On metacognitive modelling..

Getting the right definition

Initially, I started writing about ” live modelling”, but the more I wrote, the more I realised that it wasn’t really an accurate description of my classroom practice. I played with some wordier definitions, such as “interactivly modelling your thinking” but I think this is more concise & more accurate.

Live modelling – and by that I mean demonstrating something to students in front of them in the classroom (or via an online video platform such as Teams, as needs have necessitated in recent months) can be a useful way of showing students what they need to do to complete a task successfully. The idea that we can learn successfully from observing others, was researched in a series of experiments by Albert Bandura who concluded that through modelling we can learn virtually anything, as part of his Social Learning Theory.

Partly, my dissatisfaction with considering “live modelling” a metacognitive approach is that, on its own, it’s not enough to help students fully understand how learning occurs. In short, you need to model your thinking as well as your actions. In an acceptability study for my current PhD research, 96.6% of students self-reported explicitly explained essay modelling as being “really useful”, or “useful.” As one student explained, “they are usually very detailed and [she] explains thoroughly what she has wrote and why.”

Explaining your thought processes

Initially, this process can appear very teacher-led; however, as students become more exposed to the metacognitive thinking behind your modelling, the more they develop their own independent expertise.  Expecting learners to think about their thought processes in learning, without explicit explanation, is a bit like plonking them on a bike and expecting them to be able to ride it after you’ve only given them a silent demonstration to show them what to do, but not explained how. Of course, they will probably get there with the bike riding, if you keep showing them and they keep practising, but if you explicitly explain how to ride it, at the same time as live modelling it, they will grasp it much faster and consequently be less likely to become demotivated.

Looking back, I can remember a number of times I expected students to be able to write academically, or learn a list of quotations, without really explaining to them how it was done. Ever set a student off on a task only for them to ask, “But how do I start it?” Yes, me too –  I can’t promise you that modelling your thinking will completely eradicate this, but it definitely helps. You are the expert – in articulating your expertise with students (as novices) you are supporting them develop their expertise.

Bear with me for a bit longer with the bike riding analogy! Initially, the learner begins with stabilisers, which supports them in the first stages of learning, as the expert guides them through how to ride. In the same way that you wouldn’t give someone who couldn’t ride a bike a quick demonstration of you riding it and then expect them to be able to grasp the skill, you can’t just get a student to watch you live model writing an essay and then expect them to be master essay writers. Instead, you need to explicitly explain the different stages so that they understand how and why you approach the task in the way you do.

For the learner cyclist, the thought is effortful and they have to concentrate in order to stay upright, pedal the bicycle successfully, and remain focussed on their initial goal. With practice, and by adapting different strategies, they become fluent and no longer have to think about how to ride, so the process of riding becomes automatic. As with learning in the classroom, the support (stabiliser) has to be removed for the student to become an independent learner. At this point, the completion of the task becomes more difficult and thus effortful; however, with guidance and practice it eventually becomes fluent and automatic and, like the child on the bicycle, the student has moved from being the beginner to the expert and developed their self-efficacy. Psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, described the process of a learner’s ability to successfully finish tasks with the help of a “more knowledgeable other” as the Zone of Proximal Development.

Making it interactive

The other reason I no longer think “live” modelling is an accurate reflection of what I do in the classroom is because it doesn’t fully articulate the role that students play in the process when you are explicitly modelling your thinking to them. I prefer the term “interactive modelling” because the strategy should also encourage students to remain active participants in the process. This can be done through questioning to get students thinking about, and explaining the reasoning behind, the choices we make. I’ve included more information on encouraging interactivity in my Interactive Modelling Top Tips. Sometimes, you do need students to observe quietly as you explain what and how you complete a task; however, this does not mean they are passive, like Gradgrindian students waiting to be filled up with knowledge. Instead they should be actively engaged and listening to the process.

In the classroom

Anyway, back to the practicalities – you can pretty much interactively model anything, but the key is to explain your thinking. For example, I’ve used it to explain how to: use spaced learning to remember information; create dual-coded revision cards; create effective plans and mind-maps; analyse a text; annotate a text; write academically; skim read, and assess work. The list of things you can model and articulating your thinking to, is not exhaustive, paper-based, or subject specific. Visualisers, and cheap webcams, are great for modelling marking student work and explaining to them how you are applying the success criteria. This can be done at any point during the lesson and the focus, when assessing a “volunteer’s” work, should always be positive – what was effective about their work and how they could make it even better?

To simply sum up both the interactivity & (crucially) the explicit explaining of the thought processes in modelling – I’ve redefined this practice as “metacognitive modelling” . However, I’ll leave the final word to another student from study because sometimes it’s not just about helping students be able to do something, sometimes it’s also about empowering students with the belief that they can take the stabilisers off and flourish. “I found learning how to structure the assignment by watching and listening to you or others who have got higher grades has boosted my self-confidence in how to structure a Macbeth assignment, or any assignment.”

References:

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood cliffs.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

Wider Reading:

You can read more about this acceptability study in my case study and metacognition in the classroom in general in Jennifer Webb’s excellent “The Metacognition Handbook”  https://funkypedagogy.com/books/

Don’t Be Afraid Of Live Modelling

https://researchschool.org.uk/durrington/news/mastering-modelling