Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Metacognition in a gifted classroom : planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy Cotton, Graeme 2010

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2010_fall_cotton_graeme.pdf [ 3.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0071128.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0071128-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0071128-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0071128-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0071128-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0071128-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0071128-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0071128-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0071128.ris

Full Text

METACOGNITION IN A GIFTED CLASSROOM: PLANNING, NOTE-TAKING, AND CHECKING FOR ACCURACY by Graeme Cotton  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Cross-Faculty Inquiry in Education)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  July 2010 © Graeme Cotton, 2010  Abstract Previous research indicates that planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy encourage metacognitive awareness and better self-regulation. Facility with these particular metacognitive skills is important for researching and producing long-term projects, a major component of this program. Fourteen intellectually gifted grade four and five students in a gifted education class were instructed in the metacognitive strategies of planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy over the course of one school year. This teacher directed study investigated if these students were capable of learning metacognitive strategies essential for successful self-regulated learning. Students were instructed in metacognitive strategies through a variety of highly interactive instructional techniques, including modelling, whole class activity, partner work, and independent assignments. Student work was evaluated by independent raters at the end of the study and was subjected to repeated measures of variance. The data demonstrates that explicit strategy instruction supports the development of metacognition in gifted grade four and five students. They are capable of learning to plan, note-take, and check for accuracy thus improving self-regulating behaviours.  ii  Preface The University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board granted approval for this research. Certificate Number H10-00231 was approved on April 6, 2010.  iii  Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. vii Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................... viii Introduction to the Problem ......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem/Question .................................................................................................................................... 2 Why is the problem important?................................................................................................................ 2 Situating the problem ............................................................................................................................... 3 Literature Search........................................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Metacognition ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Self-regulation......................................................................................................................................... 12 Summarizing/Note-taking ....................................................................................................................... 13 Length of study ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Direct instruction .................................................................................................................................... 16 Direction of training ................................................................................................................................ 17 Classroom setting.................................................................................................................................... 18 Underachievement ................................................................................................................................. 19 Strategy and skill ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Note-taking/Summarizing ....................................................................................................................... 21 Meta-analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Strategies chosen for this study .............................................................................................................. 23 Method ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Participants ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 26 Rubrics................................................................................................................................................. 28 Checking for accuracy ......................................................................................................................... 29  iv  Planning............................................................................................................................................... 30 Note-taking ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Reflective writing ................................................................................................................................ 31 Measurement.......................................................................................................................................... 32 Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Treatment ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Measures................................................................................................................................................. 37 Scoring..................................................................................................................................................... 37 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 Planning............................................................................................................................................... 41 Writing ................................................................................................................................................ 47 Note-taking ......................................................................................................................................... 49 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................... 55 Relation to the literature ........................................................................................................................ 55 Planning............................................................................................................................................... 55 Note-taking ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Checking for accuracy ......................................................................................................................... 56 Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 58 Recommendations for further research ................................................................................................. 58 Implications for my pedagogy................................................................................................................. 59 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A - Before You Hand It In Checklists ........................................................................................... 74 Appendix B – Rubrics .................................................................................................................................. 83 Appendix C – Parent and Student Consent Forms ...................................................................................... 88 Appendix D – Behavioural Research Ethics Board Approval....................................................................... 96 Appendix E – Dates for Rated Samples ....................................................................................................... 97  v  List of Tables Table 1: Example of Rubric (for Note-taking) ......................................................................................... 29 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Planning, Writing and Note-taking.......................................... 39 Table 3: Greenhouse-Geisser Tests of Within-subjects Effects ........................................................ 40 Table 4: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts for Planning, Writing and Note-taking .............. 41  vi  List of Figures Figure 1 Graphic Representation of Progress for Note-taking by Time ....................................... 40 Figure 2 Planning Sample 1 ........................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 3 Planning Example 2 ......................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4 Planning Example 3 ......................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5 Planning Example 4 ......................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 6 Writing Example 1 ........................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 7 Writing Example 2 ........................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 8 Note-taking Example 1 ................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 9 Note-taking Example 2 ................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 10 Note-taking Example 3 ................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 11 Note-taking Example 4 ................................................................................................................ 54  vii  Acknowledgements Special thanks to Dr. Carl Leggo, Dr. Marion Porath, and Dr. Charles Ungerleider for guiding me through this process and providing direction and motivation. Extra thanks to Charles for patiently reflecting with me and to Dr. Zohreh Yaghoub Zadeh, Principal Research Scientist at Directions Evidence Policy Research Group, LLP for running the data. Thank you to Marie Chomyn and Deni Mori for their Saturdays and on the job feedback. Thank you also to the parents and students who so generously let me investigate my practice and who asked all sorts of questions that made me think; which was a good thing. Finally, thank you to Jordan Graham for technical support and to my family for not so technical support.  viii  Introduction to the Problem As a teacher of gifted students in the intermediate elementary grades, I have found that in their previous school experiences my students have not needed to apply themselves to tasks to be successful at school. Their natural abilities have been more than enough to get through schoolwork in spite of their work habits, social skills, or behaviour. They have not had to plan their process or put aside time to work through tasks. These gifted students frequently complete assignments in a frenzied, last minute attack. While they are able to finish assignments, the work they submit is disorganized, incomplete, and messy. The ‘last minute’ technique can be successful with less complex tasks, albeit highly dramatic for all involved, but accuracy is sacrificed for speed. Students who routinely whip up assignments in the final hour deny themselves the opportunities to acquire alternate strategies for future learning. Studying complex material requires persistence. Students who have not learned how to plan and persist with their plan will falter when they are faced with an assignment that cannot be completed using the ‘last-minute’ strategy. However, planning and persisting with a plan is not learned if the work is insufficiently difficult. Last-minute frenzied learning is not conducive to learning and understanding. It takes time to read, process, evaluate and understand new information. Relying on one’s memory to complete long-term projects negates the benefits of long-term projects, such as creating new meaning from researching, analyzing, and evaluating. The trouble with memorizing is that the information can be forgotten. Knowing is different. Knowing creates a foundation for more learning. 1  Problem/Question Will instruction about planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy enable gifted students to improve the quality of the products they create? Why is the problem important? For the gifted students I work with who are capable of high achievement and yet who underachieve, poor quality output negatively affects their self-esteem, attitude to school, and willingness to take risks. Students become motivated when they are able to take pride in sharing quality products. Their participation in all aspects of the program improves once they exert effort and experience success. This positive feedback from teachers and peers encourages growth, development, and risk taking. Knowing how to succeed in different domains requires knowing which steps and strategies are needed to replicate success. Transferring ability from subject to subject and situation to situation requires having sufficiently developed metacognitive strategies to draw upon. A heightened awareness of their strengths and weaknesses and of the learning process allows students to be confident in meeting new challenges. Preparing students with a foundation of skills and strategies so they can succeed beyond elementary school is what elementary schooling is supposed to do. High school can be a difficult time. Gifted students “can experience difficulty ... conforming to others and fitting into an appropriate peer group” (Swiatek, 1995, p. 154). With a relatively small peer group, gifted students may experience social challenges more acutely and with fewer peers than students in the general population. Fortifying students with skills and strategies that support independent learning will help them succeed in their 2  future studies. By understanding their own thinking and learning processes, gifted students are in a position to face the social challenges they will encounter because habitually employing metacognitive learning strategies means students can attend to other challenging activities like making friends or accelerating academically. Elementary school can provide the ideal environment for developing metacognitive strategies. It is a relatively stable environment for most students. Students usually work with one homeroom teacher and may move to one or more teachers for specific subjects such as music or French. In high school students move from one class to another with much less personal connection to their teachers. After high school, the connection to and support in the learning environment diminishes again. Students must acquire metacognitive strategies to be competent and secure learners. Students will be more successful if they leave elementary school with learning strategies that are relevant for further education and for their lives. Situating the problem Located in a city in western Canada, this district-wide program is intended to meet the needs of independently motivated, intellectually gifted learners. It is four year program enrolling students in grades four through seven. Most students begin in the program in grade four or five and continue until the end of grade seven. Selection of students is carried out independently of the classroom teachers. Students are evaluated for suitability for the program from the results of a cognitive skills test and a one day observation. The class in which this study was conducted provides project based learning which allows for the flexibility and challenge needed to capture and keep the attention of a group of 3  gifted students with a variety of talents and passions. Each year, students research and produce projects in four areas of study: an eminent person, science, heritage (Canadian studies), and personal interest. Within the project based learning format, teachers directteach organizational and presentation skills, time management, self discipline and research skills such as note-taking, finding reliable sources, citing sources, and using primary sources. Students participate in all other areas of school culture with an expectation of leadership in one or more areas outside the classroom (library monitor, environmental club, community service, mentoring). In general, major challenges facing these students at the grade four/five level are social skills, friendship skills, and appropriate behaviour. Prior to their experience in the program, most students have not been with their intellectual peers. They often prefer to work alone because they have not gained much from working with others and have lacked academic stimulation in a regular enrolling class. Many students have developed poor work habits as a result of not being engaged in their learning environment. Some daydream, some try to monopolize the conversation, some are outright bossy, and some remain disengaged from their learning. When comparing the project work of these intellectually gifted grade four and five students with their age peers who are not designated as gifted, it is evident that the topics selected by the gifted students are sometimes more unusual or obscure; but the products are indistinguishable. In general, the gifted students’ verbal ability separates them from their peers, but the quality of their visual presentations, neatness, and attention to detail tends to be equal to, or worse than, their age peers.  