Year: 2017

Promoting Metacognition with Retrieval Practice in Five Ateps

by Blake Harvard, James Clemens High School

 Downloadable

 

Motivation for Activity

I am very lucky to work at a high school with students who are quite focused and, from the standpoint of intelligence, very gifted.   This does not make them great learners though. I realize a lot of my students clearly benefit from being able to memorize information. This may work in high school, where assessments are given sometimes daily. In college, however, this will not work. Assessment of material may consist of a midterm and a final. As a teacher who wants to better prepare my students for a lifetime of learning, I am motivated to introduce and cultivate learning strategies that focus on this personal growth and better understanding of their own learning through specific exercises promoting metacognition.

Context for Activity

I use this activity with my high school AP Psychology classes. These classes average about 30 students. Although my situation is quite specific, I believe this activity can easily be accommodated to fit most class sizes in almost all disciplines of study.

Description of Activity

Let me put all the cards out on the table: I am a big believer in using researched/proven learning strategies promoting metacognition to improve retention of classroom material. I have applied strategies in my high school Advanced Placement Psychology classes and seen notable improvements in three areas:

  • Test scores
  • Study habits
  • Student’s understanding of their learning

Improvement in test scores is important for many reasons and ultimately describes an overall level of understanding.  While I am thrilled to see my mean test score increase and standard deviation shrink a bit, that is not what I’m most excited about when lauding learning strategies.  I am far happier with the student growth with respect to their study habits and metacognition about their learning.  While I instruct highly intelligent adolescents, most of my students do not enter my room as great learners.  They are merely great memorizers.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it becomes much more difficult to just memorize your way through college and most of my students (80% to 90%) will attend university.

In particular, one learning strategy that I believe to be the most effective is retrieval practice.  The Learning Scientists provide a great overview of the strategy.  Basically, the idea is to attempt to retrieve information from your memory a bit after it’s been presented to you.  This can be done minutes, hours, or days later, and can be seen in many forms:  multiple-choice or matching questions, essays,. I have written before on the topic of retrieval practice and its impact on my classroom.  Today, I want to focus on how I promote metacognition through the use of retrieval practice in my classroom.

Usually the day after a lesson, I use these steps to practice retrieval of the information:

  1. Provide questions or a prompt.  Since I am preparing my students for an AP exam in May, I usually provide AP style questions (no more than 7). By ‘AP style’, I mean, either multiple-choice questions with five possible answers or an essay prompt requiring students use terms or concepts from the previous lesson to successfully relate their knowledge to a given scenario.
  2. Answer using only their brain.  This step starts to break their habit of asking those around them for help or looking at their notes/the internet for assistance.  In my opinion, this step is the most important aspect of retrieval practice.  They are forced to attempt to retrieve material as they practice answering test questions, which is the process in which they will have to engage during the actual test. A second benefit is that this practice can help to reduce test anxiety.  A lot of students shy away from this step because it can be difficult or because it highlights flaws in their learning, but I tell my students it’s definitely better to struggle with the material now than on the test.  If the test is the first time a student is presented with material in a way that utilizes the use of retrieval practice, we’ve all probably failed.
  3. Evaluate their answers.  How many answers are they very confident with?  How many answers are simply guesses?  I want students to understand that if they just guessed and answered correctly, they still don’t know the answer, they just got lucky.  Sometimes I’ll have my students delineate, by using a different color pen on their paper, answers they are confident with and those they are not.  This helps them to visualize their pre-grade understanding.
  4. Compare/contrast answers with neighbors.  I instruct the students to have a conversation; debate any discrepancies.  At this point, if they can thoughtfully discuss answers they probably have a decent grasp of the information and have taken time to reflect on their learning; specifically where their may be holes in their learning of the material or with what they thought they knew, but may have been mislead.
  5. Grade their paper.  After students grade their paper I want them thinking about the following questions that really allow the students to practice their metacognition and regulate/reinforce their study habits for future practice.

a. Does my grade reflect my knowledge?

b. Am I happy with my grade?

c. If no to either of the above questions, what strategies can I utilize to successfully retain the material?  At this point, many students incorrectly believe that their understanding of material is complete…for better or worse.  You can almost see them thinking either “Oh well, I just don’t know this” or “I scored well, I must know this”.  I attempt to impress upon my students that use of other strategies, like spaced practice and dual coding, will further aid to improve and solidify retention of the material.

d. If yes to the above questions, I ask students to reflect on what work they put in to remember this material so they can plan to use that strategy again for future learning. This step also helps reinforce that they should focus on learning strategies, not just guessing / luck.

Reflection

After many semesters of working with students, I have come to believe that metacognition and reflection on study habits/strategies is of foundational importance.  One of the goals I have for the students in my class, over the course of a semester, is these learning strategies become their norm for studying.  It’s not something extra, it is what they do to practice and learn.  Without the reflection piece of using retrieval practice and other learning strategies, it is hard for high school students to examine their study/practice growth. While walking the students through these five steps may seem a little laborious, the explicitness of the instructions seems to work well to increase their awareness of their own learning shape their behaviors toward more effective practices.

It is often quite difficult to convince teenagers their study/practice habits, that usually rely on simple memorization, will more than likely not be successful at college.  They need to see results from their added efforts.  Using these five steps, I have witnessed student’s grades improve and study/practice habits change for the better.  As a teacher, I’m not sure it gets any better…improving a student’s learning and making them more successful.  It’s why we get paid the big bucks.  🙂

References

Learn How to Study Using…Retrieval Practice, The Learning Scientists, www.learningscientists.org

Retrieval Practice in the High School Classroom, The Effortful Educator, www.effortfuleducator.com

Learn How to Study Using…Spaced Practice, The Learning Scientists, www.learningscientists.org

Learn How to Study Using…Dual Coding, The Learning Scientists, www.learningscientists.org


A Project-Based Method to Help Students Practice Study Strategies in an Authentic Context

by Hillary Steiner, Kennesaw State University

 Downloadable

Motivations and Context: Success in college requires the development of self-regulated learning strategies that move beyond high school skills, but teaching these strategies can be challenging. I teach a first-year seminar at a large comprehensive university that includes helping students develop college-level studying and time management skills among its goals. Knowing that students would be more likely to value these skills (and later, transfer these skills) if they were situated in context, I developed an assignment that requires students to practice self-regulated learning strategies—active reading, management of study time and achievement goals, proactive interaction with faculty, metacognitive reflection, and more—within the context of a student-selected course.

Assignment: In the Strategy Project assignment, students learn time management, communication, and study strategies in the process of preparing for an actual test. Students then demonstrate that learning by submitting their test preparation activities as part of a graded project in the first-year seminar.

First, students choose a test in another course that they find challenging. Then, they complete a contract, in consultation with their first-year seminar instructor, that indicates their individualized due dates and studying plans based on their chosen test. Students also write a pre-project reflection paper discussing their current approaches to studying and time management.

Next, the students complete a “professor interaction” activity where they visit the instructor of the chosen course to discuss a previous test or quiz, if applicable, and ask for advice about achieving success in that particular course. This portion of the project helps first-year students become comfortable interacting with their instructors and reinforces help-seeking behaviors. After this meeting, students develop a plan of study that outlines the strategies they will use to study for the test. This activity encourages effective time management and allows students to experience the benefit of study time that is distributed over several days.

Finally, the largest portion of the project requires students to complete a variety of metacognitive strategies such as textbook annotation, self-quizzing, concept-mapping, etc. Providing choices in strategies allows students to demonstrate metacognition by effectively matching studying techniques to their chosen test. After the test is graded and returned, students again complete a metacognitive reflection on the outcome of their studying habits in a short informal paper and presentation to the class.

