Teach STEM Students HOW to Learn:
Metacognition is the Key!
Saundra Yancy McGuire, Ph.D.
Asst. Vice Chancellor for Learning, Teaching, & Retention
Professor, Department of Chemistry
Past Director, Center for Academic Success
Louisiana State University
2004-2005 National College Learning Center Association
Frank L. Christ Outstanding Learning Center Award
Outline
• Examples of Results of Teaching Students
Metacognitive Strategies
• Definition of Metacognition
• Exercise Demonstrating Efficacy of
Metacognitive Strategies
• Bloom’s Taxonomy & The Study Cycle
• Impact of Teaching Metacognitive Strategies
During Class Sessions
• Conclusion
The Story of Four Students
• Robert, first year chemistry student
42, 100, 100, 100
A in course
• Dana, first year physics student
80, 54, 91, 97, 90 (final) A in course
• Aaron, first year biology student
78, 92
A in course
• Cici*, first year chemistry student
55, 60, 105**
A in course
* Learned strategies from chem instructor
** Due to bonus points
Four Students in Professor Isiah Warner’s
Fall 2005 Analytical Chemistry Class
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Final
Class
Average Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4
76
65
67
70
83
52
67
65
46
55
72
61
68
68
65
78
107
88
88
90
Date of Final Exam:
December 14, 2005
Meeting with Student No. 1:
December 12, 2005
Meeting with Student Nos. 2 & 4: December 2, 2005
Meeting with Student No. 3:
December 8, 2005
The final was worth 100 points with a 10 bonus question.
How’d They Do It?
They became expert learners
by using metacognition!
They learned to think about their own thinking,
and they studied to LEARN,
not just to make the grade!
Metacognition*
The ability to:
• think about one’s own thinking
• be consciously aware of oneself as a
problem solver
• monitor and control one’s mental
processing (e.g. “Am I understanding this
material?”)
• accurately judge one’s level of learning
*term coined by Flavell in 1976
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (Eds.), 2000. How people learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Reflection Questions for Students
• What’s the difference, if any, between
studying and learning? Which, if either, is
more enjoyable? Why?
• How many hours per week, outside of class,
did you study in high school?
• Approximately how many hours per week do
you think you will have to study in college?
Approximately how many hours per week did you
have to study to make A’s and B’s in high school?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
0–4
5–9
10 – 14
15 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 or more
62%
17%
14%
7%
1
2
3
4
0%
0%
0%
5
6
7
Approximately how many hours per week do you
think you’ll have to study to make A’s in college?
34%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
0–4
5–9
10 – 14
15 – 19
20 – 24
25 – 29
30 or more
17%
14%
14%
11%
9%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Faculty Must Help Students
Make the Transition to College
Help students identify and close “the gap”
current behavior
current grades
efficacious behavior
desired grades
Counting Vowels in 45 seconds
How accurate are you?
Dollar Bill
Dice
Tricycle
Four-leaf Clover
Hand
Six-Pack
Seven-Up
Octopus
Cat Lives
Bowling Pins
Football Team
Dozen Eggs
Unlucky Friday
Valentine’s Day
Quarter Hour
How many words or phrases
do you remember?
Let’s look at the words again…
What are they arranged according to?
Dollar Bill
Dice
Tricycle
Four-leaf Clover
Hand
Six-Pack
Seven-Up
Octopus
Cat Lives
Bowling Pins
Football Team
Dozen Eggs
Unlucky Friday
Valentine’s Day
Quarter Hour
NOW, how many words or phrases
do you remember?
What were two major differences
between the first attempt
and the second attempt?
1. We knew what the task was
2. We knew how the information
was organized
What we know about learning
• Active learning is more lasting than passive learning
-- Passive learning is an oxymoron*
• Thinking about thinking is important
– Metacognition**
• The level at which learning occurs is important
– Bloom’s Taxonomy***
*Cross, Patricia, “Opening Windows on Learning” League for Innovation in the
Community College, June 1998, p. 21.
** Flavell, John, “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry.” American Psychologist, Vol 34(10), Oct 1979, 906-911.
*** Bloom Benjamin. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001
http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom's_Taxonomy
Combining information to
form a unique product;
requires creativity and
originality.
Evaluation
Synthesis
Using information to solve
problems; transferring
abstract or theoretical ideas
to practical situations.
