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

Metacognition in the School Library Kasey Garrison, Charles Sturt University Robin Spruce, Old Dominion University

Self-Assessment in the School Library • Standards for the 21 st 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 0 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 out 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?