Michelle Lieb Quirin George Mason University April 29, 2008

1. Does exposure to cognitive and metacognitive processing strategies impact student understanding and retention?A Quantitative Research Design Method Michelle Lieb Quirin George Mason University April 29, 2008

2. Purpose • This study is intended to examine the impact of explicitly teaching cognitive and metacognitive processing skills. • Researchers in this study are particularly interested in measuring the impact earlier exposure to cognitive and metacognitive processing prompts has on long term retention and learner ability to transfer processing skills to other disciplines.

3. Background Literature • Berthold, Knuckles, and Renkl (2007) investigated the impact of learning journals on university students’ development of understanding and long term retention. Their research showed promising results for student learning when using a combination of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. • Further research is needed to identify the impact of prompting cognitive and metacognitive processing in other discipline areas, with younger participants, and to identify the longitudinal effects of explicitly teaching these thinking strategies.

4. Research Questions • Do cognitive and metacognitive prompts assist learners in developing understanding? • Do cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies promote long-term retention? • Do learners transfer cognitive and metacognitive processing skills among disciplines? • Does technology support the explicit teaching of cognitive and metacognitive processing skills?

5. Design Statement A four group comparison of • cognitive prompting • metacognitive prompting • a combination of cognitive and metacognitive prompting and • no prompting will be used in ninth grade earth science classrooms for daily bell ringer and closure activities throughout one unit of instruction. Participating teachers will have each class randomly assigned to one of the prompt conditions.

6. Condition 1: Cognitive Prompts • Questions are designed to reflect organization of concepts from lessons by using graphic organizers, bulleting main points, and identifying concrete examples. Cognitive prompts used in Condition 1 guide learners to organize information, conceptualize content, and create illustrations such as, “Illustrate the stages of the Earth’s water cycle; label primary functions and draw arrows to highlight the cyclical steps.” Teachers will routinely prompt students to identify main points, headings, and subheadings. • See Appendix A for detailed sample questions.

7. Condition 2: Metacognitive Prompts • Questions are designed to help learners identify what they already comprehend, what they need to invest more effort into understanding, and methods they can use to master content. Metacognitive prompts used in Condition 2 guide students to monitor and self-regulate learning. Teachers will routinely prompt students to explain their current levels of comprehension and develop abilities to articulate their understandings such as, “Review your notes from Objective 1.3 Cycles and the Earth. Which concept do you understand most clearly? Which main points do you not yet understand? Identify one strategy you will use to clarify the concepts from Objective 1.3.” • See Appendix B for detailed sample questions.

8. Condition 3: Cognitive and Metacognitive Prompts • Questions are designed to engage learners in both cognitive (organizational) and metacognitive (reflective) processing. Cognitive and metacognitive prompts used in Condition 3 guide learners to organize the structure of the learning contents and think about their own thinking including levels of comprehension and points lacking in clarity. Teachers will routinely prompt students to give examples and interpret understanding such as, “Applying what you know about the prefix geo-, what is the meaning of geothermal? Identify five new vocabulary terms from lesson Objective 1.3 Cycles and the Earth and explain how you will use this vocabulary strategy to remember the new term. For example: When you encounter a long term, such as biogeochemical, look for the smaller words or word parts within it. In biogeochemical you will find bio- (life), geo- (earth), and chemical. A biogeochemical cycle is one that involves Earth, chemistry, and life forms.” • See Appendix C for detailed sample questions.

9. Condition 4: No prompts • Questions are designed to reflect straight recall of content from lesson. The lack of thinking prompts in Condition 4 ask learners to recognize and recall information from daily lessons. Teachers will routinely ask students to identify, define, and describe key content such as, “Name three key steps in the water cycle,” or, “Describe the four spheres of the Earth’s system.” • See Appendix D for detailed sample questions.

10. Participants • This research is being conducted in a grade 9-12 suburban high school on the east coast of the United States. The school has a diverse population of 1253 students. The school’s overall demographic breakdown is 11% special education, 20% students of low socio-economic status, 20% students with English as a second language, 25% Hispanic, 15% black, 8% Asian, and 52% white. Participants are high school aged and enrolled in earth science (n=312) which is a ninth grade level course in the school system’s traditional scope and sequence. • The earth science teachers participating in the study (n=4) have been selected to participate because they have been soliciting strategies that will improve their students’ abilities to access the curriculum to build full understanding and long-term retention for key earth science content. The teachers in the sample have already adopted a common core instructional framework which provides a consistent system to apply the research protocols during bell work, closure, and practice in daily lessons.

11. Materials • Each teacher in the study has access to a shared instructional drive on the computer network and the capability to project on a 78”screen. Providing teachers with a common way to present their randomly assigned prompt condition within the parameters of their adopted core instructional framework using bell work, closure, and practice will promote the consistency of design method implementation and validity of the research results. • Teachers will be provided with templates modeling their assigned instructional method to use in the research study. Templates will be designed on Promethean Board flipcharts and readily accessible on the shared instructional drive. Templates will reflect bell ringer activities, closure, and opportunities for practice and homework. Each condition will now be described using examples from the school’s textbook Earth Science by Spaulding and Namowitz (2003).

12. Data Sources • Stanford assessment reading scores • Content specific pre- and post-tests • Classroom observation • Videotapes of instruction • Curriculum materials • Student work samples • Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

13. Procedure (Approved through GMU HSRB) • Secure consent and assent; code identities • Student participants take content based pre-test • Conditions randomly assigned to teachers for each class section • Condition will be applied during bell work, at least twice per class for closure to check for understanding, and for daily practice and homework assignments. • Unit of instruction administered using assigned condition • Student participants take content based post-test • Student data correlated with baseline reading scores • Students take benchmark assessment 6 weeks after study • Students take mid-term exams 16 weeks after study • Students complete online version of Motivated Strategies for Learning questionnaire

14. Treatment Fidelity Consistency of implementation of the four conditional interventions is critical to generate valid research results. Providing teachers with instructional resources that are consistent with their traditional instructional strategies should promote consistent implementation of methodologies being assessed. Integrity of research methods will be assessed through videotapes of lessons and observations of the varying instructional protocols being implemented during which observers will use checklists containing each assigned condition’s critical elements to record fidelity of implementation.

15. Scoring Student accuracy of results on post-instruction assessment will be correlated with student performance on pre-test and results will be compared among the four conditions. Results will also be cross-referenced with student reading scores from baseline data.

16. Quantitative Data Analysis Mean performance across the four conditions will be compared to assess prior content knowledge, baseline reading scores, post-instruction content knowledge, and students’ self report of learner motivation and use of learning strategies based on the MSLQ score report (Pintrich et al, 1991). Impact of instructional conditions will also be reviewed on benchmark assessments and mid-term exams in attempt to measure the potential impact of each condition on long-term retention.