue exploring the rich the nature of the metacognitive constellation of ideas.

References

Fleisher, Steven (2014). “Self-assessment, it’s a good thing to do.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/self-assessment-its-a-good-thing-to-do/

Gutierrez, Antonio (2014). “Comprehension monitoring: the role of conditional knowledge.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/comprehension-monitoring-the-role-of-conditional-knowledge/

Nuhfer, Ed (2014). “Self-Assessment and the affective quality of metacognition Part 1 of 2.”Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/self-assessment-and-the-affective-quality-of-metacognition-part-1-of-2/

Peak, Charity (2015). “Linking mindset to metacognition.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/linking-mindset-metacognition/

Scharff, Lauren (2015). “What do we mean by ‘metacognitive instruction’?” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/what-do-we-mean-by-metacognitive-instruction/

Taraban, Roman, Paniukov, Dmitrii, and Kiser, Michelle (2014). “What metacognitive skills do developmental college readers need? Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/what-metacognitive-skills-do-developmental-college-readers-need/

Waldron, Jeremy (1994). “Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues.” California Law Review 83(2): 509-540.

Was, Chris (2014). “Mindfulness perspective on metacognition. ”Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/a-mindfulness-perspective-on-metacognition/

 


Exploring the Developmental Progression of Metacognition

by Sarah L. Bunnell at Ohio Wesleyan University (slbunnel@owu.edu)

As a developmental psychologist, it is difficult to consider student learning (and my own learning as well) without a strong nod to developmental process. Metacognition, as has been described by many others on this blog and in other venues (e.g., Baxter-Magolda, 1992; Flavell, 1979; Kuhn, 1999; Perry, 1970), requires the cognitive skills of reflection, connection, evaluation, and revision. Metacognitive acts are initially quite cognitively demanding, and like most conscious cognitive processes, require practice to become more automatic or at least less consuming of cognitive resources. In addition to examining how students acquire the tools required for the hard work of metacognition, I have also been interested in whether there are developmental differences in students’ ability to make connections and reflections across the college years.

I recently conducted two examinations of metacognitive development; the first project involved my Introductory Psychology course, which enrolls primarily first year students, and the second project involved my Adolescent Psychology course, which enrolls primarily sophomore-level students. Below, I will provide a brief summary of each study and then discuss what I see as some take-home points and next-steps for inquiry.

In the Introductory Psychology course (n = 45), each student completed a metacognitive portfolio (hosted through the MERLOT website; http://eportfolio.merlot.org/) throughout the semester. In this portfolio, students responded to a series of prompts to reflect on their current thinking about course concepts and the ways in which these concepts play out in their own lives. At the end of the semester, students were asked to review their responses, identify any responses that they would now change, and explain why they would now alter their responses. They were also asked to describe how they thought their thinking had changed over the course of the semester.

Given the large body of work on the learning benefits associated with metacognition, I was not surprised that students who wanted to change a greater number of their responses performed significantly better on the final exam than did students who identified fewer points of change. More surprising, however, was the finding that students who did well on the final exam were significantly more likely to have endorsed changes in their thinking about themselves as opposed to changes in their thinking about others. A year after this class ended, I contacted these same students again, and I asked them to reflect on their thinking at the end of the course relative to their thinking about Psychology and themselves now. Of note, an analysis of these responses indicated that the students who were high performers on the final exam and in the course overall were no longer reporting many self-related metacognitive links. Instead, these students were significantly more likely to say that they now had a greater understanding of others than they did before. Thus, there was a powerful shift over time in the focus of metacognition from self to other.

In my Adolescent Psychology course (n = 35), students conduct a semi-structured interview of an adolescent, transcribe the interview, and then analyze the interview according to developmental theory. This assignment is designed to foster connection and application, and I have compelling evidence indicating that this experience enhances learning. What was less clear to me, however, is whether participating in this course and in the interview paper activity contributes to students’ metacognitive awareness of self? To address this question, I implemented a pre-post test design. On the first day of class, students were asked, “Are you currently an adolescent? Please explain your answer.” To answer this question, one must consider multiple ways in which we may conceptualize adolescence (i.e., age, legal responsibility, physical maturity, financial responsibility); as you can clearly see, the lens we apply to ourselves and others leads to quite varied views of when adolescence ends and adulthood begins! At the end of the term, students were again asked the same question, plus an additional prompt that asked them to reflect on how their thinking about themselves had changed across the semester.

On Day 1, 17 students endorsed currently being an adolescent, 16 students reported no longer being an adolescent, and 2 students said they did not feel that they had enough information to respond. It is important to note that all students in the course were between the ages of 18 and 21 years and as such, all were technically late adolescents. On the last day of class, 21 class members labeled themselves as adolescents, 4 students said that they did not consider themselves to be adolescents, and 5 said that they were an adolescent in some contexts of their life and not others. As an example of a contextual way of thinking, one student said: “I believe that neurologically I am still an adolescent because I am below the age of 25 and therefore do not have a fully developed frontal lobe, which can alter decision making, and from a Piagetian standpoint I believe I am out of adolescence because I have reached the formal operational stage of development and possibly even beyond that. Overall though, I believe that I can’t fully define myself as an adolescent or not because there are so many factors in play.”

I examined these group-level differences in terms of course performance from a number of angles, and two interesting patterns emerged. First, students who adopted a more context-dependent view of self did significantly better on the application-based, cumulative final exam than did students who held an absolute view of self. This first finding is consistent with the work on Marcia Baxter-Magolda (1992), William Perry (1970), and others, which views contextual knowing as a complicated and mature form of meta-knowing. Second, students who changed their view of themselves across the semester conducted significantly more advanced analyses of the interview content relative to those whose view of self did not change. Thus, the students who displayed greater advances in metacognition were better able to apply these reflections and connections to themselves and, in turn, to the lives of others.

Taken together, this work suggests to me that the ability to engage in metacognitive reflection and connection may initially develop in a self-focused way and then, following additional experience and metacognitive skill attainment, extend beyond the self. Please note that I am careful to suggest that the ability of other-related connection emerges following experience and the acquisition of lower-level preparatory skills, rather than merely the passage of time, even though there is clearly a temporal dimension at play. Instead, as Donald Baer warned us, age is at best a proxy for development; at the most extreme, development is “age-irrelevant” (Baer, 1970). Why do students demonstrate improved metacognition across the college years? It is certainly not merely because the days have ticked by. Instead, these advances in thinking, as well as students’ willingness to refine their thinking about the self, are supported and constructed by a range of experiences and challenges that their college experience affords. To understand age- or college-level changes in thinking, therefore, we should focus on the developmental tasks and experiences that support this development. I hope that my lines of inquiry contribute in small part to this process.

References

Baer, D. M. (1970). An age-irrelevant concept of development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 16, 238-245.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: implications for pedagogy, Review of Higher Education, 15, 265-87.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906 – 911.

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

Perry, William G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.