1 / 24

Metacognition, Week 2

Metacognition, Week 2. Discussion questions, Brown & Smiley 1978. Discussion questions. If one considers these three chapters as "snapshots" of the field of metacognition, how has the terrain changed over the last 3 decades?

dusan
Download Presentation

Metacognition, Week 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Metacognition, Week 2 Discussion questions, Brown & Smiley 1978

  2. Discussion questions • If one considers these three chapters as "snapshots" of the field of metacognition, how has the terrain changed over the last 3 decades? • In what ways can you map his claims about learning to solve problems in math onto phenomena (learning or other) in your area of interest? • What happens when you apply Paris's functional perspective on motivation to Schoenfeld's description of teaching his students to be metacognitive in math problem-solving? (Does it add explanatory power? does it miss important aspects?) • What jumped out at you when reading these chapters?

  3. Brown & Smiley, 1978in Child Development • Three descriptive studies of study strategy use by readers of various ages • Earlier lab-task studies found that even young children selectively attend to most important aspects of stimuli BUT • Younger children not as good at separating important from unimportant • These studies extend this idea to a more realistic and educationally relevant task: studying to remember text

  4. Method • Materials (all three studies) • Two Japanese folk tales, roughly equivalent in • Interestingness • Readability (5th grade per Dale-Chall index) • Length • Number of “idea units” • Idea unit importance pre-assigned (one quarter to each importance level)

  5. Experiment 1 • Subjects: 80 college students paid $2 • Groups: Incidental Intentional Immediate recall Delayed recall

  6. Procedure • First variable manipulated: • Half told the goal was to recall (intentional) • Half told they would comment on how useful the stories would be for moral education (incidental) • Listen to story while reading printed version • Second variable manipulated: • Half given immediate recall (write as much as you can remember) • Half given 5-minutes to either write an evaluation of the text (incidental) or study (intentional)

  7. Analysis: 3-way ANOVA • Independent variables • Incidental vs intentional • Immediate vs delay • Importance level • Dependent variable • #Thought units (T-units) recalled

  8. p. 1079 3-way interaction, p<.005

  9. Study 2 • Goal: Replicate study 1, see if students improve own recall if given extra time to study • 40 additional college students • Same materials • Stories counterbalanced (half got “cat” on day 1, half “dragon”; reversed on day 2)

  10. Procedure (study 2) Day 1 • All told they would recall gist of story • Listen to & read story as before • 5-min interpolated task (word puzzle) • Attempted gist recall • Given 5 more minutes to study (given notepads, highlighters, etc.)

  11. Procedure, cont. Day 2 • Listen to & read story as before • 5-min interpolated task (word puzzle) • Attempted gist recall • Manipulation: Half told “it helps some people to underline or take notes and you may do that if you want to” • Given 5 more minutes to study (given notepads, highlighters, etc.)

  12. Analysis: 3-way ANOVA • Independent Variables: • Immediate vs delay (within-subjects) • Prompt vs no-prompt • Importance level • Dependent variable • #Thought units (T-units) recalled • No effects involving story/day or sex, data collapsed (same for all three studies)

  13. Immed/dely Immediate-delay X Importance p<.001

  14. Study 3: Development • 3 age groups • 51 young (5th grade) • 85 middle (7th & 8th grade) • 59 old (11th & 12th grade) • Same materials and procedure, except • Pre-training on procedure with 2 other fairy tales • Heard story twice • No retention interval with interpolated task

  15. Spontaneous vs prompted • Inspected texts for signs of note-taking and underlining, compared prompted vs spontaneous use. • Spontaneous underlining in all three age groups • Spontaneous note-taking in two older groups

  16. How much underlining, of which units?

  17. How much did it help?

  18. Brown & Smiley’s interpretation • As children mature they can increasingly predict • What are the essential organizing features and crucial elements of text • Make increasingly good use of study time. • From 7th grade on, selectively allocated study to important information • Oldest kids more sensitive to levels of importance

  19. Brown & Smiley’s interpretation, cont • Telling kids to use strategies • Increased strategy use BUT • had no effect on recall • Methodological implications of the above • Combining data from spontaneous and non-spontaneous strategy users may have washed out effects of strategy use in other studies

  20. Brown & Smiley’s interpretation Theoretical implications • Previous work on isolated lab tasks asking kids to predict their recall (e.g., of lists of words) is problematic developmentally • Less aware • Less able to recall or predict metacognitive stuff • Argues for tasks where strategy use, metacognition, and study effectiveness studied together • Avoids self-reports • Reflects real connections among aspects of metacognition & text knowledge

More Related