4  An initial challenge for these students is learning to focus their active minds. They are often mentally multi-tasking. Instead of engaging with the topic at hand, students are insufficiently attentive to instruction because they believe that much of what is said by the teacher does not apply to them; they already know it. Having outperformed their classmates prior to being in the gifted class, they attend to tasks in the same way in their new classroom. When they employ these strategies, their resulting products, submitted or presented, always fall far short of what they are capable of doing. The first project in the first year illustrates the strategy vacuum. Studying an eminent person in depth, employing multiple sources, locating that person in history, and understanding that person’s contribution to the world is a complex series of tasks. There is an immediate need for project management strategies. When planning, accuracy, and notetaking strategies are introduced, students take one of two paths. They adhere to their previously successful strategy or they attempt to follow the strategies proposed by the teacher. Completing the project is stressful whichever path they choose. Those who remain steadfast to their previous strategy demonstrate no outward stress along the way and extreme stress near the due date. Those who attempt to follow the process as led by the teacher experience a constant stress level along the way. The payoff in attempting to build a new process during the first project comes in subsequent projects; students have begun acquiring project skills: planning methods, striving for accuracy, and summarizing information into note form.  5  Students enrolled in this class need to be competent researchers. Taking good notes from research material is a critical research skill. Notes that are complete and accurate make producing essays, reports, and presentations much simpler. Prior to instruction, most students read a book and reiterate the information in their work. They rely on one or two sources: one book and one website (or several). They memorize facts. They may analyse the facts and they may even have an opinion about their topic, but they are unlikely to be able to explain why someone else should care about their topic or its greater importance. Spending six or eight weeks studying something and missing the opportunity to make a personal connection to, or make new meaning from, that learning is to continue with the same methods used to complete work in their previous schooling.  Literature Search As a classroom teacher, I wanted a theoretical and research informed understanding of metacognition to complement my practical classroom experience. To gain a foundation in educational and psychological research, I intentionally kept my search parameters as broad as possible. I searched for literature using EBSCO in the following databases: Academic Search Complete, Education Search Complete, ERIC, Middle Search, Primary Search, PsycExtra, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Teacher Reference Center, and Academic Search Premier. Initial searches using keywords such as metacognition, planning, checking for accuracy, and note-taking identified well over one million articles. I changed my search by including keywords metacognition, students, and note-taking which identified 19 articles. These articles were useful as background information on studies in taking notes from lectures and for the purposes of testing. Combinations of self-regulation, self-regulated learning, 6  learning strategies, primary school, strategy, self-efficacy, and gifted also identified relevant articles. The concepts of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning overlap in the literature because these are relatively new study terms which continue to evolve and because researchers have not agreed on the subtle distinctions between their meanings (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008). To manage this overlap, I undertook searches that included each term independent of the others. Articles were included if they met the broad criterion of providing background information on metacognition/self-regulation/self-regulated learning. Studies on note-taking for the purpose of taking tests at the elementary level were also included as were studies on notetaking for reasons other than testing. Articles were excluded if they focussed on secondary or post-secondary education, although some were used to gauge skill development in the regular course of study. Limiting my searches from 1990 to 2010, metacognition, summarizing, strategy and gifted children identified 57 articles which focussed primarily on reading comprehension and math. Several were useful for background information on metacognitive development. Elementary school, self-regulated learning, and training program successfully located eleven related articles, four of which were selected because they provided information about programs with one or more minor differences. From this search, I added the word gifted and found Stoeger and Ziegler (2005), a study aimed at improving math results for underachieving gifted students, and Dignath, Buettner, and Langfeldt (2008), a metaanalysis of self-regulation programs at the elementary school level.  7  Other keywords employed were study skills, learning strategies, self-regulatory strategies, self-regulatory skills, metacognitive skills, metacognitive strategies, learning to learn, learning to think, goal setting, organizational skills, and autonomous learning. Reading through abstracts eliminated most articles because they matched neither a classroom setting nor a teacher instructed model, although articles added perspective. I included a range of historical and theoretical articles and others for their value as intervention models that have shown success with students of similar age and ability or with teacher-initiated or implemented strategies regardless of subject or student ability level, or whether it was implemented by study author or teacher. Searches including the keyword note-taking identified articles about note-taking from lecture or text for the purpose of taking tests and were based on secondary or postsecondary schooling. As note-taking in my class is neither from lecture nor for test-taking, these studies, were not relevant for my purposes. These studies were excluded as models for my study but provided information on the difficulties associated with obtaining information from text. Further into searching I found relevant articles that referred to note-taking as summarizing. Repeating my previous searches substituting “summarizing” for “notetaking” yielded many more relevant articles of which those by Day (1986) and Brown and Day (1983) were of particular interest. Day’s study investigated summarization skills in junior college students and while the participants were young adults, her study did include summary writing methods instruction and metacognition instruction, specifically checking  8  work. Brown and Day studied summarization by novices in grade five through to expert graduate students. Neither study was implemented within a regular classroom. Several studies about gifted students (e.g., Dover, 1984; Dover & Shore, 1991) measured factors of speed or strategy retention (far transfer) or compared them to non-gifted students. Gifted students tend to be quick studies and good at memorizing (Alonso, 1999). As teachers in the classroom know, lasting effects of instruction occur when instruction continues for extended periods of time. After summer break or periods in which strategies are not used, students need to be reminded of, or reintroduced to, skills and strategies. Post-tests are given by researchers at the end of the study. If the teacher was not the instructor or did not reinforce the strategy or require its use beyond the study, results can only be considered valid as a snapshot of achievement immediately following the instruction. Short term interventions initiated by researchers that did not include the classroom teacher were considered but excluded either because students may have perceived them as unimportant because they ‘did not count’ for marks or the outcome of the study is known to be inconsequential (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). Students must make a true and sustained effort to make permanent gains in their learning. An externally initiated study, disengaged from the content and context of the class would have resulted in less than maximum effort on the part of the students and of the teachers (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). Searches using the keywords metacognition and strategy yielded reading comprehension studies. Language development and reading comprehension dominate the metacognitive studies category (Baker & Brown, 1984; Loizidou & Koutselini, 2007; Souvignier &  9  Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Reading comprehension studies that looked at direct and explicit strategy instruction were included for their instruction methods and results. Reading comprehension studies that focussed on reciprocal teaching and cooperative and group learning support the strategies already in place in my class. These instructional strategies would continue during this study. It was important to separate the various studies into categories for their respective merits of providing theory, proven processes, and subject matter. In the end, I found no studies that examined exactly what I proposed: investigating the role of developing metacognitive strategies in gifted students for long-term projects and improvement in student production.  Literature Review Researchers have been studying metacognition for more than thirty years and today there stands a vast body of data. In light of the high rates of underachievement in gifted students (Baker, Bridger, & Evans, 1998), further investigation is warranted into the importance of instruction of metacognitive strategies, length of instruction, and teacher versus researcher instruction. Circumstances particular to this class may provide insights. Long term projects integrate strategy use with content in the authentic learning environment, an important feature in long-term retention of strategy use (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Student motivation is a factor in whether a study is successful and accurate (Baker et al., 1998; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). Facility with the instructed strategies is relevant to the students because they can be used immediately in all subjects and learning situations.  10  Because this is a four year program, there was potential to pursue this study further and to reassess the validity of the results in subsequent years. Piaget and Vygotski provided the groundwork for understanding some of the ways children learn. Piaget believed the “ability of an individual to be self-governing - in the moral as well as in the intellectual realm” was an aim of education (Kamii & Faye, 1994, p. 672) which is present in the philosophy and autonomous learning environment of the program. Vygotski’s Zone of Proximal Development is relevant to a class where gifted students are surrounded by challenging material and capable peers (Fox & Riconscente, 2008). Students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning and to extend themselves further than they have before. Since John Flavell (1979) coined the term metacognition to mean thinking about one’s thinking, researchers across three decades have tried to answer questions about metacognitive processes and their implications for learning. The internal and intangible nature of metacognition challenges researchers to devise ways of understanding learning, thinking, and the fluidity of knowledge. Metacognition In the 1970s John Flavell was studying cognitive processes and how they were monitored and controlled. Cognition is defined as “the ability to acquire knowledge or the knowledge acquired through reasoning, intuition, or perception” (Encarta, 2009). Flavell (1979) coined ‘metacognition’ to describe thinking about one’s own cognition. Haller, Child, and Walberg (1988) define metacognition as “awareness, monitoring and regulation of an  11  individual’s cognitive process” (p. 5) which goes one step further than Flavell by including the facet of self-regulation. Hattie, Biggs and Purdie (1996) describe cognitive strategies as being “task-related skills such as underlining, note-taking, and summarizing” (p.100) while metacognitive strategies focus on self-management of learning, that is, on planning, implementing, and monitoring one’s learning efforts” (p. 100). Yet in 2009, Hattie considers note-taking, summarizing, and outlining metacognitive strategies worth teaching. Does this contradiction indicate evolution in the field or a change in Hattie’s viewpoint? Self-regulation Zimmerman (2000) said that self-regulation “refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (p.14). Students must make a specific and meaningful goal, create a plan to achieve the goal, carry out the plan, and evaluate the result before formulating a new plan based on the result. “SRL [self-regulated learning] appeals to researchers and educators who seek to understand how students become adept and independent in their educational pursuits” (Paris & Paris, 2001, p. 89). Dinsmore et al. (2008) assert that metacognition is not synonymous with self-regulated learning. To self-regulate, a person must be able to integrate the strategy into a personal repertoire and be able to produce it and reproduce it across time and activities. If a child is displaying metacognitive skills but is not aware of them, can we be assured that the child understands what he is doing and therefore is self-regulating? Explicit instruction places  12  the strategy in full view, names it, and enables the child to practice the strategy with support before trying to regulate behaviour independently. Summarizing/Note-taking Early investigations into the metacognitive strategies for summarization from text explored how students, novice to expert, summarized written non-fiction passages. Brown and Day (1983) state that “fifth, seventh grade, and junior college students summarize texts primarily by deleting or copying near verbatim the words actually present in the text” (p. 12). If grade 5 students spontaneously do what junior college level students do, then instruction should occur at grade 5 or earlier. If competent summarizing is a difficult skill and does not develop through exposure and practice then direct instruction and practise with feedback is necessary (Brown & Day, 1983; Day, 1986; Hattie, 2009). Hendy and Whitebread (2000) discuss the advantages of teaching metacognitive strategies to younger children rather than waiting until competing strategies or detrimental learning attitudes might already be in place. Gifted students who have been academically unchallenged can develop particularly stubborn coping strategies to avoid engagement in class activity (Baker et al., 1998). Initially students resist learning metacognitive strategies and must be motivated to use those (Dignath, Buettner, & Langfeldt, 2008). After they see the results of the first project, students often become more motivated to adopt the strategies. Metacognitive strategies such as note-taking or planning must be assessed and evaluated before students can modify learning behaviours. By reflecting on the processes followed, and products produced, students gain insights into the execution of the metacognitive 13  strategy and may be motivated to change. If students understand the metacognitive strategy they can attempt to self-regulate their learning. Metacognitive knowledge is acquired knowledge about cognitive processes that can be used to control those cognitive processes. Self-regulated learning assumes the user is aware of the strategies and is choosing to enact them. Because this study took place in a classroom, the reader can assume that metacognition refers to thinking about thinking and learning strategies to be a better learner. Students who acquired the metacognitive strategies of planning, checking for accuracy, and note-taking, and who applied the strategies to school work were demonstrating self-regulation. Self-regulated learning is “a cycle in which self-assessment and self-evaluation of the learning process influence the … learning processes” (Dignath