Metacognition: A Practical
Overview
Technology, Innovations, & Pedagogy Conference
CSU Fresno
August 18, 2014
Ed Nuhfer – Director of Faculty Development, Director of Educational
Assessment and Professor of Geology (University of Wisconsin, University of
Colorado, Idaho State University, California State University — retired)
enuhfer@earthlink.net Phone 208-241-5029
Metacognition…
is a way of reflecting on:
“What am I really trying to do here?”
Reflection
• What quality do you MOST wish your
students will gain from their undergraduate
experience?
Show of hands:
How many picked or heard
something to do with
elevated thinking ability?
How many picked or heard
additional content
knowledge?
What We Mostly Want To Do
Worth being
familiar with
Important to
know and do
Improved
Thinking &
Awareness of
Learning
Wiggins and McTighe (1998)
What We Mostly Do
Worth being
familiar with
Important to
know and do
Disciplinary
Knowledge &
Skills
Wiggins and McTighe (1998)
Exercise to try with your students
“I know I am achieving a truly good education at this
University when the following occurs: …”
–
–
–
–
On opening day, ask students to complete that sentence in
class or as an assignment.
Collect the responses to learn how students perceive their
goals for becoming educated in comparison with how you
perceive providing education in their best interests.
Save these as baseline data. During your course, strive to
have students make progress in understanding what is truly
important.
Re-run this exercise again near the end of your course. See if
pre-post- measures reveal change.
A thought on Motivation
• Are we maybe coming at this in the wrong way,
through expecting most students to be motivated
to learn the subject matter of our course or
discipline … while perhaps wondering where the
responsibility lies: that the students motivate
themselves or that WE motivate the students?
• Suppose we focused together as a whole… on
motivating students to understand how to learn
anything? Thereafter, might all subject matter
become fair game for a challenging practice?
Metacognition
• Metacognition is a “self-imposed internal conversation.”
• Shown to improve transfer (Bransford et al. 2000)
• We easily assume that students are doing it, or can
develop doing it on their own; both assumptions are
wrong.
• Our challenge is to keep students in constant contact
with their metacognition.
• Instruction must be explicit. (Pintrich, 2002)
Metacognition
• “Metacognition is thinking about thinking”
• "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge concerning
one's own cognitive processes or anything related to
them…” (Flavell, 1976)
• "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge concerning
one's own cognitive processes or anything related to
them…” (Flavell, 1976)
Metacognition
• “Metacognition is thinking about thinking”
• "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge concerning
one's own cognitive processes or anything related to
them…” (Flavell, 1976)
• "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge concerning
one's own cognitive processes or anything related to
them…” (Flavell, 1976)
Metacognition
• So, if “metacognition is thinking about thinking…”
• …Just how does one do this? What are students
supposed to be “thinking about”?
• Let’s consider some things that are candidates for
“thinking about.”
Thinking about the biological basis for learning
The brain learns by building and
stabilizing neural connections.
(see Leamnson, 1999).
“Thinking about WHAT we are
trying to “wire in”
We are trying to wire in…
Knowledge
Skills
Reasoning
Making distinctions for
ourselves between these
different kinds of learning
challenges takes some
thought.
We should guide students to
do the same. As a start for
“thinking about,” students
should think how to
distinguish the three and how
to engage with all three
effectively.
Our usage in this presentation
Knowledge
• Information, mostly disciplinary content, obtained
through experience, observation, and study.
Skills
• Thinking process that employs knowledge for the
purpose of gaining understanding or taking informed
action. With practice, stages of development bring
increased intellectual, affective, and ethical capacities.
• Abilities and basic
competencies that develop
and improve with intentional
practice and training
Reasoning
“What am I really trying to do here?”
• What kind of challenge is this?
• What can I use from my past experiences to
address this kind of problem?
• What is the best strategy for solving it?
• What kind of reasoning is most appropriate?
• How will I know if I solved it correctly?
• What additional information do I need?
• How can I use my new understanding to solve
other kinds of problems?
What kind of learning challenge is this?
Knowledge
Skills
Reasoning
At what scales might I
best achieve these?
