Metacognition: Critical Start for Literacy Instruction

Tasha Vice bio pic

Tasha Vice, Ph.D.

Tasha Vice studied at Eastern New Mexico University, where she received a M.Ed. in Secondary Education and M.A. in English. She continued to study Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University, where she earned a Ph.D. with an emphasis in Language and Literacy.  Currently, she is an Associate Professor of Reading and Education at South Plains College, where she teaches Developmental Reading as well as Integrated Reading and Writing. In addition, she instructs Learning Frameworks courses with a focus on cognitive neuroscience and psychological theories of learning. Her research interests include content literacy, critical literacy, and cognitive or metacognitive factors related to reading success. She can be reached by e-mail at tvice@southplainscollege.edu.

Core literacy skills are necessary for success. Yet, students lack the reading skills for literacy (ACT, 2011). Improving literacy is the responsibility in all content areas. However, colleges rely on developmental education to address the needs of literacy students (Boylan, 2001; NADE, 2011). Many developmental students believe they don’t need literacy improvement (Vice, 2013) and are resistant to learning (Lesley, 2001; Lesley, 2004). How can faculty help these students succeed?

Direct and explicit instruction of cognitive and affective strategies, content knowledge, and contextual skills are key. Responsive pedagogy addresses some components:

  • Advising, counseling, and support systems (NADE, 2011),
  • Opportunities to deconstruct negative feelings about learning (Lesley, 2001),
  • Activities to reconstruct or develop literacy identities (Gee, 2002),
  • Self-analysis of skill and attitude over time (Moje, 2008),
  • Social, emotional, cultural, and ideological contexts in the classroom (Chiu-hui and Cody, 2010).

Each of these is important, but none solely guarantees success. To increase success, educators should introduce metacognition, thinking about thinking (Flavell, 1979). Accurate metacognition is required to maintain focus, attention, motivation, and self-efficacy (Conley, 2005). Metacognition also includes a personal understanding of one’s performance and persistence (Conley, 2007).

Developmental students’ inaccurate perceptions are rooted in their personal beliefs about their abilities (Lesley, 2004). Dweck (2006) argues those students who believe their skills and abilities cannot change suffer from a fixed mindset. Students with a fixed mindset lack motivation for learning and cannot cope with failure. Students with growth mindset and who believe they can change are likely to embrace learning. Instructing students on the concept of mindsets can help them reduce resistance and embrace change as literacy learners.

“A growth mindset is telling yourself or someone else that you can do anything, no matter the challenge, with time, attention, and practice.” (Literacy Student, Fall 2015)

Duckworth (2016) argues that grit (persistence and perseverance) is the only determining factor of success. Students should reflect on their failures and develop plans to monitor, regulate, and direct their own thinking. Challenging students to go through these processes can help them increase their grit and succeed.

“Set up your mind. Believe. Make your brain work! Tell your mind ‘never give up’. Don’t let falling down, someone, or something affect you!” (Literacy Student, Fall 2015)

Mindsets theory provides insight into students’ inaccurate perceptions and may help them focus on growth while grit helps students to understand and persist as they perform literacy tasks.

“Metacognition is important because it helps us be successful! When we have a growth mindset, we are ready to grow and accept mistakes. With grit, we get through it and learn new things even if we fail. This helped me believe in myself, and I think I can do it!” (Literacy Student, Fall 2015)

As a critical starting point for literacy instruction, educators should explore practices and investigate the possibilities of using Mindsets and Grit theories that address students’ metacognition.

References

Act., Inc. (2011). “The Condition of College & Career Readiness: 2011”  Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr11/index.html

Bandura, A. (1997).  Self-efficacy:  The exercise of control.  New York:  Freeman.

Boylan, H. (2001). Making the case for developmental education. Research in
Developmental Education , 12 (2), 1-4.

Chiu-hui, W. & Cody, M. (2010).  ‘The United States is America?’:  A cultural
perspective on READ 180 materials.  Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23(2),
153-165.  Doi:10.1080/07908318.2010.49732

Conley, D. T. (2007).  Redefining college readiness.  Educational policy improvement.
Eugene, OR: Gates Foundation.

– – -.  (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed
and what we can do to get them ready. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
pedagogy.  Reading Research and Instruction. 44 (1) 62-85.

Duckworth, A. (2016).  Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York. Simon and
Schuster.

Dweck, C. S. (2006).  Mindset:  The new psychology of success. New York. Random House.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, v34 n10 p906-11 Oct 1979.

Gee, J. (2002).  Literacies, identities, and discourses, In Mary Schleppegrel & M. Cecilia
Colombia. Eds., Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages:  Meaning
with Power, Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002, pp. 159-175.