Identifying connections and
relationships and how they
apply.
Application
Comprehension
Restating in
your own words;
paraphrasing,
summarizing,
translating.
Knowledge
Louisiana State University  Center for Academic Success  B-31 Coates Hall  225-578-2872  www.cas.lsu.edu
High School
Memorizing verbatim
information. Being able to
remember, but not
necessarily fully
understanding the
material.
Identifying
components;
determining
arrangement, logic,
and semantics.
Undergraduate
Analysis
Making decisions and
supporting views;
requires
understanding of
values.
Graduate School
Bloom’s
Taxonomy
This pyramid depicts the different levels of thinking we use when learning.
Notice how each level builds on the foundation that precedes it. It is
required that we learn the lower levels before we can effectively use the
skills above.
When we teach students about
Bloom’s Taxonomy…
They GET it!
At what level of Bloom’s did you have to
operate to make A’s or B’s in high school?
35%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
25%
21%
13%
1
2
3
4
3%
3%
5
6
At what level of Bloom’s do you think you’ll
need to be to make an A in college?
35%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
23%
15%
14%
7%
6%
1
2
3
4
5
6
How do we teach students to move
higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy?
Teach them the Study Cycle*
*adapted from Frank Christ’s PLRS system
The Study Cycle
34
Reflect
Review
Preview
Preview before class – Skim the chapter, note headings and boldface words,
review summaries and chapter objectives, and come up with questions
you’d like the lecture to answer for you.
Attend
Attend class – GO TO CLASS! Answer and ask questions and take meaningful
notes.
4
Reflect
Review
Study
Assess
Review after class – As soon after class as possible, read notes, fill in gaps
and note any questions.
Study – Repetition is the key. Ask questions such as ‘why’, ‘how’, and ‘what if’.
• Intense Study Sessions* - 3-5 short study sessions per day
• Weekend Review – Read notes and material from the week to make
connections
Assess your Learning – Periodically perform reality checks
• Am I using study methods that are effective?
• Do I understand the material enough to teach it to others?
*Intense Study Sessions
Decide what you want to accomplish in your study session
1
Set a Goal
2
Study with Focus
(30-50 min)
Interact with material- organize, concept map, summarize, process, re-read, fill-in notes,
reflect, etc.
3
Reward Yourself
(10-15 min)
Take a break– call a friend, play a short game, get a snack
4
Review
(1-2 min)
(5 min)
Go over what you just studied
Center for Academic Success
B-31 Coates Hall ▪ 225.578.2872 ▪www.cas.lsu.edu
Further Identifying the “Gap”
to Shift the Paradigm
• Reflection questions
What could I have done differently?
• Comparison of successful vs
non-successful student behaviors
Reflection Question
For which task would you study more?
A. Make an A on the test
B. Teach the material to the class
Top 5 Reasons Folks Did Not Make an A
on First Chemistry Test
1. Didn’t spend enough time on the material
2. Started the homework too late
3. Didn’t memorize the information I needed to
4. Did not use the book
5. Assumed I understood information that I had
read and re-read, but had not applied
Top 5 Reasons Folks Made an A
on Test 1:
1. Did preview-review for every class
2. Did a little of the homework at a time
3. Used the book and did the suggested
problems
4. Made flashcards of the information to be
memorized
5. Practiced explaining the information to
others
Concept maps
facilitate development
of higher order thinking skills
And there are many different forms of
concept maps…
Chapter Map
Title of Chapter
Primary Headings
Subheadings
Secondary Subheadings
Compare and Contrast
Concept #1
Concept #2
How are they similar?
How are they different?
Do you have unprepared students?
Gabriel, Kathleen F. (2008) Teaching Unprepared Students.
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing
Effective Strategies for
Teaching Unprepared Students*
• Establish high expectations
• Emphasize Consistent Contact
• Determine Students’ Learning Styles
• Define Student Success
• Clarify Student Responsibility
• Establish a Learning Community of Scholars
• Meet Students Where They Are
• Interweave Assessment and Teaching
*Kathleen Gabriel, Stylus Publishing, 2008
LSU Analytical Chemistry Graduate Student’s
Cumulative Exam Record
2004 – 2005
2005 – 2006
9/04
Failed
10/05
Passed
10/04
Failed
11/05
Failed
12/05
Passed best in group
1/06
Passed
2/06
Passed
Began work
with CAS and
the Writing
Center in
October 2005
11/04
Failed
12/04
Failed
1/05
Passed
2/05
Failed
3/06
Failed
3/05
Failed
4/06
Passed last one!
