Using Metacognition to Facilitate Scholarly Identity

by Anton Tolman, Ph.D., Guest Editor

This is the final and concluding blog for our series. I want to thank my colleagues for their time and effort in this project: Steven Pearlman, Christopher Lee, and Benjamin Johnson. Speaking for all of us, we hope you found our thoughts helpful in enriching your own thinking regarding metacognition and its importance in student learning.

The topics of this series, critical thinking, inclusive classrooms, student motivation, and succeeding with collaborative learning, are all essential themes in local and national discussions right now concerning student engagement and effective teaching. Each of the blogs in the series also touched on resistance to change (faculty or student), either explicitly or implicitly, the role of humility, and the development of metacognitive skills in achieving successful outcomes. Enhancing metacognition in ourselves and in our students is an ongoing progression, a journey, and we are happy to be walking it with you. In this last blog, I address the connection between metacognition and development of students’ personal narrative, their identity as scholars or educated persons. I believe this is the true heart of higher education and the core of its value to society.

You Can’t Change What You Can’t See

This phrase is an axiom in clinical work with clients. Clients often come to see a therapist knowing that things are wrong in their lives, but they don’t understand the reasons why or do not see a path forward to healing. They can’t change their lives for the better until they begin to “see” the nature of their problems, accept responsibility for their own role in those problems, and imagine and start to walk the road ahead.

This axiom applies to students. They usually come to college based on the promise of an economic benefit like higher paying jobs, or because they see a degree as a requirement for future goals. Many, if not most, see the purpose of education as learning facts or information and therefore, see the role of professors as experts who teach them content. When they are confronted with assignments that ask them to use critical thinking, solve problems, or work together, they can become easily frustrated. Thus, the terms “jumping through hoops” and “busy work” are commonly found in student conversations about their classes. These forms of resistance (Tolman & Kremling, 2017) are understandable because many students can’t see that the real goal of higher education is skill development, not content; it is not easily visible to them. Like the therapist’s clients, they won’t make progress until they develop the capacity to recognize the underlying issues and see the path ahead as one of purpose and value.

Student resistance to learning begins to diminish when students evaluate their own attitudes and behaviors and connect those behaviors to their academic performance. When they learn to develop metacognitive skills they can “see” previously unseen patterns in themselves and others: they recognize their own complicity in their academic struggles and begin to grasp that they are not just consumers of external information or persons being judged by some authority figure. This empowers them to assume responsibility, take action on their own, to succeed, to grow, and to become part of a community of learners.

Seeing is Believing: Shifting Identity in Higher Education

In his recent blog, Taraban (2020) describes identity as an ongoing form of development grounded in episodic memory: the story we tell ourselves about who we are. This self-narrated story is strongly shaped by the boundaries of what students “see” as the purpose of education, their personal goals, and how they approach learning. If students’ sense of identity about who they are does not change from that of being consumers of content or “students”, then we have failed them.

If we were to adopt the model of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1987) in our teaching, seeing ourselves more as mentors to students, then our major task becomes to shift their story, their identity, to that of being apprentices, not students. As apprentices, they are learning new skills under the guidance of an expert who cares for them, and who asks them to constantly re-evaluate what they are learning, consider how they are learning it, and when and how to use what they are learning. This entails a transition towards seeing themselves as participating members of the academy, as scholars and educated persons who contribute to society; metacognition is at the core of this identity shift.

Undergraduate research is a great example of this as articulated by Charity-Hudley, Dickter, and Franz (2017). They explain that the mechanism of action of this “high impact” practice on student success and retention, especially for minority or under-represented students, begins as students enter into a mentored relationship with a professor. Moving away from the traditional “student” role enables them to realize there is more to learning besides getting a grade or completing course assignments. Metacognitive activity like learning to reflect and ask their own questions, carry out their own research, generate new data, challenge their own ideas as well as existing ideas in the discipline, and create new understandings, makes them a contributor to knowledge, not just a consumer. They are a scholar, or at least a scholar-apprentice, and those episodic memories begin to shift their own narrative identity — who they see themselves to be, how they interpret their own life and future. Of course, participating in research is not the only path available to this outcome.

This student progression requires creating opportunities for students to develop and use their metacognitive skills. In both Steve Pearlman’s (this blog series) and Hale’s (2012) potent arguments, the development of metacognitive and critical thinking skills is integral to development of a “personal intellectual narrative”; you cannot discuss metacognition without referencing aspects of critical thinking, and you cannot explain critical thinking without referring to the metacognitive processes involved. As Hale (2012) says, cultivation of an “intellectual language” is a key process in this development; it inducts students into the “Great Conversation” and it becomes part of their own personal history of intellectual development. The more we integrate metacognitive opportunities in our classes, and across the curriculum, the more likely we are to observe this transition occur.

Suggestions for Teaching

Here are some thoughts about ways to incorporate metacognitive practices that promote personal narratives in students:

Emphasize transparency and relevance. Explain the purposes of our assignments not just for short-term outcomes (learn something for a grade), but for the long-term (learn something to enhance a career and personal life, contribute to society); define and set expectations about the value of metacognition and its role in professional thinking within your discipline.
Assign metacognitive tasks that require students to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses as learners, identify learning strategies they are using and those they are not, and ask them to connect this information to their personal and career goals. Benjamin Johnson’s description of the Personal Learning Plan (this blog series), based partly on completing practical metacognitive inventories and evaluating how to improve is an example.
Emphasize the value of students thinking about their own development over time and their personal histories; reflective writing assignments, in all fields, are useful for this.
Use inquiry assignments requiring students to develop their own questions, do their own research, and apply it to course content and their lives.
Create opportunities for students to make their own thinking visible to themselves. Encourage them to question their learning, their assumptions, and acknowledge their areas of confusion as a community of learners. Hale (2012) suggests learning logs, real-time student writing of their thinking, questions, and descriptions of how they are approaching content, assignments, and preparation.
Shift your role from “sage on the stage” to a mentor of cognitive apprentices. Model professional thinking; demonstrate metacognition and critical thinking and help the students recognize it and practice it. One way I do this is to ask, and continuously reinforce, that students call me Coach T. In my syllabus I explain the rationale for this: my purpose is to facilitate their learning, give them exercises to improve, and to clarify or assist, but the basic responsibility for their learning, as with any athlete, actor, or musician, lies with themselves.
Evaluate your course design: what are the memories and personal experiences your students will take away relevant to metacognition? Do your assignments focus primarily on content acquisition or do they promote skill development, a sense of growth and progress towards becoming a scholar, ability to speak the intellectual language of the discipline and to reason within its context? What are your course objectives and where do they point your students: towards content, or towards becoming scholars?

These teaching practices help students “connect the dots” and see patterns they did not know existed: how they approach learning, how well they are learning, the purpose of education, and their own intellectual growth and development. Doing this reduces resistance and shifts their understanding of learning and of themselves. When we move our perspective from content to skills and weave metacognitive development into the fabric of our class, we create an environment encouraging the exploration of new personal narratives and identity for our students. This brings us closer towards achieving the potential that higher education has to offer. If you are already doing these things, hone your work, expand your empathy, and become more transparent. If you are not, you can see the road ahead, and you don’t have to travel it alone. Reach out, learn from others, and find greater joy in what you do.

References:

Charity-Hudley, A.H., Dickter, C.L., & Franz, H.A. (2017). The Indispensable Guide to Undergraduate Research: Success In and Beyond College. New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Technical Report No. 403). BBN Laboratories, Cambridge, MA.