et al., 2008, p. 103). Goal setting, assessing, and resetting are self-regulating behaviours. The student must understand the metacognitive strategy of goal setting to be capable of self-regulation and motivated to self-regulate. Length of study Short term strategy training studies (one to twenty sessions) are common in assessing language development, reading comprehension, or math strategy training (Brown & Day, 1983; Day, 1986; Englert, Mariage, Okolo, Shankland, Moxley, Courtad, & Chen., 2009). Souvignier and Mokhlesgerami (2006) assert that “it is for certain that 20 lessons cannot provide sufficient time to establish automatized strategy use” and Baker et al. (1998) conclude that “longitudinal research is needed to accurately address the origins of underachievement” (p. 13). The four year program provides an opportunity to follow 14  student strategy use and skill development over time and to evaluate the usefulness of the strategy instruction in their first or second year. Many studies have taught strategies in isolation or for short periods and must be questioned for their relevance for permanent improvement (Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Instructing students in metacognitive strategies solely to obtain results for a study is a waste of teaching and learning time. If students cannot carry learned strategies to the next assignment then no real learning has taken place. Assigned work without the aim to improve long-term success is busy work. Unless instruction can be integrated into a classroom setting the results are merely academic and cannot be implemented by teachers for the benefits claimed in non-classroom studies. Because there is no knowing how long it would take a given class of students to learn, retain, use, and transfer strategies independently, and because every student is different, the longer and more integrated the approach the more likely it would be effective. Making strategies just part of the everyday learning process provides students with metacognitive strategies to support life-long learning. Long–term interventions are rare (Cotterall & Murray, 2009). How do short term bursts of metacognitive strategy instruction permanently improve student metacognition and, therefore, academic achievement? Can intensive instruction for a short period of time create habits for life without follow-up?  15  Direct instruction The literature shows that students can become strategic thinkers in reading comprehension and math with direct instruction (Brown, 2005; Brown & Day, 1983; Day, 1986; Hendy & Whitebread, 2000; Loizidou & Koutselini, 2005; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). More recently, metacognition has entered classrooms less by direct-teaching methods and more by creating learning environments that foster metacognition. However, the learning environment must support the demands being placed on the students (Hattie, 2009). It is just as important to explicitly teach metacognitive strategies as it is to explicitly teach curricula since subject matter and metacognition are equally important types of knowledge (Dignath et al., 2008; Lin, 2001). Research shows that direct and explicit instruction of metacognitive strategies demonstrates successful outcomes for students. Instruction, with opportunity for guided and independent practise, results in improvement in self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000), reading comprehension (Loizidou & Koutselini, 2007), and math (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005; Zimmerman, 2000). Whether students are gifted or not, direct instruction removes ambiguity and misunderstanding from the learning equation. Instruction defines the strategies necessary for developing specific skills and practising improves the likelihood of independent use of those strategies. “Highly structured learning or direct teaching, which emphasizes testing and feedback, again emerges as the most effective teaching form” (Sheerens & Baker, 1997, p. 216). The culmination of a long-term project requires demonstration of depth of knowledge rather than answers that can be tested. In this study, the term testing might better be replaced  16  with ‘presentations’ or ‘products’ demonstrating knowledge in various forms. Feedback can be given through teacher assessment and evaluation. Students can give feedback to themselves by using rubrics for self-evaluation (Sheerens & Baker, 1997). From selfevaluation, students can set meaningful and challenging goals for subsequent work. Students are expected to develop methods on their own. Zimmerman (1996) maintains that students need the skills for “selective reading, systematic note-taking, study time planning and management” (p. 62) which are “seldom taught formally” (p. 62). Math training programs for gifted underachievers have demonstrated positive change in the instructed strategies (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005; Zimmerman, 2000). Siegler (2006) points to research that says gifted students are more strategic in using metacognitive strategies and may benefit less from instruction. I would argue that while this may be true in reading and math, the skills of planning, checking for accuracy, and note-taking are not learned spontaneously nor are they taught to children in the primary grades or in their homes. Thus, students coming into contact with new strategies to meet new expectations will require direct instruction. Direction of training Classroom teaching strategies must be flexible. They must be responsive to group dynamics and to individual needs. Teacher directed studies are different than researcher directed studies. With a teacher as researcher, strategies can be implemented daily and revised to fit the particular needs of each student (Loizidou & Koutselini, 2007). I propose that the comprehensive, global assessments carried out by classroom teachers are more  17  accurate in assessing the effectiveness and relevance of an intervention on the whole child than those of external researchers. Loizidou, a teacher, implements a reading comprehension study in her classroom with Koutselini, a researcher. They write, “Intervention programmes meant to foster metacognitive skills should not be strictly pre-designed since, in a natural setting, there will be many unknown factors that might influence children’s metacognitive behaviour” (Loizidou & Koutselini, 2007, p. 515). Rather than selecting a narrow moment and topic as researchers have the luxury of doing, teachers must take into account every activity from morning to afternoon and from the beginning of the school year until the end. Meaning made from an experience may not materialize when requested. Sticking strictly to a plan removes the ability to use teachable moments to their utmost. Maintaining a dynamic classroom environment where students feel empowered and in control of their learning requires teacher awareness and program flexibility. Modelling flexibility in the learning process, thinking out loud about it, and consulting students about their thoughts provide insight into what was learned and what needs to be learned next. The organic nature of this process is learning in “real life.” Studies requiring an exact number of sessions or an exact procedure at a specified time may appear more scientific but in the end they are measuring something that cannot be replicated in a regular classroom setting. Classroom setting Few studies have been carried out in the natural or “ecologically valid” settings of classrooms (Dinsmore et al., 2008; Souvegnier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). Even fewer 18  studies are teacher implemented and a regular part of the teaching and learning day (Loizidou & Koutselini, 2007). Some interventions may fall in between: externally initiated and evaluated, but teacher implemented (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). Zimmerman (2000) and Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach. (1996) developed math training programs to meet the needs of underachieving gifted students which showed positive possibilities for use by teachers. Based on the Zimmerman model, Stoeger and Ziegler (2005) implemented a math training program with positive results for students which was manageable in a classroom setting with 36 grade four gifted students who were underachieving in math. Teachers were supported by researchers in implementing the program and were freed from the responsibility of managing evidence or analyzing results. The most difficult and foundational components of the program are addressed through project work. In particular, students struggle with planning, being accurate in their work, and taking notes from sources (usually non-fiction). After creating my program for the school year, I looked for evidence in the literature to support my choices. In terms of implementing an instructional program to improve student metacognition, I did not find any suitable models. Underachievement Students’ poor quality products may be a manifestation of underachievement which is caused by one or more mitigating factors. For example, family support, learning disability, or behavioural issues have all been shown to affect achievement in gifted students (Baker et al., 1998). If we assume that the classroom teacher cannot change those factors, then  19  perhaps the factors a teacher can improve are motivation (which may be affected by lack of success in school) and study and organizational skills (Rimm, 1988). Fifty percent of students with high IQs are considered underachievers in their academic studies (Richert, 1991). Underachievers struggle with impulsivity, self-criticism, and anxiety (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994) which will also interfere with academic success. Paris and Winograd (1990) state that “self-regulation is critical for children with special needs, disabilities, and talents because traditional classroom instruction is frustrating for them” (p. 7). Direct strategy instruction for approaching a novel task may alleviate some of the anxiety associated with not knowing how to be successful. With today’s immediate access to an exponentially growing quantity of information, it is vital that students are literate in metacognitive strategies so they can become critical thinkers. Schooling must become less about learning information and more about how to manage information and to think about it critically. To do these things, one must be literate in knowledge gathering, summarizing, and managing critical thinking processes. This literacy is the component that will separate learners who can navigate their schooling successfully and with purpose from those who cannot. Strategy and skill In this study, strategy is used to mean “a systematic action, consciously chosen and monitored, to improve performance” (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 244). The novice reader must learn strategies to become skilled. Someone just beginning to read will need to stop and think and perhaps ask for assistance before continuing. A strategy is a deliberately controlled process (Harris & Hodges). 20  In this study, skill is used to mean “an acquired ability to perform well; proficiency; associated with the proficiency of a complex act” (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 235). A skill can be used without effort; it is habitual. For example, a skilful reader employs many strategies without thinking about them. The reader connects information to prior knowledge, rereads difficult passages, and checks for understanding. A skill is an automatic process. “Skill affords high levels of performance with little effort” (Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008, p. 372), and so the teaching of strategies in this study is for the purpose of developing project based learning skills to improve students’ products. Note-taking/Summarizing Generally, summarization and note taking may be used interchangeably. Both take a larger piece of writing or speech and condense it. In this study, it should be understood that notetaking in each project is a sustained effort (four to six weeks) and requires investigation of encyclopedias, websites, periodicals, videos, and interviews. To summarize means to make information brief and concise whereas to take notes is associated with writing things to be remembered, observing carefully or giving careful attention to (Encarta, 2009). Note-taking is a more appropriate definition for what the students are attempting to do. Meta-analyses Meta-analyses - statistical summaries of similar studies in a particular field - can provide general information and more knowledge (Dickson, Collins, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998; Hendy & Whitebread, 2000; Paris & Winograd, 2009). Unfortunately, published articles consistently show more significant results than do theses and doctoral submissions (Kobayashi, 2006). If there is flexibility in evaluating and reporting results then we cannot 21  rely on the exactness of these meta-analyses unless we know on which types of studies they are reporting. Meta-analyses that reported solely on published articles may have different results in strategy effectiveness than meta-analyses that reported on theses. Only extremely large meta-analyses that included a significant number of both would provide accurate and dependable information. In his book Visible Learning (2009), John Hattie presents a synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses. Hattie synthesizes the most effective methods and actions for achievement. Hattie notes that teachers average an effect of d = 0.20 to d = 0.40 per year on student achievement, cautioning that “not all teachers are effective . . . and not all teachers have powerful effects on students” (p. 108). According to Hattie, any number of practices can lead to some change in student performance because, in education, “almost everything works” (p. 15). To minimize the risk that people will adopt practices that may, in fact, make only a marginal contribution to student achievement, but be undertaken at considerable costs, Hattie advocates that those concerned with improving student achievement look for factors that yield effect sizes in excess of d = 0.40, “a level where the effects . . . enhance achievement in such a way that we can notice real-world differences” (p. 17), a region that Hattie labels the zone of desired effects. He writes, Not all teachers are effective, not all teachers are experts, and not all teachers have powerful effects on students. The important consideration is the extent to which they do have an influence on student achievements, and what it is that makes the most difference (p. 34).  22  Hattie investigates six categories of factors that contribute to achievement: child, home, school, curricula, teacher, and approaches to teaching. Of these, I can control two: the teacher and approaches to teaching. I want children to leave my classroom at the end of a year with an advantage. I want to know what I can do to become an expert. I want to leave my classroom knowing that I taught in the most effective ways and created an environment to foster the greatest potential educational growth. Strategies chosen for this study Students need planning and note-taking strategies for project based learning. Students also need to check for accuracy in their work. I found no studies that matched my proposed study in duration, integration into a working classroom by the teacher, and across all subjects. My strategy choices are supported by Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses which identified strategies that promote the greatest improvements. Among these are Goal-setting/Planning, Self-evaluation, and Organizing and Transforming. These strategies would be most beneficial for my students given the project-based learning focus in the class based on my experience with student challenges in the first two years of the program. Using the language I had originally chosen, rather than changing to Hattie’s wording, meant the implementation would fit with existing language familiar to students in this program. Having students create a project schedule to demonstrate their planning, take notes and submit them, and complete checklists for work submitted, including project work and writing reflections on their experiences, provides evidence of metacognitive strategy use. 23  Although the act of being metacognitive cannot be seen, evidence of being metacognitive can be found. Some studies have shown that gifted students learn, maintain, and use strategies better than non-gifted students (Borkowski & Peck, 1990). Other studies demonstrate the opposite: that non-gifted students learn, maintain, and use strategies better (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1988). Carr, Alexander, and Schwanenflugel (1996) found that gifted students sometimes demonstrate more adept use of metacognition than their non-gifted age peers and sometimes they do not. If the tasks are too easy, there may be no effect from instruction (Carr et al., 1996). Results may be situational or program specific. Previous studies have not examined which circumstances affect gifted students’ learning and maintenance of strategies for long-term project work. We do not know what the benefits of a long-term, in-class, teacher-implemented program for instructing metacognitive strategies will be and if students will learn strategies important to their program of study (planning, checking for accuracy, note-taking).  