This summer, faculty from the Texas Institute for Discovery Education in Science (TIDES) at the University of Austin, held a workshop on metacognition which started with a couple basic assumptions:
- Instructors want students to learn
- Learning is the result of thinking.
They argued that the connection between learning and thinking is a connection we often take for granted but is important, because if we know how our students approach thinking, we can:
- View what students know and how they make associations between concepts
- Support gains
- Reveal and correct misconceptions
Two guides TIDES recommended from The American Society for Cell Biology that you may find useful are (click here if you need help using the guides: http://lse.ascb.org/how-to-use-these-guides/:
- Stanton JD, Sebesta AJ, and Dunlosky J (2021). Evidence Based Teaching Guide: Student Metacognition. LSE. Retrieved from https://lse.ascb.org/evidence-based-teaching-guides/student-metacognition/ – Lang (2012) https://www.chronicle.com/article/metacognition-and-student-learning/ describes metacognition as the ability to assess our own skills, knowledge, or learning. That ability affects how well and how long students study—which, of course, affects how much and how deeply they learn. Patterson (2021) elaborates that such processes including the ability to adjust strategies to improve, are critical for effective learning. So, if we accept this to be true, then learning requires awareness and control of thinking.
- Wilson KJ, Long TM, Momsen JL, Bray Speth E. (2019) Evidence Based Teaching Guide: Modeling in Classroom. CBE Life Science Education. Retrieved from https://lse.ascb.org/evidence-based-teaching-guides/modeling-in-the-classroom/ – Patterson (2021) argues that if we believe that learning depends on learners to actively build their understanding by combining new knowledge with what they already know, (Constructivism), then learners create models (mental models) that are consistent with how they think. So, when students share their mental models, with others, that is equal to thinking being made visible. This means instructors can help students develop thinking skills (both general and discipline specific) if they know what the student’s thinking skills are. This means you must identify these processes when you see them or set up opportunities for students to practice them through regular parts of your teaching practice.
They also recommended the book, Making Thinking Visible (Available at IU Libraries through interlibrary loan: https://iucat.iu.edu/catalog/14842268) which suggests that in most school settings, educators have focused more on the completion of work and assignments than on a true development of understanding. This implies that instructors rarely articulate what thinking skills are valuable (in general as well as by discipline). If these two premises are true, are the thinking skills that instructors may find to be valuable demonstrated or emphasized in classes in a way that is visible to students? The book argues that Instructors can facilitate deeper understanding of course specific content by
- Understanding what different types of thinking look like (a few from the book include),
- Observing closely and describing what is there
- Building explanations and interpretations
- Reasoning with evidence
- Making connections
- Considering different viewpoints and perspectives
- Capturing the heart and forming conclusions
- Wondering and asking questions
- Uncovering complexity and going below the surface of things
- As well as developing thinking routines: https://vimeo.com/108000553 or a set of teaching practice(s) designed to reveal, scaffold and support student thinking. A few resources are available here: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/thinking-routines
Leave a Reply