Re: [Phys-L] Metacognition

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

There is still research to be done on what works better under particular
circumstances.  I think Peer Instruction works very well for formal
operational students, but I suspect it is not as good for other levels.  We
really do not know how much metacognition is actually promoted by various
forms of instruction.  We also do not know which PER innovations produce the
greatest improvement in thinking ala the Lawson test.  I suspect that most
do not do well on the Lawson test unless they are modified somewhat.  And I
suspect that Peer Instruction also needs to be modified to produce better
metacognition.  Modeling has to have some modifications to get better
improvement on the Lawson test.

But I would agree that Peer Instruction is an excellent model for
instruction, especially when you are saddled with a large lecture class.
But Modeling may work overall much better if you have smaller classes, and
lower level students.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> This is what peer instruction does and it has revolutionized 
> how I teach
> and how my students learn.
>
>
> > Unfortunately lectures do not do a good job of promoting 
> metacognition.
> > That is why PER has reduced lectures.  In a lecture you learn about
> > thinking, but to learn to do metacognition you have to experience it.
> > Remember that Feynman knew that his lectures were failures.
> >
> > To promote metacognition in students you have to question 
> them.  They have
> > to answer questions rather than you answering questions.  
> They have to be
> > pushed to think rather than you doing the thinking for them. 
>  I have shown
> > gain on the Lawson test and also seen transfer, which I 
> would interpret as
> > increased metacognition.