Curiosity, Creativity, Passion, and Deep Questioning Quest Leads to the Best Learning
John Seely Brown speaks on the new culture of learning in a world of constant flux. The world as we know it is forever gone. The age of maintaining and protecting “stocks” or the status quo is gone and has been replaced with “flow” in which constant change is the norm. He claims that the half-life of the current set of skills we have been taught and possess is shrinking and I agree. We cannot be content with the outdated skills we possess if we are to keep up with the ever changing flow. We have to keep adjusting if we do not want to drown in that flow. Brown emphasizes on the importance of teaching the “tacit” or implicit as well as the importance of collaborative study groups, curiosity, passion, and a deep questioning quest for the best learning. He gives several examples that demonstrate how a person with curiosity for something, the passion to pursue and fail over and over again coupled with collaborative study groups is the best way to learn. He introduces a story about a championship surfer who starts out with a great curiosity for surfing which led to his seeking out a cohort of surfers whom he could practice with. They studied videos frame by frame, critiqued each other, mastered moves and continued to progress together. Their passion and “deep questioning quest” eventually led them to create new moves and now the whole cohort is professional championship surfers. In order to master those moves and become the success that they are, the cohort had to combine explicit and implicit knowledge of surfing through learning about surfing through videos as well as through experience. Brown also refers to this as the “in-game” and “out-game” learning. He references the game, the World of Warcraft (WoW) in which players are constantly in a passionate pursuit of extreme performance. They want to progress and if they are not getting better, the game is not considered fun. The ability to progress is reliant on two factors, the in-game as well as the out-game learning. Tinkering and experiencing the physics in the world of WoW is important but so is connecting with other players through the dashboard and learning about the game. It is the combination of the two that brings about achievement. Howard Gardner speaks about the five minds for the future. He starts by introducing the five minds, three of which are cognitive minds. The cognitive minds include the disciplined mind, synthesizing mind, and creating mind, in addition to the respectful mind and ethical mind. He argues that the synthesizing mind is what should be on our minds because we are constantly overwhelmed and overloaded by information (facts, data, discipline, subject matter, etc.) from the steady stream of media, e-mail, conversations, and so on occurring between us and the world (friends, family, work, etc.). The synthesizing mind needs to be able to filter the barrage of information to find what is relevant and be able to rearrange the information in a way that sticks in our minds. We as educators need to find a way to facilitate this in our classrooms. This resonated with me in particular because my current research study pertains to how critical thinking skills relate to retention of content. Then it follows that developing synthesizing as a critical thinking skill should in theory help students better organize information that allows them to retain information better. Without the synthesizing mind, Gardner maintains that information is forever lost in the midst of all the information thrown at us on a daily basis. So, how do we teach this? Another mind that Gardner talked about at great length and was of special interest to me was the ethical mind. Gardner asserts that the ethical mind is much more difficult to describe because it is an “abstract attitude”. He explains how the ethical mind accompanies a set of responsibilities based on our roles or citizenship. He is not just Howard Gardner but also a scholar, teacher, and social scientist which put certain obligations on him. Moreover, because students are not workers, they may not be able to grasp what an “abstract attitude” or ethical mind is but by connecting it to their role and responsibilities as a student, we can make it a “concrete attitude” that they can better understand. This segment on the ethical mind also resonated with me because I related to his comments regarding the different interpretations of ethics between different generations. I definitely agree that there is a gap between what I consider ethical and what the new generation would consider ethical. For instance, my common sense says that cheating is bad but that is not necessarily the case with the new generation. The idea that getting ahead is more important than being ethical is a popular notion according to Gardner and his colleagues’ findings. This idea remains the same for students at the middle school level. Getting a good grade is worth cheating and unbeknownst to them that they are only doing themselves a disservice. Gardner also mentions that these five minds do not always coexist harmoniously. He provides examples which demonstrate how the ethical mind can conflict with the respectful mind and how the creative mind can conflict with the respectful mind and so on and so forth. For example, Gardner explains a person you respect may do something immoral and likewise a person may respect a teacher or someone but the notion of creativity means overthrowing orthodoxy. Personally, I like when students question and challenge “facts” because it shows me that they are engaging in critical thinking about what they are learning and what meaning they should derive from it which is precisely what I want. The common thread connecting these speakers is the idea that curiosity, creativity, and passion are a necessary for success in the 21st century. These are the things that motivate students to want to learn, and we as educators can help them cultivate their talents. Ken Robinson argues that intelligence is diverse, interactive, and distinct. In order for them to come up with original ideas, they need to feel like they can make mistakes and be wrong. This message is in tune with many of the other speakers such as John Seely Brown and Dr. Gee who emphasized the importance for students to learn through experience (tinkering and exploring video games) and the chance to fail over and over until they master each skill whether it is a video game or learning to surf. Each speaker contributed ideas that have many implications for teaching students in the 21st century. If we truly want our students to be successful in this revolutionary information age we need to capitalize on our students’ creativity and passions. Deep learning is not going to happen unless students are motivated and interested and if students are motivated, information will be easier to synthesize and store in their brains. As instructional leaders, how might we apply Mobley's 6 insights to help students think creatively? Mobley’s insights keep in tune with Brown, Gardner, and Dr. Gee. Creativity is obtained by doing. Students need to be able to try out different things and make mistakes. They need to be able to evaluate and upend assumptions as well as peer to peer interaction with creative people. Students also need self-knowledge. These insights are all part of critical thinking skills. I plan to design classroom activities that are culturally relevant and interesting as well as allow them be more hands on, collaborative, and meta-cognitive. I will be incorporating Socratic seminars so students are able to work in collaborative study groups, research and try new and creative ways of solving, and are free to make mistakes. I am also incorporating metacognitive journals for students to document what they are trying out and to reflect on their own practices in math.