Method This study investigated the instruction of metacognitive strategies to support a logical and consistent approach to a long-term project process. I define metacognition as “higherorder thinking which involves active control over the cognitive processes engaged in learning ... which can include planning how to approach a given learning task, evaluating progress, and monitoring comprehension” (Hattie, 2009, p. 188). In this study, selfregulation and self-regulated learning are incorporated into the meaning of metacognition.  24  Students received instruction, assignment criteria, support, and assessment prior to and during their projects, and evaluation at the end of their projects. In attempting to improve project products, key factors were planning, checking for accuracy, and note-taking. In keeping with regular classroom protocol, I assessed the student’s ability at the outset, provided instruction in areas of weakness, assessed output, modified subsequent lessons, and provided individual feedback on planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy. These metacognitive skills were selected for three reasons: 1. They had to be beneficial to the long term skill development of students. In particular, they had to focus on the instruction of pivotal strategies in producing long-term projects (planning, note-taking) and in presenting excellent quality work (checking for accuracy). 2. They had to be something that I could implement in the regular classroom. They had to be possible without disrupting content learning, scheduling, or extracurricular activities (Day, 1986; Hattie, 2009). They had to be part of everyday teaching and learning so I had time to teach students who work at a rapid pace, and who need social, emotional, academic, and organizational help. I also needed to have time to assess, analyze, and respond because I was the sole teacher and researcher. The class works within the dynamic environment of a public school. 3. Preparing, teaching, learning, assessing, and responding had to be part of a regular day and had to allow for all other school activities and expectations. The intervention had to be connected to what we already do. Because this is a four year  25  program, the strategies taught will manifest over the four years, so they needed to be practical, appropriate, and if successful, part of the program every year. Hypotheses The study sought to determine whether instruction in planning, note-taking, and reflective writing would produce significant improvement in student performances. The null hypotheses were that there would be no differences in the students’ mean scores in planning, writing and note-taking over time. Participants The program was implemented with 14 grade four and five students in a gifted class in a city in western Canada. Two were students whose first language is English. Three were students who learned English simultaneously with another language. Nine were students whose first language is not English. This was relevant because all subject matter was instructed in English. There were 8 first year students: 1 grade five girl, 2 grade four boys and 5 grade four girls. There were 6 second year students: 2 grade five girls and 4 grade five boys. Methodology I needed approval from the University, the School Board, and permission from parents to proceed with this study. All parents gave consent and all children gave assent to participating in the study. All aspects of the curriculum had to be given proper time and attention. Mathematics, Physical Education, Fine Arts, Language Arts, and learning opportunities outside the class continued as usual. With more direct instruction at the beginning of the year, the first project criteria were scaled back so students could focus 26  more on developing the skills taught and applying their new skills directly to their projects. Time needed for direct instruction and review of skills and strategies was required before and during subsequent projects. The amount of time required for review depended on the students’ needs and was judged by ongoing assessment of student work, class discussions and checking for understanding. As much as possible, work to be evaluated was assigned and completed during class time to ensure that student work was independently produced. This study took place over the course of seven months. Strategies were taught, learned, tried, and retried every day and in every subject. Instead of instructing strategies in one specific area such as mathematics and looking for results in mathematics, strategies were applied to all work submitted whether completed at school or at home. I taught students planning, checking for accuracy, and note-taking skills. All three metacognitive strategies were introduced at the beginning of the first long-term project. Implementation was flexible and responsive to the particular needs of individuals and dynamic of the class. Discussions, teachable moments, and random tangents were direct teaching hazards that derailed the program schedule, but allowing for flexibility in the implementation of the program made the results useful for me in subsequent years and potentially useful in other classrooms because it was successful in a functioning educational setting. First, I introduced each strategy and students talked about the strategy and how it might be important to their learning and lives. Students read a short passage about the strategy, took notes from it in a way that made sense for them, and shared their ideas with their classmates. On the day of introduction, the entire day was focussed on exploring that 27  strategy through each activity: math, language, project work, and physical education. I prompted students at every turn to create awareness of the strategy and what it looked like throughout their day. At the end of the day, we discussed what the strategy might look like after school and in the evening. Rubrics I created rubrics for the instructed strategies by combining rubrics from Costa and Kallick (2009) and the British Columbia Ministry of Education Integrated Resource Packages for Research (2009) with language familiar to students. Each rubric contained specific criteria for a strategy. Rubrics were kept simple and brief, focussing only on the most important qualities required for autonomy and mastery in the specific skills. Rubrics needed to be user friendly for teacher and students. I needed to be able to use a rubric quickly to provide timely feedback while maintaining all the component parts of a teaching day. Students also needed to be able to understand the rubric’s meaning. While the metacognitive strategies of planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy were introduced during the first term, the only assessment rubric introduced was for planning. Planning is the first focus of project work and because students are exposed to so much in the first term, adding more than one strategy would have been too much.  28  Table 1: Example of Rubric (for Note-taking)  Criteria 90%+ information – all major and minor points No unnecessary information Organized - headings and subheadings Order of information may be totally reorganized Rewords or combines paragraphs for simplicity and clarity Omits redundant information Excellent source for report writing 70%+ information – all major and minor points May have some unnecessary information Organized – headings, subheadings Generally follows order of source Rewords or combines sentences (follows order of writing) Useable source for report writing 50%+ information – most major points, may miss minor points May contain some unnecessary information No obvious organization – bullet points Follows order of source directly Line by line deletion of words (i.e., the, and, etc.) Ineffective source for report writing 50% or less of information – major and minor points indiscernible Contains all information or misses most information No noticeable organization May have bullet points or sentences Line by line deletion of words (i.e., the, and, etc.) Unusable source for report writing  Scale Score  4  3  2  1  Checking for accuracy Checking for accuracy was introduced first, planning second, and note-taking last. Students became familiar with the checklists and rubrics for each subject. I modelled the process for  29  the first few times, provided guided practice and prompted them to use checklists when I asked for an assignment. Students were reminded to use a “Before You Hand It In” Checklist (Appendix A) before submitting any assignment. Each strategy checklist had the same general items to check like name, date, title, and criteria specific to that subject matter. Each checklist also had space for a short reflection with sentence starters, or prompts, to make it easy to complete yet also to encourage students to reflect, at least briefly, on their work. Students often complete an assignment and never think of it again. They complete it to ‘get it over with.’ The checklist was intended to remind students that each piece of work is important and that a well presented piece says something about the author even if the information is weak, incorrect, or late. Planning Planning was initiated as a group activity at the beginning of each project. Students were given a blank schedule and filled in as much information as they already knew about the timeline. Students had due dates for criteria, presentations, and library visits. They were prompted to revise their schedules every time new information surfaced and were encouraged to continually revisit their schedules. Schedules were handed in at the end of the project and were evaluated. Students reflected on their planning as well. Note-taking During the first term, I taught note-taking skills each week in two 30 minute sessions. Students participated in specific note-taking skill building activities during the 30 minutes. Students were then directed to complete an assignment to practice the new skill. 30  Independent tasks took five minutes in the earliest sessions and twenty minutes in the middle sessions. Later sessions were for consolidation of acquired knowledge and took upwards of sixty minutes, divided into two or three sessions. Note-taking instruction was built from several sources including published programs for note-taking (Pirie & Pirie, 1990) and metacognitive strategy instruction (Costa & Kallick, 2007). Teaching a variety of note-taking methods took more time than teaching planning or checking for accuracy. Children needed a number of strategies to work with because note-taking is a difficult task (Brown & Day, 1983) and “children do not consistently use just one strategy in any task situation” (Siegler, 2006, p. 523). Reflective writing Students responded to learning events during the week by writing reflections. Reflections were opportunities for students to look at events, think about them, and make new meaning from those experiences. Each week students were encouraged to write a reflection about something interesting or meaningful to them. Initially, students found writing reflections difficult and often reverted to journaling rather than taking time to think and make new meaning for themselves. Thinking takes effort and students coming into the program have rarely had their thinking challenged. To assist the process of becoming a reflective thinker, I encouraged them to follow four guiding questions. 1. What is the most important thing you learned this week? 2. From where or from whom did you learn it? 31  3. Why was it the most important thing? 4. How will you use it in the future? Measurement Work samples were taken from regular classroom assignments for the duration of the study. By the end of the study, more than thirty samples of each type of assignment had been collected. It was determined that only a portion of the data collected needed to be rated because there was a large number of data points for each measure. Planning: All project planning samples were included and a randomizer (computer program that generates random numbers) was used to determine which of the Public Library planning opportunities would be rated. In all, ten samples were rated. Note-taking: All project note-taking samples were included as the end of each phase. Additional note-taking samples were selected by randomizer. In all 18 samples were rated. Students took notes in the regular course of project work. At the end of each project students turned in their notes, bibliographies, schedules, and items specific to each project, for example: a written report or scientific method. Reflective writing: The concept of reflection is difficult for most students to understand and carry out. Initial instruction was through class discussion, debriefing events, and review of activities. Verbal reflections were modelled by the teacher by thinking aloud. Because it takes a long time for students to begin understanding the difference between journaling and reflecting, I decided to give students more time to become familiar with the concept of reflecting before asking them to reflect independently. Beginning at week 11, 32  samples were taken every other week until week 29. Because there were many more reflective writing samples than needed for rating, one sample was randomly selected from each student’s portfolio for each two week period beginning at week 11, producing ten samples for each student over the period. Samples were collected and photocopied. The photocopies were kept for evaluation at the end of the study and the originals were returned to students. Rubrics (Appendix B) were employed to assess the note-taking, planning, reflective writing samples. I hoped student writing would become more reflective over the course of the study. Metacognitive language began to appear in student writing as metacognitive awareness developed and as they began to understand the value of thinking and writing about their thinking. All work was scored by raters unfamiliar with the purpose of the study using a four point scale (see Appendix B): acquiring (1), developing (2), mastering (3), extending (4). Students were familiar with this rating scale because this is the system used in the program. Students self-assessed regularly and received teacher assessments on the four point scale. I chose a quantitative method of analysis because I wanted to be able to measure the changes in quality and quantity of student output. This could only be achieved by careful measurement of student work. This project was a study of my teaching practice. To protect the validity of the study, I put in place procedures to prevent teacher bias.  33  I asked someone who was neither involved in the study nor in the assessment of student work to choose the identification system for student work. Students were given a randomly assigned letter (A to N). Student work was identified by number corresponding to assignment date but unidentifiable to the raters. The first assignment was designated number 549 and all subsequent assignments collected were numbered sequentially from that number. Planning, note-taking, and reflective writing samples were collected in one continuous numbering system so 549 would not be the same subject as 550. Assignments were presented to raters in random order prior to being rated to ensure, as much as possible, that the score was based on product not on expectation of improvement over time. Thus, raters received all samples labelled 557 in one file folder. They rated those samples which included students A through N, in a random order, and returned them to the file folder. They proceeded to another folder which may have been of a higher or lower number than 557. Each subject area (i.e., note-taking) was assessed at one session so raters could become comfortable with the applicable rubric and efficient in their task. Ultimately, I wanted to know how my instruction affected the development of the students in my class. In previous years, students learned to apply new strategies to their learning and improved both their processes and products over the course of the year. The focus of this study was to decide whether my methods of instruction were successful. Did students improve sufficiently to warrant continuing or modifying these methods of instruction next year? Anecdotal evidence was rejected as a measurement tool because with only one researcher it was too subjective. It was also too onerous for the classroom teacher to record, in 34  addition to initiating and maintaining the intervention, collecting and collating the samples, and keeping anecdotal records required to hold parent/teacher conferences, plus writing report cards and Individual Education Plans. In previous research in metacognition, questionnaires, interviews, and tests were the most frequent type of data gathering tools (Dignath et al., 2008). While useful for gathering information, each of these methods is limited in the responses they garner. Questionnaires, interviews, and tests can only measure what is asked and the researcher must attach meaning to responses. Questionnaires, interviews, and tests are all flawed in the same way; they elicit responses to specific questions. Questions that are not asked are not answered. Instruction may have unintended consequences, positive or negative, but the researcher may not ask appropriate questions and so cannot appreciate the total experience of the learner. Interviews can limit student response depending on the familiarity of the interviewer with the student and how comfortable the child is in responding candidly. Testing is useful for assessing subject knowledge and comprehension but it will not accurately measure planning, checking for accuracy, or note-taking for long term projects. In analyzing the effectiveness of instructing planning, checking for accuracy, and notetaking, questionnaires and interviews were also rejected for this study for several other reasons: 1. Gifted students tend to give the “right” answer if they think it is important to do so.  35  2. Students adjusting to a new school, new friends, and a new program with new expectations are unlikely to be able to answer questions objectively. 