Outcomes: For a number of years, I have studied the Strategy Project as a method for students to practice metacognition in an authentic, valuable context. I have used the project as a component in STEM learning communities that paired a first-year seminar with first-year STEM courses (e.g., Steiner, Dean, Foote, & Goldfine, 2016) as well as stand-alone first-year seminars (e.g., Steiner, 2016; 2017). Results from these studies have indicated that the project did raise awareness of, and encourage the use of, beneficial metacognitive strategies, and for most students, also increased their test scores in the chosen courses. One study’s preliminary findings (Steiner, 2017) also show a gain in self-reported metacognitive behaviors as measured by the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Anecdotally, students tell me that the Strategy Project was a powerful motivator to change high school habits that had become ineffective. Many students say that although they realized their strategies needed to change, without the incentive of a graded project, they would not have committed to changing their approaches. Students also have responded positively to learning more about metacognition in my first-year seminar (Steiner, 2014), suggesting that metacognition may be an important topic for others to address in similar seminars or “learning-to-learn” courses.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions: I continue to revise the Strategy Project yearly as I learn more from my students about its efficacy. To date, I mostly have used the Strategy Project in my own classroom. However, a colleague and I are planning a large-scale study of the Strategy Project which will compare the metacognitive gains made by students in sections of the first-year seminar that include the project versus those that do not. Because many faculty who teach the first-year seminar do not have a background in educational psychology, we will include professional development on metacognition and memory as part of the training. I look forward to continuing to revise the Strategy Project in light of others’ experiences using it. I would appreciate any feedback you or your students have on the effectiveness of this assignment in your own classroom.

References

Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated for Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ). Education and Psychological Measurement, 53 (3), 801-814.

Steiner, H.H. (2017, March). Using a strategy project to promote self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the SoTL Commons Conference, Savannah, GA.

Steiner, H.H. (2016). The strategy project: Promoting self-regulated learning through an authentic assignment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28 (2), 271-282.

Steiner, H.H.; Dean, M. L.; Foote, S.M; & Goldfine, R.A. (2016). The targeted learning community: A comprehensive approach to promoting the success of first-year students in general chemistry. In L.C. Schmidt & J. Graziano (Eds.), Building synergy for high-impact educational initiatives: First-year seminars and learning communities. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center.

Steiner, H.H. (2014). Teaching principles from cognitive psychology in the first-year seminar. E-Source for College Transitions, 11 (2), 14-16.


Metacognitive Reflection Assignments in Introductory Psychology

by Dennis Carpenter, University of Wisconsin-Colleges

 Downloadable

Motivations and context: These assignments focus on study strategies, goal setting, and reflection on the effectiveness of study strategies and the extent to which goals have been achieved. These assignments are used in Introductory Psychology courses at UW Richland, one of fourteen UW Colleges open-enrollment freshmen-sophomore liberal arts campuses throughout Wisconsin. These classes typically enroll 15-35 students in each of two sections per semester. A diverse range of students take these classes from varying ethnic/racial/language backgrounds and levels of academic preparation. Many students struggle with basic academic and study skills. Such skills have been emphasized in these courses over the 16 years I have taught in the UW Colleges and the present metacognitive reflection assignments represent an evolution of this work.

Nuts and Bolts: The materials included represent a series of three assignments used in the Spring 2017 semester. These assignments vary across semesters based on the students, information I encounter in my reading, and my own reflection on their impact in previous semesters. This series of assignments is introduced at the beginning of the semester. For new students, this occurs within the context of discussing ways that college might be different from high school in demands and strategies required for success. For continuing students, this occurs within a discussion about student perceptions of what is required for success in college based on their own experiences. The course textbook includes personal application sections (Improving Academic Performance and Improving Everyday Memory) that are assigned as part of the first week’s readings (Weiten , 2017, pp. 23-25, 252-255). Sternberg (2016) provides an excellent overview of evidence-based effective study strategies and tips for success. This was used for the first time in the Spring 2017 semester as a supplement to Weiten (2017).

In the first assignment, students are encouraged to write about study strategies they intend to use in the course as well as goals for the first unit of the course concluding with the first of four exams. The first assignment is graded very quickly with feedback given to students within a week of submission. In-class feedback typically includes a focus on writing goals in more clear and specific ways so they are attainable. Online worksheets are readily available for helping students write SMART goals and can be helpful at any stage in this sequence of assignments. The second assignment is due a week after the first exam. At that time, students reflect on their exam performance and the effectiveness of their study strategies as well as the extent to which they met their goals. Students are encouraged to refine their strategies and goals for the second unit based on the outcome of the first exam, having a better idea of what is required in the course, and greater insight into their own learning processes. The third assignment is due a week after the second exam. Again, students are asked to reflect on their exam performance, the effectiveness of their study strategies, and the extent to which they met their goals. Students are also encouraged to narrow their focus for this assignment and discuss two main strategies or goals they intend to focus on for the rest of the semester. Over the years, students have appeared to increasingly struggle with focused study given the multitasking demands of their electronic devices. For this reason, the third and final assignment also includes a reading about unplugging from devices and regaining control of one’s life (Weir, 2017), and questions about student experiences related to points made in this article.

Outcomes: I have witnessed students making significant changes in their approach to academic work with improvements in course performance over the semester. Unfortunately, many students have not seemed to benefit from such intervention, at least during the semester taking this course or in ways visible to me. Goal setting and evaluation routinely emerge as significant challenges for students. Distributed practice, self-testing, and minimizing distractions represent some of the more common strategies students report being successfully used. Improved management of electronic devices while studying has been one of the most significant outcomes for students revealed in these assignments.

Lessons learned and future directions:   I intentionally front-load these assignments to have maximum benefit. Students have perceived such assignments to be redundant when done after every exam in the past. In the future, I plan to re-introduce an end-of-the-semester reflection to better gauge the impact of these assignments. The student writing in these assignments provides a basis for one-on-one conversations with students about improving academic performance during office meetings. The positive impact of these assignments could be enhanced by structuring ways to have more follow-up conversations with students about their preferred study strategies and learning goals. I highly encourage integration of strategies for improving relationships with devices in any material on study strategies and metacognition. I welcome your feedback about how I might improve these attempts to improve student metacognition and look forward to learning more about your attempts to do so.

Readings Provided to Students

Sternberg, R. J. (2016). Introduction to optimizing learning in college: Tips from cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 642-660.

Weir, K. (2017, March). (Dis)connected. Monitor on Psychology, 48(3), 42-48.

Weiten, W. (2017). Psychology themes and variations (10th ed). Boston, MA: Cengage.

Grading rubrics: Rubric 1, Rubric 2, Rubric 3

 


The Promotion of Metacognition Through Soft Skills

by Mary Hebert, Fairleigh Dickinson University

 Downloadable

Description of Activity:

I teach a course in Metacognitive Strategies which focuses on the social and emotional components to academic success. These are referred to as ‘soft skills’ (emotional intelligence, interpersonal and intrapersonal awareness, emotional regulation, problem solving etc.) The course is presented to students who are members of the Regional Center at FDU who have been diagnosed with a language-based learning disability and or ADHD/ADD. Weekly journal reflections are completed based on a prompt that reflects a soft skill that is being addressed in the lecture. These journal entries serve as a means of enhancing metacognition and reflection of the material and focus on strategies of incorporating the skill into practice of academic performance.