Hale, E. (2012). Conceptualizing a personal intellectual history/narrative: The importance of strong-sense metacognition to thinking critically. In M.F. Shaughnessy (Ed). Critical Thinking and Higher Order Thinking. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Taraban, R. (2020, June 25). Metacognition and the Development of Self. ImproveWithMetacognition.com. https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-and-self-identity/

Tolman, A.O. & Kremling, J. (2017). Why Students Resist Learning: A Practical Model for Understanding and Helping Students. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Addressing Student Resistance to Engaging in their Metacognitive Development

by Patrick Cunningham, Ph.D., Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

You may be familiar with the quip,

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

Perhaps you can’t, however, my grandfather argued, “but you can put salt in its oats!” We can advise students on the importance of setting specific learning goals and accurately monitoring both their level of understanding and their learning processes. And I believe we should teach them how to be more metacognitive, but we can’t make them do any of it. Nor do I think we should. Students should own their learning. They should experience agency and efficacy in their learning (i.e., they should own their learning). But I can put “salt in their oats!” In this post I want to explore our role, as educators, in encouraging and providing opportunities for students to grow their metacognitive awareness and skills (i.e., our role as purveyors of “learning salt”).

I recently found the book Why Students Resist Learning (Tolman & Kremling, 2017). While written about resistance to learning in general, it is relevant to student resistance to engaging in their metacognitive development. Student resistance is complex with multiple interacting components. In my reading so far I have been challenged by two overarching themes. First, student resistance isn’t just about students. It’s about us, the educators, too. Our interactions with students can exacerbate or ameliorate student resistance. Second, student resistance is a symptom of deeper issues, not a student characteristic itself. For example, a student may be trying to preserve their sense of self and fear admitting a learning deficiency or a student may have had prior experiences that affirm surface approaches to learning and therefore they resist the idea that they need strategies to develop deeper learning.

We, as educators, need to recognize and deal with our role in student resistance to metacognitive development. Our interactions with our students are largely influenced by our beliefs and attitudes about our students. My colleagues and I have sought to address this in the B-ACE framework for giving formative feedback in support of metacognitive development. The ‘B’ represents an attitude of Believing the best about students. When we prepare to give feedback, we are responding to what they have written or said, which may or may not be accurate or complete. Believing the best acknowledges that we have incomplete information and need to reserve judgement. This attitude embodies sincere curiosity and seeks understanding. The remaining letters represent actionable elements of feedback, Affirm-Challenge-Encourage. Implementing our belief in the best about our students, we should seek to authentically affirm positive behaviors and growth, however small. Then explore and seek to understand the broader contexts and details of their statements by asking questions. In this way, you can provide gentle challenge to think more deeply or to discover incongruities between learning goals and behaviors. Finally, close by encouraging them. Let your students know you believe in their abilities to become more skillful learners, with effort and perseverance. If you say it, make sure you mean it. You can also point them to potential strategies to consider. Let’s see how we can implement the B-ACE framework as “learning salt”.

In my teaching, I provide a variety of opportunities for my students to engage in their metacognitive development. At some point I ask something like, “What have you been doing differently since we last talked? How is it helping you be a more skilled and efficient learner?” One common type of response I get from engineering students is exemplified by:

“I am continuing to work practice problems to get ready for exams. I try to work through as many as I can. It works best for me.”

Okay. No change. I’m disappointed. First, I need to make sure I don’t assume they are just memorizing and pattern matching, i.e., relying on surface learning approaches. Or, if they are memorizing and pattern matching, I need to believe it is in honest effort to learn. Further, change is hard and they may be trusting what is familiar and comfortable, even if it isn’t the most effective and efficient. Now I need to ACE the rest of the feedback.

[Affirm] Good! You are taking intentional steps to prepare for your exams. [Challenge] How do you know it works best? What other strategies have you tried? [Encourage] Keep being intentional about your learning. You may want to try recall-and-review, explaining-to-learn, or creating your own problems to measurably test your understanding.

There will be a difference between written feedback and oral feedback, but notice that both include an opening for further interaction and prompt metacognitive reflection. In a face-to-face dialogue, there might be other questions depending on the responses, such as, “How are you working the problems? What will happen if the problem is asked in a way that is different from your practice?” In written feedback, I may want to focus on one question instead of a list, so as not to overwhelm the student with challenge. Notice that these questions are seeking additional information and pointing the student to make connections. Still the student may or may not take my suggestions to try something different. However, I argue this type of response is “saltier” than just settling for this response or telling them directly their approach isn’t as effective, and it may lead to further dialogue later on.

In a recent post, Aaron Richmond questions if well-intentioned metacognitive instruction can, in specific cases, be unethical (Richmond, 2018). John Draeger provides counterpoint in his response, but acknowledges the need to recognize and address possible adverse reactions to metacognitive instruction (Draeger, 2018). The B-ACE feedback framework both encourages student metacognition and is an expression of Ethical Teaching, summarized by Richmond (Richmond, 2018). It acknowledges students’ autonomy in their learning, seeks to avoid harm and promote their well-being, and strives to be unbiased and authentic. Further, it can address adverse reactions, by helping students to discover the deeper issues of their reaction.

In caring for our students, we want to see them grow. They aren’t always ready. Prochaske, Norcross, and DiClemente (1994) delineate six stages of change, and it starts with the lack of awareness and willingness to change. Change takes time an effort. Even so, let’s commit to making interactions with our students “salty”! Let’s gently, quietly, and persistently encourage them in their metacognitive development.

References

Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for Good. New York: Harper Collins.

Tolman, A. & Kremling, J. (Eds.). (2017). Why Students Resist Learning: A Practical Model for Understanding and Helping Students. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Acknowledgements

This blog post is based upon metacognition research supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1433757 & 1433645. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Developing Affective Abilities through Metacognition Part 3: Recognizing Parallel Development of Cognition and Affect

by Dr. Ed Nuhfer, California State Universities (retired)

In Part 1, we showed how the initial views of behavioral scientists toward metacognition and affect led for a time to a view of intellectual development as exclusively cognitive. In Part 2, we showed that established ways of knowing each rest on unique concepts, and gaining a working understanding of any way of knowing requires first becoming aware of its supporting concepts.

In Part 2, we used the way of knowing for reaching ethical decisions to illustrate the practical necessity of understanding the four components of ethics and their relationships to each other. There seems to be no profession in which thought and practice do not involve ethical decisions, so it seems no accident that William Perry chose the title: Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years for his landmark book describing how higher education, when successful, changes students’ abilities to think.

Major ways of knowing, obviously ethics but even heavily objective ways of knowing such as science or quantitative reasoning, require us to commit to decisions that resolve conflicts between what we feel we want to be correct with what new knowledge leads us toward knowing to be correct. When a conflict occurs between feeling and knowing, it often arises from life experiences that we have not critically examined but which new knowledge and/or newly acquired processes of critical examination force us to confront. For part 3, we examine the role of metacognition to help understand how intellectual progress causes us to feel in certain ways as we work to gain a college education.

About a decade ago, I discovered that the Bloom team’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain mapped so well onto the Perry Model of Intellectual Development (Nuhfer, 2008) that it provided a much-needed map for empowering metacognitive reflection on both affect and cognition. The map, summarized in Figure 1, greatly clarified for me how to better promote metacognitive development in both students and faculty. I hope that readers will find this map equally useful.

The researchers’ named equivalent stages of development appear in Figure 1’s rows, and the affective feelings noted in the middle column were those that I deduced from examining the affective comments of students recorded in Perry’s book and other studies, made within the stages deduced through researchers’ longitudinal interviews. Longitudinal studies were the basis for the Perry stages and also for the studies that followed after Perry (see Journal of Adult Development, 2004).

Figure 1. Parallel development of intellectual and affective capacities through higher education (slightly modified from Nuhfer, 2008). Metacognition must engage with emotions (middle column) if it is to be effective in advancing adult intellectual development. Otherwise, metacognition becomes just an additional tool for increasing absorption of disciplinary content.

When students know that becoming educated involves passing through an established sequence of developmental stages, each with its own defining cognitive and affective traits, they have a map that they can use to discover their present location and to guide them toward what lies ahead on the path to gaining an education. Regarding metacognition’s description as “thinking about thinking,” awareness of the sequential stages with their accompanying emotions allows students to expect, reflect, and then resolve the discomforting affective feelings that arise. Trepidation and even some fear are normal, and they even can serve as important indicators of progress in cognitive growth.

