Metacognitive Journaling, Gender, and Achievement

1
Meta-cognitive Journaling, Gender, and
Achievement

• What questions can research answer?

2
About Writing

• Remember how complex the act of
• writing is
• being both creative and analytical
• thinking inwardly and outwardly
• understanding the topic

3
Week in Review

• As an individual, respond to this prompt
• What were the three or four most significant
  ideas, activities, experiences, etc., of the
  Winter Conference?
• .
• .
• .

4
Week in Reviewnext

• Step 2 Meet with a group of 3-5. If you dont
  know each other, introduce yourself. Each group
  member shares his or her list while the others
  listen. When all are done, the group discusses
  the lists to create one list with no more than 5
  items on it. One person records the 5 items a
  different person shares the items (or the list is
  simply turned in).

5
Suggested Note-taking

• Cornell Notes
• Make Two Columns (1/3 and 2/3)
• Column 1 (the 1/3) Label Questions, comments,
  possible applications
• Column 2 (the 2/3) Label Notes

6
Laying the Groundwork for RTI

• What is core?
• What data or assessment?
• Can we use the WASL?
• Im not sure about my intervention toolbox. Who
  has these?
• Talk to leadership.

• RTI is not Special Edits Gen Ed
• Core, Strategic, and Intense Levels
• Data-driven
• Universal Screening Assessment
• Core Strategies for T and L
• Intervention for Struggling Students
• Progress Monitoring
• PLCs

7
About Writing

• How can I know what I think until I see
• what I say? (E.M. Forster)
• In a classroom, whose thinking is important? Who
  needs to see?

8
About Writing and Learning

• We dont write to display understanding, but to
  acquire understanding.
• Writing teaches.
• That simple fact explains why students need
  writing in the content areas.
• The process of composing thoughts moves students
  from a muddle of isolated facts toward an order
  of integrated knowledge.
• Thats usually called understanding.
• Carl Luty (NEA)

9
The Background

• Writing
• Meta-cognition

10
The 1970s

• Writing
• 1971 Janet Emig defines Writing to Learn in
  her seminal dissertation while teaching high
  school English

• Meta-cognition and
• Self-regulation
• 1979 Flavell defines Meta-cognition
• Bandura refines the concept of self-regulation

11
The 1980s and 1990s

• Writing
• Schunk and Swartz (1993)
• Zimmerman and Kitsunias (1997)

• Meta-cognition and Self-regulation

12
The 2000s

• Writing
• From BYU (2000)
• Bazerman, Little, Bethel (2005)

• Meta-cognition and
• Self-regulation
• Bond (2004)

13
Definitions

• Writing
• Meta-cognition
• Self-regulation
• Self-efficacy

14
About your notes

• The LINE OF LEARNING
• Stopthink.wonder.remember

15
Current Research

• 2005 to the present

16
Self-reflection, Gender, and Science Achievement

• 2005
• Dissertation done for Seattle Pacific University
• Arthur Ellis, Chair, William Nagy and Sandra
  Bond, Committee Members

17
Foundations

• Rousseau
• let him discover he has the tools
• teacher controls the environment
• Dewey
• she needs continuity and interaction
• teacher arouses an active question

18
Foundations

• Piaget
• his knowing means acting
• teacher appeals to autonomous forces
• Bandura
• she learns via a continuous reciprocal
  interaction
• teacher offers models and reinforcement

19
Theory and Research

• Control
• McCombs (1991)
• Eshel and Kohavi (2003)
• Metacognition and Self-regulation
• Flavell (1977)
• Peklaj and Pecjak (2002)

20
Theory and Research

• Reflection
• Zimmerman (1998)
• Hartlep and Forsyth (2000)
• Gender
• Gurian and Stevens (2004)
• Pajares (2003)

21
Sample Who and How

• Subjects 175 high school biology students in six
  class periods with one teacher.
• Sampling convenience sample.
• Random assignment to intervention group.

22
Sample Who and How

• Subjects 175 high school biology students in six
  class periods with one teacher.
• Sampling convenience sample.
• Random assignment to intervention group.

23
Question 1 and 2 Is there an achievement
difference between students who reflect and those
who do not?

• No significant differences between those who
  reflect and those who do not.

24
Question 3 Are the intervention group effects
different for males and females?

• No statistically significant difference with
  Univariate ANOVA for post or retention test or
  for Time x Intervention x Gender with Repeated
  Measures ANOVA.
• Statistically significant Time x Intervention and
  Time x Gender (reflection lower males lower).

25
Figure 1 General ANOVA
26
Figure 3 (Time x Gender)
27
Question 4 Is there an achievement difference
between students who reflect and those who
reflect and receive feedback?

• Univariate ANOVA No significant difference
  between those who do and do not receive feedback.
• Repeated-measures Significant difference between
  those who reflect and other 2 groups.

