Abstract

Our research was designed to investigate what happens when third and fourth grade students learn and apply strategies to develop metacognitive behaviors. This paper documents our methods and rationale. Data analysis focused on student responses in thinking journals. Additional data was gathered from such sources as surveys, reflective chats, and field notes. By incorporating thinking strategies in our classrooms we observed a shift in student behavior. Students demonstrated increased self-reliance, a new awareness of thinking capabilities, an ability to make connections to prior knowledge, the ability to take a risk as they explored solutions to particular problems, and an emerging awareness of thinking strategies. Through this process we realized that our professional practice was impacted as much, if not more, than our students’ emerging understanding of how they think. We found that in order for students to develop metacognitive behaviors, we had to provide an environment with the following components: direct teaching of thinking strategies, an atmosphere conducive to the discussion of metacognition, and opportunities for the practice of thinking skills.

INTRODUCTION

Deciding on a collaborative research project was the beginning of a professional journey. As three elementary teachers with over sixty-five years of combined experience, fourteen of which were spent as colleagues, we were eager to investigate strategies and philosophies that would benefit our students and their learning. Karen Dellett’s third graders and Georgene Fromm’s and Susan Karn’s fourth graders had raised similar concerns for us about students and how they learn. Moreover, the five major virtues of honesty, courage, care, fairness, and practical wisdom which Hugh Sockett describes as "central to an understanding of the practice of teaching" in the Moral Base for Teacher Professionalism, had triggered a similar response in all three of us (62). Armed with our experience, our concerns, and these virtues, we began the journey.

Our research project took place at Clearview Elementary School in Herndon, Fairfax County, Virginia. The school is located in a middle class neighborhood. About 40 percent of our students are minorities. We have an English as a Second Language (ESL) program, and 20-25 percent of Clearview students have languages other than English spoken at home. We have FECEP (Fairfax Early Childhood Education Program), a preschool program for children with physical disabilities, and we serve children with learning disabilities as well as children whose disabilities are designated as "non-categorical."

Through our years of teaching, we have seen the educational pendulum swing from one extreme to the other. We have introduced new programs and watched them fade away, only to be replaced by the newest educational, "cutting edge" theory. We are currently in the midst of implementing computer technology, promoting multi-age classrooms, and coping with stringent statewide testing.

Throughout these new initiatives as well as those that have gone by the wayside, we have continued to be increasingly concerned about our students’ needs to problem-solve, make connections, and reflect upon their learning and thinking. In our practice we have observed behaviors on which these concerns are based. These behaviors include students:

• Making few connections to prior learning
• Staring blankly as we try to teach something new
• Reading directions on a surface level only and immediately asking for help
• Refusing to think through a problem a second time
• Exhibiting frustration with their inability to understand a new concept immediately
• Lacking the skills to evaluate their work before turning it in
• Exhibiting verbal roadblocks (What do I do? I hate this! I don’t get it!)

These concerns led us to develop the nucleus of what we wanted to investigate.

After a great deal of reading, discussing, and refocusing, we became intrigued with the topic of metacognition or the ability to analyze one’s own learning and progress - to know what one knows and what one does not know. Modern pedagogy advocates thinking about the cognitive operations that affect mental procedures. Metacognition includes the ability to activate prior knowledge to develop a plan of action to solve problems. It also encompasses the ability to think effectively, monitor that thinking, and reflect on the quality of that thinking ("Thinking").

Perhaps metacognition would be the key to helping our students really learn to think and become aware of how, why, and what they learned. There seemed to be a wealth of information advocating metacognition. We were intrigued with Edward deBono’s ideas in his book, Teach Your Child How to Think. He states that "...most schools do not teach thinking at all" and that "There is need to develop the skill of thinking" (3). He also suggests that:

These statements further piqued our interest in and pointed us toward continued investigation of metacognition in the elementary classroom. Our research question became: What happens when third and fourth grade students learn and apply strategies to develop metacognitive behaviors?

In our practice with third and fourth graders, we have observed that students tend to rely on their teachers to give them structure, direction and information. Most of our students appeared to have few effective strategies for goal-setting, reflection, problem-solving, or the ability to access prior knowledge. Our students seemed unable to convey what they were thinking or what they were learning, and they had difficulty applying their new knowledge. Our experiences related to what John H. Flavell and his colleagues noted, that "children conceive of thinking as an effortful, voluntary mental process associated with problem solving" (qtd. in Bruner 108). In previous years of teaching we played the role of "sage on the stage" and expected our students to depend on us for their learning. We tended to foster dependence, passivity, and a "tell me what to do and think attitude" in our students. In BEST PRACTICE New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools by Zemelman, Daniels and Hyde, the authors suggest that schooling today is too often a stimulus-response process. Children are asked to do their work, turn it in, get a grade and then move on, forgetting what was just learned (9). This is the behaviorist approach to learning. In fact, in our reality, the thinking strategies we wanted to implement in our metacognition research were in direct conflict with the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) curriculum, based on the behaviorist theory, that we were compelled to teach.

Along this line, Edward deBono believes that "Education is usually reactive and descriptive because it is much easier to put something in front of a student and then ask that student to react" (296). Because of this, students often demonstrate little self-direction or self-motivation. We wanted to give our students opportunities to construct their own learning. We wanted to provide them with strategies designed to help them process information effectively, to become self-reliant and confident of their abilities to succeed. Therefore, we needed to investigate a constructivist framework for our research.

Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks, authors of The Case for Constructivist Classrooms, define a constructivist framework as one that challenges teachers to develop learning environments "in which they and their students are encouraged to think and explore" (5). This will only work in an atmosphere of trust, where students feel safe to write or talk about their thoughts. Developing this atmosphere is an intimidating challenge. However, we believe it is as important to know how one learns things as it is to know about the subject one is studying. We needed to move from an educational setting that stressed performance, rules and memory to one where thinking and the uniqueness of each child was of utmost importance. We hoped that introducing thinking strategies to our third and fourth grade students would be a major step in this direction. Therefore, our strategies needed to focus on teaching our students ways to think about what they were learning and to make sense of it.

Unfortunately, in many traditional classrooms, "student thinking is devalued"(J. Brooks, M. Brooks 7). The teacher is seen as the "information giver." It is her classroom, and she is in control. Students are expected to listen, learn and reproduce the knowledge of the dominant social, economic class and leave the teaching to the teacher. We recognized this behavior in ourselves as we went about the daily process of teaching. We led the class discussions. We answered each and every question. We were the focus of instruction. This "teacher talk" is the dominant method of teaching used in our educational system today (J. Brooks, M. Brooks 6).

Just as frequently, many adults working with children presume that children lack the verbal skills and awareness necessary to answer reflective questions. When adults make these assumptions, they often answer questions for children and thereby invalidate them as thinking, feeling individuals (J. Brooks, M. Brooks 15). Our actions were not based on these presumptions but rather on the fact that we never really stopped to consider that we were not allowing our students to participate in thinking. We further recognized that many of our students had spent several years in these traditional settings which would make developing a "thinking strategies" atmosphere even more challenging.

It has also been our experience that many students are afraid to offer their views because they might have the wrong answers. According to Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks, "Students quickly learn not to raise their hands in response to a teacher’s question unless they are confident they already know the sought-after response. Doing otherwise places them at some risk" (7). Providing an environment that would reduce this fear would be another goal.

Often, opportunities for our students to take responsibility and control of their learning are usurped by us because it is easier to do it ourselves or to do it for them. We had not considered giving our students opportunities to think honestly about their thinking or learning. For most of our students, personal reflection on learning and thinking would be a major risk. Many would not know where to start

or what to say. This was an area in which we hoped to promote a change in our students and ourselves.

As moral professionals, we feel it is our responsibility to encourage students to take risks in their learning in an environment that is based on acceptance (Sockett 73-74). It is through risk-taking that students learn to become independent thinkers and constructive learners. Constructivist teachers trust that all students can learn. The catch is to tap into their thinking abilities (Zemelman, Daniels, Hyde 14). According to Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks, "To do otherwise is to maintain the status quo based on the behavioral approach to teaching and learning" (30).

Effective learning must be balanced with opportunities for reflection (Zemelman, et al. 9). By having students articulate their reflections, teachers learn to recognize students as thinkers who have a voice in constructing meaning for themselves and in understanding their learning. The constructivist theory views children as capable of thinking about their own thinking. Through reflection (Jerome Bruner refers to it as "going meta."), children are able to correct ideas and make connections (57).

Student reflection in a risk-free environment also offers the opportunity to develop a trusting relationship between teacher and student (Sockett 67-69). Kathleen Blake Yancey in her book, Reflection in the Writing Classroom, writes about her college students’ reflections on their writing. She emphasizes that, "...we must assume that all responses are equally valuable" (156). We feel an obligation as moral professionals to ensure that reflective responses from students are deemed important. We want to encourage self-initiated inquiry and seek to understand our students’ points of view as we engage in dialogue.

Being honest is central to a student/teacher relationship. Children need to know that we support them within the classroom in their struggles with difficult personal and academic efforts. It takes courage to build this atmosphere of trust by both the students and teacher. There are intellectual and psychological risks in this process. Students must be able to know and admit when they need help and a teacher needs to be open to hearing students’ concerns and dealing with them without blame or punishment. This is an essential element in constructivist education (Bruner 49, 60).

We believe that we must each look at our own practice as we begin to help our students develop metacognitive behaviors in our classrooms.

Not only is thinking important in school, it is clear that our society expects schools to graduate students who are lifelong learners and responsible citizens, capable of participating thoughtfully in a democracy (Sockett 67). Edward deBono also states that "There is a myth in education that ‘knowing’ is enough" (10). We believe that in the real world, knowing is not enough. One must be able to think.

Learning how to learn and developing a repertoire of thinking processes that can be applied to problem-solving should be a major goal of education. Jerome Bruner states that, "In the business world, people who achieve success are those who engage in planning, identifying specific goals and designing strategies to work toward them" (84). When life presents situations that cannot be solved by learned responses, when automatic responses are not successful, metacognitive behaviors need to kick in. We want our students to think about how they learn as they engage in constructing their own knowledge. These processes begin with developing reflective behaviors in our students. Bruner writes that:

Metacognition makes learning "more public, negotiable, and ‘solidary’ " (24). In other words, it makes thinking visible, important, and acceptable.

METHODS AND RATIONALE

In order to foster a thinking environment in our classrooms, we included all of our students in this study. We had a total of 22 third graders and 41 fourth graders in three classes, ranging in age from eight to ten years old. We felt this all-inclusiveness was essential because we planned to teach thinking strategies to all students, immersing everyone in a new vocabulary and developing an awareness of their thinking capabilities. Through this immersion, we hoped to redirect our students’ dependence on their teachers to behaviors that would demonstrate an interdependence among themselves and a more independent, self-reliant approach

to their own thinking and learning. In sum, we hoped to develop a classroom community where thinking prevailed.

Our initial plan of action for the implementation of our research project was to set the stage for our students to share control of their learning through the understanding of their thought processes. We wanted to train our students in methods of thinking and at the same time, develop their self-reliance by nurturing each one’s untapped potential. Our idea was to immerse them in opportunities and experiences that develop metacognitive behaviors.

