Metacognition in the School Library Kasey Garrison, Charles Sturt - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kasey Garrison, Charles Sturt University Robin Spruce, Old Dominion University

Metacognition in the School Library

Self-Assessment in the School Library

• Standards for the 21st Century Learner (AASL, 2007)

– Skills – Dispositions – Responsibilities – *Self-assessment Strategies*

• Reflecting, Evaluating, Monitoring, Adapting
• Related to metacognitive strategies & self-

regulation (Donham, 2010; Wolf, Brush, & Saye, 2003)

Metacognition Defined

• “…the monitoring of cognitive enterprises…”

(Flavell, 1979, p. 909)

• “…knowledge of one’s own knowledge

processes, and cognitive and affective states…”

(Hacker, 1998, p. 11)

• “metacognitive knowledge underlies self-

regulation” (Stright, Neitzel, Sears, & Hoke, 2001, p. 458)

Theoretical Framework

• Incorporates Schraw (1998); AASL (2007); Zimmerman (2010)

Metacognition in Schools

• Metacognition can be taught (Allington et al., 2001; Best,

McNamara, Ozuro, & Rowe, 2005; Cheek & Schorzman, 2004; Kramarski & Revach, 2009; Ness, 2009; Zimmerman, 2002)

• Important factor in student success (Hacker, 1998;

Schraw, 1998; Zimmerman, 2002; 2010)

• Teacher understandings?

(Randi 2004)

Research on Teacher Understandings

• Wilson & Bai (2010) Developed Teacher

Metacognition Scale (TMS)

– 20 Question Likert scale – Strong Declarative & Procedural Knowledge – Limited Pedagogical and Conditional Knowledge

• Similar findings in first part of our study (Spruce &

Garrison, 2012)

– TMS dissemination to TLs in Mid-Atlantic area of US – Option to volunteer for qualitative extension

Our Research Question for this Study How do teacher librarians apply their knowledge about metacognition and metacognitive strategies in their instructional practices?

Methodology

• Replicated Robin’s dissertation
• 10 participants volunteered from TMS
• Interviews and two teaching observations

– Two participants co-observed (20%)

• Instruments created from Zimmerman’s

Model (2010)

• Protocols followed 3 stages (Planning,

Monitoring, & Evaluation)

• Interviews combined personal and

professional practice, as a learner and teacher

Characteristics of 10 Participants

• Work in/near urban areas in Mid-Atlantic USA
• School Level: 4 Primary, 1 Middle, 1 Middle &

Secondary, 4 Secondary

• Highest Degree: All Masters
• Gender: 9 Females, 1 Male
• Teaching Experience:

– Mean= 21.5 years, Range= 2-34 years

• TL Experience:

– Mean= 15.1 years, Range= 9-34 years

• National Board Certified Teachers: 4 Participants

Observation Protocol

• Examples of TL Observable Behavior

– 6 Planning Behaviors- Setting Task Goals – 7 Monitoring Behaviors- Use of Specific Task Strategies – 5 Evaluation Behaviors- Causal Attribution of Task Performance

• Ranking TL behaviors 0-4, then noted means

– 0= Not Observed – 1= Limited Application, 1 TL reference – 2= Somewhat Limited, >1 TL references – 3= Somewhat Strong, 1 opportunity for practice – 4= Strong Application, >1 opportunities for practice

Observation Findings

Participants* Planning (4) Monitoring (4) Evaluation (4) Totals (12) JDL 1.33 1.57 .6 3.5 Incognito 1.42 1.79 .4 3.70 Sydney 1.42 1.79 .5 3.71 Owl 1.08 2.64 3.72 Naomi 1.54 1.89 .3 3.73 Ruby 1.3 2.5 .5 4.30 Violet 1.8 2.64 1.5 5.94 Tessa 2.58 3.64 .3 6.52 Jacqueline 2.6 3.15 1.5 7.25 Eleanor 2.75 4 1.6 8.35 Mean Totals 1.78 2.56 0.72 5.07 *Participants chose their own or were assigned a pseudonym.