28
Data Analysis

• Question 1 and 2
• Univariate ANOVA
• Question 3
• Univariate ANOVA
• 3 x3 x 2 repeated measures mixed ANOVA
• Question 4
• Univariate ANOVA

29
Overall Conclusions
30
Discussion Implications

• Question 1 and 2 Lack of significant
  differences (reflection and no reflection) is
  quite different from research. Students who
  reflect had the lowest scores.
• Question 3 Over time, those who reflect with no
  feedback have significantly lower achievement
  slope.
• Question 4 Significant difference between
  reflect and reflect with feedback groups, but no
  difference between reflect with feedback and
  control groups. Reflect with feedback scores
  highest for all three test times.

31
Questions for Future Research

• Does a block schedule have any effect on
  achievement?
• Which metacognitive strategies are best suited
  for high school students? Which prompts?
• Does peer feedback make a difference in
  achievement?
• Is there a difference in self-efficacy between
  adolescent males and females? Is there a
  correlation between self-efficacy and
  achievement?
• Does the length and complexity of reflective
  journals correlate with achievement?

32
About your notes

• The LINE OF LEARNING
• Stopthink.wonder.remember
• What questions should be considered?

33
The Present

• Mindset (Dweck, 2006)
• Schunk and Zimmerman (2007)
• Pajares (2007)

34
What the research shows

• We know that high self-efficacy, use of
  self-reflection and meta-cognition may raise
  achievement.
• We know that self-reflection can raise
  self-efficacy.
• We know that students have higher self-efficacy
  and achievement when they have control and
  choice.
• We know that journal writing has the potential to
  allow students choice, control, meta-cognition
  practice, and ongoing self-reflection.

35
About Feedback

• What does this research suggest?

36
About your notes

• The LINE OF LEARNING
• Stopthink.wonder.remember what you know about
  Feedback. On what occasion did it really work
  for you as a learner?

37
Butler and Nisan (1986)

• Prescriptive Feedback or Descriptive Feedback of
  No Feedbackfor quantitative work? for
  divergent-thinking work?
• Results when students were given a variety of
  feedback variations on three sessions of student
  work

38
Results, continued

• Receiving descriptive feedback on task 1 led to
  better performance on next two tasks and
  increased student motivation.
• Receiving prescriptive feedback on task 1 led to
  better performance on quantitative task but lower
  performance on divergent-thinking. Student
  motivation decreased.
• No feedback led to poor continued performance and
  decrease in motivation.

39
About Feedbackthe RBDs

• Kluger and DeNisi (1996) did a meta-analysis of
  research on feedback. Findings
• Average effect size of feedback on performance is
  .41, equal to moving from the 50th to 66th
  percentile.
• More than 38 percent of the studies embedded in
  that .41 indicated that control groups
  outperformed feedback groups

40
Four levels of feedback

• FB about the task (are answers right or wrong
  are directions being followed)
• FB about process used in the task (info about
  strategies used or which might be used)

• FB about self-regulation (info about student
  self-evaluation or confidence)
• FB about the student as a person (statements such
  as You are so smart/good/clever!)

41
More current research

• Hattie and Timperely (2007) found
• Feedback primary use to the formative process
• Feedback may be the information which drives or
  derails the formative process
• Are you helping students driveor are you
  derailing them?

42
Make strategic choices in
43
What to do?

• Interactive is the absolute best..or a
  demonstration/visual with interaction if that
  fits.
• If you offer written feedback, write on the
  rubric or title page.

44
Make strategic choices in
45
What to do?

• Is the issue a special cause or a common cause?
• Common? Group.
• Special? Individual and interactive.

46
Make strategic choices in
47
What to do?

• Choose points of most relevance to the really big
  or immediate learning goals.

48
Make strategic choices in
49
What to do?

• Offer immediate feedback for facts.
• Slight delay appropriate for deeper review.
• Knowledge of results imperative for continuous
  student learning improvement.

50
So

• The effect of feedback on achievement depends on
  the feedback itself.
• Proper feedback fosters interest/focus on task
  for its own sake, affecting performance and
  motivation.

51
What to do in the classroom?

• Student control/choice
• Frequent teacher and peer modeling of writing
  strategies
• Focus on process, not outcome
• Feedback which offers focus and support, not
  evaluation
• Writing to learn done frequently

52
Dear Confused,

• You may be really lost in all this conversation
  about metacognition, gender, feedback, and
  self-evaluation. Somehow, though, I think Im
  starting to get it. Let me try to help you
  understand as well.
• Lets start with metacognition..the big MC. I
  like to think of it that way, because really, my
  thinking is the Big MC in my head which

53
Local resources

• John Bean, Seattle University
• http//www.mwp.hawaii.edu/resources/workshop_2008s
  pring.pdf
• Carmen Werder, WWU
• http//www.wwu.edu/wis/resources.shtml
• And..
• http//wac.colostate.edu/teaching/index.cfm?catego
  ry3
• http//www.wastatelaser.org/_resources/sciencenote
  booking.asp