2 Comments
Literature Review
Critical Thinking The concept of critical thinking is not a new innovation. Critical thinking has existed as early as the time of Socrates (c. 470—399 BC) more than 2,400 years ago as a deep questioning technique, a method of disciplined and rigorous questioning geared towards the logical analysis and evaluation of the reliability and validity of beliefs (Paul & Elder, 2014). However, scholars such as John Dewey, Robert Ennis, Richard Paul, and many other theorists gradually began to expand on this early notion of critical thinking which has now come to include reflective thinking, creative thinking, problem-solving, and metacognition (Dewey, 1910; Ennis, 1985; Paul & Elder, 2006). Critical Thinking Skills. Critical thinking skills include the ability to think reflectively and reasonably, analyze arguments, challenge assumptions, discern opinion from fact, evaluate issues from various perspectives, problem solve using flexible thinking, and self-regulate or think metacognitively (Ennis, 1985; Paul & Elder 2006). All critical thinking skills are not created equal, more precisely, depending on the discipline, some critical thinking skills may be valued more highly than others. For example, in an English course there may be an emphasis on the ability to analyze and evaluate arguments and assumptions whereas critical thinking skills such as problem solving and self-regulation may be considered more essential in mathematics. In fact, Paul and Elder (2006) frame the entire act of critical thinking as a metacognitive process, suggesting that just becoming aware of and thinking about one’s own thinking can improve a person’s ability to evaluate arguments and challenge assumptions. Within the context of mathematics, critical thinking skills are described as the ability to problem solve, utilizing flexibility of thinking and a broad repertoire of techniques for dealing with novel or non-routine problems along with the ability to reflect on progress as well as analyze and interpret vast amounts of data (Schoenfeld, 1992). Metacognition Metacognition is defined as the awareness and regulation of one’s own thought processes (Flavell, 1979). To elaborate, metacognition is comprised of two components: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge consists of three types of knowledge: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is “what” one knows, procedural knowledge is “how” one applies that knowledge, and conditional knowledge is the “when, where, and why” one uses that knowledge. Metacognitive regulation consists of three elements: planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Knowledge and regulation are both vital for problem solving. Intersection of Metacognition and Problem Solving. Mathematicians have long since recognized the close relationship that exists between these two critical thinking skills, metacognition and problem solving (Gray, 1991). Metacognition and problem solving often have overlapping elements. During problem solving, metacognitive skills are utilized to analyze information, identify goals within the task, plan, monitor progress, consider alternatives, and evaluate decisions and outcomes of a problem (Garofalo & Lester, 1985, Polya, 1957). Significance of Metacognition. Metacognition can play a crucial role in learning and increase conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (Jbeili, 2012). Because learning shifts from conscious to automatic processing (concept mastery), it is important that increased consciousness is paid during the first stage of learning for it to lead to deeper knowledge (Pammu, Amir, and Maasum, 2011). However, acquiring conceptual understanding and procedural fluency does not ensure that the individual will know how or when to apply it to more complex or unfamiliar problems (Kurfiss, 1988; Mayer, 1993). Studies show that in many cases students have the necessary knowledge base needed to solve a problem but lack the metacognitive knowledge known as conditional knowledge to help them determine how to utilize that knowledge base. Unless the world is a game of Jeopardy, there is no advantage to possessing great amounts of knowledge that cannot be utilized. Moreover, studies indicate that the presence of strong metacognitive skills is a better predictor of student problem solving success than their aptitude and can even compensate for low aptitude (Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Swanson, 1990). Hence, it is important to help students develop strong metacognitive skills. Research-Based Instructional Strategies for Developing Metacognitive Skills Extensive research has been done detailing the value of various instructional strategies for developing metacognitive thinking skills. These strategies include: (a) direct explicit instruction, often in the form of a think aloud, modeling, and whole class discussion, (b) metacognitive regulation strategies that helps students plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, also accomplished using think alouds as well as journaling in order to discuss and document thinking, and (c) teacher and peer feedback, achieved through teacher questioning and prompting in the form of Socratic Questioning and peer interaction in the form of Socratic Seminars. Several studies show that metacognitive regulation and feedback typically go hand in hand and are directly supported by explicit instruction. In both cases, explicit instruction is the means for teaching these skills. Moreover, it is important to note that numerous studies incorporate similar metacognitive regulation strategies, often, referred to by different names: comprehension monitoring, metacognitive training, and metacognitive scaffolding. Explicit Instruction. Teachers expect students to utilize critical thinking skills to produce high quality work for class projects but how can students or anyone for that matter, be expected to apply skills they have never been effectively or explicitly taught? How can they know what they just learned if they are not told what it is they learned? How can they know how, when, or why to use it if they were not shown? Studies show that explicit instruction of metacognitive thinking is beneficial to students, especially struggling students because it offers them flexibility, greater efficiency, and transferability of skills to unfamiliar situations during problem solving (Lin, 2001; Pintrich, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1992). These skills are not obtained automatically, thus, it is important that teachers help students develop metacognitive thinking with the use of direct and explicit instruction, making the thinking process visible (Conrady, 2015). To achieve this, students must be given opportunities to develop their metacognitive knowledge and regulation skills— these are the skills that allow a student to know when and why a certain procedure should be applied; some scaffolding activities that allow students to practice these skills are whole class discussions, modeling of the problem solving process, a think aloud, [Socratic] questioning, writing about thinking, prompting, using sentence starters, and explicit instruction about thinking and metacognition (Flavell, 1979; Goos, et al., 2002; Pintrich, 2002). Conrady (2015) conducted a naturalistic inquiry study investigating explicit modeling of metacognitive thinking embedded in two university level geometry courses for pre-service education teachers. In the study, 51 students were exposed to explicit instruction of metacognitive thinking strategies such as modeling, think alouds, prompting, and questioning. Observations on the explicit thinking of the students were documented through field notes and transcribed videotapes. Conrady (2015) concluded that the use of think alouds and modeling helped students develop and make their own procedural thinking explicit. However, she also found that students did not demonstrate independent regulatory thoughts during problem solving and that most regulatory thoughts required prompting or questioning by the teacher. Based on the results of Conrady’s (2015) study, it can be concluded that explicit instruction alone is not enough to fully develop all components of metacognitive thinking. Instead, several studies suggest that explicit instruction be strategically taught using various contexts, examples, and applications along with strategies for developing metacognitive regulation skills such as comprehension monitoring, metacognitive training or metacognitive scaffolding (Schurter, 2002; Kramarski Mevarech, 2003; Jbeili, 2012). In a research study, Schurter investigated the effects of using comprehension monitoring, problem solving strategies, and explicit instruction on student problem solving abilities in three university level remedial mathematics courses totaling 60 students. Comprehension monitoring is a metacognitive regulation technique that provides students self-questioning techniques that guide them through problem solving. Findings showed that students who were taught comprehension monitoring alone or in conjunction with problem solving strategies outperformed those that were taught with traditional instruction. However, the results indicated that there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups. In conclusion, the findings of this study support the position that the implementation of comprehension monitoring strategies alone or accompanied by problem solving strategies can improve performance in mathematical problem solving. In a similar study, Kramarski and Meravech (2003) investigated the effects of a metacognitive regulation technique called metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning 12 eighth grade classrooms totaling 384 students. Metacognitive training is a metacognitive regulation strategy like comprehension monitoring. Using metacognitive tranining, students were taught how to use self-questioning techniques during problem solving. Findings from this study echoed Schurter’s findings, suggesting that metacognitive training directly contributed to the improvement of mathematical reasoning. Moreover, the group that was exposed to cooperative learning and metacognitive strategies (COOP+META) outperformed their counterparts, the independent and metacognitive group (IND+META), which in turn outperformed the cooperative group (COOP) and the independent group (IND). No significant difference was found between the two groups, COOP and IND, that were not exposed to metacognitive strategies. In conclusion, evidence from this study showed that the two treatment groups, COOP+META and IND+META, developed fluency and flexible thinking, better knowledge transfer, and the ability to utilize logical-formal arguments as a direct result of using metacognitive regulation strategies. In a similar study to Kramarski and Meravech (2003), Jbeili (2012) examined the effect of metacognitive scaffolding embedded within cooperative learning on 240 fifth grade students’ mathematics conceptual understanding and procedural fluency in problem solving. The result of Jbeili’s study coincided with Schurter (2002) and Kramarski and Mevarech’s (2003) findings that confirmed the importance of learning strategies that used scaffolding techniques to develop metacognitive regulation skills. The data indicated that the group taught using cooperative learning with metacognitive scaffolding (CLMS) significantly outperformed their counterparts, the cooperative learning group (CL) which in turn outperformed their counterparts, the traditional group (T). Jbeili concluded that the CLMS group outperformed both its counterparts in problem solving that required conceptual understanding and procedural fluency because they were provided with various strategies to support this outcome. To elaborate, the CLMS group surpassed their counterparts because they were able to work cooperatively using metacognitive questions. The metacognitive questioning helped prompt students to construct their knowledge and skills by assisting them in retrieving prior knowledge as well as connecting it to new knowledge, building and reinforcing schema. It enabled them to evaluate problems and connect it to similar past problems improving accuracy and efficiency in problem solving. It provided them with flexible thinking and multiple approaches through group discussion and support of the metacognitive questions. It facilitated cooperation and deep learning by requiring them to explain their thinking to group members during discussion rather than relying on rote memory. It can be concluded that all of the skills described above assisted the CLMS group in easily remembering and retrieving math concepts and problem solving strategies and thus, the reason for their high achievement. Reflective Journal Writing. U.S. teachers often communicate that their students struggle with problem solving. During problem solving, instructors observed that students spent very little time planning, quickly chose one strategy to apply and never reflected on the effectiveness of the strategy as they chugged away and eventually gave up. Olson & Johnson (2012) investigated the value of journal writing in mathematics for two groups of eighth grade students totaling 107 students. Their findings indicated that the treatment group showed greater achievement than the group who did not engage in journal writing. Furthermore, the study also indicated that recording thinking steps during problem solving had several benefits. Gray (1991) and Olson and Johnson (2012) reported that journal writing allowed students to reflect, monitor, and evaluate their mathematical, it promoted critical thinking skills such as analyzing data, evaluating and comparing facts, and synthesizing information, and it allowed instructors to assess students’ mathematical thinking and provided regular feedback to deepen the understanding of a concept or correct student thinking. In conclusion, the results of this study showed that regular use of journal writing improved both student academic achievement as well as attitude towards mathematics. Socratic Questioning and Seminars. In Conrady’s (2015) study, students frequently struggled to work through an idea on their own relying heavily on teacher questioning or prompting to develop their remaining thought. Theorists posit that learning is constructed in exactly this way—questioning. Vygotsky’s (1986) theory of cognitive development describes learning as a social process. Likewise, the mathematics learning process is also described as an “inherently social activity” in which students develop metacognitive thinking skills through sharing, comparing, and evaluating mathematical strategies among their peers in order to determine the best approach (Conrady, 2015; Pintrich, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1992). Researchers hypothesized that cooperative learning accompanied by reflective discussion helped students develop critical thinking skills and deepen their understanding of concepts and procedures (Jbeili, 2012; Kramarski & Mevarachi, 2003; Schurter, 2015). Several studies suggest that Socratic Questioning and Socratic Seminars are effective strategies for developing these skills. In a study, Tanner and Casados (1998) examined the contributions of Socratic Seminars in a Trigonometry, Statistics, and Functions class of 17 high school students. Data was collected and analyzed using videotaping, surveys, and research journal notes. The findings of the study concluded that using Socratic Seminars allowed students to talk through ideas and as a result, students became insightful, logical mathematical solvers. Tanner and Casados’ findings coincided with Olson and Johnson’s (2012) findings, illustrating that student mathematics disposition, active participation, and articulation of concepts all increased as a result of Socratic Questioning and Seminars. Yang (2008) conducted a similar study investigating the effects of Socratic Questioning or dialoging in online discussion on critical thinking skills. The results of her study corroborated previous studies. The data suggested that the use and modeling of Socratic Questioning had a positive effect on student critical thinking skills. It aided students in constructing new meaning from content, enabled them to think independently and critically, explore applications to problems, and generate thoughtful questions (Tanner & Casados, 1998; Yang, 2008). The study seeks to determine whether the development of critical thinking skills will have an effect on standardized test performance. Specifically, the study will explore how metacognition as a critical thinking skill will affect concept mastery and retention and in turn how that might impact standardized test performance. The study will be a mixed methods design with both quantitative and qualitative components. It will include a quasi-experimental design or a pretest-posttest control group design as well as a naturalistic design that involves qualitative data.
The treatment will be comprised of explicit direct instruction of metacognitive skills (teacher think aloud), Socratic Questioning (providing feedback), Socratic Seminar (metacognitive practice and peer feedback), and a metacognitive journal (metacognitive practice of self-regulation). At the beginning and the end of the study students from both the experimental and control group will take an pre/post-assessment which is taken from the official CAASPP practice test. The pre- and post-assessment will be identical. In order to produce valid and reliable data, several questions with varying levels of difficulty will be selected from the official CAASPP testing website as the unbiased measurement tool to simulate a standardized test. After each pre/post-assessment, students will complete a short four question self-assessment using a rating scale of 1-5 regarding their perception of the assessment. This will provide data on student progress comparing pre- and post-assessment as well as reflective feedback from the students on their own progress. The students will complete two learning activities that involve problem solving of performance tasks at a higher level of difficulty. The instructor will explicitly model metacognitive thinking skills on the first performance task using a think aloud first then have the students complete the second performance task in groups of three. The experimental group will use a metacognitive journal to document their problem solving which will include a planning section, monitoring section, and evaluating section as well as metacognitive guiding questions in the right margin for each phase. The experimental group will then engage in a Socratic Seminar with the aid of their metacognitive journal in their discussion. Detailed Treatment:The experimental group will complete a short metacognitive awareness inventory self-assessment and scoring guide which will allow the students to evaluate what kind of thinker they are. Next they will form groups of three and read a short article on metacognition explaining metacognition and the importance of metacognition in academics as well as in the real world. They will summarize the information from the article in cornell note format. Thereafter, students will complete their first metacognitive journal entry with pre-selected writing prompts. The next day, students will attempt to complete a CAASPP practice performance task in their groups of three. After, the instructor will explicitly model how to utilize metacognitive skills during problem solving using a think aloud method. The day after, students will work on their own performance task in their same groups with the aid of the metacognitive journal template. The metacognitive journal template mimics a double entry journal commonly used in the mathematics setting but with modifications. Unlike a double entry journal that consists of two columns (steps and explanation/justifications), the metacognitive journal template has a third column which lists metacognitive questions that guide students on how to proceed during the problem solving process. There is also a section for students to jot down questions that come up as they engage in problem solving so they can ask the instructor or another peer. The metacognitive journal is also divided into three sections: planning phase, monitoring phase, and evaluating phase. The planning phase includes guiding questions that are metacognitive in nature which activates prior knowledge and allow students to problem solve independently. The monitoring phase asks the students to document their strategy and steps in the first column and explain and/or justify in the second column. The evaluation phase asks the students to think about their answer and whether their method was effective and how the process could be applied to other contexts as well as in the real world. The study will include 60 participants, 30 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group. The demographics of the participants will include both females and males consisting of diverse ethnic backgrounds (Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic and Asian/Asian-American) with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Students with disabilities will not be included. The control will be chosen randomly between two classes who have similar demographics (relatively same amount of males and females, English Learners, with similar ability levels). Data that will be collected includes a pre- and post-assessment, a pre- and post- self-assessment, and a metacognitive journal. All data will be collected in a paper format. This is the best and safest way to collect the because it will ensure that data truly belong to that subject. It will also ensure that subjects are not denied access to the treatment or assessment because of their socio-economic backgrounds (i.e. inability to purchase technological devices, etc.) and other various reasons. The pre- and post-assessment are short answer and multiple choice type questions and will be graded against the official CAASPP practice test grading rubric. The data from the two tests will be analyzed and represented as a bar graph. The data from the self-assessment will be counted and represented in the form of a bar graph for both pre- and post- self-assessments. Finally, the metacognitive journals will provide qualitative data that will be analyzed to find the evidence of student metacognitive thinking. Limitations of this study are that the number of participants are small and that it is conducted in a very short period of time, over the course of two weeks, therefore any absences could affect the results. Loss of preparation time and opportunities to practice their metacognitive skills could diminish their progress. Also mentally, the students are also experiencing high stress due to actual state testing in other classes during those two weeks coupled with the fact that the experimental group have math first thing in the morning when they are not fully awake and the control group have math at the end of the day when they can become antsy. |
Nai Saelee
Middle school math teacher preparing the leaders of the future. Inspiring curiosity, creativity, collaboration Archives
December 2017
Categories |