Faculty Development Day Metacognition: the LSUS Q uality E - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Faculty Development Day Metacognition: the LSUS Q uality E nhancement P lan

What is Metacognition? • “Thinking about Thinking”, • “Self - Regulation”, • “Meta - Memory”, • “Executive Control” Livingston, J.A., (1997)

Coutinho, Savia A. (2007)

A Quality Enhancement Plan is a SACS-COC Requirement What is our greatest need at LSUS? Retention of students, currently 1/3 of LSUS freshmen do not return 1/2 of LSUS sophomores do not return Why are students leaving? Because the strategies that worked in high school are not effective in college

Cognition Metacognition Being aware of one’s Understanding a text understanding of the text Thinking Monitoring and controlling your thinking

Reading: as too often practiced by students 1. Read the text 2. Take notes ( i.e. mechanically copy information from textbook to notebook)

Reading: a Metacognitive Practice 1. Preview the text Planning 2. Read the text 3. Check back during the first read 4. Ask questions (self generated) Monitoring 5. Re-read 6. Clarify Evaluating

LSU student definitions Studying Learning Deep understanding of information Short term memorization allowing the learner to apply the of material for a test concepts Tedious Fun Answers “Why?” “How?” and “What Answers “What?” if…?” (adapted from McGuire 2008)

Teach students 1. to become aware of their level of understanding 2. to aspire for the top of the pyramid http://www.maxvibrant.com/bloom-s- taxonomy/bloom-s-taxonomy

Self-Misperception A recent study of entering freshmen at a large public university found: • 46% of the students had an “A” average in high school. • 34% reported studying or doing homework for 6 or more hours a week. • 70% thought they were above average , or in the top 10% of people their age. (Study by the Higher Education Research Institute, cited in McGuire 2008)

Results from a self- diagnostic question after the first exam in Psych 101 taught by Dr. Stephen Chew, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama. Actual % (Each point represents a student). (Dr. Stephen Chew, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH95h36NChI) Estimated %

• Students who had an accurate idea about how they performed would place on the diagonal, whereas students who scored better than they thought they had, would be above the diagonal. The over confidant students placed below the diagonal. Note how there are few students above the diagonal, these are the students Actual % who did better than expected. Examine the upper right hand corner, these are the students who did best, and they are close to the diagonal. In the center of the graph are the students who did poorly and they are well (Dr. Stephen Chew, Estimated % https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH95h36NChI ) below the diagonal.

Dr. Chew’s results bear out Dr. McGuire’s findings; the weaker students thought they had performed better than they had, and thus may be thought of as having poor metacognition. They were unprepared and over confident but the Actual % most significant conclusion is that students were totally unaware of their deficiencies. (Dr. Stephen Chew, Estimated % https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH95h36NChI )

Goals of the QEP 1. Students will improve their learning by monitoring their own learning progress during a course. 2. Students will improve their learning by adjusting their learning strategies to align with the learning task. 3. Students will improve their learning by evaluating the outcomes of their learning efforts.

If we can teach our students to become engaged learners, paying attention to their cognitive involvement in the learning process, we believe we can increase enrollment and retention. The QEP committee is convinced that we can do this literally ”across the curriculum” starting with our freshman seminar classes and on through to the 400 level classes.

QEP Outline The Committee has a I. Executive Summary (one page) II. Process Used to Develop the QEP: Evidence of the involvement of all great deal of work to appropriate campus constituencies (providing support for compliance with CS do in addressing the 3.3.2 “includes a broad -based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development…of the QEP”) rigorous requirements III. Identification of the Topic: A topic that is creative and vital to the long-term improvement of student learning (providing support for compliance with CR2.12 of a SACS-COC “focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student approved quality learning”) IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes: Specific, well-defined goals related to an enhancement plan issue of substance and depth, expected to lead to observable results (providing support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “identifies goals”) V. Literature Review and Best Practices: Evidence of consideration of best practices related to the topic (providing support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 The QEP committee “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the members are: QEP”) VI. Actions to be Implemented: Evidence of careful analysis of institutional context in designing actions capable of generating the desired student learning outcomes Paula Atkins, Julie (providing support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”) Lessiter, John S. Vassar, VI. Timeline: A logical calendaring of all actions to be implemented (providing Emmanuel Clottey, Karen support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”) James, Stephen Banks, VIII. Organizational Structure: Clear lines of responsibility for implementation and Rick Mabry, Tracey sustainability (providing support for compliance CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”) Burrell, Cindy Sisson, IX. Resources: A realistic allocation of sufficient human, financial, and physical Stephanie Aamodt, Bill resources (providing support for compliance CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”) Peters, Jon Baarsch, Alex X. Assessment: A comprehensive evaluation plan (providing support for Mikaberidze and Helen compliance with CS 3.3.2 “a plan to assess their achievement”) XI. Appendices (optional) Taylor.