4/05
Failed
5/06
N/A
Dr. Algernon Kelley, December 2009
The Impact of Using Metacognitive Strategies
“Without these strategies, I probably would have
gotten a C in chemistry. You showed us the first week
a way to get an A in the class and I knew that was
going to be my only way to achieve that A. I was
planning on just studying before the test.
But when you stressed how important it was to
preview and review and study 2 hours a day or so, I
was in shock, but I followed the guideline and got
myself an A. So, I would like to thank you, because
without these strategies, I probably would have done
terribly in Chemistry.”
Fall 2009 First semester chemistry student
What happens when we teach
metacognitive learning strategies,
Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the Study Cycle
to an entire class, not just individuals?
The story of General Chemistry I
in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011:
what happens when we teach
metacognitive strategies to an
entire class?*
*Cook, Elzbieta and Saundra McGuire. 2011. “Is less
more? How much, when and how to teach learning
strategies in General Chemistry courses”. Poster
presented at the spring national meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Anaheim, CA.
What was done in 2008 and 2009
in General Chemistry I
In 2008 and 2009, students lacking math skills
(Math ACT score < 24) were allowed to take Gen
Chem I.
However, they had to
• co-enroll in College Algebra
• enroll in a 1-credit hour supplemental chemistry
course (Chem 1200), in which study and learning
strategies, as well as problem solving skills, were
taught throughout the semester in a weekly 75
minute review session.
Gen. Chem. I Results for Students
with MATH ACT score < 24
Before CHEM 1200
2006
Cook
2007
Combined
Instructors
Cook
Combined
Instructors
%ABC
47
54
46
47
%DFW
53
46
54
53
Performance in Gen Chem I based on
Chem 1200 attendance
2008
1200 (≥75% sessions)
2009
No-1200
(N = 191; 86%)
1200 (≥75% sessions)
No-1200
(N = 157; 64%)
A
B
C
D
F
W
15.71
29.84
32.98
18.32
3.14
−
33.05
26.87
15.78
8.96
8.10
7.25
12.01
24.20
43.95
12.73
5.10
1.91
29.82
25.06
21.55
6.02
8.77
8.77
ABC
DFW
78.53
21.47
75.69
24.31
80.25
19.75
76.44
23.55
What was done in 2010 and 2011?
• No students with ACT math scores < 24
were allowed in Gen Chem I
• No Chem 1200 was offered.
• But, study and learning strategies were
taught in one 50-min class immediately
after the results of Exam 1 were
announced.
Fall 2010 chain of events…
Aug. 23: 657 students were enrolled at the start of the course
Sept. 25: 632 students took Exam 1:
• 123 (19.5%) students failed Exam 1
• 86 students failed Exam 1 but stayed in the course
Sept. 27: 461 students attended McGuire’s talk; 156 did not
Oct. 20: 617 students took Exam 2
Exam 1 Avg.:
Attended
72.35%
Absent
70.11%
Improvement on Exam 2:
Decline on Exam 2:
No change on Exam 2:
230 (50%)
127 (27.5%)
104 (22.5%)
55 (35%)
70 (45%)
31 (20%)
Fall 2010 chain of events…
Aug. 23: 657 students were enrolled at the start of the semester
Sept. 25: 461 students attended McGuire’s talk; 156 did not
Oct. 20: 617 students took Exam 2
Exam 1 Avg.:
Attended
72.35%
Absent
70.11%
Exam 2 Avg.:
76.01%
68.74%
Exam 1 to Exam 2 Change
+3.66%
-1.37%
Net change:
+
+5.03%
One 50-min presentation on study and learning strategies resulted in
an improvement of over 1/2 of a letter grade
Performance in Gen Chem I in 2010
Based on One Learning Strategies Session
Exam 1 Avg.:
Exam 2 Avg.:
Final course Avg*.:
Final Course Grade:
Attended
72.35%
76.01%
82.48%
B
Absent
70.11%
68.74%
72.61%
C
Even one 50-min presentation on study and learning
strategies may mean an improvement of one full letter grade!