Those who strive to become educated engage in a journey toward the highest Perry Stages of intellectual development through passing through the earlier stages. Achieving resolution of our reactive affective feelings that occur during these transitional stages is often an internal struggle. Metacognition, a reflective internal conversation with self about our thinking, seems indispensable to this growth.

Important Questions when Linking Bloom’s taxonomies and Perry’s stages

Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (see Scharff, 2017) is one of the best-known contributions to education, but experts debate the degree to which the Bloom cognitive levels are hierarchical, developmental products. In contrast, the developmental character of both the Perry model and the Taxonomy of the Affective Domain is generally accepted. That both address the sequential development of college students explains why the two map better onto one another than do even the two Bloom team’s taxonomies of the cognitive and affective domains.

The map provided by Figure 1 illuminates a possible deficiency of learning design in higher education. Educators consistently refer to Perry’s highest stages of intellectual development (7, 8 & 9 – see Figure 1) as the stages characterized by metacognitive reflection. The lower stages seldom receive that recognition, so why might that be? Is metacognition just not happening in the preceding stages? If so, why not?

If those who have actually engaged in metacognition throughout their intellectual development are just those few who develop metacognitive ability spontaneously on their own, this accounts for its scarcity in the earlier stages and how few achieve the highest stages. Because intellectual and affective development requires passage through a sequence of stages, we instructors can only increase the proportion of those who attain highest-stage reasoning abilities by infusing metacognitive skills into the earlier stages as a part of our instructional design. Such design would shift all students’ perceptions of gaining an education from absorbing content provided by teachers in classrooms toward developing abilities to understand content in concert with developing understanding of self.

Dangerous Passages

Two dangerous passages in the journey through the stages of intellectual development end the educational aspirations of many students to achieve a true education marked with a celebratory graduation. Figure 1 offers a map that reveals the dangerous passages of our journey, where impactful emotions can urge us to give up on our own development. These are places where metacognition informed by only a little research on adult development can provide valuable assistance.

Many lower-division undergraduate students fail to graduate by getting trapped at the lower Perry stages 2 and 3. Stage 2 students typically view the purpose of education as learning facts rather than as experiencing challenges that develop expanded capacities to think. Further, students in Stage 2 often learn that beliefs and childhood teachings that they revere are, upon examination, flawed and perhaps even untrue. This sends them to Stage 3 and the bankrupt belief that all conclusions and arguments are equally valid. From there, educators’ efforts to move students into higher stages of thinking bring forth students’ affective reactions of frustration and bewilderment. These negative feelings can negate students’ trust in teachers and raise students’ doubts about their own abilities. At this stage, gaining relief by giving up can seem an attractive choice.

Another passage takes a similar toll, but this one manifests later, where it produces attrition of nearly half of our brightest students who gained admission to graduate school to achieve doctorates. Most Baccalaureate graduates are only Stage 4 thinkers, and in graduate school, the barrier to completion is the required dissertation, which is a challenging, open-ended Stage 5 project. Stage 5 challenges cannot be addressed by the same approaches that brought much undergraduate success— demonstrating rote knowledge and ability to perform calculations that arrived at uniquely “right answers.” The transition into Perry’s Stage 5 brings proficiency to evaluate conflicting evidence and arrive, not at “right answers,” but at conclusions that are most reasonable after evaluating all of the relevant, conflicting knowledge currently available. This high-attrition passage, not surprisingly, comes again with strong emotions. Powerful negative feelings of personal inadequacy or “imposter syndrome” often accompany the efforts to advance out of Stage 4, and too many graduate students lose confidence and withdraw before they can make the transition. If these distressed students understood the nature of the situation they were in, they likely would persist, trusting that continued perseverance would bring the necessary punctuated transition to Stage 5. With this transition comes the confidence and awareness necessary to engage ambiguous problems, which include dissertations.

In blog column Part 4, we will look at developing the affective quality of academic courage, which allows one to persist through challenges that bring fear and erosion of confidence.

References

Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York. Penguin.

Journal of Adult Development (2004) Special volume of nine papers on the Perry legacy of cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development (11, 2) 59-161 Germantown NY: Periodicals Service Co.

Nuhfer, E. B. (2008) The Feeling of Learning: Intellectual Development and the Affective Domain: Educating in Fractal Patterns XXV. National Teaching and Learning Forum 18 1 7-11.

Developing Affective Abilities through Metacognition: Part 1

by Ed Nuhfer, PhD, California State Universities (retired)

Roman Taraban launched such an important topic for our blog on July 20 with “Hate-Inspired Webforums, PTSD, and Metacognition” that it is surely worth extending his discussion further.

Roman noted that groups develop recognizable vocabularies (discourse) and manners of speaking for set purposes. The purpose of developed vocabulary and manner of speech of hate groups is to enlist support and then empower and activate those with dispositions toward bias and bigotry. Activation in hate groups includes intimidation, shaming, shunning, and physical violence. Affect is the ultimate origin of discourse because the desire to promote such discourse is an affective feeling. Like cognitive thinking and psychomotor activity, affect is essential to human life and function. However, affect can guide us to act in ways that are ineffective, toxic, or destructive.

Learning and education are the processes through which we support and advance civilization. The purpose of civilization may be to elevate effective, beneficial actions and to minimize deleterious ones. Through learning and education, we develop frameworks of reasoning and processes for developing beneficial proficiencies. Examples of a psychomotor framework would be a process through which one learns to hunt for food, play a musical instrument, or to produce a painting. Examples of cognitive frameworks would be the logic of language and the use of testing and verification as a way of knowing through which we understand the physical world. An example of an affective framework is ethics—the way of knowing through which we evaluate the nature of feelings that are directing (or attempting to direct), our choices and decisions through which we act.

It is relatively easy to assess when psychomotor efforts are effective and successful. It is more difficult to see how language presents a fallacious argument or when an accepted cognitive perception about the physical world constitutes a misconception. It is most difficult to determine whether an affective feeling is likely to direct us to actions that are beneficial and healthy or toxic and perverse. We observe our affective state through metacognition, which is a purposefully directed internal awareness. Metacognition has an ineffable quality. In contrast, physical action and cognitive reasoning are easier to assess through their immediate products.

The history of education seems marked by an initial focus on the development of effective psychomotor skills needed for survival, technology, and simple arts. Later educational efforts offered an emphasis on written language, literature, increasingly sophisticated arts, and science. We finally are arriving at a time in Western education when an acceptance is dawning that becoming educated should proceed beyond cognitive and psychomotor development to understanding ourselves and our affective traits. This pattern seems inevitable because it is recapitulated on a smaller scale in our development as individuals.

If we are lucky, we start life acquiring the skills needed for our survival and further development. If we are particularly fortunate, we progress to gaining valid knowledge, valuable skills, and capacity for understanding and appreciating the social and natural realms in which we live. Finally, if we are uncommonly privileged through fortune, we can develop wisdom that promotes our living in an expanded awareness of our reality and increased capacity for nurturing and caring well for our natural world and others around us.

Given the progression outlined above, we should expect that metacognition will be our students’ most challenging and least-developed capacity for learning and becoming educated. As educators, we should also expect struggle and resistance, both individually and collectively, against the legitimacy of affective development efforts and metacognition as essential to becoming educated. We have already seen such resistance to these advances.

In hindsight, it now appears that Benjamin Bloom and his team of educators who worked in the 1950s and 60s seemed decades ahead of their contemporaries by recognizing the indispensable importance of the affective domain to the process of becoming educated. The Bloom team’s contribution on affect took many years before its importance was realized. At the time Bloom published his taxonomy of the cognitive domain, he was producing a second volume on the taxonomy of the affective domain (and still later, the psychomotor domain), the established behavioral sciences were focused solely on cognition. These sciences ridiculed affect, dismissed metacognition (see Dunlosky and Metcalf, 2009) and treated both as nonsense that obstructed objective reasoning and cognitive thinking. Bloom’s first volume on the cognitive domain became the most-cited educational reference in history, but the second volume on the affective domain fell into such obscurity that few college professors even know that it existed. The academic realm so de-legitimatized affective feelings that researchers from the 1960s into the early 1990s were actually afraid to study or write about emotions (see Damasio, 1999).

William Perry’s 1960s landmark work (Perry, 1999) was contemporary with Bloom’s research. Perry presented his discovery of distinct stages of adult intellectual development that he derived from analysis of language patterns (discourse) that manifested during interviews that Perry held over several years with groups of students. This longitudinal study found that students changed their thinking and reasoning process during years of becoming educated. Moreover, the interviews revealed that the highest stages went beyond cognitive thinking by incorporating and regulating metacognitive awareness of one’s affective inclinations. This discovery of the nature of highest-level reasoning arrived with awkward timing, given the regard by scholars for affect and emotions. In Perry’s entire book, reference to “affect” occurs only once (in a brief footnote on page 49) and to “emotions” only once (on p. 140). “Feeling” / “feelings” appear thirty-nine times, but mostly in the quotations of statements made by students during interviews. Perry seemed unable to write openly about these aspects, so the three chapters on his three highest stages are conspicuously brief. Today, a close reading of these chapters indicates that he had probably also discovered the development of emotional intelligence in his interviews, but he seems to have understood the dangers that any emphasis on emotion might pose to his larger discovery.

Another landmark book (King and Kitchener, 1992) that followed Perry’s interview approach refused to venture even that far. These authors restricted their investigation of higher intellectual stages to purely cognitive reasoning. However, by 2004 (Journal of Adult Development, 2004) a synthesis revealed that many investigations and classification schemes that followed Perry all mapped to each other and were essentially describing the same stages.

Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain seems to map even better onto the Perry stages than it does to Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain, (see Nuhfer, 2008) indicating that building affective capacity is indeed a developmental process. Thus, well-designed higher education curricula can build it, providing instructors design the curricula to produce the highest levels of thinking.

As an added benefit, development of metacognitive awareness is probably the best way to curtail the influence of “hate groups,” whether these be minor cults or mainstream establishment organizations. People with metacognitive awareness can perceive when their affect is getting involved from external attempts to direct their abilities toward beneficent or maleficent ends. In part 2, we’ll consider how teaching any discipline presents an opportunity to push thinking to highest levels through using metacognitive awareness to reflect on ethics, respect, courage, and gratitude.

References

Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt.

Dunlosky, J. and Metcalf, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Journal of Adult Development (2004). Special volume of nine papers on the Perry legacy of cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development (11, 2) 59-161 Germantown NY: Periodicals Service Co.

King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nuhfer, E. B. (2008). The feeling of learning: Intellectual development and the affective domain: Educating in fractal patterns XXVI. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 18 (1) 7-11.

Perry, W. G. Jr. (1999). Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (a reprint of the original 1968 work with minor updating).

Are Academic Procrastinators Metacognitively Deprived?

By Aaron S. Richmond
Metropolitan State University of Denver

Academic Procrastinators Brief Overview

One of my favorite articles is Academic Procrastination of Undergraduates: Low Self-Efficacy to Self-Regulate Predicts Higher Levels of Procrastination by Robert M. Klassen, Lindsey. L. Krawchuk, and Sukaina Rajani (2007). Klassen and colleagues state that “…the rate for problematic academic procrastination among undergraduates is estimated to be at least 70-95% (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Steel, 2007), with estimates of chronic or severe procrastination among undergraduates between 20% and 30%” (p. 916). Academic procrastination is, “the intentional delay of an intended course action, in spite of an awareness of negative outcomes (Steel, 2007; as cited in Klassen et al., 2006, p. 916). Based on the above stated statistics, it is obvious that academic procrastination is an issue in higher education, and that understanding what factors influence it and are related to its frequency is of utmost importance.

In their 2007 article, Klassen and colleagues conducted two studies to understand the relationship among academic procrastination and self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-esteem and then understand this relationship within “negative procrastinators” (p. 915). In study 1, they surveyed 261 undergraduate students. They found that academic procrastination was inversely correlated to college/university GPA, self-regulation, academic self-efficacy and self-esteem. Meaning as students’ frequency of academic procrastination went down, their GPA and self-reported scores of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-regulation went up. They also found that self-regulation, self-esteem, and self-efficacy predicted academic procrastination.

In study 2, Klassen and colleagues (2007) they were interested in knowing whether there was a difference between negative and neutral procrastinators. That is when procrastinating caused a negative affect (e.g., grade penalty for assignment tardiness) or a neutral affect (e.g., no penalty for assignment tardiness). They surveyed 194 undergraduates and asked students to rate how academic procrastination affected, either positively or negatively, specific academic tasks (reading, research, etc.). They then, divided the sample into a group of students that self-reported that academic procrastination negatively affected them in some way or positive/neutrally affected them in some way. What they found is that there were significant differences in GPA, daily procrastination, task procrastination, predicted class grade, actual class grade, and self-reported self-regulation between negative procrastinators and neutral procrastinators. They also found that students most often procrastinated on writing tasks.

So Where Does Metacognition Come in to Play?

Because a main factor of their focus was self-regulation, I think Klassen and colleagues study, gives us great insight and promise into the potential role (either causal or predictive) that metacognition plays in academic procrastination. First, in Study 1, they used the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & MckKeachie, 1993) to measure self-efficacy for self-regulation. This MSLQ subscale assesses students’ awareness of knowledge and control of cognition (Klassen et al., 2007). It asks question like “If course materials are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material.” or “I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and instructor’s teaching style.” (p. 920). As self-efficacy for self-regulation are a subset of metacognition, it is clear to me, that these questions indirectly, if not directly, partially measure elements of metacognition.

This makes me wonder, it would be interesting if the results of Klassen et al.’s study hold true with other forms of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness. For example, how does it relate to metacognitive awareness factors that Schraw and Dennison (1994) suggest, such as knowledge and cognition (e.g., declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge) vs. regulation of cognition (e.g., planning, information management, monitoring, evaluation)? Or, as Klassen et al. did not use the entire battery of measures in the MSLQ, how does academic procrastination relate to other aspects of the MSLQ like Learning Strategies, Help Seeking Scale, Metacognitive Self-Regulation, etc. (Pintrich et al., 1993). Or how might Klassen’s results relate to behavioral measures of metacognition such as calibration or, how does it relate to the Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982)? These questions suggest that metacognition could play a very prominent role in academic procrastination.

There Are Always More Questions Than Answers

To my knowledge, researchers have yet to replicate Klassen et al.’s (2007) with an eye towards investigating whether metacognitive variables predict and mediate rates of academic procrastination. Therefore, I feel like I must wrap up this blog (as I always do) with a few questions/challenges/inspirational ideasJ

What is the relationship among metacognitive awareness and academic procrastination?
If there is a relationship between metacognition and academic procrastination, are there mediating and moderating variables that contribute to the relationship between metacognition and academic procrastination? For example, critical thinking? Intelligence? Past academic performance? The type of content and experience with this content (e.g., science knowledge)?
Are there specific elements of metacognition (e.g., self-efficacy vs. metacognitive awareness vs. calibration, vs. monitoring, etc.) that predict the frequency of academic procrastination?
Can metacognitive awareness training reduce the frequency of academic procrastination?
If so, what type of training best reduces academic procrastination?

References

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116.

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. NY: New American Library

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915-931. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.

Metacognition in Academic and Business Environments

by Dr. John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

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

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

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

Task

Planning

Monitoring

Evaluating

Reading

What do I already know about this topic?

How much time do I need to complete the task?

What strategies do I intend to use?

What questions are arising?

Are my strategies working?

What is most confusing?

Am I struggling with motivation or content?

What other are strategies are available?

