Improving Faculty Metacognition for 21st Century

LearnersDr. Elizabeth Faunce, CFP

Associate Professor

Immaculata University

Overview

• Introduction to Metacognition

• Discuss how self-reflection promotes teaching excellence and the benefits of establishing faculty learning communities.

• Attendees will be divided into “learning communities,” provided with a syllabus, and asked to reflect on: the learning outcomes, activities, and assessment tools they would utilize in the classroom.

• Groups will score themselves based on the IU Rubric for Faculty Metacognition and identify ways to improve teaching excellence.

• Q&A and closing remarks.

@ACBSPAccredited #ACBSP2015

Metacognition

is a higher-order of thinking that enables:

understanding, analysis, &control of one’s cognitive processes,

especially when engaged in learning.

Why is Metacognition Important to Business Faculty?

• Business Faculty are Highly Educated• Terminal Degrees• Designations

• CFP• CPA• CFA

• Business Faculty have Extensive Work Experiences• 10 years as a Federal Bank Regulator – FDIC

• Money and Banking Course

Unfortunately, business faculty often do not receive training/education on effective teaching strategies.

Research Project Title: Building an Academy for Metacognition

Research Question: How can the formation of a peer learning community foster faculty metacognition?

Formed the IU Academy for Metacognition Faculty members from multiple disciplines Met bi-weekly for 1 hour Embraced specific engagement strategies Maintained journals of successes/failures Developed “Best Practices”

Findings

The Academy for Metacognition faculty members:

Embraced the learning communities and were very receptive to the open dialog with their peers.

Appreciated the cross-disciplinary aspect of the group because it allowed for varying thought processes.

Recognized that they were already using metacognition/engagement strategies in the classroom and welcomed new approaches.

Research Project Title: Developing a Cross-disciplinary Rubric for Faculty Metacognition

Research Question:Can components of metacognitive thinking be identified and ranked in a rubric?

Developed a three part rubric All Academy members provided insight in the

development of the rubric. All members “tested” the validity and usefulness of the

rubric in the Fall 2014 semester. Copyright pending Will be posted on the university online platform for faculty

self reflection

Findings

Academy Members’ personal reflections:

• “Through the Academy and use of the rubric, metacognitive thinking pervades all of my course preparations and professional activities.”

• “I focus on student engagement and interaction instead of relying on a pure lecture format.”

• “I now actively seek feedback from students and go ‘off course’ when my planned presentation is not working”

Metacognition Rubric

• Three Parts• Reflective Planning• Implementation of Lesson• Reflection on Lesson

• Four Rankings• Novice• Apprentice• Practitioner• Master

Activity

• Break into “Learning Communities” – team up with the person(s) sitting next to you.

• Review the syllabus provided.

• Reflect on the learning outcomes provided on the syllabus.• What activities and assessment tools would you utilize in

the classroom? Share your thoughts/comments with your peers.• Score yourself based on the IU Rubric for Faculty

Metacognition.• Identify engagement activities that you might use in the

classroom to improve teaching effectiveness.

Thank You

If you would like more information on: Developing an Academy for Metacognition The IU Cross-Disciplinary Rubric for Faculty Metacognition

Elizabeth Faunce

Immaculata University

1145 King Road

Immaculata, PA 19345

efaunce@immaculata.edu

Sources

• Barkley, Elizabeth. (2010). Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. Text used by Academy of Metacognition members.

• Cashin, W. (1989). IDEA Paper No. 21: Defining and Evaluating College Teaching. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved October 31, 2014 from http://www.the ideacenter.org/sites/default/files/IDEA_Paper_21.pdf.

• Hoyt, D. and Pallett, W. (1999). IDEA Paper No. 36: Appraising Teaching Effectiveness: Beyond Student Ratings. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved October 31, 2014 from http://www.the ideacenter.org/sites/default/files/IDEA_Paper_36.pdf.

• Jernstedt, C. (2012 - present). “Building Faculty Capacity for 21st Century Teaching.” A faculty-led, continuous professional development model strengthening evidence-based teaching; funded by the Teagle Foundation; sponsored by SEPCHE (Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for Higher Education); and facilitated by Dr. Chris Jernstedt and Elizabeth Moy.

• Millis, B. J. (2012). IDEA Paper No. 53: Active Learning Strategies in Face-to-Face Courses. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved October 31, 2014 from http://www.the ideacenter.org/sites/default/files/IDEA_Paper_53.pdf.

• Moy, Elizabeth, O'Sullivan, Gerard, Terlecki, Melissa, and Jernstedt, Christian (2014) Building Faculty Capacity Through the Learning Sciences, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46:2, 42-49, DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2014.896710 Retrieved November 3, 2014.

• Stalheim-Smith, A. (1998). IDEA Paper No. 34: Focusing on Active, Meaningful Learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved October 31, 2014 from http://www.the ideacenter.org/sites/default/files/IDEA_Paper_34.pdf.