An additional element involves a final project which requires the students to identify an individual they have admired for their successful accomplishment of some specific achievement. They are required to interview this individual and discover the soft skills associated with their accomplishment, not the ‘hard skills’ which are traditionally aligned with success (GPA, School Attended, Titles achieved etc). Furthermore, the student specifically is asked to assess their own soft skill set, including areas that are strengths and those to develop, and implement a plan of incorporating these into their academic goals and pursuits.

Further details of the activities can be found here.

Motivation and Context:

The class is designed to explore the ‘soft skills’, which include the social and emotional skills that are associated with academic success. The assignments are designed to provide tangible exercises that, when explored in a metacognitive manner and applied purposefully with a plan, can result in success and improve the academic and career course of an individual. The goal is improved self-regulation and critical thinking in regard to specific social and emotional skills that are highly correlated with academic success.

Nuts and Bolts:

The specific intent of this course and its assigned exercises is to weave an academic experience with the content of metacognition and soft skills that are connected to academic and career success. Specific topics addressed include emotional intelligence, personal responsibility, grit, self-motivation, interdependence, active listening, self-awareness, life-long learning, motivation, growth mindset, and goal setting. Students participate in discussion, reflection exercises, and the final project requiring them to take the knowledge of soft skills presented in class, think critically and analyze these topics, and implement them by carrying out an interview and create a presentation. The final project of interview and presentation is a culmination of analyzing a ‘story of success’ that from a distance may have looked easily attained for the interviewee. The task is for the student to discover through inquiry about soft skills, how in fact these played a critical role in the successful outcome for the interviewee. The students acquire insight into the ‘reality’ of the achievement, reflect on the soft skills they have developed and ones that they would benefit from developing further. A key feature is working on the plans of implementation which demonstrates improved critical thinking and capacity for self-regulation of good decision making and goal attainment.

The result is metacognitive ‘boot camp’ in regard to the less frequented content in the classroom that are key to academic effectiveness. Metacognition has been associated with improved critical thinking skills (Magno, 2010). Students are given knowledge about soft skills, asked to discuss through oral and written means of reflection, and then take it a step further and asked to apply the concepts to their own academic tasks throughout the semester. This sequence of knowledge acquisition, analysis, and application are the nuts and bolts of weaving the material together.

Outcomes:

The highly interactive nature of the course forces the contemplation necessary for students to adopt a more metacognitive approach to learning and their goals beyond the classroom. Critical thinking and self -regulation related to the connection between soft skill development and their academic and learning capacity is improved. As a counselor within the program that serves the students, I meet with each student individually one time per week during their freshmen year. I have observed that students begin to synthesize the course material with their academic functioning and improve their approach to matters related to their courses, studying, and academic goals. Many students begin to consider options to their approach in regard to their broader education and learning environment.

The culminating final project results in enhanced awareness of the interdependent nature of soft skills and hard skills for overall success in learning and career effectiveness. Presentations have been extraordinarily diverse with students choosing political figures, doctors, artists, students, business people, professors, peers, parents, coaches etc. Each year the series of presentations showcases the synthesis of soft skills and how growing awareness and purposeful use of these optimizes success academically as well as in career endeavors. Students demonstrate through their writing and oral reflection of their own use of soft skills, goals of further developing targeted soft skills during college to assist them in achieving academic success as well as future career success.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions:

The literature is clear in support of the importance of soft skills both in the classroom and in life. While some time during the course is spent connecting the material to career endeavors, future directions might include more of this element. In addition, it would be worthy to have a ‘maintenance program’ that extends beyond the time of the course, so that as the freshmen students progress, they are provided with opportunities to review and integrate the soft skill concepts throughout their remaining years of their college experience.

As a higher order thinking strategy, metacognition offers the opportunity to enhance and tap into the potential of the brain power within each student. Greater flexibility and awareness in thinking is the outcome and the continued goal of this form of application of metacognition.

Reference

Magno, C. Metacognition Learning (2010) 5: 137. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4


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.


Encouraging Metacognition in the Advanced Physics Lab

by Melissa Eblen-Zayas, Carleton College  Downloadable

 

Description of activity:

I have incorporated metacognitive support activities in the form of written reflections and class discussions to help students develop better approaches to dealing with challenges that arise in open-ended experimental work in an advanced lab course in physics.

Motivations and context:

The advanced lab course is the third of three required intermediate/advanced courses for the physics major that has a significant lab component. This course typically enrolls 18-24 physics majors, and the labs are significantly less scripted than the other required lab courses. The laboratory activities consist of three two-week-long, instructor-designed labs and four weeks of students carrying out an experimental project of their own design.

While some students welcome the move to more open-ended laboratory work, others struggle. Some students are reluctant to take initiative; rather than trying to problem solve on their own, they seek help from course instructors as soon as problems arise. Other students have difficulty developing a strategic approach to troubleshoot the challenges they encounter. To encourage independence in the lab, I have introduced reflection prompts to support student metacognition. Encouraging students to reflect on how they approach challenges and how they will do things differently going forward helps students develop more thoughtful problem-solving approaches in open-ended laboratory work, thereby increasing self-sufficiency and reducing frustration.

Nuts and bolts:

One of the four course goals for the advanced lab course is that students will demonstrate the ability to be reflective on the practice of experimental physics. I introduce the importance of reflective practice on the first day of course, and incorporate reflection activities in both the two-week instructor-designed labs and throughout the final project. These reflection activities account for 10% of the course grade, and most of these reflection activities are graded using a rubric.

1. First day of class. Prior to the first class, I ask students to respond to the prompt: “In two sentences, describe your definition of a successful experiment.” Then I select a number of student statements and share them the first day of class. Although student definitions of a successful experiment vary widely, many responses fall into one of two categories; a successful experiment is a) an experiment that gives a result that is in agreement with what is expected, or b) an experiment in which the experimenter learns something (maybe not what they intended). We discuss these two definitions of successful experiments, and I encourage students to adjust their expectations and appreciate that learning from things that go wrong is still a “success” in the experimental realm. These conversations allow me to introduce the importance of metacognition and the course goal of helping students become reflective practitioners.

2. Reflections on the instructor-designed labs. At the end of every two-week instructor-designed lab activity, I ask students to reflect on their most recent lab and respond to five questions designed to foster metacognition:

  1. Tell me a bit about how you approached the lab.
  2. When you ran into problems, what was the strategy your group employed for troubleshooting the problems you encountered?
  3. What types of pre-reading or additional research did you do to prepare for this lab?
  4. When you asked for help, who did you seek help from (other members of your group, other groups, your lab assistant, your instructor) and what kinds of questions did you ask?
  5. What is one thing that you will do differently when tackling labs going forward?

Students write individual responses to these prompts, and I provide feedback using the rubric. When I first began using these reflective prompts, I did not grade them. Grading the responses has increased the quality and depth of the reflections.

3. Reflections on the final project. I ask students to reflect on their final project work throughout the course of the project. Here is a sample of the questions used:

  1. What did you learn from the process of identifying and refining your final project proposal? What are you most looking forward to and what do you anticipate the biggest challenge will be as you begin working on your final project?
  2. What aspect of your contributions to the final project demonstrates your strengths and talents and why?
  3. What is one significant problem that your group encountered when working on your project in the past week, and how did you overcome it or redesign your project to work around it?
  4. What are your main project goals for the coming week, and how do you plan to pursue those goals?

The format for the responses has varied over the years. Sometimes lab groups respond to one of these prompts during a short oral report to the whole class. Other times, students write individual responses. Still other times, one of these questions serves as the starting point for an in-class discussion. I have found benefits and drawbacks to each of these approaches, and I continue to experiment with the format.