Note: 15% of the final course grade was determined by homework;
students could also earn ~5% for extra credit activities.
Fall 2011 chain of events…
Aug. 22: 718 students were enrolled at the start of the semester
Sept. 23: 502 students attended McGuire’s talk; 216 did not
Oct. 11: 695 students took Exam 2
Exam 1 Avg.:
Attended
71.65%
Absent
70.45%
Entire Class
71.30%
Exam 2 Avg.:
77.18%
68.90%
74.74%
Exam 1 to Exam 2 Change
+5.53%
-1.55%
+3.34%
Net change:
+7.08%
One 50-min presentation on study and learning strategies resulted in
an improvement of over 2/3 of a letter grade
Performance in Gen Chem I in 2011
Based on One Learning Strategies Session
Exam 1 Avg.:
Exam 2 Avg.:
Final course Avg*.:
Final Course Grade:
Attended
71.65%
77.18%
81.60%
B
Absent
70.45%
68.90%
70.43%
C
The one 50-min presentation on study and learning strategies
again resulted in an improvement of one full letter grade!
Note: 15% of the final course grade was determined by homework;
students could also earn ~5% for extra credit activities.
Performance in Organic Chem I Based on
One Learning Strategies Session
Fall 2011
Exam 1 Avg.:
Exam 2 Avg.:
Attended
67.95%
71.36%
Absent
74.04%
70.39%
Change
+3.41%
-3.65%
Net Change
+7.06%
One 50-min presentation on study and learning strategies again
resulted in an improvement of over 2/3 of a letter grade on Exam 2
Intro Chem Results Spring 2007
Test 1 Test 2
Attended lecture 156
on metacog. 3/2*
Final
Total points
109
214
801 (B)
Did not attend
154
93
153
563 (D)
Class average
153
100
176
662 (C)
*Approximately 80 attendees out of 200 students
because session was on a Friday afternoon. Exam 1
was Wednesday, March 7.
Important Reading
Dweck, Carol, 2006.
Mindset: The New Psychology
of Success. New York:
Random House Publishing
Shenk, David, 2010. The Genius in All
of Us: Why Everything You've Been
Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is
Wrong. New York: Doubleday
Mindset* Matters!
 Fixed Intelligence Mindset
Intelligence is static
You have a certain amount of it
 Growth Intelligence Mindset
Intelligence can be developed
You can grow it with actions
Dweck, Carol (2006) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.
New York: Random House Publishing
Mindset determines reactions to
• Challenges – avoid vs. embrace
• Obstacles – give up easily vs. persist
• Tasks requiring effort – fruitless vs. path to
mastery
• Criticism – ignore vs. learn from
• Success of Others – feel threatened by vs.
find lessons and inspiration in
Teaching and Learning Strategies That Work
SCIENCE , VOL 325
4 SEPTEMBER 2009
www.sciencemag.org
ROALD HOFFMANN1*
AND
SAUNDRA Y. MCGUIRE2
1Department
of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell
University, Baker Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
2Center
for Academic Success and Department of Chemistry,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
September-October 2010
Volume 98, Number 5
MARGINALIA
Learning and Teaching Strategies
Roald Hoffmann and Saundra Y. McGuire
Knowledge of Metacognition Greatly
Increases URM Student Success
 They are less likely to have been
cognitively challenged in high school
 They are less likely to be encouraged to
stick with it
 They are more likely to experience the
impact of a paradigm shift
From Spring 2011 AA male Eng student…
“…Personally, I am not so good at chemistry and
unfortunately, at this point my grade for that class is reflecting
exactly that. I am emailing you inquiring about a possibility of
you tutoring me.”
April 6, 2011
“I made a 68, 50, 50, 87, 87, and a 97 on my final. I ended up
earning a 90 in the course, but I started with a 60. I think what
I did different was make sidenotes in each chapter and as I
progressed onto the next chapter I was able to refer to these
notes. I would say that in chemistry everything builds from
the previous topic”
May 13, 2011
Semester GPA: 3.8
From a Xavier University student to Dr. Kelley in Fall 2011
Oct. 17, 2011
Hello Dr. Kelley. … I am struggling at Xavier and I REALLY want to
succeed, but everything I've tried seems to end with a "decent" grade. I’m
not the type of person that settles for decent. What you preached during
the time you were in Dr. Privett's class last week is still ringing in my
head. I really want to know how you were able to do really well
even despite your circumstances growing up. I was hoping you could
mentor me and guide me down the path that will help me realize my true
potential while here at Xavier. Honestly I want to do what you did, but I
seriously can't find a way how to. Can I please set up a meeting with you
as soon as you’re available so I can learn how to get a handle on grades
and classes?