3. Survey questions can lead students toward a desired outcome. 4. Open ended questions that allow students to describe or discuss their ideas create an infinite and unwieldy answer range for a teacher/researcher.  Analysis Treatment In all subjects students were given instruction with opportunity for guided and independent practice. Students were taught how to use graphic organizers for planning and scheduling. Planning organizers were used for short term commitments such as visiting the Public Library for the day. Scheduling organizers were used for long-term project scheduling. Students were prompted to use and revise their organizers regularly. They were encouraged to change them in any way that might make them more useful. Note-taking skills were introduced gradually from initial lessons about categorizing and list making to writing interview questions and hosting an interview. No one note-taking strategy was emphasized because of the individual nature of the research in project-based learning. By generalizing instruction, more students were able to acquire note-taking strategies. Although teaching broad techniques are less effective than very specialized ones, when teaching a diverse group of learners one must use the broadest approaches. Metacognition was introduced through checking for accuracy. Students were encouraged to apply checklists to each assignment before it was submitted. Each checklist prompted 36  students to check for general formatting items (i.e., name, date, punctuation) and criteria specific to a particular subject area. After completing the checklist, students were asked to complete a sentence starter. These writing prompts encouraged students to think about their thinking (i.e., Next time I would…). Students wrote Weekly Reflections identifying the most important thing they learned that week and how they would use that experience for making future decisions. The teacher modeled thinking out loud daily. Measures Each week, students produced work in each of the areas of interest: planning, note-taking and writing. Copies of each student’s work in planning and writing were retained beginning at week eleven of the school year. By the end of the period, ten assignments per student in writing and planning were amassed. A copy of each student’s weekly note taking assignment was collected beginning at week six. By the end of the period, 18 note-taking assignments had been collected from each student. The names and dates on each of the assignments were masked so that neither the identity of the student nor the date that the student had produced the assignment would not be evident to the raters. Scoring Two teachers, naïve about the nature of the study, were recruited and trained to score the students’ assignments according to rubrics devised by the teacher from a combination of examples from Costa and Kallick (2009) and the British Columbia Ministry of Education Integrated Resources Package for Information and Communications Technology Integration (2009). As a consequence of their own teaching experience, the raters were familiar with rubrics for assessment. 37  During the training session, the raters examined exemplars of similar assignments from the previous school year and compared them to the criteria established by the rubric for each subject area. They practiced scoring these exemplars, compared their ratings, discussed the differences, and came to agreement before proceeding. For practice, raters scored three of each assignment type and discussed them if assigned values differed. When the assessment criteria were agreed upon, the raters scored the remaining assignments independently. At the end of each group of assignments (all items of the same assigned number), the raters discussed any differences and resolved discrepancies before moving on to the next group of assignments. The score for each assignment was entered in chronological order on a spreadsheet corresponding to the student’s identification number. The score for the first planning and writing assignment was dropped from the analysis to enable computation of average scores for three equal time intervals. For each student, the scores for assignments two to four (T1), the scores assignments five to seven (T2), and eight to ten were averaged (T3). A similar procedure was followed for the 18 note-taking assignments that each student produced. For each student, the scores for assignments one to six (T1), seven to twelve (T2), and thirteen to eighteen were averaged (T3).  38  Results Mean scores in planning, writing and note-taking improved over time (Table 2). Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Planning, Writing and Note-taking Planning Scores for Times 1 to 3 Mean Std. Deviation 4.714 1.541 5.286 1.816 6.071 2.200 Writing Scores for Times 1 to 3 Time Mean Std. Deviation Time 1 9.571 2.243 Time 2 11.071 3.100 Time 3 12.143 2.476 Note-taking Scores for Times 1 to 3 Time Mean Std. Deviation Time 1 3.929 .917 Time 2 5.214 1.888 Time 3 5.143 1.791 Time Time 1 Time 2 Time 3  N 14 14 14 N 14 14 14 N 14 14 14  To determine whether the differences over time were significant, the data were subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance. The repeated measures approach assumes that the variances of the sets of scores are equal. However, this condition is rarely met. Thus, to check for this possibility, the data were subjected to the Greenhouse-Geisser correction to adjust the degrees of freedom in the analysis of variance to ensure a more accurate estimation of significance. The results obtained were significant when sphericity was assumed and when the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied. As is evident from Table 2, the results for time are significant for each type of assignment.  39  Source Planning Writing Note-taking  Table 3: Greenhouse-Geisser Tests of Within-subjects Effects Type III Sum Df Mean Square F Sig. 2: Greenhouse-Geisser Tests of Within-subjects Effects of Table Squares 13.000 1.450 8.965 5.828 .017 46.714 1.515 30.838 9.802 .002 14.619 1.609 9.084 6.619 .009  Partial Eta Squared .310 .430 .337  A series of contrasts were done for each of the assignments. Mean scores at each time interval were compared with the mean scores at the other time intervals. Figure 1 Graphic Representation of Progress for Note-taking by Time  40  Table 4: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts for Planning, Writing and Note-taking Planning of Within-Subjects Planning, Writing andSig. Note-taking TIME Table 3: Tests Type III Sum Df Contrasts Meanfor Square F Partial Eta of Squares Squared Time 1 vs. Time 3 25.786 1 25.786 11.474 .005 .469 Time 2 vs. Time 3 8.643 1 8.643 2.533 .136 .163 Time 2 vs. Time 1 4.571 1 4.571 4.426 .055 .254 Writing TIME Type III Sum Df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta of Squares Square Time 1 vs. Time 3 92.571 1 92.571 20.250 .001 .609 Time 2 vs. Time 3 16.071 1 16.071 6.345 .026 .328 Time 2 vs. Time 1 31.500 1 31.500 4.380 .057 .252 Note-taking TIME Type III Sum Df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta of Squares3 Squared Time 1 vs. Time 3 20.643 1 20.643 6.996 .020 .350 Time 2 vs. Time 3 .071 1 .071 .062 .807 .005 Time 2 vs. Time 1 23.143 1 23.143 9.157 .010 .413  Planning The mean scores for planning increased over time. The difference between means in time 1 (mean = 4.714) and time 2 (mean = 5.286) approached significance (p = .055) indicating that students were beginning to implement the instructed strategies. The mean scores increased from time 2 (mean = 5.286) to time 3 (mean = 6.071) as students implemented the strategies instructed during the first phase, but the difference was not significant (p = .136). However by time 3 there was a significant difference (p = .005) between the mean score for time 1 (mean = 4.714) and the mean score for time 3 (mean = 6.071). The ETA value .469 indicates that instruction in planning produced an effect in Hattie’s zone of desired effects, namely above .40 Figure 2 Planning Sample 1  This was the fifth class visit to the library and Student I’s first completed library plan. The plan is vague. Much of the student’s time is spent moving around the library. The plan to  41  “take notes” and “took notes” does not identify the purpose for the note-taking. The taking of notes appears unrelated to any subject matter as no topic is identified on the page. Without a specific topic or question to answer, it is unclear what the effort was intended to achieve. The student recognizes that creating a plan has improved the experience at the library and feels no need to hurry next time.  42  Figure 3 Planning Example 2  Student L’s library plan is vague on the surface. It does not explain which research questions are being answered or what the topic is. It does, however, demonstrate three interesting things. First the student plans to look for books and ends up looking for articles on a database. Navigating databases is difficult and not immediately attractive to students. It requires patience and logic. This student spends about half of the library time looking for articles. The second interesting item on this plan is at 11:30 when the student intends to “plan my math,” an unexpected activity at a time and place aimed at project research. The student sees library time as a flexible time to be used to complete tasks as needed. Third, the student reflects that it takes time to get from the front door of the library to a working situation and that there are steps to be completed before work can begin. Walking in the door at 10:00 is not the same as working at 10:00. Thus, although the plan is vague on the surface, there is considerable thinking and learning happening as a result of reflecting.  43  Figure 3: Planning Example 2  44  Figure 4 Planning Example 3  Student M’s first project research schedule has only the items listed that were initially identified when the schedule was handed out and discussed. As a class, students indicated which dates were important to everyone and filled in their schedules with teacher direction. This student has not used the schedule nor has the student personalized it in any way demonstrating that the student did not think it was important. This student completed the first project in the final few days as was evidenced by the project reflection and conversation with the teacher.  45  Figure 5 Planning Example 4  Student N completes the third project schedule with greater attention to detail in the third project.  46  Writing Similar to planning, the mean scores for reflective writing increased over time. The difference between means in time 1 (mean = 9.571) and time 2 (mean = 11.071) approached significance (p = .057). The mean scores increased from time 2 (mean = 11.071) to time 3 (mean = 12.143) as students implemented instructed strategies. The difference was significant (p = .026). By time 3 there was a significant difference (p = .001) between the mean for time 1 (mean = 9.571) and the mean for time 3 (mean = 12.143). The ETA value .609 indicates that instruction in writing produced an effect well into Hattie’s zone of desired effects (> .40). Figure 6 Writing Example 1  One of Student I’s first reflections follows the four basic guiding questions and answers each with one sentence. It is likely that the student already knew that using the agenda was important for remembering to complete tasks. It is also likely that the student wrote this to complete the assignment rather than because real learning or personal growth had occurred.  47  Figure 7 Writing Example 2  In a reflection in May, Student I reflects on an Assignment Log Conference. Students host their parents each month to share their work, review goals, and set goals for the coming month. In this reflection, the student connects school life with home life. The student discovers that parents can play a role in education and may have knowledge or skills that are helpful. Students who have not needed help in past school experiences find the concept of needing and seeking help novel and sometimes challenging. By following the guiding questions, this student has reflected in a personal and meaningful way and writes about strategies for future conversations with parents.  48  Figure 7 Writing Example 2  Note-taking The mean scores for note-taking increased over time. The difference in means from time 1 (mean = 3.929) to time 2 (mean = 5.214) was significant (p = .010). This effect occurred over a five week period just after the first phase of instruction was implemented. The mean scores show a decline from time 2 (mean = 5.214) to time 3 (mean = 5.143, p = .817). The difference between time 1 (mean = 3.929) and time 3 (mean = 5.143) was significant  49  (p = .020). The ETA value .350 indicates that instruction in note taking produced an overall effect approaching Hattie’s zone of desired effects (> .40). The decline in scores from time 2 to time 3 may be indicative of the increased difficulty of the material about which the students were asked to take notes, the need for further instruction, or both. Figure 8 Note-taking Example 1  Student H’s early sample (November) consists of seven notes. It contains basic information about one graphic event that motivated Nellie McClung to act. The student seems drawn to the gory details rather than to the general intention of the paragraphs. The notes omit important dates and information from the sample but list all the deplorable conditions Nellie sees in one of her factory visits. The items are bulleted. The notes appear to be chosen by deleting words like she, the, and are. The notes are too condensed to be useful for long term project work.  50  Figure 8: Note-taking Example 1  Figure 9 Note-taking Example 2  Student H’s March sample consists of more than 40 notes. The student has divided the information into general categories and has left space under each section to add more information if needed. Dates, places, and names are included with attention to an accent in a foreign language. It includes an extra notation that indicates that the student is not clear and will need some clarification about a detail. Some notes are listed in an incorrect category. The notes appear to be chosen by deleting words but also by substituting a general word for lists of specific words (i.e., lots of European discoveries) indicating the student recognizes that writing each item is unnecessary for the purpose of the assignment.  51  Figure 9: Note-taking Example 2  Figure 10 Note-taking Example 3  Student N’s December sample demonstrates the use of a personal shorthand. This student separates and defines new words. This student is comfortable working in the margin going against the way students are taught to use paper in school which indicates an ownership of the work and an understanding that the notes are for personal use. This student is taking ownership of the note-taking process and is demonstrating an element of risk-taking.  52  Figure 10: Note-taking Example 3  53  Figure 11 Note-taking Example 4  Student C copies the sample almost exactly as written. This student uses deletion almost exclusively and does not delete much. This sample shows a concern with neatness. It appears that the student is unclear on what might be important for future use. It is possible that the topic was so foreign to the student that all information was deemed critical.  