• Lessons
• Courses
• Curricula (major, GE)
• Degrees (major + GE)
When students take a general education
(GE) course, what do they “think about”
as being the main objective?
• Do they think about: “If I can take an anthropology,
biology, chemistry, environmental science, geology, or
a physics course interchangeably for GE science credit,
why can I do that?”
• For that matter, how good an answer might we give to
that question?
• “We easily assume that students are doing it, or can
develop doing it on their own; both assumptions are
wrong.”
“Metadisciplinarity”
1. Identifying groups of disciplines that hold in
common an overarching framework of
reasoning/way of knowing that unites them.
2. Articulating the major unifying concepts and
restating these as assessable student learning
outcomes (SLOs)
Major Academic Metadisciplines
•
•
•
•
•
•
Arts
Humanities
Mathematics/quantitative reasoning
Physical/Life/Natural Science (or “Science”)
Social Science
Technology
Metadiscipline Example - Art
• Performing arts (music, dance, theatre ), visual
arts (drawing, painting, sculpting, jewelry
making), media arts (photography, filming)
and literature (creative writing and poetry)
• These hold in common the overarching
framework of reasoning/way of knowing in
the arts that students can be directed to
“think about” when taking a GE art course
DRAFT: Metadisciplinary Outcomes for the Arts
Students should be able to…
1. Explain the significance of creative expression and art to the
human experience.
2. Discern objective vs. subjective scholarship, criticism and
analysis of the arts.
3. Articulate in his/her own words a definition for what
constitutes the arts.
4. Communicate ideas and emotions through the practice and
study of the arts.
5. Recognize and value creative expression from various cultural
and historical perspectives.
6. Explain in his/her own words reasons why critical thinking
and problem solving have value in the arts.
7. Describe, using at least two specific examples, how art
literacy is important in everyday life.
Instruction must be explicit (Pintrich, 2002)
What students “think about” can arise
from what we emphasize with our
course designs and enacted teaching
philosophies.
Lets look at three versions of the same
general education science course.
Knowledge
• General Education:
– Strives to impart content knowledge that citizens
should know.
– This accords with the type of science literacy tested
on certain science literacy tests:
• All radioactivity is man-made.
• Radioactive milk can be made safe by boiling it.
• The earliest humans lived at the same time as the
dinosaurs.
Respond by agree-disagree.
(Miller, 1998)
Skills
• General Education:
– Strives to impart an excitement and enthusiasm for science by
engaging students in doing science…ideally with other students.
– This accords with involvement in applied research experiences
such as
• Field studies
• Laboratory studies
• ….active development of knowledge and skills in authentic experiences
– And it is a successful approach to recruiting science majors.
– But what about the majority…who are going to major in
something else?
Reasoning
• General/Liberal Education for Citizen Literacy
– Develops through "… the collaboration and integration
of general education and the major.”
• Content and specialty skills alone do not enable easy
integration across majors.
• But understanding a framework of reasoning and way of
knowing may allow such transfer.
• We hope that we are promoting reasoning and an
understanding of science as a way of knowing…but are we?
• The answer to that last query requires the dreaded “A-word”
Given each of the three introductory course experiences, how
might each influence students in valuing what is most relevant
to becoming educated?
Knowledge
Skills
Reasoning
Skill
Knowledge
Reasoning
On a piece of paper, draw your own circles to the size scales that show
the emphases you might wish to give each in your own “Ideal Course”
We wanted something like this
Knowledge
Skill
Reasoning
We discovered that we had built
something else.
Skill
Knowledge
Reasonin
g
In our second workshop today, we will address how we discovered this and what we did
about it.
Metacurriculum for Metacognition
Instruments
Knowledge or Skill
Learning-across-curriculum
modules
Strategies and developing a
learning philosophy
Reading Reflections
Reflection & Monitoring
Reflection, Monitoring &
Evaluation
Goal-setting, Monitoring &
Evaluation Developing selfassessment & self-efficacy
Exam Wrappers
Knowledge Surveys
Learning Journals
Evaluation & Goal-setting
Developing self-assessment &
self-efficacy
Metadisciplinary Concept
Inventories (Assessment)
Reasoning, respect for diverse
ways of knowing, overarching
philosophy for becoming
educated
When students hear“higher order
reasoning,” “critical thinking” or “higher
level thinking,” what are they “thinking
about?”