Our experience has indicated that students must have concrete experiences with thinking skills in order to use them as a natural process and an element of their learning (Sockett 85-87). Therefore, we taught thinking strategies, and we provided opportunities for our students to use these strategies in their daily work and behavior. We also included a step-by-step plan for thinking "before," "during," and "after" completion of tasks. (APPENDIX F)

Discussion was one of our most important strategies because we felt that students needed to be able to verbalize and label what and how they were thinking in order to recognize thinking skills. Since we wanted to insure that all of our students would benefit from our research, it was imperative that we were all talking about the same thing. Therefore, we introduced our students to a "thinking vocabulary," which could be used during discussions of metacognition or whenever the opportunity was appropriate. These terms included:

The three of us developed "Going Meta" bulletin boards in our classrooms that detailed questions to be used before, during and after a learning activity. Our metacognition forms were also placed on the bulletin boards for easy access. The bulletin boards served as a point of reference and as constant reminders of the vocabulary and processes we were emphasizing. (APPENDIX G)

Another strategy that Georgene used to motivate student discussion of thinking skills was the use of Venn diagrams. As her students logged-in (signed in) every morning, they had to think about where they "fit" when answering questions such as "How do you see yourself?" (Creative, Organized, Hard-working) or "How do you learn best?" (Small Group, Large Group, Individually). Each morning the diagram was printed out and a discussion ensued about the results. After sharing this strategy, both Susan and Karen began implementing this technique. (Figure 1)

We wanted to provide more cooperative tasks, practice time, and prompts to help our students connect prior knowledge to newly-acquired knowledge. Since fourth grade students come with a range of experiences and knowledge, both Susan and Georgene decided to teach thinking strategies for reading the Virginia social studies textbook. These techniques for reading "before, during and after," were based on the Fairfax County Public Schools’ booklet, Learning to Read Social Studies. Before reading, students were directed to build on their background knowledge to help link to concepts that were complex and required an understanding of multiple ideas. Other previewing techniques included skimming and exploring, and the use of a step-by-step chapter survey. Reading strategies included scanning, think-alouds, summarizing, reciprocal teaching, and highlighting (Stair II-32-70).

We hoped that as we implemented these strategies, their success would be apparent. By providing explicit instruction in thinking strategies and vocabulary, encouraging our students to use those strategies at all times, and emphasizing the idea that metacognition is a process everyone could and should use on a daily basis in all aspects of their lives, we strove to establish a metacognitive environment in our classrooms. We were optimistic that our students would begin to demonstrate behaviors that indicated an understanding and awareness of their thinking.

We identified several indicators that would demonstrate to us that our students were implementing thinking strategies in their daily learning. These indicators included, but were not limited to:

•students exploring various possible routes to resolving a particular problem

•students demonstrating confidence in the ability to do a new task

•students attending to how they learn and using this knowledge

•students showing greater autonomy and independence

•students increasing their content knowledge

•students elaborating their thinking orally and/or in written form

Discussion and its documentation were important strategies. Facilitating discussions about thinking strategies and talking about thinking were accomplished through various approaches. Whether it was through class meetings or informal "meta moment" discussions that arose during the daily classroom instruction, we took these opportunities to help our students link newly-acquired knowledge to previously-learned knowledge. We asked questions such as:

•Where have you seen a decimal point before? (money/decimals)

•In what other places have rivers played an important part in the development of a culture?

We also seized opportunities to model thinking strategies for attacking a task.

and allowed them to come up with their own sentences/phrases. For instance:

Facts Pneumonic

Nine planets in solar system My Very Energetic Mother Just Made Us Nine Pizzas

Earth, Jupiter, Venus)

Presidents of Virginia Washing Jeans Made Mike Have

Directions on a compass rose Never Eat Shredded Wheat

We hoped that these discussions and strategies would allow students to verbalize their thoughts and connections and set a foundation of vocabulary usage as they began to "talk the talk" and explore their thinking. We took field notes as we saw and heard evidence of students "going meta."

Another strategy we incorporated was "reflective chats." These "chats" were moments when teachers and students talked about thinking on a one-to-one basis. This provided risk-free opportunities for students to express personal viewpoints without fear of embarrassment or consequence. This reflective interchange gave us opportunities to redirect, question, clarify, prompt, problem-solve, suggest, remind, reinforce and label thinking skills with each student. We hoped to provide immediate and constructive feedback to students. We anticipated that this personalized interaction would provide a boost in and encourage student thinking and learning.

We counted on Thinking Journals as our most effective tool while we investigated our students’ ways of thinking and learning. In this "diary of process," students made note of their thinking by responding to teacher-directed questions and/or prompts involving the day’s learning experiences. These provided us with

new insights into their thinking and learning processes and our practice. Students reflected in their Thinking Journals two to three time a week.

During our research process, several issues arose that challenged our data collection strategies. Critical dialogue during team meetings served as an essential element for change and redirection of our methods. We debated, discussed, redefined and designed new approaches for our data collection as we questioned our findings and procedures.

As we implemented our thinking journals, Susan and Georgene used direct metacognitive prompts such as, "What did you think about as you recited the pledge today?" or "What were you thinking about as Dr. Barry spoke to us about ‘mean’ words?" On the other hand, Karen asked her third graders to reflect in general on the day’s learning: "Tell me about something you learned today." In both instances, our students’ lack of ability to reflect about thinking skills became apparent in the first days of our project. Most initial responses were brief and many students did not answer the questions directly.