Outcomes:

Including metacognitive support activities in the advanced lab course, being explicit about why reflection is important in experimental physics, and grading student reflective responses has had a positive impact on the quality of student reflections and student attitudes towards the course. Students develop a more self-sufficient approach to tackling challenges that they encounter in the lab, and frustration is reduced. I reported some of the outcomes in a paper presented at the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference. That paper has been published in the conference proceedings:

Eblen-Zayas, M. (2016). The impact of metacognitive activities on student attitudes towards experimental physics, In D. L. Jones, L. Ding, & A. Traxler (Eds). 2016 PERC Proceedings, 104, doi:10.1119/perc.2016.pr.021


Addressing Metacognition Deficits in First Semester Calculus Students: Getting Students to Effectively Self-Evaluate their Understanding

by Derek Martinez, University of New Mexico

 Downloadable

Motivations and context: 

The problem I chose to tackle as a UNM Teaching Fellow was to develop methods for how to teach first semester calculus students to effectively self-test and develop metacognitive skills. One of the biggest issues I have seen over the years is students thinking they understand the material, getting over confident, and then performing horribly on an exam. The practices described below were carried out during the spring 2016 semester in two math 162 (Calculus I) classes.

Method: The two main ways that metacognitive strategies were incorporated into the curriculum were (1) daily “Test Yourself” exercises and (2) exam skills check self-assessments (essentially practice tests) before each exam. The “Test Yourself ” exercises were designed to be a daily reminder to the students that they should not confuse the ability to follow a lecture with the ability to solve a problem on their own. The purpose of the self-assessments was to help students identify where they had gaps in their understanding before taking each exam.

The “Test Yourself” exercises (example attached) were e-mailed to students the night before the lecture and were designed to give students a way to assess whether or not they understood the fundamental concepts of the lecture the following day. For example, if the lecture that day was about rates of change applications, the exercise would focus on an easy-to-medium level example that would test whether or not the students got the fundamental concepts from the section before going on and trying the more challenging homework problems.

Sending the exercises out the night before was effective in getting many students to read ahead in the text, and try to solve parts of the exercises (this was especially true of students who were struggling, or had math anxiety). If a student had solved the exercise before class, they were instructed to bring in a blank exercise and make sure they could duplicate their results without notes. The format for each class was usually lecture for about 40 minutes and then students would work on these exercises (some in groups, some by themselves).

The self-assessments (example attached) were given about five days before each exam. Participation in this was voluntary. I reserved a room outside of class and students took this like an actual exam. I made it clear to the students that the material on these assessments covered the fundamental ideas and basic examples, but were at a lower level of difficulty than the actual exams. The reasoning behind this was to help students pinpoint what core skills they still needed to work on. I graded these assessments just like exams so students could get feedback on their work as well as use of proper notation. To help identify their level of metacognition, at the end of each assessment the students were asked to rank their performance on a scale of 1-5 (5 being best performance). In many cases this ranking followed by actual exam scores provided further evidence to the students that they tended to be overconfident in their preparedness and needed to study more. In the beginning, students tended to over rank their performance but by the final exam assessment, their rankings were more in line with their performance.

Outcomes: Students in my spring 2016 sections had a final exam pass rate of more than 11% higher than all other sections (group graded without me to avoid any possible bias). These students also had a higher final exam pass rate than my fall/spring 2015 students by about 10% (when I did not yet incorporate these activities). The self-assessments seemed to have the biggest measurable impact on student success, as students who took them consistently outscored those who did not by 10 – 20% on the exams. Further, scores on the actual exams were 15 – 65% higher than on the self-assessments. I believe this was due to the fact that they guided and motivated their learning as well as simply scared some students into studying harder.

Lessons learned: “Buy-in” from the beginning is essential. Sharing the data with the students after the first assessment significantly increased the number of students taking the remaining assessments. These were mainly STEM majors so the statistical evidence went a long way with them. It was also crucial to make time throughout the semester to talk about what metacognition is and remind the students why they were doing these exercises.


Weekly Status Reports to Promote Awareness

by David Woods and Beth Dietz, Miami University

 Downloadable

Motivation for the activity or process: Teaching an introductory Information Technology (IT) course involves several goals that focus on creating metacognitive awareness and cognitive monitoring (Flavell, 1979; Schraw, 1998). The main goal of the course is to introduce students to several IT topics (e.g., data representations, computer architecture, and assembly language) that are foundational to the IT curriculum. Other goals of the course include analyzing and solving problems using a computer programming language, as well as applying written and oral communication skills to IT. Teaching these skills also helps address misconceptions about what IT professionals actually do. Students are often surprised to learn that IT professionals usually work in teams for specific projects or on an ongoing basis. Status reports are a key communication tool for groups, and good status reports require the individual to reflect and analyze what they have done, and plan for the future. Considering the course as a project, the status report should prompt the planning and evaluation aspects of metacognitive regulation (Flavell, 1979).

Context: A metacognitive-awareness activity was used in an introductory IT course. The course is a 100-level course and is one of the first courses taken by students considering a major in Computer and Information Technology. Typically, the class size is 20 – 25 students. While the instructor was only in his second year of full time teaching, he also had over 15 years experience working as an IT professional.

Description of activity: Weekly status reports are common activities in many IT positions, especially when an individual is part of a larger project team. They are a basic way for an employee to document what they have accomplished and what they are currently working on. This is valuable in the IT field since work such as writing software or configuring a server does not produce physical objects that provide visual evidence of progress.

The requirements for the status report were simple and made use of several metacognitive processes (Fogerty, 1994). Students were asked to discuss three specific items:

  • Current week activity: List the main course related activities since the last status report and provide a brief discussion of each along with the amount of time spent on the activity. This prompts the student to evaluate their learning from the past week.
  • Upcoming activity: List major course related activities planned for the next week with a brief discussion of the activity and what will be completed during the week. This prompts the student to plan the learning for the next week.
  • Issues and Overdue items: List any problems with the course materials or assignments. If there are no issues, this should be clearly stated. This prompts the student to monitor their understanding of the issues or problems.

During the semester, students completed 13 status reports. The status reports made up 5% of the final grade and students were allowed to skip three reports (or alternatively earn extra points by doing all of the assigned status reports).

Outcomes and Lessons Learned: The assignment met the immediate goal of prompting metacognitive reflection by asking students to evaluate their prior learning, plan for future learning, and monitor the learning process (Fogerty, 1994). In addition, the status reports gave the instructor good feedback on the amount of work that students did outside of the scheduled class meetings. An additional benefit was the opportunity to provide feedback to students who submitted status reports with limited content and limited evidence of planning and evaluation.

Many status reports showed clear evidence of evaluation and planning as students reported challenges with specific concepts or assignments and then planned activities in response. Some students failed to mention class meetings or submitted assignments in the current week activity. When this was mentioned in grading feedback, later status reports from these student showed improved tracking of completed work.

As the semester progressed and a few students missed assignments, there was an opportunity to ensure that these were noted and discussed in the overdue items section. In several instances, instructor comments led to students evaluating root causes including poor time management and mandatory overtime at work. Not all of the root causes had obvious solutions, but discussing the root causes offered a chance to plan ways to address the issue and was more productive than simply reminding students about late assignments.

The simple structure for the status reports should work well for courses at all levels. In courses where students have more than a week to complete assignments, status reporting could require students to break assignments down into smaller tasks, which is a useful skill to develop.

References:

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906-911.

Fogarty, R. (1994). How to teach for metacognition. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2),113-125.


