1. Can prompts be developed to elicit student metacognition in a lab course which result in a gain in metacognitive awareness and an increase in classroom performance? Alyssa Burkhardt

2. Course Information Upper level plant physiology lab Plant Biology majors in the course 9 students (all have IRB consent) 6 labs in the course – Data will be collected for all 6 labs and for the course as a whole – Students are graded on the basis of a complete lab notebook for each lab (includes intro, method, results, discussion, and some questions) Instructional goal of TAR project: Develop pre- and post- lab questions that promote student metacognition

3. Objectives – Students will be able to monitor their own learning and motivation throughout the course. – Students will use metacognition to prepare for labs by identifying what areas they do not understand and recognizing methods by which they are able to effectively learn. – Post-lab, students will be able to evaluate their work in the lab and determine what they could do differently in the future to improve their understanding and success prior to the next lab.

4. Methods – Overall Course Overall course assessment (pre- and post- course) – Use Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (published) to measure student metacognition Track change in ability, correlate with course grades and self- reported motivation – Take pre-course survey with the following questions: Why am I taking this course? How does this course relate to my career goals? What do I want to learn most from this course? What do I want to be able to do by the end of this course? What am I most anxious about regarding this course? – Questions are designed to get students to begin thinking metacognitively

5. Methods – Pre-Lab Prior to each lab, students will be asked to respond to the following prompts after reading the lab manual: What do I know? (List 3 important concepts) What do I find confusing? What assumptions am I making? Draw a model of the experimental process On a scale from 1:10 predict how successful you will be in this lab (10 high)

6. Prelab Evaluation Rubric Pre-lab questions What do I know? – 1 pt – incomplete answer, less than one fact – 2 pt – developing answer, a few points are addressed but the knowledge does not address important concepts – 3 pt – comprehensive answer, key important concepts are identified What do I find confusing? – 1 pt – incomplete answer, less than one point, not sophisticated – 2 pt – developing answer, 2-3 points, at least one point addresses a higher Bloom’s level idea (aka beyond defining a term) – 3 pt – comprehensive answer – multiple points identified, higher level of Blooms thinking exhibited What assumptions am I making? – 1 pt – no assumptions are given – 2 pt – assumptions are vague and did not indicate critical thinking about the experiment (ie: I assume that the lab manual is right) – 3 pt – assumptions are specific and reflect critical thinking in regard to the background and the chosen methods Draw a model of the experimental process – 1 pt – model is incomplete – 2 pt – model does not involve student synthesis of information (copy and paste from the lab manual with arrows) – 3 pt – model is novel and indicates student synthesis of information/own interpretation

7. Methods (Post-Lab) After each lab, students will be asked to reflect on the pre-lab prompts Address prompt #2 from above by answering the following question: What do I now know after doing the lab that I did not know or found confusing before? Address prompt #4 from above by adjusting your experimental model to address any misconceptions. If your model has changed, please indicate where and explain why and how you know. Reflect on the lab in general in terms of your learning strategies. This is an unstructured reflection question in which you may include any information that you feel is relevant. Some suggested (but not required) topics could include: – Did I prepare adequately for this lab? – What strategies did I use that were effective in learning new material? – What could I do differently to prepare for future labs? – What am I still confused about? – What did I like/dislike about the lab and why? On a scale from 1:10 (10 high) how well do you think you did in this lab?

8. Post-lab evaluation rubric 1) What do I now know after doing the lab that I did not know or found confusing before? – 1 pt – incomplete answer, less than one fact – 2 pt – developing answer, a few couple of facts are listed but there is no reflection on how the learning took place or why it is no longer confusing – 3 pt – comprehensive answer, several points are addressed and extensive reflection on the learning process is apparent 2) If your model has changed, please indicate where and explain why and how you know – 1 pt – incomplete answer, model is present but has not been changed – 2 pt – developing answer, the model has been changed, but the how/why you know does not include self-reflection – 3 pt – comprehensive answer, the model has been changed and self-reflection indicates critical evaluation of why 3) Reflection on learning – 1 pt – incomplete answer, only one point is made – 2 pt – developing answer, multiple point are made but all focus on the same topic/study strategy – 3 pt – comprehensive answer, multiple points are made focusing on different topics and study strategies

9. Data analysis methods Data will be evaluated using quantitative and qualitative methods – Numbers in class are low, so only basic quantitative results are possible – Qualitative results will be used to adjust the instruction in this course and in future courses – Qualitative results will also be used to adjust the prompts based on student feedback See word attachment for detailed data analysis plan

10. References Tanner, K. D. 2012. Promoting Student Metacognition. CBE – Life Sciences Education 11: 113-120. Fleming, S. M. and Lau, H. C. 2014. How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in human neuroscience 8: 1-9. Winne, P. H. and Muis, K. R. 2011. Statistical estimates of learners’ judgments about knowledge in calibration of achievement. Metacognition Learning 6: 179-193. Veenman, M. V. J., Bernadette, H. A. M., Van Hout-Wolters, and Afflerbach, P. 2006. Metacognition and learning : conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning 1: 3-14. Schraw, G. and Dennison, R. S. 1994. Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology 19: 460-475. Hoskinson, A-M. 2010. How to Build a Course in Mathematical- Biological Modeling: Content and Processes for Knowledge and Skill 9: 333-341.