We believed the fourth graders’ responses were a bit more focused because of the use of structured prompts, so Karen decided to try that idea in her classroom. However, she did not find a dramatic difference in her third graders’ responses to a structured prompt. We decided that the best plan was to redirect the students to write more - to elaborate, even if the process was difficult.

Although we had hoped to designate time every day for Thinking Journal responses, we found that time was not on our side. The pressures of the day’s schedule did not allow this to happen. Our schedules and instructional time were driven and constantly influenced by the curriculum and test readiness skills for the Virginia Standards of Learning tests (SOLs). There were not enough hours in a school day to cover all that loomed before us. Although Thinking Journals were planned for a designated part of our schedules, it was often necessary to delete them due to mandated SOL lessons that took more time than was planned. When push came to shove, it seemed that all too often Thinking Journals were the victims of the time crunch.

We also debated the issue of responding to students’ journal entries; although we wanted to do that, we found little time, and it held up the process of immediate feedback. We forged an alternative solution by allowing students to share their responses with their teacher or classmates on an intermittent basis. This allowed for peer modeling of thinking strategies, on the spot suggestions, and generation of new ideas.

From the onset of this project, we questioned how we would develop an environment that would promote metacognition and support our students as they learned about their thinking. Although we believed that students must develop responsibility for their own learning, we also believed it was our responsibility to create an environment that supported and promoted thinking (Blakey and Spence 3). We hoped that by learning thinking strategies, our students would be able to use them in their future endeavors.

From this plan of action, we focused on the need to create a strong metacognitive environment. We became aware that we needed to model metacognitive behaviors and acknowledge those Meta Moments on a daily basis in our classrooms. In order to stimulate more discussions about thinking, we provided Meta Moment boxes for students to identify those times during the day that they had "gone meta" or had observed a peer using a thinking strategy.

•What can I do before I ask my teacher?

•What is the goal of this exercise?

•What strategies will be useful?

•What is important, and what isn’t?

With our teaching methods, data collection strategies, and a few revised ideas, our thinking communities were implemented. By providing thinking experiences, our students were given opportunities to grow and test their thinking capabilities risk-free. We believed our plan of action promoted a metacognitive environment immersing our students into the world of thinking.

As we implemented and worked through our plan, we became cognizant of the profound changes that were occurring within our own pedagogies. We discovered that we had some difficulty learning to share control of our classrooms with our students. We were taught to make the decisions in our classrooms and for our students. Allowing our students to share in decision-making was in direct conflict with our learned experiences of being the knowledge-givers and the persons in charge. It took courage and deliberate actions to begin to transform our practice into a teacher/student thinking community. We had the knowledge - content, skills, strategies - but we needed to learn to value our students’ contributions as we allowed our students a voice in their classroom. We had to emphasize shared knowledge and decision-making as the basis of our metacognitive environment.

We knew we were good teachers but developing a metacognitive environment caused us to rethink how we delivered our instruction. Metacognitive strategies were already a part of our repertoires. We needed to recognize these strategies and consciously model them for our students. Deliberate teaching of metacognitive strategies and modeling of metacognitive behaviors was our new way of assisting our students in becoming aware of their own thinking.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

As we sifted through our data, we looked for indicators which demonstrated metacognitive behaviors. We focused on student responses, both oral and written, which confirmed students becoming conscious of their own ways of thinking and learning. Our daily lesson plans reflected our conscious efforts to incorporate thinking strategies throughout our instructional program.

Our first source of data came from our "Metacognition Survey." This survey questioned students on their ideas about thinking. The results validated our earlier assumptions that students possessed little or no awareness of their own thinking. Many of the third graders were unable to express themselves to any great extent in written form. Phrases and one-word responses were the norm. Questions that involved speculation on the part of students as to their process of thinking were often met with responses of "I don’t know."

The first section of the survey addressed the concept of thinking. Responses verified that most students were unaware of their thinking processes or that they even thought. They found it difficult to define the term "thinking." The majority of other responses were reflected by the following examples to the question, "What is thinking?"

"Thinking is using your brain really hard."

"Thinking is when you get your paper and you start to write."

"Thinking is guessing."

"If you get an "O" (outstanding) in math, it shows you are thinking."

"When I put my head in my hands and I don’t know what I’m doing."

"I know when I’m thinking when my head begins to hurt."

"Thinking about what you have learned in the past and when you have solved the problem and you get it right, you are thinking well."

"When your mind turns on."

to answer their questions. The following responses were typical to the question: "What do you do when you are in the middle of an assignment and you realize you don’t know what to do?"

"I erase what I did and go ask the teacher."

"Raise your hand and tell the teacher."

"Ask the teacher."

"Tell teacher I don’t get it."

"Ask for help."

"Ask someone."

"I get help from mom and dad."

In addition, most of our students really did not "think" about what they were learning and why. Fifteen out of twenty third graders responded with a definite, "No" when asked "Do you ever ask why you are learning something new?" Fourth graders responded in kind or did not answer the question.

Furthermore, most of our students wanted us to tell them what to do and what to think. Many students seemed to believe that it was the teacher’s responsibility to make them learn. There was little evidence of student self-reliance. They seemed to lack the initiative to help themselves or to take responsibility for their own learning.

•Do you think about how much time it will take to finish an assignment?"

"No, the teacher always tells us."

"It doesn’t matter because the teacher will give you time."

•How do you know that you need to change what you’re doing in order to complete an assignment?

"Ask the teacher."

"Fix it after the teacher says it’s wrong."

"You proofread read it and the teacher says to do it again, it’s wrong."

"I don’t know. A friend tells me."

"I ask and listen to the teacher."

"When the teacher tells me what to do."

•When you are working on an assignment, how do you know that you are doing what needs to be done?

"The teacher gives you directions."

"I check with the teacher."