To what extent did I successfully complete the task?

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

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

What worked well?

Big picture

Why is it important to learn this material?

How does this reading align with course objectives?

To what extent has completing this reading helped me with other learning goals?

What have I learned in this course that I could use in the future?

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

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

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

Thinking about thinking in both business and academic environments Click To Tweet

References

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

Fighting Imposter Syndrome Through Metacognition

By Charity S. Peak, Ph.D.

Have you ever felt like an imposter at work? Taught a class that was not your expertise? Felt intimidated before giving a presentation? Nearly every faculty member experiences this imposter phenomenon at some point. After all, as faculty we work around incredibly smart and talented people who shine from being experts in their field. Additionally, people drawn to academia naturally feel compelled to be knowledgeable and often find themselves to be inadequate when they are not (Huston, 2009).

Imposter syndrome is “an overwhelming sense of being a fraud, a phony, of not being good enough for [a] job, despite much evidence to the contrary” (Kaplan, 2009). Apart from accomplishing significant professional milestones, people cannot seem to internally acknowledge their success or feel deserving. This sense of being an imposter is prevalent among women but is increasingly being revealed by men as well. Although the condition is often referred to as a syndrome, it is important to understand that it is NOT actually a diagnosable mental illness found in the DSM-V. Instead, it is an affliction, similar to test or performance anxiety, experienced by a variety of high-achieving individuals that can be treated successfully using metacognition and self-regulation.

Reactions to imposter syndrome vary widely and by individual. Typically, imposter phenomenon starts with a self-sabotaging internal dialogue, such as:

Who do I think I am? I’m not smart enough to teach this class or present on this topic.
What if my students ask me a question that I can’t answer?
What if someone finds out I don’t know what I’m talking about?
I’m not cut out for this. I really can’t do this.

A physical reaction similar to other stressful situations (fight, flight, or freeze) often follows:

Increased blood pressure
Blushing
Sweating
Shaking
Tonic immobility (i.e., mental block or “deer in headlights”)

Faculty in these situations tend to respond in one of two ways:

Undercompensating by becoming submissive, overly agreeable or even apologetic
Overcompensating with defensive, bossy and aggressive behaviors

Recognize symptoms when they arise and recenter yourself through breathing:

Assume a comfortable posture
Close your eyes if possible
Focus on the sensations of your body
Breathe in through your nose and out through your mouth
When your mind wanders, gently bring it back to your breath
Breathe in, breathe out
Repeat for at least 10 breaths and up to 5 minutes

Reconstruct a new, positive internal dialogue. Talk to yourself as you would a good friend by being supportive and confidence-building.
Posture yourself as confident. It turns out that “fake it till you make it” works with regard to physical posture. People who use Power Poses for 2 minutes demonstrate higher levels of confidence-building hormones (testosterone) as opposed to stress-inducing hormones (cortisol) (Carney, Cuddy & Yap, 2010; Cuddy, 2012).
Acknowledge the limits of your knowledge. Instead of hiding your lack of expertise, build a repertoire of ways to deflect difficult questions, such as:

What do you think?
I don’t know. Does anyone want to look it up and tell us the answer?
Great question. Can we talk about that more after class (or meeting)?
Let’s not dive too deeply into that issue because it might distract us from today’s agenda.
Good thought. Does anyone want to collaborate to address that concern?
Here is what I know, and here is what I don’t know (Huston, 2009).

Avoid “teaching as telling.” Rather than lecturing, which requires great preparation and pressure to be the expert in the room, move toward new pedagogical models of facilitation which turn the teaching burden over to the students, such as jigsaw and gallery walk.
Know that you are not alone. It is plausible that nearly everyone in the room has felt this way at one point or another in their careers, even though they may not readily share these thoughts with others. Normalizing the feelings to yourself will start to defuse your anxiety.
Share the issue with others you trust. A mentor or even a small community of colleagues can collaboratively strategize about how to address the issue.
Recognize external factors that might contribute. Often people blame themselves for toxic situations which were created by outside circumstances. If the situation persists, consider declining future involvement to avoid setting yourself up for difficulties.

“Awareness is half the battle” really does apply to imposter syndrome. Through metacognition, you can conquer the self-defeating thoughts and behaviors that might prevent you from succeeding in your personal and professional life. Intentional self-monitoring of negative internal dialogue followed by practicing self-regulation through the simple strategies outlined above is the antidote to imposter syndrome. So next time you feel yourself break into a sweat (figuratively or literally), assume a Power Pose and leverage metacognition to triumph over your doubts!

Metacognition promotes success by helping us overcome self-defeating thoughts. Click To Tweet
Resources:

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363-1368. doi: 10.1177/0956797610383437

Cuddy, A. (2012, October 1). Your body language shapes who you are [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are?language=en

Huston, T. (2009). Teaching What You Don’t Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kaplan, K. (2009). Unmasking the impostor. Nature, 459(21): 468-469. doi: 10.1038/nj7245-468a

Metacognitive Development in Professional Educators

Stewart, Cooper and Moulding investigate adult metacognition development, specifically comparing pre-service teachers and practicing teachers. They used the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory and found that metacognition improves significantly with age and with years of teaching experience, but not with gender or level of teaching (Pre-K though post-secondary ed levels).

Stewart, P. W., Cooper. S. S., & Moulding, L. R. (2007). Metacognitive development in professional educators. The Researcher, 21(1), 32-40.

An Aristotelian conception of metacognition (Part One)

by John Draeger (SUNY Buffalo State)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Draeger offers an Aristotelian conception of metacognition. Click To Tweet

Habits of Mind

by Arthur L. Costa, Ed. D. (Professor Emeritus, California State University, Sacramento). This paper summarizes 16 attributes of what human beings do when they behave intelligently, referred to as Habits of Mind. Metacognition is the 5th mentioned (see a nice summary of all 16 on the final page). Dr. Costa points out that these “Habits of Mind transcend all subject matters commonly taught in school. They are characteristic of peak performers whether they are in homes, schools, athletic fields,organizations, the military, governments, churches or corporations.”

Interest Beyond the Ivory Tower

by David Westmoreland, U.S. Air Force Academy*

I recently had a speaking engagement at a local pub which took an interesting turn related to metacognition. “Science on Tap” is a loosely organized program that takes place in cities around the United States, in which people with an interest in science can meet with a scientist to learn about current developments. The topic that I chose to cover was not current at all – in fact, it was a historical narrative set in England during the 1870s. The story revolved a public challenge to prove that the earth is a sphere, as opposed to being flat, which was published in the journal Scientific Opinion. The author of the challenge, John Hampden, was a biblical literalist who offered to match a wager up to £500 (over $30,000 in today’s dollars) that would be held by an independent party until that person determined whether the burden of evidence had been met. The bet was picked up by Alfred Russel Wallace, who used a simple demonstration involving nothing more than wooden stakes with flags, a telescope, and a surveyor’s level to win. Those interested in the details of the story can find them in Schadewald (1978).

My intent in presenting the story was to engage the audience in the process of scientific reasoning – rather than presenting Wallace’s solution, I challenged those sharing a table to come up with a convincing demonstration using the same tools that Wallace employed. They succeeded, converging on a common theme similar to the one that Wallace used. In the Q & A that followed, the audience was clearly more interested in questions about the nature of thinking than in historical details. What is happening when two people view the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions? How often does a person make a deliberate attempt to view evidence through the lens of another? When someone rejects data in order to retain a belief, has rationalism been abandoned? The discussion was lively, engaging, and ultimately had to be cut off as we ran out of time. For me, it drove home the point that metacognitive thinking is of broad interest, not relegated to the halls of the academy.

Reference

Robert Schadewald. 1978. He knew the earth is round, but his proof fell flat. Smithsonian Magazine 9 (April), 101-113.

* 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.

Exploring the Developmental Progression of Metacognition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Linking Mindset to Metacognition

By Charity Peak, Ph.D. (U. S. Air Force Academy)

As part of our institution’s faculty development program, we are currently reading Carol Dweck’s Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Even though the title and cover allude to a pop-psychology book, Dweck’s done a fabulous job of pulling together decades of her scholarly research on mindsets into a layperson’s text.

After announcing the book as our faculty read for the semester, one instructor lamented that she wished we had selected a book on the topic of metacognition. We have been exploring metacognition as a theme this year through our SoTL Circles and our participation in the multi-institutional Metacognitive Instruction Project. My gut reaction was, “But Mindset is about metacognition!” Knowing your own mindset requires significant metacognition about your own thinking and attitudes about learning. And better yet, understanding and recognizing mindsets in your students helps you to identify and support their development of mindsets that will help them to be successful in school and life.

If you haven’t read the book, below are some very basic distinctions between the fixed and growth mindsets that Dweck (2006) discovered in her research and outlines eloquently in her book:

Fixed Mindset

Growth Mindset

Intelligence is static.

Intelligence can be developed.

Leads to a desire to look smart and therefore a tendency to:

avoid challenges
give up easily due to obstacles
see effort as fruitless
ignore useful feedback
be threatened by others’ success

Leads to a desire to learn and therefore a tendency to:

embrace challenges
persist despite obstacles
see effort as a path to mastery
learn from criticism
be inspired by others’ success

What does this mean for metacognition? Dweck points out that people go through life with fixed mindsets without even realizing they are limiting their own potential. For example, students will claim they are “not good at art,” “can’t do math,” “don’t have a science brain.” These mindsets restrict their ability to see themselves as successful in these areas. In fact, even when instructors attempt to refute these statements, the mindsets are so ingrained that they are extremely difficult to overcome.

What’s an instructor to do? Help students have metacognition about their self-limiting beliefs! Dweck offers a very simple online assessment on her website that takes about 5 minutes to complete. Instructors can very easily suggest that students take the assessment, particularly in subjects where these types of fallacious self-limiting attitudes abound, as a pre-emptive way to begin a course. These assessment results would help instructors easily identify who might need the most assistance in overcoming mental barriers throughout the course. Instructors can also make a strong statement to the class early in the semester that students should fight the urge to succumb to these limiting beliefs about a particular subject area (such as art or math). As Dweck has proven through her research, people can actually become artistic if taught the skills through learnable components (pp. 68-69). Previously conceived notions of talent related to a wide variety of areas have been refuted time and again through research. Instead, talent is likely a cover for hard work, perseverance, and overcoming obstacles. But if we don’t share those insights with students, they will never have the metacognition of their own self-limiting – and frankly mythical – belief systems.

Inspired but wish you knew how to apply it to your own classes? A mere Google search on metacognition and mindset will yield a wealth of resources, but I particularly appreciate Frank Noschese’s blog on creating a metacognition curriculum. He started his physics course by having students take a very simple survey regarding their attitudes toward science. He then shared a short video segment called “Grow Your Brain” from the episode Changing Your Mind (jump to 13:20) in the Scientific American Frontiers series from PBS. Together, he and his students began a journey of moving toward a growth mindset in science. Through an intentional metacognition lesson, he sent a very clear message to his students that “I can’t” would not be tolerated in his course. He set them up for success by demonstrating clearly that everyone can learn physics if they put their minds (or mindsets) to it.

Metacognition about mindsets offers instructors an opportunity to give students the gift of a lifetime – the belief that they can overcome any learning obstacles if they just persevere, that their intelligence is not fixed but actually malleable, that learning is sometimes hard but not impossible! When I reflect on why I am so deeply dedicated to education as a profession, it is my commitment to helping students see themselves using a growth mindset. Helping them to change their mindsets can change their future, and metacognition is the first step on that journey!

References:

“Changing the Mind.” (11/21/00). Scientific American Frontiers. Boston: Ched-Angier Production Co. Retrieved from http://chedd-angier.com/frontiers/season11.html

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Noschese, F. (September 10, 2012). Metacognition curriculum (Lesson 1 of ?). Retrieved from https://fnoschese.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/metacognition-curriculum-lesson-1-of/

Fostering Metacognition: Right-Answer Focused versus Epistemologically Transgressive

by Craig E. Nelson at Indiana University (Contact: nelson1@indiana.edu)

I want to enrich some of the ideas posted here by Ed Nuhfer (2014 a, b, c and d) and Lauren Scharff (2014). I will start by emphasizing some key points made by Nuhfer (2014 a):

Instead of focusing on more powerful ways of thinking, most college instruction has thus far focused on information, concepts and discipline specific skills. I will add that even when concepts and skills are addressed they, too, are often treated as memorizable information both by students and faculty. Often little emphasis is placed on demonstrating real understanding, let alone on application and other higher-level skills.
“Adding metacognitive components to our assignments and lessons can provide the explicit guidance that students need. However, authoring these components will take many of us into new territory…” This is tough because such assignments require much more support for students and many of faculty members have had little or no practice in designing such support.
The basic framework for understanding higher-level metacognition was developed by Perry in the late 1960s and his core ideas have since been deeply validated, as well as expanded and enriched, by many other workers (e.g. Journal of Adult Development, 2004; Hoare, 2011.).
“Enhanced capacity to think develops over spans of several years. Small but important changes produced at the scale of single quarter or semester-long courses are normally imperceptible to students and instructors alike.”

It is helpful (e.g. Nelson, 2012, among many) to see most of college-level thinking as spanning four major levels, a truncated condensation of Perry’s 9 stages as summarized in Table 1 of Nuhfer (2014 a). Each level encompasses a different set of metacognitive skills and challenges. Individual students’ thinking is often a mix or mosaic where they approach some topics on one level and others at the next.

In this post I am going to treat only the first major level, Just tell me what I need to know (Stages 1 & 2 of Table 1 in Nuhfer, 2012 a). In this first level, students view knowledge fundamentally as Truth. Such knowledge is eternal (not just some current best model), discovered (not constructed) and objective (not temporally or socially situated). In contrast, some (but certainly not all) faculty members view what they are teaching as constructed best current model or models and as temporally and socially situated with the subjectivity that implies.

The major cognitive challenges within this first level are usefully seen as moving toward a more complete mastery of right-answer reasoning processes (Nelson, 2012), sometimes referred to as a move from concrete to formal reasoning (although the extent to which Piaget’s stages actually apply is debated). A substantial majority of entering students at most post-secondary institutions have not yet mastered formal reasoning. However, many (probably most) faculty members tacit assume that all reasonable students will quickly understand anything that is asked in terms of most right-answer reasoning. As a consequence, student achievement is often seriously compromised.

Lawson et al. (2007) showed that a simple test of formal reasoning explained about 32% of the variance in final grades in an introductory biology course and was the strongest such predictor among several options. This is quite remarkable considering that the reasoning test had no biological content and provided no measure of student effort. Although some reasoning tasks could be done by most students, an understanding of experimental designs was demonstrated largely by students who scored as having mastered formal reasoning. Similar differences in achievement have been documented for some other courses (Nelson, 2012).

Nuhfer (2014 b) and Scharff (2014) discuss studies of the associations among various measures of student thinking. From my viewpoint, their lists start too high up the thinking scale. I think that we need to start with the transitions between concrete and formal reasoning. I have provided a partial review of key aspects of this progression and of the teaching moves that have been shown to help students master more formal reasoning, as well as sources for key instruments (Nelson, 2012). I think that such mastery will turn out to be especially helpful, and perhaps essential, to more rapid development of higher level-reasoning skills.

This insight also may helps to resolve a contrast, between the experience of Scharff and her colleagues (Scharff, 2014) and Nuhfer’s perspective (2014 b). Scharff reports: “At my institution we have some evidence that such an approach does make a very measurable difference in aspects of critical thinking as measured by the CAT (Critical Thinking Assessment, a nationally normed, standardized test …).” In his responses, Nuhfer (2014 b) emphasizes that, given how we teach, there is, not surprisingly, very little change over the course an undergraduate degree in higher-order thinking. (“… the typical high school graduate is at about [Perry] level 3 2/3 and the typical college graduate is a level 4. That is only one-third of a Perry stage gain made across 4-5 years of college.”)