Practice with a Reasoning Process to Make Learning Visible and Improve Academic Performance

by Jessica Santangelo, Hofstra University

 

Downloadable

Description of Activity

Motivations and context: I teach a fast-paced, content-heavy introductory biology course. Many students struggle in the course – not because they are not capable, but because they lack a repertoire of learning strategies that best support learning within the structure of the course. Rather than discuss “study strategies” as an add-on to course content, this activity has students model behaviors that make their learning visible, reduce reliance on memorization, and empowers them with a process to improve academic performance.

My basic goal with this activity was to make a very specific process available to students to mitigate the tendency I saw of students, when faced with a challenging question or concept, to simply guess or give up. Namely, students remember one key fact about a complex system from which all other pertinent facts can be derived. In this specific example, they organize those facts in a table and (critically) use the table when faced with questions regarding the system. The process of reasoning from a key fact to a deeper or more applied understanding is not metacognitive in and of itself. In this case, metacognitive development is promoted by the structuring of the in-class work that allows multiple opportunities for practice with the reasoning process.

Nuts and bolts of an example application

In the course we cover the urinary system. The most challenging aspect of this topic is the function of antidiuretic hormone (ADH). It involves understanding the effects of a diuretic (so students can then understand the effects of an antidiuretic) and osmosis – the movement of water across a semipermeable membrane. It further involves blood pressure, blood osmolarity, stimuli that either cause or inhibit release of ADH from the hypothalamus, and impacts of ADH (or lack thereof) on the kidney. Needless to say, there are a lot of moving parts.

I structure two class periods around one concept: Diuretics promote urine production. I tell students that this is the one thing they should memorize. Everything else follows from that one statement. So, rather than memorizing the entire table below, they memorize one statement, then reason their way through all the other information. Making students aware of this general strategy can greatly reduce the amount of time spent memorizing while increasing the amount of time spent making connections between interrelated facts or processes. Indeed, it’s worth asking students to self-identify one key starting point for any concept such that, if they remember that one key point, they can reason through the rest of the information.

The one concept to remember: Diuretics promote urine production.
Diuretic Antidiuretic
urine production Increases / promotes Decreases / inhibits
water loss Increases / promotes Decreases / inhibits
water retention Decreases Increases
blood osmolarity Increases (more salty as remove water) Decreases (less salty as add water)
blood pressure Decreases (as remove water) Increases (as add water)

I introduce the one concept, then have students work in groups to fill in the table on large wall-mounted whiteboards. Throughout their group work I ask questions to promote their metacognitive development like “What do you already know?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?”. This is a key step in the metacognitive process: asking them to make their reasoning visible to themselves and their group-mates. Though students may get stuck, being metacognitive (i.e., asking “what do I know, how do I know it, and how does that help me?”) helps them reason their way through more effectively. At the end of the class session I remind students to test themselves on their ability to start with the one key concept and subsequently explain the table before coming to the next class session.

The next class session, students put all of their notes and other resources away, and recreate the table on the wall-mounted whiteboards using only their brains. Invariably, most groups jump right into filling out the table. But one or two groups will take the time to write “Diuretics promote urine production” on their board before filling in the table. The groups who write this tend to complete the table more quickly and more accurately. I use this as a teachable moment for all the groups by reminding them that they have a simple tool – the one phrase to remember – to guide them in completing the table.

The groups then use their tables as a guide to answer a series of challenging questions about the stimuli for ADH release/inhibition and the associated outcomes. Most groups get bogged down in the questions – they discuss possible answers with their neighbors but go round and round and get confused. I let this happen for a question or two and then I remind students to use the table they put on the board. I ask one student from each group to stand up and model (with their group’s help) how to use the table to answer the next question. At this point, there are lots of “oh”s and “aha”s as students realize it is much easier to arrive at the correct answer using the table.

I then tell students: “You just used a tool (the table) to help you answer this question. What tools do you have available to you when you face a question like this on the exam?” Most of them look around in bewilderment as I don’t allow them to use any outside resources on exams. I then ask “What about the table?” and they say “But we aren’t allowed to bring anything with us to the exam”. And I say “But where did that table come from today?” and they respond “our brains” and I reply, “Exactly. You remembered ONE sentence and then you filled out that whole table with just your brain. So why not jot that table down on your exam?” And their eyes light up…

This is another key step in the metacognitive process: making it obvious to students how they can use this approach on their own to support learning and achievement. The behaviors they modeled in class (remembering one key concept from which to derive all other relevant information, organizing information into an easy-to-reference format, and utilizing that organized information to answer applied questions) should not be used solely in class or when I ask them to do it. They can use those behaviors on their own to promote learning outside of class or on an exam. I have found that unless I make this explicit to students, they rarely use an approach from the classroom on their own.

Outcomes

I’ve been incorporating a variety of activities and practices to promote student metacognitive development into the course for a few years with success. As a result, many students who would not have passed (or would have barely passed) the course have altered their learning strategies and improved their grades – some to A’s and B’s. As I’ve incorporated this specific example with the urinary system I’ve noticed that students are more willing to attempt the challenging ADH questions and are more likely to reason out the answer than to simply guess.

Lessons learned and future directions

Modeling behaviors in a group context works well for these students. Most of them were not challenged in high school the way they are challenged in this course. Embedding tips and tricks that enhance their ability to make their thought process visible (i.e., that promote metacognition) within the very context of the course 1. makes the tips/tricks an inherent part of learning biology rather than “add-ons” and 2. Increases the likelihood that they will use these metacognitive tips/tricks (self-regulation). My goal is to have students model these behaviors with more topics in the course, constantly reinforcing the thought/reasoning process so it is ingrained by the end of the semester.


The impact of metacognitive activities on student attitudes towards experimental physics

This article by Melissa Eblen-Zayas, Ph.D., shares the implementation of metacognitive activities in an advanced Physics lab. She reports that “the introduction of metacognitive activities in an advanced lab where the laboratory work is not carefully scripted may improve students’ enthusiasm for experimental work and confidence in their ability to be successful in such work.” Check out this article to see the metacognitive prompts they used as well as learn about other metacognition-related activities.

Eblen-Zayas, M. (2016). The impact of metacognitive activities on student attitudes towards experimental physics. 2016 PERC Proceedings edited by Jones, Ding, and Traxler; doi:10.1119/perc.2016.pr.021


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/


Metacognitive Awareness of Learning Strategies in Undergraduates

This article by Jennifer McCabe presents the results of two studies focusing on metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Participants were asked to evaluate and predict the outcomes of six educational scenarios describing the strategies of dual-coding, static-media presentations, low-interest extraneous details, testing, and spacing. Study 1 showed low awareness of all strategies except for generation; and a correlation of scenario prediction accuracy with an independent metacognition scale. Study 2 showed improved prediction accuracy for students who were specifically taught about these principles in college courses. “This research suggests that undergraduates are largely unaware of several specific strategies that could benefit memory for course information; further, training in applied learning and memory topics has the potential to improve metacognitive judgments in these domains.”

McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39, 462–476. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2


The First Instinct Fallacy: Metacognition Helps You Decide to Stick With It or Revise Your Answer

By Aaron S. Richmond, Ph. D., Metropolitan State University of Denver

When giving guidance to students on how to take tests in your class, do you tell your students to always go with their first answer (go with their gut), or to always revise their answers, or that it depends on the question?  Because many of you are fans of metacognition, likely you are wise and you choose the latter—it depends—and you would be correct. However, most students andmany teachers would choose “go with your gut instinct”, otherwise known as the First Instinct Fallacy (Kruger, Wirtz, & Miller, 2005). In this well-known article by Kruger and colleagues, they found (in 4 separate experiments) that when students change their answers, they typically change from incorrect to correct answers, they underestimate the number of changes from incorrect to correct answers, and overestimate the number of changes from incorrect to correct. Ironically, but not surprisingly, because students like to “go-with-their-gut”, they also tend to be very hesitant to switch their answers and regret doing so, even though they get the correct answer. However, what Kruger and colleagues did not investigate was the role that metacognition may play in the First Instinct Fallacy.