54  Discussion This study shows that it is possible to teach grade four and five gifted students metacognitive strategies that they can implement independently. It is possible to introduce complex metacognitive processes to gifted students and to have them develop the skills required for planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy in less than one school year. Relation to the literature Planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy are three metacognitive strategies that can lead to the greatest improvement in student achievement (Hattie, 2009). This study shows that these three strategies can be successfully taught to children. Planning Dignath et al. (2008) discuss the cyclical nature of developing self-regulation which includes setting and resetting goals by assessing progress and evaluating outcomes. Students in this study who set planning goals and reflected on their progress were more likely to set more appropriate goals in subsequent goal setting opportunities. For example, those who invested in planning their library time were more likely to use their time effectively and to feel personal satisfaction, as evidenced by their reflections. Because planning is cyclical in nature, students who planned and reflected authentically improved more quickly than those who just went through the motions or who did not complete each planning cycle, as evidenced by their time sheets, schedules, and rubrics. Note-taking This study confirms Brown and Day’s (1983) observation that regardless of age, most students summarized at a rudimentary level, “by deleting or copying near verbatim the 55  words actually present in the text” (p.12). Because note-taking is a difficult task, students need direct instruction to improve. Souvignier and Mokhlesgerami (2006) assert that twenty lessons are not enough time for students to adopt and use new strategies. However, this study showed that grade four and five gifted students were able to acquire and use the strategies in fewer than twenty lessons with accompanying guided practice and feedback. Within the limits of this study, there is no way to know if gifted students were more strategic (Siegler, 2006) than non-gifted students might have been because non-gifted students were not included in the study. It is valid to say that direct instruction in planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy was worthwhile and effective (Zimmerman, 1996) for this group of students. Checking for accuracy Dinsmore et al. (2008) contend that a person must be able to integrate a strategy, produce it, and reproduce it across time and activities to be self-regulating. While all the students in the class were capable of oral personal reflection when prompted, they were not all able to self-regulate their learning. To be truly self-regulating, students need to be able to initiate, plan, monitor, and self-assess their progress which a few of them were able to do at the end of the study. Note-taking strategies were adopted relatively quickly and students were able to use the strategies independently throughout the study. Their repertoire was limited to a few basic methods such as deleting and substituting, although some students began to think ahead to categorize notes and to use pages with more freedom (i.e., use margins). Note-taking is the 56  more academic metacognitive strategy in this study and, as these students are intellectually capable, learning a new academic task may have been more natural for them. The more sophisticated levels of note-taking, such as combining paragraphs, were not achieved. From the students’ comments in their written reflections, it appears that planning strategies took longer for most students to adopt. Students who were early adopters benefited by the end of the year because they were confident they could achieve their goals and were less stressed as deadlines approached. Students had more difficulty writing reflectively than with the other two metacognitive strategies. Whether this skill requires more time to learn or more maturity to master is unclear. Reflection may be more difficult to learn because it requires students to record their thoughts in written form, something that does not come easily to many grade four and five students. At the beginning of the study, interviewing students was considered if data showed unusual growth as compared to the rest of the class. Showing a student his or her data and work and asking for feedback might have provided insight into why the program was successful or unsuccessful for that child. It may also have provided insight into learning difficulties or motivational factors. By the end of the study, the teacher knew students well enough to understand their individual growth in planning, note-taking, and reflective writing. Those who actively participated in every activity were more successful that those who resisted adopting new strategies. It is unlikely that additional interviews would have uncovered factors unknown  57  to the teacher by the end of the study. Family support, learning abilities, motivational and behavioural issues were all clear and apparent to the researcher. Limitations At first glance, it appears that this study was limited by two main factors: The sample size was small and the students had atypical academic abilities for their age. However, the many data points for each of the measures offset the fact that the sample size was small. The focus on students with atypical academic abilities was intentional, though readers should be cautious about generalizing from this group of students to others whose abilities differ. Recommendations for further research While the results of this study are promising, there are further studies that would provide deeper understanding of the effectiveness of teaching metacognition to children. Greater confidence in the results could be obtained by replicating this study with different groups of gifted students in grades four and five. Interviewing students who demonstrate significantly lower or higher than average improvement for their perspective might provide insight into the shortcomings of the program. It would be interesting to know whether grade four and five students whose academic abilities were more typical of their chronological age could master these metacognitive strategies. From this we would have a more accurate understanding of teaching and learning metacognition at chronological age as compared to mental age.  58  It would also be interesting to know whether there is a cognitive threshold that students must cross before acquiring these meta-cognitive strategies. Thus, it would be interesting to teach metacognitive strategies to gifted students younger than grade four before competing strategies or negative attitudes to learning are established (Baker et al., 1998; Hendy & Whitebread, 2000). It would also be interesting to expand the range of metacognitive strategies to include more of those identified in Hattie’s synthesis (2009), such as verbalizing the steps to complete a given task, seeking help from a peer, teacher, or other adult, or delaying gratification. Implications for my pedagogy The initial motivation for undertaking this study was to help inform my teaching practice. Teaching metacognitive strategies alongside other strategies was successful in helping students plan, research, and produce long-term projects. Providing students with strategies for managing their own learning allows them to spend more time and energy on learning and less on how to learn. If I can help students plan and monitor their progress in the first year of their program then I can spend more time meeting their individual learning needs.  Conclusion Exposure to metacognitive strategies at the elementary school level benefits students by changing the focus of learning from externally driven by adults to internally driven by the student. This changes the emphasis in schools from teachers teaching to students learning.  59  In the long term, putting emphasis on and energy into teaching strategies that support selfregulation empowers students to become active learners. Regardless of a child’s academic future, he or she would be prepared to make decisions with forethought. We all want mechanics who check their repairs, nurses who confirm medication dosages, and police officers who are thoughtful decision makers. Gifted students have extraordinary potential. Their unique views of the world can provide creative solutions to present and future problems. Providing opportunities for students to plan, research, and produce long-term projects provides practice for real life problem solving. Teaching them strategies for mindful, considered achievement gives them the opportunity to be in control of their futures. The most difficult part of teaching is engaging each student and in providing unique and appropriate support. What if all students left their public schooling with an understanding of their learning needs, confidence in their strengths, an awareness of their weaknesses, and the ability and desire to ask for help when they needed it?  60  References Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G., (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=29407410&site=ehost-live Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15(1), 1-37. doi:10.1006/drev.1995.1001 Alonso, E. (1999). A meta-analysis of the metacognition of gifted children (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60 (4), 1877-1877. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca /login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1999-95020-076&site=ehost-live Armbruster, B. B., Armstrong, J. O., & Center for the Study of Reading. (1992). Locating information in text: A focus on children in the elementary grades. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). Retrieved from http://search .ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN =ED347502&site=ehost-live Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescent: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(1), 5-15. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login .aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ565201&site=ehost-live Baker, L., Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading. technical report no. 188. Cambridge, MA: Illinois University Urbana Center for the Study of Reading & Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy .library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED195932&site=ehost-live Bereiter, C., Burtis, P. J., & Scardamalia, M. (1988). Cognitive operations in constructing main points in written composition. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 261-278. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90054-X  61  Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick, & L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =psyh&AN=1989-98135-011&site=ehost-live Berkowitz, S. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(2), 161-179. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =ehh&AN=19332730&site=ehost-live Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 195. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&A N=9512221743&site=ehost-live Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-551. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca /login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ596376&site=ehost-live Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 199-210. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9013-4 Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199231. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x Borkowski, J. G., Peck, V. A., Reid, M. K., & Kurtz, B. E. (1983). Impulsivity and strategy transfer: Metamemory as mediator. Child Development, 54(2), 459. doi: 10.1111/14678624.ep8877909 Borkowski, J., & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: 'working models' and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, J. T. Guthrie, M. Pressley, K. R. Harris & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school. (pp. 477-501). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh& AN=1992-98007-017&site=ehost-live  62  Bos, C. S., & Van Reusen, A. K. (1991). Academic interventions with learning-disabled students: A cognitive/metacognitive approach. In J. E. Obrzut, G. W. Hynd, J. E. Obrzut & G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Neuropsychological foundations of learning disabilities: A handbook of issues, methods, and practice. (pp. 659-683). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1991-97807-024&site=ehost-live Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1016 /S0022-5371(83)80002-4 Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing tests. Child Development, 54(4), 968-979. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.ep12432768 Brown, R. (2005). Seventh-graders' self- regulatory note-taking from text: Perceptions, preferences, and practices. Reading Research & Instruction, 44(4), 1-26. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh& AN=18366607&site=ehost-live Carr, M., Alexander, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks. Roeper Review, 18(3), 212-217. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh& AN=1996-94173-005&site=ehost-live Coleman, M. R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 28-32. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=18367489&site=ehost-live Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 333-346. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh& AN=22061700&site=ehost-live Cotterall, S., & Murray, G. (2009). Enhancing metacognitive knowledge: Structure, affordances and self. System, 37(1), 34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.08.003  63  Cummins, C., Stewart, M. T., & Block, C. C. (2005). Teaching several metacognitive strategies together increases students' independent metacognition. In S. E. Israel, et al. (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. (pp. 277-295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct= true&db=psyh&AN=2005-07525-015&site=ehost-live Day, J. D. (1981). Teaching summarization skills: A comparison of training methods (Doctoral Dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (11), 4282-4283. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1982-52320-001&site=ehost-live Day, J. D. (1986). Teaching summarization skills: Influences of student ability level and strategy difficulty. Cognition & Instruction, 3(3), 193. Retrieved from http://search .ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7387905 &site=ehost-live de Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2003). In de Corte E., Verschaffel L., Entwistle N. and Van Merriënboer J. (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Oxford England: Pergamon/Elsevier Science. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy .library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2003-88127-000&site=ehostlive De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Masui, C. (2004). The CLIA-model: A framework for designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving. European Journal of Psychology of Education - EJPE, 19(4), 365-384. Retrieved from http://search .ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16364179 &site=ehost-live De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Ven, V. D. (2001). Improving text comprehension strategies in upper primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 531-559. doi: 10.1348/000709901158668 Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. P. (2004). Students' resistannce to change in learning strategies courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 2-11. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=12540900&site=ehost-live  64  Dickson, S. V., Collins, V. L., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Metacognitive strategies: Instructional and curricular bases and implications. In D. C. Simmons, E. J. Kameenui, D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. (pp. 361-380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy. library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1998-06336-011&site=ehost-live Dickson, S. V., Collins, V. L., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Metacognitive strategies: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons, E. J. Kameenui, D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. (pp. 295-360). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca /login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1998-06336-011&site=ehost-live Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101-129. doi:10.1016 /j.edurev.2008.02.003 Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391-409. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6 Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., et al. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com .ezproxy. library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19440122&site =ehost-live Encarta World English Dictionary [North American Edition], 2009. Retrieved from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults .aspx?lextype=3&search=cognition Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Okolo, C. M., Shankland, R. K., Moxley, K. D., Courtad, C. A., ... Chen, H. (2009). The learning-to-learn strategies of adolescent students with disabilities: Highlighting, note taking, planning, and writing expository texts. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(3), 147-161. doi:10.1177 /1534508408318804  65  Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy. library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9406020898&site=ehost-live Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive– developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.34.10.906 Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373-389. doi: 10.1007/s10648-0089079-2 Güngören, S., & Sungur, S. (2009). The effect of grade level on elementary school students' motivational beliefs in science. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 495-506. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct =true&db=ehh&AN=43756902&site=ehost-live Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136. doi: 10.2307/1170605 Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 449-465. doi: 10.2307/1170496 Housand, A., & Reis, S. M. (2008). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108-136. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=37378788&site=ehost-live Housand, A., & Reis, S. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108-136. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =psyh&AN=2009-08068-005&site=ehost-live  66  Joseph, N. (2010). Metacognition needed: Teaching middle and high school students to develop strategic learning skills. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), 99-103. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct =true&db=a9h&AN=44867908&site=ehost-live Kamii, C. (1984). Autonomy: The aim of education envisioned by Piaget. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(6), 410-415. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca /login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&AN=12726369&site=ehost-live Kinder, D., & Bursuck, W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies curriculum: Does history really repeat itself? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 270-320. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db= a9h&AN=4730551&site=ehost-live Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high- and low-achieving primary school children's reading. Learning & Instruction, 5(2), 143-165. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy. library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21628653&site=ehost-live Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, J. T. Guthrie, M. Pressley, K. R. Harris & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school. (pp. 361-406). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =psyh&AN=1992-98007-013&site=ehost-live Kobayashi, K. (2006). Conditional effects of interventions in note-taking procedures on learning: A meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 48(2), 109-114. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2006.00311.x Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca /login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4518944&site=ehost-live  67  Lahtinen, V., Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1997). Spontaneous study strategies and the quality of knowledge construction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 1324. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login .aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24621147&site=ehost-live Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 23-40. doi: 10.1007/BF02504926 Loizidou, A., & Koutselini, M. (2007). Metacognitive monitoring: An obstacle and a key to effective teaching and learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(5), 499-519. doi: 10.1080/13540600701561711 Lonka, K., Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, & Maury, S. (1994). The effect of study strategies on learning from text. Learning & Instruction, 4(3), 253-271. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =ehh&AN=21625156&site=ehost-live Magen, E., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The hidden-zero effect: Representing a single choice as an extended sequence reduces impulsive choice. Psychological Science, 19(7), 648-649. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02137.x Maggioni, L., & Parkinson, M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 445-461. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9081-8 Marchand, G., & Skinner, E. A. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children's academic helpseeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65-82. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.65 Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. (2010). Integrated Resource Packages. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/icti/content.php?page =scale Monahan, S., Ognibene, B., & Torrisi, A. (2000). Effects of teaching organizational strategies (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct =true&db=eric&AN=ED450941&site=ehost-live  68  Nandi, S. L. (1993). Metacognition: A developmental study of intellectually gifted and average children (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (8), 4395-4395. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =ehh&AN=7384550&site=ehost-live Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101. Retrieved from http://search .ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4758323 &site=ehost-live Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 11(6), 7-15. doi: 10.1177/074193259001100604 Perleth, C. (1994). Strategy use and metamemory in gifted and average primary school children. In K. A. Heller, E. A. Hany, K. A. Heller & E. A. Hany (Eds.), Competence and responsibility, vol. 2. (pp. 46-52). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh& AN=1996-97424-004&site=ehost-live Pirie, J., & Pirie, A. (1990). Thirty lessons in note-taking. North Billerica: Curriculum Associates. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 220. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost .com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=8550717&site =ehost-live Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 1-41. doi: 10.2307 /1170445  69  Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1987). How can good strategy use be taught to children?: Evaluation of six alternative approaches. In S. M. Cormier, J. D. Hagman, S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications. (pp. 81-120). San Diego, CA: Academic. Retrieved from http://search .ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN =1987-98852-004&site=ehost-live Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2004). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? In S. M. Moon, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented students. (pp. 181-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy. library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2004-13695-013&site=ehost-live Richert, E. S. (1991). Patterns of underachievement among gifted students. In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues. (pp. 139-162). New York, NY: Teachers College. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh& AN=1991-97831-010&site=ehost-live Rimm, S. (1988). Identifying underachievement: The characteristics approach. Gifted Child Today (GCT), 11(1), 50-54. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy. library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ366146&site=ehost-live Rimm, S. (2007). What's wrong with perfect? Clinical perspectives on perfectionism and underachievement. Gifted Education International, 23(3), 246-253. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh& AN=28755327&site=ehost-live Rimm, S. B. (1989). Disappearance of underachievement. Gifted Child Today (GCT), 12(2), 36-39. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ392123&site=ehost-live Rimm-Kaufman, S., Fan, X., Chiu, Y., & You, W. (2007). The contribution of the responsive classroom approach on children's academic achievement: Results from a three year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 45(4), 401-421. doi: 10.1016 /j.jsp.2006.10.003  70  Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. F. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 24-32. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric& AN=EJ470369&site=ehost-live Ringel, B. A., & Springer, C. J. (1980). On knowing how well one is remembering: The persistence of strategy use during transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29(2), 322-33. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ222275&site=ehost-live Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self-regulated learning in gifted students. Roeper Review, 15(2), 98-101. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library. ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1993-27604-001&site=ehost-live Schofield, N. J., & Ashman, A. F. (1987). The cognitive processing of gifted, high average, and low average ability students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(1), 9-20. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct= true&db=psyh&AN=1988-19707-001&site=ehost-live Schraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997). Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness. Roeper Review, 20(1), 4. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy .library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9710254842&site=ehost-live Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2), 208-23. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ318074&site=ehost-live Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and selfregulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7-25. doi: 10.1080/10573560600837578 Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In J. Metcalfe, A. P. Shimamura, J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. (pp. 93-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct= true&db=psyh&AN=1994-97967-005&site=ehost-live Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 37-39. doi: 10.1177/001698628703100108  71  Siegler, R. S. (2003). Thinking and intelligence. In M. H. Bornstein, et al. (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course. (pp. 311-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library. ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2003-02621-023&site=ehost-live Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning & Instruction, 16(1), 57-71. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006 Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2005). Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-regulated learning program for gifted mathematics underachievers. International Education Journal, 6(2), 261-271. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library. ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ854979&site=ehost-live Sungur, S. (2007). Modeling the relationships among students' motivational beliefs, metacognitive strategy use, and effort regulation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 315-326. doi: 10.1080/00313830701356166 Vaidya, S. R. (1999). Metacognitive learning strategies for students with learning disabilities. Education, 120(1), 186. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com. ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2377353&site=ehost-live Veenman, M. V. J. (2007). The assessment and instruction of self-regulation in computerbased environments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2), 177-183. doi: 10.1007/s11409-007-9017-6 Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 159-176. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2004.12.001 Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89-109. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004 Veenman, S., Kenter, B., & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary classrooms. Educational Studies (03055698), 26(3), 281-302. doi: 10.1080 /03055690050137114  72  Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 173. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca /login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&AN=9512221739&site=ehost-live Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner, (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 531-566). San Diego, CA: Academic. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login. aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2001-01625-015&site=ehost-live Wong, B. Y. L. (1991). The relevance of metacognition to learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities. (pp. 231-258). San Diego, CA: Academic. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1991-98471-008&site=ehost-live Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Enhancing student academic and health functioning: A selfregulatory perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(1), 47-66. doi: 10.1037 /h0088920 Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A selfregulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2), 73. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db =a9h&AN=996476&site=ehost-live Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost. com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=31233196&site=eho st-live Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Goal 4: Developing classroom notetaking skills. In B. J. Zimmerman, S. Bonner & R. Kovach (Eds.), Developing selfregulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. (pp. 69-92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10213-004 Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51  73  Appendix A - Before You Hand It In Checklists Name:  Date:  NOTE-TAKING  Before You Hand It In Checklist Assignment:  Formatting Criteria  Methods and strategies for summarizing  Names  Sentence by sentence  Date  Paragraph by paragraph  Title  Reworded paragraph  Source  Omitted info I already knew  Page numbers  Headings/subheadings  Vocabulary definitions  Vocabulary/definitions  Quotations cited  Topic per page  Method -circle your strategy(ies) crossing out / summarize/ 2 column / colour coding / topic per page  74  Choose a sentence starter for reflection (or create your own): I chose this method . . . The method I chose . . . Before I begin the next assignment . . .  My note-taking skills. . . I am concerned about . . . In the future . . .  75  Name:  Date:  Reflection  Before You Hand It In Checklist Reflection Topic:  Formatting Criteria  Guiding Question(s) Used  Names  What is the most important thing I learned?  Date  From whom or from where did I learn it?  Title  Why is it the most important thing I learned?  Page numbers if necessary  How will it impact me in the future?  Capitals Punctuation Spelling Pages ordered and stapled  76  Something(s) I would like you to notice:  77  Names:  Date:  MATHEMATICS  Before You Hand It In Checklist Chapter #  Chapter Focus:  Formatting Criteria  Assignment Criteria  Names  Mid-Chapter Review  Date  MCR Marked and Corrected  Title  Chapter Review  Page setup  CR Marked and Corrected  Page numbers  Test Result  Question numbers  Test Corrections  Legible  Retest  Pages ordered and stapled  Chapter Task  78  Choose a sentence starter for reflection (or create your own): My challenge was . . . What I noticed about myself . . . Before I begin the next chapter . . . In the future . . .  I need to improve. . . In the future. . . I was surprised that I. . . I improved. . .  79  Name:  Date:  LANGUAGE ARTS  Before You Hand It In Checklist Assignment:  Formatting Criteria  Specific Assignment Criteria  Names Date Title Page numbers if necessary Capitals Punctuation Spelling Pages ordered and stapled  80  Choose a sentence starter for reflection (or create your own): I was challenged by . . . What I noticed about myself . . . I improved . . . Before I begin the next assignment . . . My plan for next time. . .  The most exciting thing . . . I felt . . . I am concerned about . . . In the future . . .  