It is my impression that the “Critical Thinking Assessment” discussed by Scharff deals primarily with right-answer reasoning. The mastery of the skills underlying right-answer reasoning questions is largely a matter of mastering formal reasoning processes. Indeed, tests of concrete versus formal reasoning usually consist exclusively of questions that have very clear right answers. I think that several of the other thinking assessments that Nuhfer and Scharff discuss also have exclusively or primarily clear right-answers. This approach contrasts markedly with the various instruments for assessing intellectual development in the sense of Perry and related authors, none of which focuses on right-answer questions. An easily accessible instrument is given the appendices of King and Kitchener (1994).

This leads to three potentially helpful suggestions for fostering metacognition.

Use one of the instruments for assessing concrete versus formal reasoning as a background test for all of your metacognitive interventions. This will allow you to ask whether students who perform differently on such an assessment also perform differently on your pre- or post-assessment, or even in the course as a whole (as in Lawson et al. 2007).
Include interventions in your courses that are designed to help students succeed with formal, right-answer reasoning tasks. In STEM courses, teaching with a “learning cycle” approach that starts with the examination or even the generation of data is one important, generally applicable such approach.
Carefully distinguish between the ways that you are helping students master right-answer reasoning and the ways you are trying to foster more complex forms of reasoning. Fostering right-answer reasoning will include problem-focused reasoning, self-monitoring and generalizing right-answer reasoning processes (e.g. “Would using a matrix help me solve this problem?”).

Helping students move to deeper sophistication requires epistemologically transgressive challenges. Those who wish to pursue such approaches seriously should examine first, perhaps, Nuhfer’s (2014d) “Module 12 – Events a Learner Can Expect to Experience” and ask how one could foster each successive step.

Unfortunately, the first key step to helping students move beyond right-answer thinking requires helping them understand the ways in which back-and-white reasoning fails in one’s discipline. For this first epistemologically transgressive challenge, understanding that knowledge is irredeemably uncertain, one might want to provide enough scaffolding to allow students to make sense of readings such as: Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Kline, 1980); Be Forewarned: Your Knowledge is Decaying (Arbesman, 2012); Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (Ioannidis, 2005); and Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science (Freedman, 2010).

As an overview for students of the journey in which everything becomes a matter of better and worse ideas and divergent standards for judging better, I have had some success using a heavily scaffolded approach (detailed study guides, including exam ready essay questions, and much group work) to helping students understand Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern World (Anderson,1990).

We have used various heavily scaffolded, epistemologically transgressive challenges to produce an average gain of one-third Perry stage over the course of a single semester (Ingram and Nelson, 2009). As Nuhfer (2014b) noted, this is about the gain usually produced by an entire undergraduate degree of normal instruction.

And for the bravest, most heavily motivated faculty, I would suggest In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life (Kegan, 1994). Kegan attempts to make clear that each of us has our ability to think in more complex ways limited by epistemological assumptions of which we are unaware. This is definitely not a book for undergraduates nor is it one that easily embraced by most faculty members.

REFERENCES CITED

Arbesman, Samuel (2012). “Be Forewarned: Your Knowledge is Decaying.” Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/be_forewarned_your_knowledge_i.html

Freedman, David (2010). “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science.” Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/?single_page=true (or http://bit.ly/11aAmt0 ) [Summarizes and expands on Ioannidis. Claims that meta-research experts have confirmed that similar issues distort research in all fields of science, from physics to economics. If use, give a list of possible exam questions as a study guide.]

Hoare, Carol. Editor (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Reciprocal Adult Development and Learning. 2^nd Edition. Oxford University Press.

Ingram, Ella L. and Craig E. Nelson (2009). Applications of Intellectual Development Theory to Science and Engineering Education. P 1-30 in Gerald F. Ollington (Ed.), Teachers and Teaching: Strategies, Innovations and Problem Solving. Nova Science Publishers.

Ioannidis, John (2005). “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine August; 2(8): e124. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ [The most downloaded article in the history of PLoS Medicine. Too technical for many first-year students even with heavy scaffolding?]

Journal of Adult Development (2004). [Special volume of nine papers on the Perry legacy of cognitive development.] Journal of Adult Development 11(2):59-161.

King, Patricia M. and Karen Strohm Kitchner (1994). Developing Reflexive Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey-Bass.

Kline, Morris (1980). Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. Oxford University Press. [I used the summary (the Preface) in a variety of courses.]

Nuhfer, Ed (2104a). “Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-Level Thinking (Part 1).” Retrieved from www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-for-guiding-students-to-awareness-of-higher-level-thinking-part-1/

Nuhfer, Ed (2104b). “Reply” and “Reply” [to Scharff comments]. Retrieved from www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-for-guiding-students-to-awareness-of-higher-level-thinking-part-1/

Nuhfer, Ed (2104c). “Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-Level Thinking (Part 2).” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-for-guiding-students-to-awareness-of-higher-level-thinking-part-2/

Nuhfer, Ed (2014d). “Module 12 – Events a Learner Can Expect to Experience.” Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/Module12metacog.pdf

Scharff, Lauren (2014). “5 Thoughts on ‘Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 1)’” and “Reply” [to Nuhfer’s “Reply”] Retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-for-guiding-students-to-awareness-of-higher-level-thinking-part-1/
Lawson, Anton E., Debra L. Banks and Marshall Logvin (2007). “Self-Efficacy, Reasoning Ability, and Achievement in College Biology.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44:706–724.

Nelson, Craig E. (2012). “Why Don’t Undergraduates Really ‘Get’ Evolution? What Can Faculty Do?” Chapter 14 (p 311-347) in Karl S. Rosengren, E. Margaret Evans, Sarah K. Brem, and Gale M. Sinatra (Editors.) Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution. Oxford University Press. [Literature review applies broadly, not just to evolution]

Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 2)

by Ed Nuhfer (Contact: enuhfer@earthlink.net; 208-241-5029)

Part 1 introduced the nature of adult intellectual development in terms of the stages ascended as one becomes educated. Each stage imparts new abilities that are valuable. This Part 2 reveals why awareness of these stages is important and offers metacognitive exercises through which students can begin to engage with what should be happening to them as they become better thinkers.

A disturbingly tiny contingent of professors in disciplines outside adult education have read the adult developmental research and recognized the importance of Perry’s discovery. Even fewer pass on this awareness directly to their students. Thus, recognition that the main value of a university education does not lie in acquired knowledge of facts and formulae but rather in acquiring higher level thinking abilities remains off the radars of most students.

Given what we know from this research, a potential exists for American higher education’s evolving into a class-based higher educational system, with a few institutions for the privileged supporting curricula that emphasize developing the advanced thinking needed for management and leadership, and a larger group of institutions fielding curricula emphasizing only content and skills for producing graduates destined to be managed. Until students in general (and parents) recognize how these two educational models differ in what they offer in value and advantages for life, they will fail to demand to be taught higher-order thinking. Overcoming this particular kind of ignorance is a struggle that neither individual students nor a free nation can afford to lose.

Teaching Metacognition: Mentoring Students to Higher Levels of Thinking

One way to win this struggle is to bring explicit awareness of what constitutes becoming well educated directly to students, particularly those not enrolled in elite, selective schools. All students should know what is happening to them, which requires understanding the stages of adult intellectual development and the sequence in which they occur offers the explicit framework needed to guide students to do beneficial “thinking about thinking.” (See Part 1, Table 1.) This research-based framework offers the foundation required for understanding the value of higher-level thinking. It offers a map for the journey on which one procures specific abilities by mastering successively higher stages of adult thinking. Through learning to use this framework metacognitively, individuals can start to discover their current stage of intellectual development and determine what they need for achieving the next higher stage.