The [First] Instinct Fallacy: The Metacognition of Answering and Revising During College Exams

In two recent studies by Couchman et al. (2016), they investigated the mediating effects that metacognition may have on the First Instinct Fallacy. The procedure of both studies required students to complete a normal multiple-choice exam, indicate their confidence in their answers(whether they knew it or guessed the answer), and to indicate whether or not they changed their initial answer. Consistent with Kruger et al. (2005) results, Couchman and colleagues found that students more often change their initial response from incorrect to correct answers than the reverse. What was interesting is that when students thought they knew the answer and didn’t change their answer, they were significantly more likely to get the answer correct (indicating higher metacognition).  When students guessed, and didn’t change their answer, they were significantly more likely to get the answer incorrect (indicating low metacognition). Moreover, when compared to questions students thought they knew, when students revised guessed questions, they choose the correct answer significantly more often than when they didn’t change their answer. In other words, students did better on questions when they guessed and changed their answer to when they thought they knew the answer and changed their answer. These results suggested that students were using the metacognitive construct of cognitive monitoring to deliberately choose when to revise their answers or when to stick with their gut on a question-by-question basis.

Moral of the Story: Real-Time Metacognitive Monitoring is Key to Falling Prey to the First-Instinct Fallacy

As demonstrated in Couchman and colleagues’ results, when student metacognitively monitor their knowledge and performance on a question-by-question basis, they will perform better. Metcalfe (2002) called this adaptive control—focusing on process that you can control in order to improve performance. Koriat et al. (2004) suggests that instead of reflective thinking in general on performance, in-the-moment and item-by-item assessment of performance may be more productive and effective.

So, you were correct in telling your students that “it depends”, but as a practitioner, what do you do to facilitate students’ ability to increase the metacognitive skills of adaptive control and monitoring? Couchman and colleagues suggested that teachers instruct their students to simplyindicate a judgment of confidence for each question on the test (either use a categorical judgment such as low vs. medium vs. high confidence or use a 0-100 confidence scale). Then, if students are low in their confidence, instructors should encourage them to change or revise their answer. However, if student confidence is high, they should consider not changing or revising their answer. Interestingly enough, this must be done in real-time, because if students make this confidence judgment at post-assessment (i.e., at a later time), they tend to be overconfident and inaccurate in their confidence ratings. Thus, the answer to the First Instinct Fallacy is—like most things—complicated. However, don’t just respond with a simple “it depends”—even though you are correct in this advice. Go the step further and explain and demonstrate how to improve adaptive control and cognitive monitoring.

References

Couchman, J. J., Miller, N. E., Zmuda, S. J., Feather, K., & Schwartzmeyer, T. (2016). The instinct fallacy: The metacognition of answering and revising during college exams. Metacognition and Learning, 11(2), 171-185. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9140-8

Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., & Miller, D. T. (2005). Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 725–35.

Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: the role of experience based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 643–656.

Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363.


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.


The Great, The Good, The Not-So-Good of Improve with Metacognition: An Exercise in Self-Reflection

By Aaron S. Richmond, Ph. D., Metropolitan State University of Denver

Recently, Lauren, John, and I reflected on and discussed our experiences with Improve with Metacognition (IwM). We laughed and (no crying) found (at least I did) that our experiences were rich and rewarding. As such, we decided that each of us would write a blog on our experience and self-reflection with IwM. Therefore, I’m up. When thinking about IwM, the theme that kept surfacing in my mind is that we are Great, Good, and on a few things—Not-So-Great.

The Great

Oh, how can I count the ways of how IwM is Great. Well, by counting. In my reflection on what we have accomplished, it came apparent that here at IwM, we have been highly productive in our short existence. Specifically, we have published over 200 blogs, resources about metacognition measures, videos, instruction, curated research articles, and teaching metacognition (see our new call for Teaching with Metacognition). We have created a space for collaborators to gather and connect. We have engaged in our own research projects. We have had over 35 contributors from all over North America and a few from beyond, who have ranged from preeminent scholars in the field of metacognition and SoTL to graduate students writing their first blog. Speaking for Lauren and John, I can only hope that the explosion in productivity and high quality research and writing continues with IwM.

The Good

Ok, it is not just Good—this is just another thing that is great. IwM has produced some amazing blogs. I can’t review them all because, this time I will keep to my word count, but I would like to highlight a few insightful blogs that resonated with me. First, Edn Nuhfer recently wrote a blog titled, Collateral Metacognitive Damage (2017, February). The title is amazing in itself, but Ed extolls the use of self-assessments, why approach and perspective of self-assessment matters most (be the little engine that could vs. little engine who couldn’t), and provides a marvelous self-assessment tool (http://tinyurl.com/metacogselfassess ). I have already shared this with my students and colleagues. Second, one of the topics I would never have thought of, was Stephen Chew’s blog on Metacognition and Scaffolding Learning (2015, July). I have used scaffolding (and still do) throughout all of my courses, however, I never considered that by over-scaffolding, that I could reduce my student’s ability to calibrate (know when you know or don’t know something). That is, by providing too much scaffolding, it may cause students to be highly over confident and overestimate their knowledge and skill. Third, Chris Was wrote about A Mindfulness Perspective on Metacognition (2014, October). I have been begrudgingly and maybe curmudgeonly resistant to mindfulness. As such,  I was skeptical even though I know how great Chris’ research is. Well, Chris convinced me of the value of mindfulness and its connection to metacognition. Chris said it best, “It seems to me that if metacognition is knowledge and control of one’s cognitive processes and training in mindfulness increases one’s ability to focus and control awareness in a moment-by-moment manner, then perhaps we should reconsider, and investigate the relationship between mindfulness and metacognition in education and learning.” There are literally dozens and dozens of other blogs that I have incorporate into both my teaching and research. The work done at IwM is not merely good, it is great!

The Not-So-Good

IwM has been a labor of love. Speaking for myself, the work that has been done is amazing, exhausting, invigorating, productive, and fulfilling.  However, what I believe we have been “Not Great” at is getting the word out. That is, considering that there are over 200 blogs, resources, curated research articles, collaborations, etc. I believe that one of the things we are struggling with is spreading the gospel of metacognition.  Also, despite the fact that Lauren, John, and I have travelled across the globe (literally) promoting IwM at various conferences, so few people know about the good work being done. Moreover, notwithstanding that we have 258 email subscribers, I feel (passionately) that we can do better. I want and desire for other researchers and practitioners to not only benefit from the work we’ve done but to contribute to new IwM blogs, resources, research, and collaboration.

As I do with all my blogs, I will leave you with an open-ended question: What can we do to spread the word of the Great and Good work here at IwM?

Please give me/us some strategies or go out and help spread the word for us.