"Let my teacher check it."

"When I tell my mom and dad and they don’t know it."

Perhaps the biggest surprise from this survey was the overwhelming response that many students believed that during math was the only time when they really had to think. Many cited math as the only subject that required thinking or of which they had any prior knowledge.

As students investigated their thinking through reflection, the Thinking Journals became an integral part of our data. There was an initial reluctance and resistance by both third and fourth graders to reflect in writing. This was evidenced by their whining, complaining, sighing, and short, cryptic responses. However, the continued routine of journal writing and immersion into thinking strategies challenged them to reflect. Their responses gradually indicated a blossoming awareness of thinking processes. The implementation of "Thinking Journals" was influenced by each of our individual teaching styles, and consequently there was a variation.

Most responses were written from specific teacher prompts that covered the instructional program such as:

•What did you think about the new way we learned for writing paragraphs?

•What things made it difficult for you to learn today?

•Tell me two things you learned in social studies today. Did you learn them best by reading in whole group or by working in your small group?

•What things make it difficult for you to learn in school?

•What do you think about the Declaration of Independence? What does it mean to you?

•What did you know about rocks and minerals before we started this unit?

•How do you feel about wearing uniforms?

•What do you think is the worst problem facing our country today?

Based on Georgene’s thinking journal reponses which she shared with her students, her class established expectations as to student responses. As they became accustomed to and more comfortable with elaborating on their thinking, the journal entries began to express ideas about how students figured out things by themselves, about themselves, and what they thought about other people’s feelings.

•Can you tell me how to find partial products in math?

•What can you remember about the Louisiana Purchase?

•Did you have a "meta moment" today?

•How would you resolve what happened at recess today?

At first, many of Susan’s students were unsure of what to write, or they were afraid to write. However, after class meetings based on fairness of teams and rules during recess, entries started to show that students were thinking about these conflicts and how to resolve them. There was a correlation between the topic and the length of journal entries. The more relevant the topic to the student/s, the longer the response. Journal entries also began to show learning connections between students’ lives and characters in Virginia history. Students made comparisons between living in Herndon and living in colonial Jamestown. Several students compared the dangers to children in present day communities with the colonists’ fear of Indians and wild animals.

At first, Karen noted that her third grade students’ responses from Thinking Journals generally reflected that in which they had just participated. Because she used a more general prompt of "Tell me about your learning and thinking today," she found that her students often wrote about P.E. or Music since these were the activities that usually preceded writing in Thinking Journals. However, this trend was short-lived after she encouraged her students to expound on the entire day. Math was the academic subject that was mentioned most frequently, which corresponded to many of the survey responses about thinking occurring only in math. Many of Karen’s third graders brought their written reflections to her for approval. She found it necessary to redirect students and ask them to elaborate. Reminding, suggesting, and questioning were three techniques necessary to elicit responses of greater depth. These techniques did not always produce the desired results, but there was a definite increase in her students’ efforts to reflect upon their learning and thinking as they became more confident about taking the risk to elaborate their thoughts without fear of teacher criticism.

The resistance toward writing in the Thinking Journals was strong at first in Karen’s class. The journals were used sporadically. Only when they were incorporated in a more consistent manner was there a noticeable change to a more matter-of-fact attitude toward the activity. There was less complaining and a sense of acceptance as students knew what to expect at the end of each day. Karen continued to leave the questions open ended because structured prompts did not produce a significant change in student entries.

Our varied experiences with journals seemed to produce similar patterns.

Through critical dialogue, we determined that our students’ responses fell into categories that mirrored several of the indicators we had anticipated. We found that students showed evidence of an increased awareness of their own thinking and learning, an increased knowledge of content, an ability to elaborate on their thinking, and an increase in students resolving problems on their own.

Many Thinking Journal responses demonstrated students becoming conscious of their own ways of thinking and learning.

remember it when I’m just reading. When I listen I have the same problem. (4th grader)

"I learned that it has to be quwet [quiet] for me to think hard." (3rd grader)

"It is easier to learn about rocks and minirals [minerals] with a partner." (4th grader)

"I think I learn best by doing things with one other person because I don’t have to wait to learn how to do something." (4th grader)

"I think I do better in a big group because it is like another checker checking my reading by doing it." (4th grader)

"I learn best by myself because I have to be nice to them or I might get in big trouble." (3rd grader)

"I think I need a little more hep [help] in reading." (3rd grader)

"I was thinking about the writer Fraisais Bellmey [Francis Bellamy] and that I can spell indivisible and liberty and allegiance." (4th grader)

"You need to indent, write a topic sentence, write description sentences, and write a cuclusion [conclusion] sentence. When you’re paragraph writing, you need to write about one topic and one topic only." (4th grader)

"Today I learned what to do if you’re at home alone and there is an emergency. I think it will be helpful if that ever happens to me and I’m home alone." (4th grader)

"Writing paragraphs has made me a better writer. I have done better on a paragraph and also the Elements of Good Writing. The Elements of Good Writing shows you the 5 major steps of a paragraph. Composing, Style, Sentence Formation, Usage and Mechanics." (4th grader)

Fourth graders commented that they felt they knew some content material well enough that they could teach third graders. Megan wrote, " I have learned to do partial products. For example let [let’s] say I was multiplying 35 X 62. The first thing you would do is to multiply the 5 X 2 and that would be step 1. Step 2 was 5 X 60 then step 3 would be 30 X 2 and then step 4 would be 30 X 60 and then you would put the anserws [answers] for the steps and put them under 35 X 62 like this - Example

X62

10 step 1 = 2 X 5 =10

60 step 2 = 2 X 30 = 60

300 step 3 = 60 X 5 = 300

1800 step 4 = 60 X 30 = 1,800

2170"

A pattern emerged for fourth graders that indicated their increasing ability to write about how they solved problems. For instance, four boys explained in their journals how they had resolved a problem with computers without going to their teacher. They were elated that they were able to accomplish this on their own and without disturbing the teacher during small group instruction. Several students wrote about possible solutions to recess conflicts that could be brought up at class meetings for consideration.