81  Name:  Date:  Public Library Research Time Sheet Time  Plan of Action  What I did  Lunch – eat and chat  Ate and chatted  Return to Meeting Place with all of your belongings  Returned to Meeting Place with all of my belongings  10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 11:45 12:15 12:50  What worked well:  Next time:  82  Appendix B – Rubrics Name:  Date:  Rubric for Note-taking – Activity: Criteria  Scale Score  90%+ information – all major and minor points No unnecessary information Organized - headings and subheadings Order of information may be totally reorganized Rewords or combines paragraphs for simplicity and clarity Omits redundant information Excellent source for report writing  4  70%+ information – all major and minor points May have some unnecessary information Organized – headings, subheadings Generally follows order of source Rewords or combines sentences (follows order of writing) Useable source for report writing  3  50%+ information – most major points, may miss minor points May contain some unnecessary information No obvious organization – bullet points Follows order of source directly Line by line deletion of words (i.e., the, and, etc.) Ineffective source for report writing  2  50% or less of information – major and minor points indiscernible Contains all information or misses most information No noticeable organization May have bullet points or sentences Line by line deletion of words (i.e., the, and, etc.) Unusable source for report writing  1  Comments:  83  Name:  Date:  Rubric for Checking for Accuracy – Activity: Criteria Checks for accuracy in all activities. Evaluates the use of a variety of strategies to be as accurate as possible i.e., checking with peers, sources, teacher. Takes time to check work and always completes checklists prior to submitting. Adds specific or personal criteria to checklists. Reflects in detail on assignment checklists. Checks for accuracy in most activities. Usually takes the time to check work and completes checklists prior to submitting. Explains how striving for accuracy helps learning and helps to improve work. Sometimes adds specific criteria to checklists. Reflects briefly on assignment checklists. Is clear about the relationship between checking for accuracy and being successful. Usually needs to be prompted to check work and complete checklists prior to submitting. Briefly completes checklist reflection or; may be a journal/listing format or surface response. Is unclear about the relationship between checking for accuracy and being successful. Sees no direct relationship between being accurate and learning. Does not complete checklists prior to handing in work. May not hand in completed work if prompted for checklist.  Scale Score  4  3  2  1  Comments:  84  Name:  Date:  Rubric for Planning (Public Library) Criteria Evaluates a situation carefully and seeks advice from other sources to decide whether more information is needed before acting. Searches for information in databases, interviews, journals. Sets clear goals and describes each step to be taken to achieve the goals. Schedules each step, monitors progress. Reflects when completed. Evaluates a situation to decide if more information is needed before acting. Usually searches for information in most obvious places ie books, teacher. Sets clear goals and sequences some of the steps. Reflects when completed. Evaluates a situation quickly to decide if more information is needed before acting. Searches for most obvious information or in most obvious places. Begins to work with unclear/general/vague goals. (ie get books) Describes only a few of the steps needed to achieve the goals. Reflection vague or general (ie my plan worked) Acts with inadequate or incomplete information and shows little inclination to gather further data to inform decisions. Is unable to state the goals or outcomes or steps in achieving the goals. Begins to work in random fashion. Becomes distracted from goals.  Scale Score  4  3  2  1  Comments:  85  Name:  Date:  Rubric for Planning (Gathering Information and Goal Setting) Activity: Criteria Evaluates a situation carefully and seeks advice from other sources to decide whether more information is needed before acting. Sets clear goals and describes each step to be taken to achieve the goals. Schedules each step, monitors progress, and reflects when completed.  Scale Score  4  Evaluates a situation to decide if more information is needed before acting. Usually searches for information in the most obvious places. Sets clear goals and sequences some of the steps needed to achieve the goals. Reflects when completed.  3  Evaluates a situation quickly to decide if more information is needed before acting. Searches for only the most obvious information or in the most obvious places. Begins to work with unclear goals. Describes only a few of the steps needed to achieve the goals. Becomes distracted from schedule.  2  Acts with inadequate or incomplete information and shows little inclination to gather further data to inform decisions. Is unable to state the goals or outcomes or steps in achieving the goals. Begins to work in random fashion.  1  Comments:  86  Name:  Date:  Rubric for Metacognition – Activity: Criteria Short essay form – introduction, body, conclusion - sophisticated Describes in detail the steps of thinking Describes situation/old plan/strategy and why it didn't work Describes new plan/strategy to use in future Connects to personal experience Describes how they will know if new strategy has been successful Connects to big picture/globally important response (whole self) Short essay form – introduction, body, conclusion - basic Describes steps of thinking Describes situation/old plan/strategy and why it didn't work Describes new plan/strategy to use in future Connects to personal experience Connects to specific situation/issue – not to whole self Follows guiding questions, writes in paragraphs with question prompts as sentence starters – i.e., The most important thing I learned was... Includes sparse information about thinking or only describes actions Describes a basic experience May describe situation/old plan/strategy but doesn't explain why it didn't work Doesn't describe new strategy – or uses words like “better” or “more” Does not connect to personal experiences beyond the immediate Writes guiding question, then answers May be very short or illogical Journaling rather than reflecting Does not describe thinking or strategies Does not describe strategy for future or oversimplifies methods for improvement  Scale Score  4  3  2  1  Comment:  87  Appendix C – Parent and Student Consent Forms  Assent Form for Parent of Participant Metacognition in a Gifted Classroom: Planning, Note-taking, and Checking for Accuracy Principal Investigator: Carl Leggo, University of British Columbia, Department of Language and Literacy Education, 604-822-4640 Co-Investigator: G. Cotton, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia, Centre for Cross-Faculty Inquiry. This research is part of the requirements for completing a thesis (public document) for a Master of Arts degree. The information from this study will be used to inform and improve Ms. Cotton’s teaching practice. Purpose: In this study, the researchers will investigate student planning, notetaking, and checking for accuracy. These are difficult skills for students to learn but they are important for success in the Multi-Age Cluster Class. By focussing project instruction on these particular areas, the researchers anticipate that students will become confident, competent, and consistent in their project work. Developing autonomous learning skills early in the Multi-Age Cluster Class experience will enable students to gain confidence in their abilities and to produce quality products. You are being invited to take part in this research study because your child is in the Multi-Age Cluster Class and he or she will be continuing in the program for another three or four years. 88  Study Procedures: The study will be collecting and reviewing student work to evaluate how Ms. Cotton’s methods benefit students to develop autonomous learning skills. The study includes evaluating reflection writing and note-taking samples. No class time will be used to do the study. Individual students will not be singled out in the study. When student, parents, and teacher review the end of year Individual Education Plan as is done at the end of every school year for every student in the Multi-Age Cluster Class, students are asked to comment on all aspects of their progress. The same will occur this year. At the end of year Individual Education Plan discussions, students may be asked to discuss their planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy as distinct skills rather than solely part of the general topic of Project Based Learning. Students may be able to provide insight into the experiences of gaining autonomous learning skills. Potential Risks: Student privacy is a potential risk. Student work will be identified by letter and number randomly chosen by an independent source. Student identity is not important to the study because the study is focussing on student development as a reflection of teacher instruction. The risk is minimal. Potential Benefits: Students continuing in the Multi-Age Cluster Class will benefit because the purpose of the study is to investigate teaching methods. Results will be shared with Multi-Age Cluster Class teachers with the express purpose of improving the instruction of Multi-Age Cluster Class students. Parents and students are welcome to read the thesis and view study results at the end of the study. Confidentiality: Student identity will be kept strictly confidential. All work samples will be identified only by coded letter and number. Students will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. At the end of the study, records will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in the Principal Investigator’s office at the University of British Columbia for a period of five years, at which time they will be destroyed. Remuneration/Compensation: There is no exchange of money in this study. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions, please contact Carl Leggo (carl.leggo@ubc.ca or 604-822-4640).  89  Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns about the treatment or rights of your child as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 604-822-8598 or at RSIL@ors.ubc.ca. Assent: Your child’s participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to let him or her participate. Your child may withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to his or her education in the Multi-Age Cluster Class. This portion of the assent form is for your records. Please sign and return the following page. I assent to my child’s participation in this study. I do not assent to my child’s participation in this study.  Parent or Guardian Signature  Date  Please print parent name  90  Assent: Your child’s participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to let your child participate. Your child may withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to his or her education in the Multi-Age Cluster Class.  Please sign and return this page. I assent to my child’s participation in this study. I do not assent to my child’s participation in this study.  Parent or Guardian Signature  Date  Please print parent name  91  Assent Form Metacognition in a Gifted Classroom: Planning, Note-taking, and Checking for Accuracy Principal Investigator: Carl Leggo, University of British Columbia, Department of Language and Literacy Education, 604-822-4640 Co-Investigator: G. Cotton, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia, Centre for Cross-Faculty Inquiry. This research is part of the requirements for completing a thesis (public document) for a Master of Arts degree. The information from this study will be used to inform and improve Ms. Cotton’s teaching practice. Purpose: In this study, the researchers will investigate student planning, notetaking, and checking for accuracy. These are difficult skills for students to learn but they are important for success in the Multi-Age Cluster Class. By focussing project instruction on these particular areas, the researchers anticipate that students will become confident, competent, and consistent in their project work. Developing autonomous learning skills early in the Multi-Age Cluster Class experience will enable students to gain confidence in their abilities and to produce quality products. You are being invited to take part in this research study because you are in the Multi-Age Cluster Class and may be continuing in the program for another three or four years. Study Procedures: The study will be collecting and reviewing student work to evaluate how Ms. Cotton’s methods benefit students to develop autonomous learning skills. The study includes evaluating reflection writing and note-taking samples. No class time will be used to do the study. Individual students will not 92  be singled out in the study. When student, parents, and teacher review the end of year Individual Education Plan as is done at the end of every school year for every student in the Multi-Age Cluster Class, students are asked to comment on all aspects of their progress. The same will occur this year. At the end of year Individual Education Plan discussions, students may be asked to discuss their planning, note-taking, and checking for accuracy as distinct skills rather than solely part of the general topic of Project Based Learning. Students may be able to provide insight into the experiences of gaining autonomous learning skills. Potential Risks: Student privacy is a potential risk. Student work will be identified by letter and number randomly chosen by an independent source. Student identity is not important to the study because the study is focussing on student development as a reflection of teacher instruction. The risk is minimal. Potential Benefits: Students continuing in the Multi-Age Cluster Class will benefit because the purpose of the study is to investigate teaching methods. Results will be shared with Multi-Age Cluster Class teachers with the express purpose of improving the instruction of Multi-Age Cluster Class students. Parents and students are welcome to read the thesis and view study results at the end of the study. Confidentiality: Student identity will be kept strictly confidential. All work samples will be identified only by coded letter and number. Students will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. At the end of the study, records will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in the Principal Investigator’s office at the University of British Columbia for a period of five years, at which time they will be destroyed. Remuneration/Compensation: There is no exchange of money in this study. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions, please contact Carl Leggo (carl.leggo@ubc.ca or 604-822-4640) Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns about the treatment or rights of your child as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 604-822-8598 or at RSIL@ors.ubc.ca.  93  Assent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate. You may withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to your education. This portion of the assent form is for your records. Please sign and return the following page. I assent to my participation in this study. I do not assent to my participation in this study.  Student Signature  Date  Please print student name  94  Assent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate. You may withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to your education in the Multi-Age Cluster Class.  Please sign and return this page. I assent to my participation in this study. I do not assent to my participation in this study.  Student Signature  Date  Please print student name  95  Appendix D – Behavioural Research Ethics Board Approval The University of British Columbia Office of Research Services Behavioural Research Ethics Board Suite 102, 6190 Agronomy Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3  CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - MINIMAL RISK PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:  INSTITUTION / DEPARTMENT: UBC/Education/Language and Carl Leggo Literacy Education INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT: Institution  UBC BREB NUMBER: H10-00231 Site  N/A  N/A  Other locations where the research will be conducted:  Classroom in Vancouver, British Columbia  CO-INVESTIGATOR(S): G. Cotton  SPONSORING AGENCIES: N/A PROJECT TITLE: Metacognition in a Gifted Classroom: Planning, Researching, and Producing Long-term Projects CERTIFICATE EXPIRY DATE: April 6, 2011 DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL:  DATE APPROVED: April 6, 2010  Document Name  Version  Date  Assent Forms: March 16, 2010 March 16, 2010  Participant Assent form Parent Assent Form  March 16, 2010 March 16, 2010  The application for ethical review and the document(s) listed above have been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects. Approval is issued on behalf of the Behavioural Research Ethics Board and signed electronically by one of the following: Dr. M. Judith Lynam, Chair Dr. Ken Craig, Chair Dr. Jim Rupert, Associate Chair Dr. Laurie Ford, Associate Chair Dr. Anita Ho, Associate Chair  96  Appendix E – Dates for Rated Samples  Planning (Public Library visits and project planning times) Oct 16 Nov 13 Nov 20 Dec 4 – project Jan 8 Jan 15 Feb 19 Feb 26 Mar 19 Mar 26 Apr 16  Note-taking (after initial instruction, randomizer selected five samples per phase with the sixth sample being the project notes) Oct 9, 16, 23 Nov 6, 20 Dec x1 – (project) Jan x2 Feb x2 Mar x1 Mar x1 – (project) Mar x1 Apr x2 May x3 – (2 samples and 1 project)  97  Reflective Writing (one sample every second week from week eleven to week 29) Nov 16 Nov 30 Dec 14 Jan 11 Jan 25 Feb 8 Feb 22 Mar 15 Mar 29 Apr 12 Apr 26 May 10  98  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0071128/manifest

Comment

Related Items