References

Chew, S. (2015, July). Metacognition and scaffolding student learning. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-and-scaffolding-student-learning/

Nuhfer, E. (2017, February). Collateral metacognitive damage. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/collateral-metacognitive-damage/

Was, C. (2015, October). A mindfulness perspective on metacognition. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/a-mindfulness-perspective-on-metacognition/


What I Learned About Metacognition from Cooking Farro

by Stephen Chew, Ph.D., Samford University,  slchew@samford.edu

I like to take my wife out for dinner, but sometimes she insists on going to a place that doesn’t feature a drive through lane. That’s fine with me because It gives us a chance to see what is trendy in the food world. A few years ago, my wife ordered a salad made with quinoa. We’d vaguely heard about quinoa before, but had never tried it. We really liked it for its nutty taste. If you don’t know, Quinoa (typically pronounced KEEN-wah in English and kee-NO-ah in Spanish) is a grain that was first cultivated in the Andes several thousand years ago, and has become quite popular for its nutritional value. After we tried it, I decided to buy some and cook it myself. I found it in the store and next to it was another grain I had only vaguely heard of, farro. Farro (pronounced either FAY-roh or FAR-oh) is also an ancient grain, but it originated in the Mediterranean region around 10,000 years ago. I figured if I was going to try one ancient grain I might as well try another, so I bought them both. Little did I know that cooking them would be an adventure in good and bad metacognition.

First I cooked the quinoa, and that turned out fine. Next, I tried the farro, and that is where I ran into problems. I followed the directions on the package, but then I realized I had no idea how to tell if the farro was properly cooked. Unlike quinoa, I’d never eaten it before and I had no concept of what the desired end result was supposed to look or taste like. Was it supposed to have a mushy, al dente, or crunchy texture? I had no idea. Looking at photos and videos of cooked farro didn’t help much. There was nothing in the instructions about how to tell if it was done. For quinoa, I had already eaten some that was, presumably, expertly prepared. Furthermore, the cooking instructions had the helpful note that cooked quinoa becomes translucent and the germ bursts out in a spiral pattern. I had been able to check for that when I cooked it. No such luck with farro. As a result, my wife and I had to decide if we liked farro based on whatever version of it that I had cooked.

Now how does this story relate to metacognition? For effective metacognition, students must accurately judge how close or far their understanding is from the desired end goal. How can they do that if they have no concept (or an inaccurate concept) of the desired end goal? Consider self-regulated learning, which incorporates metacognition (Zimmerman, 1990). Pintrich (2004) makes explicit the necessity of students understanding the desired outcome for successful learning when he states that all models of self-regulated learning “assume that there is some type of goal, criterion, or standard against which comparisons are made in order to assess whether the learning process should continue as is or if some type of change is necessary” (p. 387). I’ve certainly made the mistake of believing students understood what the desired outcome of an assignment or activity was only to find out later (usually on the exam or final paper) that they did not understand the goal at all. I know what I mean when I tell them to use critical thinking or employ sound research methods or develop sound arguments, but I can’t assume that they know it unless I teach them what I mean and how to recognize when they have achieved it.

Failure to teach the desired level of understanding to students is a consequence of the curse of expertise. Because of our expertise, we tend to overestimate our ability to explain concepts thoroughly (Fisher & Keil, 2015) and we underestimate the difficulty for students to learn the concepts (Hinds, 1999). Fortunately, demonstrating to students what the desired understanding or end goal is for a concept is something we can accomplish through formative assessments such as think-pair-shares, “clicker” questions, and worked examples. We can assess their understanding of a concept using a low stakes activity before the high stakes assessment and demonstrate both the end result we are looking for and the strategies we use to achieve it. Not only are such formative assessments useful for students to monitor their understanding, they are also useful for helping us calibrate our teaching according to their understanding.

Recently I read the autobiography of Eric Ripert, a renowned chef. He makes the same point about the importance of understanding the desired outcome in recounting his development as a master chef.

Through repetition and determination to be great (or at least better than good), I began to understand the sauces I was preparing. I started to allow myself to feel my way through them, not just assemble them be rote. I knew when a sauce I had made was delicious—perfectly balanced and deeply flavored. (Ripert & Chambers, 2016, p. 215)

We must make sure students know what the desired goal is and how to recognize when they have achieved it in order to enable effective metacognition. It is a lesson I learned from cooking farro that I now apply to my teaching.

References

Fisher, M., & Keil, F. C. (2016). The curse of expertise: When more knowledge leads to miscalibrated explanatory insight. Cognitive Science, 40, 1251-1269. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12280

Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205-221. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385-407. doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x

Ripert, E., & Chambers, V. (2016). 32 yolks: From my mother’s table to working the line. New York: Random House.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2


The Strategy Project

This study presents an instructional method that requires deliberate practice of self-regulated learning strategies including active reading, management of study time and achievement goals, proactive interaction with faculty, and metacognitive reflection within the context of a student-selected course. Four instructors implemented the assignment–called “The Strategy Project”–in their first-year seminar courses, and student reflection papers were analyzed for emerging themes. These themes suggest the positive impact of applying pedagogy that requires intentional within-course application of self-regulated learning strategies, suggesting the Strategy Project may be a viable way to teach and encourage college-level strategic behavior.
For more information about this study, follow the link below:

Joining Forces: The Potential Effects of Team-Based Learning and Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique on Metacognition

by Aaron S. Richmond, Ph. D., Metropolitan State University of Denver

As a standalone assessment tool, the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF-AT) has been demonstrated to affect student learning and students’ perceptions of the teacher (e.g., Brosvic et al. 2006; Slepkov & Sheil, 2014) and possibly improve metacognition (see Richmond, 2017). However, can IF-AT be combined with a cooperative learning activity such as Team-Based Learning (TBL) to enhance metacognition as well?

To partially answer this question, several researchers suggest that the IF-AT may be used effectively with TBL (Carmichael, 2009; Hefley & Tyre, 2012; Ives, 2014). For example, you could first form teams, give them an exam to discuss and debate the correct answer, and then have the teams decide on the correct answer. If students within a team cannot come to a consensus on the response to a question, you may allow them to write an “appeal” to turn in a separate answer. Click on Figure 1 for a video on how to use IF-AT combined with TBL.  IF-AT may also be used in dyads to allow students to discuss correct and incorrect answers. Students read a question, discuss the correct and incorrect answers, and then cooperatively make a decision, with the IF-AT providing immediate feedback. A third way, suggested by Ives (2011), is to do a two-stage group quiz. Ives suggests that you should have individual students write weekly quiz questions (first-stage), then get into teams and take quizzes in teams that consist of student’s written questions. However, the question then becomes, can the combination of TBL and IF-AT instructional strategies improve metacognition?

Figure 1. Team-Based Learning Using IF-AT. 

The Interplay Among IF-AT, TBL, and Metacognition
As I argued previously (Richmond, 2017), IF-AT may improve student’s metacognition; however, by adding TBL, what metacognitive processes and skills might improve? I see a several metacognitive benefits that may occur when combining these two instructional strategies.

First, the combination of IF-AT and TBL may increase student’s metacognitive awareness. For instance, test anxiety may be reduced in a group setting when using IF-AT (Ives, 2011) because students have the opportunity to debate the answers, hear from others, gather consensus and share responsibility. As the awareness of and conscious effort to reduce test anxiety is part of metacognitive awareness, the combination of TBL and IF-AT may make this process more salient.

Second, using TBL with IF-AT may also increase student’s calibration (e.g., the accuracy of knowing when you know or do not know something). That is, in a cooperative learning activity such as TBL, students are either reinforced with their correct knowledge through the process of debating and discussion of answers OR confronted with their incorrect knowledge by interacting with team members. Consequently, their assessment (calibration) of their knowledge should become more accurate through this process. For example, if a team member accurately identifies a correct answer, and one of the team members (who had the incorrect answer to start with) observes this, they may reflect on their answer, determine why and how they came to the incorrect answer, and change future strategies to study and subsequent estimations of knowledge. Or, an individual team member could consistently get (originally) the correct answer, but always underestimate his or her knowledge. This type of student may gain confidence in their knowledge and become more accurately calibrated.