During the process of our project, our daily observations provided data that showed a gradual change in the way our students used their thinking skills in the learning environment. During the first weeks of our research, our field notes documented trends validating our major assumptions - that many students were totally dependent on the teacher for their learning and that they demonstrated few

thinking strategies. The initial trends seemed to group themselves into patterns that we have named:

•the "I don’t get it" pattern, from students whose immediate reaction to a task was to glance at the worksheet/directions without giving them any thought at all and saying "I don’t get it;"

•the "spoon-feeding" pattern, from students whose expectation was to be led step-by-step through every learning experience with no effort on their part;

•the "fear factor" pattern, from students who appeared on the verge of tears at the thought of making a mistake;

•the "cut to the chase" pattern, from students who just wanted the teacher to give them the answer so they could get the job done;

•the "isolated knowledge" pattern, where students completed a task without making any connection to prior knowledge.

Initially In Process

Those students exhibiting the "fear factor" pattern have also shown marked improvement in their self-confidence and willingness to attempt a task without their emotions playing a part in the thinking process. We attributed these changes to the establishment of the risk-free element in our metacognitive environment. Students were allowed to make mistakes, talk about their fears and work through their anxieties.

Initially In Process

Many of our students rarely made links to prior knowledge or experience. This "isolated knowledge" pattern prompted many questions that students could have figured out themselves if they had drawn on previous experiences and knowledge. We often reminded them of having studied a particular subject or concept in the previous year, and how that knowledge connected to what they were learning now. Our constant cuing, modeling and prompting of links to previously-learned knowledge seemed to have a positive effect. Many instances of meaningful connections between new information and prior knowledge have been observed among our students. The following instances illustrate this pattern:

•Cyndi enthusiastically exclaimed, "I just realized that each of these civilizations we’ve studied so far has an important river." (3rd grader)

•Kathleen announced to the class that each of the chapters we had been studying in social studies had to do with war. She wanted to know which war would come in the next chapter. (4th grader)

•Andy proudly announced that he remembered how to draw arrays in math from second grade. (3rd grader)

Class meeting highlights included:

•Mary and Bailey led a class discussion regarding class seating arrangements. They showed their possible designs to their peers, and they asked for input. The class worked together to fine tune the plan.

•Another problem concerned the organization and management of classroom computers and program disks. The complaint was made that the disks were out of place and it was becoming difficult and time-consuming to straighten them out. Several solutions were suggested, and Linda’s proposal of color-coding computers and disks with stickers was the winning solution.

observed occurring in the classroom. When any "moments" were shared, we celebrated and acknowledged those involved. Some of these "moments" included:

•Jeff drew a picture of the town of Glumly, and he made the mistake of painting something black instead of gray. He asked a peer, "What could I make out of this mistake?"

•Robert, (whose typical behavior was to raise his handwhile at the computer and wait for the teacher no matter how long it took) realized that his teacher was busy, asked the person next to him, "How do I do this? I want to change the black pig to pink."

•Leslie (who usually blames her mother for the lack of a homework signature) now responds with "Momma forgot to - no, I forgot to have my mother sign it."

•Allie was heard to say, "I can’t play 24 Challenge right now. I have a lot of work to finish before we go to Morning Math."

•During a discussion on Virginia, Kurt was able to elaborate on how he came up with the answer to a test question by eliminating useless information and by comparing what he knew to the graphic that was included.

•"Jim couldn’t remember how many strips [stripes] there were in the us [U.S.] flag so he went "meta" by going to our flag and counting the strips [stripes]." (Meta Moment Box)

occurrences. We found that many of our reluctant writers were gradually able to use this forum to express thinking moments. Discussions from class meetings and

Meta Moments provided opportunities for students to share their thinking and exercise some control of their own learning.

As our data collection came to an end, we administered a revised edition of the initial Metacognition Survey. (APPENDIX I) We included selected questions from each section (the concept of thinking and the strategies they used as they planned, monitored and evaluated their assignments) that we felt would be the best indicators of developing metacognitive behaviors. The initial survey seemed tedious to administer and the students were a bit overwhelmed with the original nineteen questions. We felt that a shorter version would meet our needs in interpreting our students’ understandings of thinking.

Answers to questions about the concept of thinking now included responses using metacognitive terminology which was introduced and developed in the classroom. The responses also demonstrated a heightened awareness of the idea of thinking.

"Thinking is talking to yourself in your mind."

"Thinking is when you are trying to remaber [remember] what you alreaty [already] know."

"Thinking is when you do something on your own without asking someone."

"Stopping and acting in your head, reviewing, and that is what ‘I’ think thinking is."

"Thinking is when you have to make a desition [decision] or go meta."

"Thinking is knowing what your [you’re] going to do before you do it. Like the frase [phrase] look before you leap."

"My brain start to say things and I start doing the things it says."

"When you do something that you don’t know and you THINK about it instead of asking the teacher you did it yourself."

"I know when I am thinking by when I answer a problem or when I am making a conection [connection]."

"When you stop and suddenly come up with an idea, when you stop and say ‘what should I do?"

"I know what need [needs] to be done because I focus on it."

"Cause I think back at what the dreictons[(directions] were."

"Well when I’m done I check it instand [instead] of giving it to my teacher right when I’m done."