Preliminary Themes from Interviews

• Strong connection between personal &

professional practice but differentiation as well

• Strategies noted by TLs

– Chunking, Breaking down tasks into steps – Graphic Organizers, Visualization – Checklists, Rubrics, Calendars – Modeling, Scaffolding

• Discourse among various groups

– Self, Peers, Librarian, Other Adults

• Reflection after learning event

Time for Evaluation & Reflection

“…we’re so test driven now that the kids can’t sit around a table and come up with a solution to a problem. Yeah, that didn’t work let’s figure

• ut what will work.” -Ruby, secondary TL

“…it is extremely hard to get teachers to want to stop and take the time to do that. They, they don’t automatically buy in to the value of having students self-evaluate and so I’m always preaching that.” –Eleanor middle TL

Some Conclusions

• Strongest Application in Monitoring phase

– Same with classroom teachers (Spruce, 2012) – Most time of lesson spent here, more opportunities

• Evaluation & reflection important, but no

time…

• Structured research process supports

evaluation & self-assessment

– Eleanor had highest ob scores, proponent of Big 6 – Similar to findings from Wolf, Brush, & Saye (2003)

Limitations & Future Directions

• Collaborative Teaching

– Ruby, Incognito, Eleanor, Owl, JDL, Tessa

• Type of lesson affects observation scores

– Lecture- less opportunities for practice – Ongoing project- less direct evaluation/reflection

• Effect of NBCT- deep reflection process
• Aussie TLs- timely with inquiry based national

curriculum initiatives

Thank you! & Questions?

References

• Allington, R., Baker, K., Block, C. C., Brooks, G., Cronin, J., & Morrow, L., et al. (2001). A study of effective first grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of

Reading, 51 (1), 35 – 58.

• American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st-Century learner. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from American Library Association, American

Association of School Librarians website: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ aasl/ guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_LearningStandards.pdf.

• American Association of School Librarians. (2008). Learning 4 life: A national plan for implementation of Standards for the 21st-Century Learner and Empowering

Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved March 21, 2012, from American Library Association, American Association of School Librarians website: http://www.ala.org/aasl/ guidelinesandstandards/learning4life/document/download.

• American Association of School Librarians. (2009). Standards for the 21st-Century Learner in Action. Chicago: American Library Association.
• American Association of School Librarians. (2012). Crosswalk of the Common Core Standards and the Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. Retrieved March

21, 2012, from American Library Association, American Association of School Librarians website: http://www.ala.org/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/ commoncorecrosswalk.

• Best, R. M., McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., & Rowe, M. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language

Disorders, 25(1), 65 – 83.

• Cheek, E. H., & Schorzman, E. M. (2004). Structured strategy instruction: Investigating an intervention for improving sixth-graders’ reading comprehension.

Reading Psychology, 25, 37 – 60.

• Donham, J. (2010). Creating personal learning through self-assessment. Teacher Librarian, 37(3).
• Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In Dunlosky, John, Graesser, Arthur C., Hacker, Douglas J. (Eds.) Metacognition in educational theory

and practice (1-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-Regulated comprehension during normal reading. In Dunlosky, John,Graesser, Arthur C., Hacker, Douglas J. (Eds.) Metacognition in

educational theory and practice (165-192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Herring, J (2006). A critical investigation of student and teachers' views of the use of information literacy skills in school assignments. School Library Media

Research 9. Accessed June 7, 2011, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubs andjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume09/herring_criticalinvestigation.cfm

• Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers' professional growth in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 1, 161-175.

• Ness, M. (2009). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension
• instruction. Reading Horizons, 49 (2), 143- 166.
• Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
• Spruce, R.S. (2012). Unpublished dissertation, Old Dominion University.
• Spruce, R.S., & Garrison, K.L. (2012). Stop and think: Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
• Wilson, N.S. & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers' metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings. Metacognition Learning, 5,

269-288.

• Wolf, S., Brush T., & Saye, J. (2003). The Big Six information skills as a metacognitive scaffold: A case study. School Library Media Research 6. Accessed June 7,

2011, http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/ volume62003/bigsixinformation.htm

• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 64-70.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2010). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American

Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.