Third, by combining TBL and IF-AT, there may also be an increase of metacognitive, cognitive, and learning strategy skills. That is, as team members share how, where, what, and why they studied, other team members may incorporate these strategies  into their quiver of learning strategies (especially if the team member who suggested it was correct). For example, one team member may explain the elaborative strategy they used effectively to study, and other team members listen and incorporate elaboration into their repertoire of strategies. Or, for example, a team member may consistently get questions wrong and share what strategy he or she uses (e.g., cramming and rehearsal). Other team members observe this, realize that strategy does not appear to work very well, and subsequently rarely use it themselves (we could only wish J).

Based on the above examples, it does seem likely that the combined use of TBL and IF-AT may improve various metacognitive skills.

Concluding Thoughts and The Hallmark of Good Assessments—Evidence
As a SoTL scholar, I would be remiss not to investigate the evidence supporting or refuting the efficacy of IF-AT and TBL. There are a handful of studies that demonstrate the advantage of using TBL and IF-AT to increase academic performance and enjoyment of class (e.g., Carmichael, 2009; Haberyan, 2007). The combination of IF-AT and TBL has also demonstrated to stimulate small group discussion and identify and correct content misconceptions (Cotner, Baepler, & Kellerman, 2008). However, there appears to be a gap in the research. Specifically, there are several research questions which arise:

  1. Does the combination of IF-AT and TBL increase metacognitive awareness?
  2. Does the combination of IF-AT and TBL increase the accuracy of a student’s calibration?
  3. Does the combination of IF-AT and TBL increase a student’s repertoire of cognitive and learning strategies?
  4. What other metacognitive processes may be enhanced by using IF-AT in a TBL setting?

As I mentioned in my first blog on IF-AT (Richmond, 2017) and here, I think there are enormous SoTL research opportunities for investigating the effects of IF-AT and TBL to improve metacognition. This, invariably, leads to the proverbial phrase: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing—so get to work!

Please follow me on Twitter: @AaronSRichmond

References
Carmichael, J. (2009). Team-based learning enhances performance in introductory biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4), 54–61.

Clark, M. C., Nguyen, H. T., Bray, C., & Levine, R. E. (2008). Team-based learning in an undergraduate nursing course. Journal of Nursing Education, 47, 111–117.

Cotner, S., Baepler, P., & Kellerman, A. (2008). Scratch this! The IF-AT as a technique for stimulating group discussion and exposing misconceptions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(4), 48.

Haberyan, A., (2007). Team-based learning in an industrial/organizational psychology course. North American Journal of Psychology, 9,143–152.

Hefley, T., & Tyre, A. J. (2012). Favorable team scores under the team-based learning paradigm: A statistical artifact?. RURALS: Review of Undergraduate Research in Agricultural and Life Sciences, 6(1), 1. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=rurals

Ives, J. (2011). Two-stage group quizzes part 1: What, how and why. Science Learnification: Teaching and learning in the sciences with a focus on physics education research (PER) from the trenches.  Retrieved from https://learnification.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/two-stage-group-quizzes-part-1-what-how-and-why/

Richmond, A. S. (2017, February 24th). Scratch and win or scratch and lose? Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique. Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/scratch-win-scratch-lose-immediate-feedback-assessment-technique/

Slepkov, A. D., & Shiell, R. C. (2014). Comparison of integrated testlet and constructed-response question formats. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020120.


Does a Machine Have Metacognition?

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

In the movie Arrival, the character Louise Banks is portrayed as a linguist who can decipher an alien language. For much of this task, Louise and colleagues are doing pattern matching, trying to establish a correspondence between English and the alien language. A critical piece of the plot is in the interpretation given to the translation of the alien message “offer weapon.” Louise’s competitors interpret this as “use weapon” and propose to attack and destroy the aliens. Alternatively, Louise considers whether there might be an alternative interpretation for weapon, like “tool” or “technology.” From a metacognitive perspective, we might describe the competitors as thinking at a cognitive level, interpreting the phrase literally and acting accordingly. Louise, we could say, acted metacognitively, questioning whether the literal cognitive process was sufficient. Throughout the movie, Louise questions the sufficiency of her cognitive resources for the task at hand, and figures out how to overcome her limitations. In the end, metacognition saves the day.

Normally, we think of metacognition as a value-added add-on to everyday thinking. The metacognitive individual in a sense transcends his or her own limitations. The person recognizes limitations of memory storage and speed of processing, and the value of external memory, spaced practice, planning, and so on. With this recognition of limitations of memory and processing comes a search for and discovery of strategies for managing cognition. This “higher-order” processing is metacognitive, and in the movie Arrival, Louise Banks is our metacognitive hero.

Although we are inclined to attribute metacognition to bright individuals, like Louise Banks, can we dismiss the possibility that metacognition can exist in “dumb” machines – dumb in the sense that they do not have human-like understanding? Intelligent machines, like computers, process patterns mechanically. Does a computer need to experience metacognition like a human in order for the process to be regarded as metacognitive? Is a jolt of adrenalin a necessary part of the recognition process signaling to us that we should monitor and check our calculations? The present blog is not about some distance aliens, but about a smart machine that is being widely used in many different applications today. The machine is IBM’s Watson.

There are clearly some areas in which today’s computers do not need to be metacognitive. Humans can only hold 7 + 2 chunks of information in short-term memory. An intelligent system like IBM’s Watson https://www.ibm.com/watson/developercloud/nl-classifier.html has 15 terabytes of cache memory and processes 80 teraflops per second, so neither short-term memory nor speed of processing are issues. Metacognitive processes for recognizing and preserving short-term memory would seem to be pointless, as would many of the metacognitive resource-management strategies that humans depend on. Would IBM Watson need to grab a pencil and jot a phone number onto a scrap of paper? Not likely

There may be other ways, though, that machines could exhibit metacognitive behaviors. For instance, a machine like IBM Watson might know that humans are limited in how much information they can process in a unit of time. As a metacognitive strategy, Watson might control and monitor the rate at which he verbalizes in conversation. Watson might change his linguistic register when conversing with a young child https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqjndtS8jQU . Watson could attempt to choose an appropriate theme with specific speakers, like Bob Dylan. In a commercial with Dylan, Watson wisely chose to talk about Dylan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMBUk-57FGU. Watson apparently can monitor and modulate its own behavior depending on the context, goal, and particular interaction.

What about monitoring its own resources? If we gave Watson a set of test questions, it is not likely that Watson would reason about them metacognitively like a human. For example, Watson would not acknowledge that word problems are more difficult than straight calculations, so would attack the calculations first. However, it is not difficult to imagine situations in which Watson could reason metacognitively about his own processing and plan, control, and monitor those processes. For instance, recognizing that in the context of a crisis certain information is more critical, Watson could modify the order in which information is compiled and provided to, say, paramedics at the scene of a disaster. This would involve prioritizing specific information, queueing it up in a specific order, delivering it, and monitoring its effective transfer to the paramedics.

The irony, perhaps, is that Watson is not exhibiting “transcendent” behavior, which is how we might view metacognition in humans. Instead, Watson is simply carrying out mechanical computations, which, in a sense, are like any other computations that Watson carries out. The existence of machines like Watson should prompt us to ask whether our metacognitive ruminations may also simply be computational processes. Perhaps the sense of metacognition involving “higher-order” thinking, the self-pride we take in thinking about thinking, is an add-on, an epiphenomenon on which actual metacognitive processing in no way depends. In any case, the question of whether computers can be designed to use metacognitive strategies, to plan and modulate behaviors depending on circumstances, and to monitor the success of their efforts, may deserve a positive “yes.”