• Example exercise to try with your students
to find out.
– “Can we distinguish those who can do critical
thinking from those who cannot? If so, how?”
– Answer to best of your present ability.
Module 12 – “Events a Learner Can
Expect to Experience”
• We will investigate two metacognitive tools in
one encounter.
• Read Module 12 down to the exercises, and
complete a reading reflection by answering
the following three questions.
Reading Reflection
• What is the main point of this reading?
• What did you find surprising? Why?
• What did you find confusing? Why?
Reading and Reflecting
Reading Reflections:
• Completed after each reading assignment
• Short responses to a few questions
• What is the main point of this reading?
• What did you find surprising? Why?
• What did you find confusing? Why?
• Submitted online before class
• Credit awarded for “reflective” submissions
Metacognitive Goals of Reflections
What is the main point of this reading?
• Summarizing (Anderson & Thiede, 2008)
• Keywords (Thiede et al., 2005)
What did you find surprising? Why?
• Misconceptions (Bransford et al., 2000)
• Affect (Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Pintrich and Zusho, 2007)
What did you find confusing? Why?
• Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reflection
(Ertmer and Newby, 1996; Zimmerman, 2002)
Reading Reflection
• Employ the three queries and a rubric
• Download the template from
http://profcamp.tripod.com/rrwithrubric.pdf
Some Results
Reading Reflections vs. Course Grades
MACALESTER GEOLOGY
Pearson = 0.842
p-value = <0.001
HAMLINE ECONOMICS
Pearson = 0.779
p-value = <0.001
Classroom Activities
Effect Size = 1.35 (Large)
Clicker Questions
Effect Size = 1.08 (Large)
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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 nuisance that obstructs
getting at the right answers.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things. They
respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are just about
proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the context
of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use evidence to
explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often depend upon
context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
William J. Perry Jr. (1968) Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years
Our challenge is to keep students in constant contact with their metacognition
SCALE - Change in Levels of Thinking by Design
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
You are frustrated with responding to a written take-home essay assignment and
literally screaming “What does the professor WANT?” What developmental stage
does this typify?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
A professor who teaches college juniors reads the responses for suggested
improvements on her student ratings form. Five students wrote: “Please, just
give us the facts.” What does this reveal?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“I saw the evidence, but it did not change my mind.” Probable Stage?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“I believe this because someone I trust told me so.” Probable Stage?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“I carefully considered the arguments, but I favor this one because it has the most
support from the evidence.” Probable Stage?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“For a long time I really opposed this argument. Now, I realize just how compelling the
evidence for it is. I realize that I opposed it largely because I did not want to believe it.”
Probable Stage?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“I observed that people in California readily accepted the evidence, but there are reasons
that Midwesterners will not be inclined to do so.” Probable Stage?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“Yes, there is evidence, but everyone has a right to their opinions. In order to respect
others, we must accept that all opinions are equally valid.” Probable Stage?
Perry in a Nutshell
• Level 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.
• Level 3 thinkers realize that authority is fallible and doesn't have all answers to all things.
They respond by concluding that all opinions are equally valid and that arguments are
just about proponents thinking differently. Evidence doesn't change this.
• Level 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.
• Level 5 thinkers accept that evaluations that lead to best solutions can be relative to the
context of the situation within which a problem occurs.
• Level 6 thinkers appreciate ambiguity as a legitimate quality of many issues, can use
evidence to explore alternatives. They recognize that the most reasonable answers often
depend upon context and value systems.
• Levels 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.
“There are good arguments on all sides, so I am going to just do what I feel is best.”
Probable Stage?
Available Learning-Across-the-Curriculum Modules
From CSU Faculty Developers
Good Resources on Metacognition
Metacognition, like the affective domain, was dismissed as a serious topic for decades.
We reach our aspirations by consistently developing the desired qualities
from the start.