Oct. 24, 2011
Hey Dr. Kelley, I made an 84 on my chemistry exam (compared to the 56
on my first one) using your method for 2 days (without prior intense
studying). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I’ll come by your
office Friday and talk to you about the test.
Nov 3, 2011
Hey Dr. Kelley! I have increased my Bio exam grade from a 76% to a
91.5% using your system. Ever since I started your study cycle program,
my grades have significantly improved. I have honestly gained a sense of
hope and confidence here at Xavier. My family and I are really grateful
that you have taken time to get me back on track.
LA-STEM
RESEARCH SCHOLARS
PROGRAM:
AN AMAZING SUCCESS STORY!
Louisiana State
University
Innovative Educators
Webinar
213 2010
Hatcher Hall
October 20,
Office of Strategic Initiatives
Center
for Academic Success
Transform Learning. Maximize Performance.
LA-STEM SCHOLARS
Percentage of total Scholars Served by Ethnicity
&Gender: 2003-2011
Females
Males
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
American
American
Indian
Indian
Asian/Pacific
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Islander
Black
Black
Hispanic
Hispanic
SIX-YEAR GRADUATION RATES
Office of Office
Strategic
InitiativesInitiatives
of Strategic
IN
White
White
STEM
*LA-STEM
Research
Scholars
Program
Highly
Selective
Institutions
Louisiana
State
University
Selective
Institutions
Moderately
Selective
Institutions
All
92.3%
49.6%
34.4%
37.6%
28.0%
Male
96.0%
50.0%
38.4%
39.2%
28.5%
Female
90.2%
46.7%
29.0%
34.6%
27.2%
Black
92.3%
33.0%
26.7%
24.6%
12.5%
Center
for Academic Success
Transform Learning. Maximize Performance.
LA-STEM GRADUATES
Columbia University
Duke University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Rice University
Texas A & M University
The Ohio State University
Tulane University
University of Alabama
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of Florida at Gainesville
University of Iowa
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Texas/M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Office of Strategic
Initiatives
Office of
Strategic Initiatives
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Wake Forest University
Washington University
We can significantly increase
student learning in STEM!
• We must teach students the learning
process and specific strategies
• We must not judge student potential on
initial performance
• We must encourage students to persist
in the face of initial failure
• We must encourage the use of
metacognitive tools
Useful Websites
•
•
•
•
•
•
www.cas.lsu.edu
www.howtostudy.org
www.vark-learn.com
www.drearlbloch.com
Searches on www.google.com
www.khanacademy.org
Additional References
• Bruer, John T. , 2000. Schools For Thought: A Science of Learning in
the Classroom. MIT Press.
• Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (Eds.), 2000. How people
learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
• Christ, F. L., 1997. Seven Steps to Better Management of Your Study
Time. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing
• Cromley, Jennifer, 2000. Learning to Think, Learning to Learn: What
the Science of Thinking and Learning Has to Offer Adult Education.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
• Ellis, David, 2006. Becoming a Master Student*. New York:
Houghton-Mifflin.
• Hoffman, Roald and Saundra Y. McGuire. (2010). Learning and
Teaching Strategies. American Scientist , vol. 98, pp. 378-382.
• Nilson, Linda, 2004. Teaching at It’s Best: A Research-Based
Resource for College Instructors. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing
Company.
• Pierce, William, 2004. Metacognition: Study Strategies,
Monitoring, and Motivation.
http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/metacognition.htm
*Excellent student reference
Acknowledgments




Dr. Elzbieta Cook, General Chem I Instructor
Prof. Roald Hoffmann, mentor and collaborator
Faculty in the LSU Chemistry Department
Prof. Isiah Warner and the Office of Strategic
Initiatives
 Sarah Baird & LSU Center for Academic Success
 National College Learning Center Association
 All of the students who changed their attitudes
and behaviors and showed me what was possible!
• Support provided by: