Work in Progress: Development of a Metacognition Scaffold in STEM ...

Work in Progress: Development of a Metacognition Scaffold in STEM / P-6 Engineering Context: MCinEDP Ronald L. Carr & Johannes Strobel Institute for P-12 Engineering Research and Learning Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana, USA Abstract— A new model of metacognition scaffolding, Metacognition in the Engineering Design Process (MCinEDP), which parallels instruction in engineering design processes (EDP), has been designed for use in pre-college, particularly 2-6, engineering classrooms. MCinEDP utilizes engineering as the context for implementation of metacognitive activities that are designed to aid students in building mastery of metacognition and to improve specific abilities in engineering design. This paper outlines the design process in order to reveal the intersection of instructional design theory, instructional design models, cognitive theory and learning theory that supported this project. Keywords-metacognition, engineering design, K-6, scaffolding

I.

INTRODUCTION

Schoenfeld (1992) wrote, “problem solving and metacognition … are perhaps the two most overworked -- and least understood -- buzz words of the 1980's,", because, as he further noted, the definitions of metacognition were varied and disjointed to the point that the concept was difficult to use. Since that time, many models of metacognition have been devised and the construct has been studied in various subjects. While definitions varied, metacognition as monitor and regulator of cognitive processes has been a central theme [2] through most. The model of this paper, Metacognition in the Engineering Design Process (MCinEDP), borrowed from that notion and teaches children a simpler version, stating that metacognition is “thinking about thinking.” MCinEDP utilizes engineering design as the context for implementing activities designed to aid students in building mastery of metacognition. Students learn that metacognition is knowledge of one’s own cognitive processes, strategies, implementation and regulation. Specific questioning and instruction in cognitive strategies is scaffold in MCinEDP. Metacognition instruction, teacher questions, student metacognition sheets and social interactions are outlined in the Teacher Guide that serves as an implementation resource. Not only are we interested to find if the model is effective, we also want to learn more about metacognition in elementary design contexts. This study starts at the beginning design stages and has progressed through field testing and revisions. Further research will investigate metacognition in elementary students in general, using a comparison group while evaluating the model with a treatment group in a pilot study

978-1-4673-1352-0/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

that will determine effectiveness and further opportunities for improvement. II.

BACKGROUND

A. Instructional Design The design process used for MCinEDP is based on the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation), an iterative and cyclical process of ID that is common in the instructional design (ID) field today [3]. Experience teaching elementary school students in design processes and attempts at implementing metacognition instruction informed the analysis stage of development. Further, literature review extended into the design stage. The development and implementation stages have included formative evaluation that included field testing in grades 3-5 engineering classrooms with an expert K-6 engineering teacher. B. Metacognition John Flavell is cited in most metacognition literature and, despite the many studies that have come since, his work in the 1970’s still influences many, including this model. He wrote that cognitive monitoring and regulation are areas that children are limited in but can be taught through metacognition experiences focused on person, task and strategy [4]. Model development evolved through consideration of many existing models of metacognition, including Flavell’s, from which all were based on regulated learning, strategic questioning, critical thinking, reflective judgment, iterative learning, purposeful strategy selection, and social metacognition. The MCinEDP model intersects with scaffolding of self-regulated learning, the LEGACY learning cycle of adaptive instruction [5] and EDP instruction utilizing ill-structured design problems [6]. This scaffolding intends to facilitate metacognition without overtaxing cognitive load [7]. III.

MCINEDP

A. Contribution While a considerable amount of literature and research investigates the use of metacognition skills in reading and mathematics [7-8], science and engineering are largely ignored by the conversation. Situating the scaffold in an engineering context builds on the National Research Council’s

guiding principles for engineering educationn by promoting engineering “habits of mind” in reflective, tecchnology design applications [9]. There are a few research studies involvving the use of metacognition and measurement of cognitioon with college level engineering students [9-11], yet tthus far, none specifically deals with elementary leveel engineering. Improving metacognition in other domains haas been found to improve learning abilities [4, 7-8]. The importance for scaffolding of metacognitive skills increases eeven more in the advancement of online and self-regulated learning, and domain-specific instruction supports metacoggntive skills that are generalizable to other content areas [12]. MCinEDP differs from other models and studies of the taarget age group, in that scaffolding and in-time promptts are present throughout. Contrarily, another study uses soft ftware for design logs which are later used for post hoc reflectionn [13]. B. Model MCinEDP involves student reflections at three stages of the five-stage EDP [14]. These Steps aree labeled Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate (Figure 1). The student nts are instructed to consider the Aspects of Person, Task or Straategy in terms of thinking and not physical actions, or the next sstep of the EDP. Steps

Aspectss

Plan

Person

Monitor

Task

Evaluate

Strategy

problem. During evaluation, studen nts reflect on their thinking and metacognition throughout the project and identify opportunities for improvement. At each stage, and particularly in evaluation, the students disscuss their metacognition responses such as strategies, goals, and prior knowledge. In addition to the socially constructted metacognition in each project, the classroom will occasio onally write and improve a letter to future classes to teach them m about their metacognition experiences. IV.

The implementation and evalu uation phases of the project will include mixed methods to dettermine the effectiveness of the model. Pre and post student reeports, observations, teacher and student interviews, and in-d depth content analysis of student products will be used for the t evaluation that will also be used for further refinement of materials prior to an additional round of evaluation. REFERENC CES [1]

[2] [3] [4]

[5]

Figure 1 Students examine the three aspects of their proggress throughout all three steps of the MCinEDP, individually, by responding to written prompts. [6]

The prompts for metacognition are alsoo influenced by Jonassen’s seven steps of solving an ill-struuctured problem based on framing a problem, monitoring strategies and adapting the solution [15], or in this casee, adapting the metacognitive knowledge. In planning (Figuure 2), students reflect on prior knowledge (person), goalls, framing the problem (task) and what they need to do or leaarn to solve the

[7] [8]

[9]

[10] [11] [12] [13]

Figure 2 The three phases of MCinEDP align with the fivve stage engineering design process[16] (Ask, Imagine, Plan, Create, Improvee), as well as others, that are used in elementary schools.

problem (strategy). Monitoring occurs w when building a testable model in the EDP, and students evaluate their planning before modifying strategies or reframing the

ND NEXT STEPS CONCLUSION AN

[14]

[15]

[16]

A. H. Schoenfeld, “Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in n mathematics,” in Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching g and Learning, D. Grouws, Ed. New York: MacMillan, 1992, pp. 334 4-370. J. Borkowski, M. Carr, & M. Presssley, “Spontaneous strategy use Perspectives from metacognitive theo ory,” Intelligence, Mar. 1987. C. Peterson, “Bringing ADDIE to Liffe: Instructional Design at Its Best California University of Pennsylvaniaa,” Design, pp. 227-241, 2003. M. D. Merrill, M. Barclay, and A. vaan Schaak, “Prescriptive principles for instructional design,” Handboo ok of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 173–184, 2008. ford, “Toward the development of X. Lin, S. Brophy, and J. D. Bransfo flexibly adaptive instructional design ns,” Instructional-Design Theories and Models, vol. 2, p. 183, 1999. ng Engineering Design Challenges R. L. Carr and J. Strobel, “Integratin into Secondary STEM Education: Position P Papers on High School Engineering Design Challenges,” NCTL, 2011. J. McCabe, “Metacognitive awareeness of learning strategies in undergraduates.,” Memory & Cognitio on, pp. 462-76, Apr. 2011. S. K. Teong, “The effect of metaco ognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving,” Journal of Computer C Assisted Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 46-55, Feb. 2003. ndings and Recommendations." National Research Council. "Fin Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving. Washington, DC: The Nattional Academies Press, 2009. 1. O. Lawanto, “Metacognition changes during an engineering design project,” Frontiers in Education Conf nference, pp. 1-5, Oct. 2009. O. Lawanto, “Students’ Metacognitio on During an Engineering Design Project,” Performance Improvement, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 117-136, 2010. g reflection count,” Engineering A. Feest and K. Iwugo, “Making Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 2006. Crismond, D., Hynes, M., & Donahy, E. "The Design Compass: A computer tool for scaffolding studen nts’ metacognition and discussions about their engineering design process". From AAAI Spring Symposium on Using Electronic Tangibles T to Promote Learning: Design and Evaluation, Palo Alto, CA A, 2010, March. M. Hannafin, S. Land, and K. Oliveer, “Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models,” Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructio onal theory, pp. 115–140, 1999. D. H. Jonassen, “Instructional desig gn models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving leaarning outcomes,” Educational Technology Research and Developmeent, pp. 65-94, 1997. C. M. Cunningham, “Engineering is Elementary: An Engineering and Technology Curriculum for Children n,” Engineering Education, pp. 117, 2007.