I have included two exercises for students to show how the research that informs what we should be “thinking about” can be converted into metacognitive components of lessons. These modules have been pilot tested on students in introductory general education and critical thinking courses.

The first, “Module 12 – Events a Learner Can Expect to Experience,” uses the research that defines the Perry stages (Table 1) as a basis for authoring an exercise that guides students through key points to “think about” as they start to reflect upon their own thinking. Instructors can employ the module as an assignment or an in-class exercise, and should modify it as desired. For many students, this will serve as their first exposure to metacognition. If this is the reader’s first introduction to adult intellectual development, work through this module, ideally with a colleague on a lunch break. Start to procure some of the key resources listed in the references for your personal library.

With the exception of Perry Stages 7, 8, and 9, Module 12 largely addresses the cognitive realm. However, when intellectual development occurs successfully, affective or emotional development occurs in parallel as one advances through higher cognitive stages (see Nuhfer, 2008). Metacognition or “thinking about thinking” should extend also to a reflective “thinking about feelings.” Since the 1990s, we have learned that our feelings about our learning–our affective component of thinking– influence how well we can learn. Further, our affective development or “emotional intelligence” determines how well that we can work with others by connecting with the through their feelings, which is a huge determinant in work and life success.

The second “Module 4—Enlisting the Affective Domain” helps students to recognize why the feelings and emotions that occur as one transitions into higher stages are important to consider and to understand. At the higher levels of development, one may even aspire to deeply understand another by acquiring the capacity for experiencing another’s feelings (Carper, 1978; Belenky and others, 1986).

Frequent inclusion of metacognitive components in our assignments is essential for providing students with the practice needed for achieving better thinking. Guiding students in what to “think about” can help students engage in challenges that arise at the finer scales of metadisciplines, disciplines, courses, and lessons. This requires us to go beyond articulating: “What should students learn and how can we assess this?” by extending our planning to specify “What is essential that students should think about, and how can we mentor them into such thinking?”

REFERENCES CITED (additional references are provided in the two exercises furnished)

Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Belenky, M.F., B.M. Clinchy, N.R. Goldberger, and J.M. Tarule. (1986) Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, New York: Basic Books. (Reprinted in 1997).

Carper, B. A. (1978). Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science 1 1 13–24.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Journal of Adult Development (2004). Special volume of nine papers on the Perry legacy of cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development (11, 2) 59-161 Germantown NY: Periodicals Service Co.

Nuhfer, E. B (2008) The feeling of learning: Intellectual development and the affective domain: Educating in fractal patterns XXVI. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 18 (1) 7-11.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1999). Forms of intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. (Reprint of the original 1968 1st edition with introduction by L. Knefelkamp). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 1)

by Ed Nuhfer (Contact: enuhfer@earthlink.net; 208-241-5029)

When those unfamiliar with “metacognition” first learn the term, they usually hear: “Metacognition is thinking about thinking.” This is a condensation of John Flavell’s (1976) definition: “Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them…” Flavell’s definition reveals that students cannot engage in metacognition until they first possess a particular kind of knowledge. This reminds us that students do not innately understand what they need to be “thinking about” in the process of “thinking about thinking.” They need explicit guidance.

When students learn in most courses, they engage in a three-component effort toward achieving an education: (1) gaining content knowledge, (2) developing skills (which are usually specific to a discipline), and (3) gaining deeper understanding of the kinds of thinking or reasoning required for mastery of the challenges at hand. The American higher educational system generally does best at helping students achieve the first two. Many students have yet to even realize how these components differ, and few ever receive any instruction on mastering Component 3. Recently, Arum and Roksa (2011) summarized the effectiveness of American undergraduate education in developing students’ capacity for thinking. The record proved dismal and revealed that allowing the first two components to push aside the third produces serious consequences.

This imbalance has persisted for decades. Students often believe that education is primarily about gaining content knowledge—that the major distinction between freshmen and seniors is “Seniors know more facts.” Those who never get past this view will likely acquire a degree without acquiring any significantly increased ability to reason.

We faculty are also products of this imbalanced system, so it is not too surprising to hear so many of us embracing “covering the material” as a primary concern when planning our courses. Truth be told, many of us have so long taught to content and to skills necessary for working within the disciplines that we are less practiced in guiding our students to be reflective on how to improve their thinking. Adding metacognitive components to our assignments and lessons can provide the explicit guidance that students need. However, authoring these components will take many of us into new territory, and we should expect our first efforts to be awkward compared to what we will be authoring after a year of practice. Yet, doing such work and seeing students grow because of our efforts is exciting and very worthwhile. Now is the time to start.

Opportunities for developing metacognitive reflection exist at scales ranging from single-lesson assignments to large-scale considerations. In my first blog for this site, I chose to start with the large-scale considerations of what constitutes development of higher-level thinking skills.

What Research Reveals about Adult Thinking

More than five decades have passed since William Perry distinguished nine stages of thinking that successful adult intellectual development (Table 1) produces. The validity of his developmental model in general seems firmly established (Journal of Adult Development, 2004). Contained within this model is the story of how effective higher education improves students’ abilities to think and respond to challenges. Knowing this story enables us to be explicit in getting students aware of what ought to be happening to them if higher education is actually increasing their capacity for thinking. This research enables us to guide students in what to look for as they engage in the metacognition of understanding their own intellectual development.

Enhanced capacity to think develops over spans of several years. Small but important changes produced at the scale of single quarter or semester-long courses are normally imperceptible to students and instructors alike. Even the researchers who discovered the developmental stages passed through them as students, without realizing the nature of the changes that they were undergoing. For learning that occurs in the shorter period of a college course, it is easier to document measurable changes in learning of disciplinary content and the acquisition of specific skills than it is to assess changes in thinking. Research based on longitudinal studies of interviews with students as they changed over several years finally revealed the nature of these subtle changes and the sequence in which they occur (Table 1).

Table 1: A Summary of Perry’s Stages of Adult Intellectual Development

Stage 1 & 2 thinkers believe that all problems have right and wrong answers, that all answers can be furnished by authority (usually the teacher), and that ambiguity is a needless nuisance that obstructs getting at right answers.

Stage 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and does not have good answers for all questions. Thinkers at this stage respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are just about proponents’ thinking differently. Evidence to the contrary does not change this response.

Stage 4 thinkers recognize that not all challenges have right or wrong answers, but they do not yet recognize frameworks through which to resolve how evidence best supports one among several competing arguments.

Stage 5 thinkers can use evidence. They also accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the context of the situation within which a problem occurs.

Stage 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues. They can use evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often depend upon both context and value systems.

Stages 7, 8 and 9 thinkers incorporate metacognitive reflection in their reasoning, and they increasingly perceive how their personal values act alongside context and evidence to influence chosen decisions and actions.

In part 2 of this blog, we will provide metacognitive class exercises that help students to understand what occurs during intellectual development and why they must strive for more than learning content when gaining an education.

Improve with Metacognition

Tag: adult intellectual development

Using Metacognition to Facilitate Scholarly Identity

You Can’t Change What You Can’t See

Seeing is Believing: Shifting Identity in Higher Education

Suggestions for Teaching

References:

Addressing Student Resistance to Engaging in their Metacognitive Development

Developing Affective Abilities through Metacognition Part 3: Recognizing Parallel Development of Cognition and Affect

Developing Affective Abilities through Metacognition: Part 1

Are Academic Procrastinators Metacognitively Deprived?

Metacognition in Academic and Business Environments

Fighting Imposter Syndrome Through Metacognition

Metacognitive Development in Professional Educators

An Aristotelian conception of metacognition (Part One)

Habits of Mind

Interest Beyond the Ivory Tower

Exploring the Developmental Progression of Metacognition

Linking Mindset to Metacognition

Fostering Metacognition: Right-Answer Focused versus Epistemologically Transgressive

Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 2)

Metacognition for Guiding Students to Awareness of Higher-level Thinking (Part 1)