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

Metacognition: the LSUS Quality Enhancement Plan

Faculty Development Day

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

Understanding a text Thinking Being aware of one’s understanding of the text 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
• 2. Read the text
• 3. Check back during the first read
• 4. Ask questions (self generated)
• 5. Re-read
• 6. Clarify

Monitoring Planning Evaluating

LSU student definitions Studying Learning

Short term memorization

• f material for a test

Deep understanding of information allowing the learner to apply the concepts Tedious Fun Answers “What?” Answers “Why?” “How?” and “What if…?”

(adapted from McGuire 2008)

http://www.maxvibrant.com/bloom-s- taxonomy/bloom-s-taxonomy

Teach students

1. to become aware of their level of understanding 2. to aspire for the top of the pyramid

Self-Misperception

A recent study of entering freshmen at a large public university found:

• 46%
• f 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. (Each point represents a student).

(Dr. Stephen Chew, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH95h36NChI)

Actual % 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 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 below the diagonal.

Actual % Estimated %

(Dr. Stephen Chew, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH95h36NChI)

• Dr. Chew’s results bear
• ut 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

• ver confident but the

most significant conclusion is that students were totally unaware of their deficiencies.

Actual % Estimated %

(Dr. Stephen Chew, 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
• f 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

• I. Executive Summary (one page)
• II. Process Used to Develop the QEP: Evidence of the involvement of all

appropriate campus constituencies (providing support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “includes a broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the development…of the QEP”)

• 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 “focuses on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning”)

• IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes: Specific, well-defined goals related to an

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 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)

• VI. Actions to be Implemented: Evidence of careful analysis of institutional context

in designing actions capable of generating the desired student learning outcomes (providing support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)

• VI. Timeline: A logical calendaring of all actions to be implemented (providing

support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)

• VIII. Organizational Structure: Clear lines of responsibility for implementation and

sustainability (providing support for compliance CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)

• IX. Resources: A realistic allocation of sufficient human, financial, and physical

resources (providing support for compliance CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)

• X. Assessment: A comprehensive evaluation plan (providing support for

compliance with CS 3.3.2 “a plan to assess their achievement”)

• XI. Appendices (optional)

The QEP committee members are: Paula Atkins, Julie Lessiter, John S. Vassar, Emmanuel Clottey, Karen James, Stephen Banks, Rick Mabry, Tracey Burrell, Cindy Sisson, Stephanie Aamodt, Bill Peters, Jon Baarsch, Alex Mikaberidze and Helen Taylor.

The Committee has a great deal of work to do in addressing the rigorous requirements

• f a SACS-COC

approved quality enhancement plan