"I think about what I have done in the past that is simalar [similar]; if I can’t think of anything I ask three friends and if they don’t know I ask the teacher."

"I raise my hand and ask for help instand [instead] of just sit there and do nothing."

"Because I reread it more than one time than [then] understane [understand] it more."

•Do you ever ask yourself if you could have done something differently to improve an assignment or to understand more?

"Sometimes. I would like to study and retac [retake] the test. I could aslo [also] do a math paper that deals with the test."

"Yes because if I have more time to finish I would want to improve it."

"Because if I know it I will volonteer [volunteer] and tell back what I have learnd [learned]."

"Because I can make problems and get them all right."

"I ask my mom to ask me questions about the subject."

"When I know that I understood what I have learned I don’t get confuesed [confused]."

"By going over it in my head and doing some more at home."

"I’ll just start doing what i’m [I’m] spost [supposed] to do realy [really] fast."

"I ask myself what I learnd [learned], at the end of the day."

"Yes because if I don’t I get a bad grade and my dad and mom will be angree [angry]."

"I think about it and if I don’t get it I ask the teacher for help."

"Ask somebody or the teacher."

"Ask my friend and ask Mrs. Fromm."

"Go up to the teacher."

"I can ask a friend or I couled [could] ask the teacher."

We believe that third and fourth grade students can learn strategies to develop metacognitive behaviors. We found that in order for students to develop metacognitive behaviors, we had to provide an environment with the following components:

1. direct teaching of thinking strategies;

2. an atmosphere conducive to discussion and celebration of metacognition;

3. opportunities for the practice of thinking skills.

This argument became clearer as we participated in learning and teaching the concept of metacognition in our classrooms. Modern pedagogy is moving to the view that children are capable of metacognition, and that they should be aware of their thought processes. Jerome Bruner suggests that we must begin to see children as thinkers. Once that notion is accepted, children can be seen as capable of thinking about their own thinking and of correcting ideas through reflection (56). We truly began to see our students as "thinkers" instead of receptacles to be filled with knowledge. We saw evidence of our students’ capabilities as thinkers through their journal reflections, discussions, and their increased content knowledge. We became partners with them as we investigated thinking and learning processes together.

These outcomes lead us to believe that it is crucial for teachers to help students to become more metacognitive.

The development and application of metacognitive strategies did not happen automatically. Our third and fourth grade students demonstrated little understanding about their thinking processes, and they were reluctant to try. It was obvious that they had a lack of experience in this area, even after being in school for several years. It became our task to provide a classroom setting which would immerse them in the strategies, vocabulary, and philosophy of metacognition. This needed to be done in a risk-free environment with lots of opportunities for practice and acknowledgement of successes.

This challenged our moral professional practice. We changed the way in which we interacted with all students as we were teaching. We made sure that we encouraged students’ questions about their learning and thinking. We changed our teaching practices by listening to students and gathering information from student reflections that would redirect our methods of instruction. It took deliberate reflection to discover the types of questions that would encourage our students to think. There was a more participatory environment, where students were invited to learn and think without fear of making mistakes. This student dialogue guided us as we planned and instituted strategies to teach thinking.

We noticed a significant change in the way our classrooms functioned. There was a shift in the relationship between teachers and students. We became less dictatorial and less authoritarian. We relinquished our roles as the "sages on the stages" and became much more the "guides on the sides." We had to find the courage to step out of our "sage" roles and provide the time to teach thinking strategies to our students while simultaneously keeping up with curriculum

Our initial concerns about the pressures and demands of the SOL tests were realized. They were an intense source of frustration and hindrance to our research. Third and fourth grades were under a constant barrage of constraints and influences brought on by the urgency to cover a multitude of curricula. This stress was a looming presence in each aspect of our planning, instruction and research. The pressure to teach all that was required in the daily schedule was overwhelming, and it created an atmosphere of urgency where the cramming of knowledge was done at warp speed.

A cultural issue that cannot be ignored in the SOL process is the fact that our school is an English as a Second Language center. This means that each classroom consists of a multicultural population of students, whose background knowledge and competencies are diverse. They are a population whose needs seem to be ignored by this entire process.

Our administrators directed us to concentrate on drilling for the SOL tests for the three months prior to the test dates. We felt that this compromised our teacher professionalism and its moral base. We had to make a conscious decision to continue with our thinking strategies in the face of drill and practice sessions for the SOLs. Practical wisdom for the welfare of our students encouraged our stand.

Inadequate time was another problem that we faced, and it came in many forms. Finding the time to teach, discussing thinking strategies within our classrooms and giving our students the time to reflect within the day's plan were major concerns. These problems were magnified with the imposed SOL lessons. Combining the elements of the Virginia Standards of Learning and developing metacognitive behaviors by providing direct teaching of thinking strategies and opportunities to practice was a balancing act. It pitted two opposite approaches to teaching and learning against each other.

With all that in mind, we remained dedicated to innovating an environment in each of our classrooms where we consciously planned the use of thinking strategies. We taught thinking vocabulary and displayed the relevant terms on bulletin boards for reference. Modeling was a teaching technique that took several forms. Thinking outloud while problem-solving, sharing our own metacognitive reflections, redirecting students’ questions to compel them to strive for self-reliance, and using metacognitive prompts to stimulate and promote thinking were our major methods.

Discussion in our metacognitive environments took various forms. Class meetings, Venn diagrams, Meta Moments, and reflective chats provided springboards for students to articulate and recognize the efficacy of various thinking strategies. In fact, this component provided many students with an alternative to writing about their thinking processes. It was essential that students felt comfortable and free to express themselves in these discussions.