Lesley, M. (2001).  Exploring the links between critical literacy and developmental
reading.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(3), 180-89.

Lesley, M. (2004).  Refugees from reading:  Students perceptions of “remedial” Literacy

Moje, E. B. (2008).  Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A
call for change.  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,52(2), 96-107.

Vice, T. A. (2013). “Illuminating Teaching and Learning: Students’ Metacognition and Teacher
Responsiveness in One College Developmental Reading Class” (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).  Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

 

 

 

 

Developing a “Visual Rhetoric” for Students on the Spectrum

Jack Trammell RMC pic (1)

Jack Trammell, Ph.D.

Jack Trammell received his B. A. degree in political science from Grove City College and, following a M. Ed., was awarded a Ph. D. in Education, Research and Evaluation from Virginia Commonwealth University. His experience includes working as a special education teacher in the Virginia public schools. He is currently Director of Disability Support Services and Assistant Professor in the Sociology Department, teaching disability studies at Randolph-Macon College. His research interests include disability stigma, transition, and the social mechanisms related to disability discrimination. He can be reached by email at: jtrammel@rmc.edu.

A growing body of research is suggesting that students on the Autism spectrum (including Asperger’s) have a particular preference for or benefit from visual learning activities in many learning situations.  This may be for very specific neurological reasons, but the practical benefits from a learning assistance perspective can very easily be explored and imagined, and present the possibility for diverse and innovative interventions.

For example, training students in group orientation sessions can be supplemented or even replaced with video lecture or online content.  Students on the spectrum are likely to focus better on a video and be less distracted or anxious with the social component removed from the equation.  Of course, if direct communication and face-to-face interaction are the primary learning objectives, that won’t work.  But the enterprising presenter/facilitator/instructor can mix live group action and face-to-face speaking with video monitoring and prerecorded videos, or place recurring content online, and even this blended approach can sometimes mitigate a great deal of communication anxiety for spectrum-oriented students and provide a powerful visual reference for them.

A recent study focusing on college upperclassmen looking for jobs demonstrated that a “visual rhetoric” (an overarching communication framework that focuses on visual techniques) taught through face-to-face meetings and video training could improve job interview performance for students on the spectrum.  The intervention involved students utilizing television sitcom reruns to catalog and organize body language and facial expressions seen on television.  Students were later trained to “play the role” visually of an interviewee using rote cues and dialogues they had studied and matched to specific situations.  This visual approach, with an emphasis on assuming a role, resulted in much greater job interview success (Trammell, 2013; Trembath, Vivanti et al., 2015).

In a similar fashion, some recent studies indicate the potential benefit of playing video games for students on the spectrum, in large part due to the visual component.  A self-identified “Aspie” reports that video games are not just fun but also a safe place to play roles and transition from communications they control to real human communication that carries far greater social risk (Raede 2016).  Some studies show that the benefits of video games can benefit many children, and not just those on the spectrum (Kovess-Masfety, Keys et al., 2016).

Drama related pedagogy is more frequently being used to help students on the spectrum learn to play roles, and assume the kinds of communication behaviors that will help them adapt successfully to the mainstream (Kempe & Tissot, 2012).  Although many projects have focused on younger children, the promise of the technique remains valid for post-secondary students, as the interview example above demonstrates, which utilized a type of drama/role playing.

Postsecondary education, even with an overarching transition to new pedagogies and more online or distance learning for everyone, remains primarily a visual experience.  It also remains, in many settings, an intense exercise in human communication skills which directly impact students on the spectrum in challenging ways.  Developing a visual framework in pedagogical thinking for ASD students will likely prove beneficial in helping this at-risk population of postsecondary students, providing lower stress practice opportunities and a neuro-friendly technique.

References

Kempe, A. and C. Tissot (2012).  The use of drama to teach social skills in a special school setting for students with autism.  Support for Learning 27(3), 97-102.

Kovess-Masfety, V., K. Keys, et al. (2016).  Is time spent playing video game associated with mental health, cognitive and social skills in young children?  Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(3), 349-357.

Raede, D. (2016).  Why people with Aspergers play video games.  Retrieved April 22, 2016, from https://www.aspergerexperts.com/go/playvideogames/

Trammell, J. (2013). PRACTICE BRIEF: Modeling positive behaviors for postsecondary students with Autism/Asperger’s: The use of “Television Coaching”. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 26(2), 183-187.

Trembath, D. D., G. Vivanti, et al. (2015). “Accurate or assumed: Visual learning in children with ASD.” Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 45(10): 3276-3287.