We provided the time and materials to practice and integrate reflection on thinking within the day’s schedule. Thinking Journals gave our students the opportunity to reflect individually on their thinking in response to metacognitive prompts. Our metacognition forms on different subjects provided a structure by which students were guided along a step-by-step process of thinking. Class meetings played an important role by giving students chances to practice what they had learned as they problem-solved situations pertinent to them.

These three environmental components - direct teaching, discussion, and practice, led to positive, observable shifts in our students’ metacognitive behaviors.

These shifts in student behaviors showed increased:

•self-reliance

•awareness of thinking capabilities

•connections to prior knowledge

•exploration of solutions to particular problems

•risk-taking

•awareness of thinking strategies

The need for a metacognitive environment was reaffirmed for us when we reread Jerome Bruner’s account of Janet Astington’s insightful remarks that:

As to the claim that teachers must provide explicit instruction of thinking strategies, our experience confirms the need for including thinking skills as an everyday, important part of learning. We agree with Edward deBono who expounds on the topic of direct teaching of thinking skills by stating:

efforts at explicit instruction, with step-by-step thinking strategies, many of our

students began to assimilate procedures and processes that promoted metacognitive behaviors.

Providing a risk-free atmosphere where students were allowed to voice their thinking through reflection, discussion, and sharing, was a key element in developing our students’ thinking abilities. Seeking to understand and listening to students’ points of view and their thinking processes are essential in a constructivist teacher’s classroom. It is important to recognize these perspectives and to address them. Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks support our beliefs about providing students time for dialogue with the teacher and with each other. They state:

Our practical wisdom tells us that students need practice in order to learn and apply new skills. Students need concrete experiences with metacognition in the same way. As the skills are gradually mastered, it is hoped that they will be transferred to new situations. Providing opportunities to practice ways of thinking through writing, discussing, and interacting with peers were the avenues we provided in our classrooms for our students.

As we delved into the realm of metacognition, we realized that we were only scratching the surface of this topic. Bookstores, libraries and the internet are filled with articles, books, journals and essays on this subject. We understand that

We clearly understand that students must continue to learn, practice and apply thinking strategies in order for metacognition to become a natural process. As our students move through the grades, their future teachers must support their budding knowledge of thinking and its relationship to learning. We observed that the teaching of metacognitive strategies was beneficial to most of our students, and that the use of thinking skills can produce positive outcomes if students are encouraged to continue developing them.

Our journey began with the intention to change the ways in which our students think and learn. However, through this year’s research process, we realized that our thinking and teaching practice was impacted as much, if not more, than our students’ thinking and learning. We were compelled to reflect and challenge our own pedagogy. It was through our reflections, that we were then able to help our students become more reflective about their thinking and learning processes.

Works Cited

Bruner, Jerome. The Culture of Education. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996.

deBono, Edward. Teach Your Child How to Think. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.

"Metacognition." Pathways to School Improvement. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: 1995. Online. Internet. October 1998. Available http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/learning/lr1metn.htm.

Osborne, Jason W. "Teaching for Metacognition." Online. Internet. October 1998. Available http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/O/Jason.W.Osborne-1/Metatch.html.

Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner. USA: Basic Books Inc., 1983.

Sockett, Hugh. The Moral Base for Teacher Professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State UP, 1998.

Zemelman, Steven, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde. Best Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1993.

Georgene Fromm teaches fourth grade at Clearview Elementary School in Fairfax County, Virginia. She has educated children in grades one through six for twenty-one years. Over the years she has taught in Germany, Japan, Texas, and Oklahoma. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her Master of Arts in Teaching from George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.

Susan Karn teaches fourth grade at Clearview Elementary School in Fairfax County, Virginia. She has educated children in grades one through five for twenty-five years in Christiansburg, Reston, and Herndon, Virginia. She received her Bachelor of Science in Special Education and Elementary Education from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. She received her Master of Arts in Teaching from George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.

Bill was so fearful of making any mistake and of writing in cursive, that he wrung his hands, and got out of his chair to shift from foot to foot. He seemed to want to interact with the teacher, but he never expressed his concern.

Kelly’s response to a thinking task was to suffer silently, with tears streaming down her face, and not ask anybody for help.

Both Nate and Johnny found themselves frustrated and crying whenever they encountered a situation where they could not proceed because they did not have an immediate solution.

Bill’s hand-wringing has lessened, and he appears more confident in some aspects. Instead of crying about writing

in cursive, he offers the teacher alternatives to writing in cursive such as writing in manuscript or using the computer.

Kelly is now observed as an active participant in her learning and thinking. She now asks peers and the teacher for help instead of sitting alone and crying silently.

Nate has now become so confident that he has no qualms about expressing his higher-level thinking inquiries to the teacher. Tears are rarely an issue as he delves even deeper

into his learning experiences. Johnny, on the other hand, has shown only a slight increase in self-confidence and risk-taking. He continues to become frustrated with himself when things do not come easily.

Josh would say blatantly, "Just give me the answer." He was disgruntled when he was first redirected.

Josh now takes redirection as a matter of course and has found more success in his own ability to think.

Kenny, a GT student, would say, "I don’t get it!" after one reading, expecting instant understanding.

Kenny rarely voices "I don’t get it!" anymore. He now just expresses his thinking aloud for his own benefit, although others often listen to his train of thought.

Sam was unable to take any steps to complete an assignment without asking for approval of each step. His questioning was tentative and any redirection from the teacher brought on tears.

Anecdotal records show the incidences of Sam’s tears have diminished. He is more willing to accept redirection, and he approaches the teacher only after trying several methods to achieve the task.

Although Brenda still expects the teacher to be on-call for her, she is less demanding of the teacher’s time and attention.