Classroom-based interventions to improve students' learning capital

In this paper we argue that one component of students’ intellectual wellbeing is the quality of the students’ meta-knowledge about learning, that is, their “learning capital. ” Learning capital refers to students’ knowledge of, and capabilities for, learning. Following Mayer (1998), we see learning capital as extending across the interconnected domains of students’ knowledge about motivation, cognition and metacognition, which interact and impact on students’ capabilities for problemsolving in learning situations. Pressley (1995) pointed out that poor learners are often deficient in some areas of cognition, metacognition and motivation and “interaction between these component deficiencies compound difficulties” (p5). We purposefully selected, from the larger sample reported in this symposium, a year 9 science class of 28 students to comprise the intervention group. We worked with the students' class teacher to deliver learning capital improvement modules embedded in regular class lessons, that were delivered as part of regular science lessons. The main focus of the learning capital modules was to prompt students to organise and elaborate the subject-matter information, using diagrams and concept maps, in order to more effectively encode and subsequently retrieve knowledge. The modules included discussions of learning capital and explicit attention to the metalanguage of the psychology of instruction. We collected pre-and post intervention questionnaire data, and students work samples and academic results. We also gathered parallel data about students’ life at school and students’ mental health status from the class teacher and the students’ parents/caregivers. We provide a micro-level analysis of changes in students’ employment of diagrams and concept maps during learning activities. We report summary statistics of students', teacher and parents/caregivers’ questionnaire responses and examine changes in students’ learning capital across time Classroom-based interventions to improve students’ learning capital Introduction One component of students’ intellectual wellbeing is the quality of the students’ meta-knowledge about learning, that is, their “learning capital. ” Learning capital refers to students’ knowledge of, and capabilities for, learning. Following Mayer (1998), we see learning capital as extending across the interconnected domains of students’ knowledge about motivation, cognition and metacognition, which interact and impact on students’ capabilities for problem-solving to facilitate effective learning. Pressley (1995) pointed out that poor learners often lack knowledge in some of the areas of cognition, metacognition and motivation, and that “interaction between these component deficiencies compound difficulties” (p5). Early work by Reimann and Chi (1989), and Glasser (1989) argued for recognition of the interaction between subject-matter knowledge and learning strategy knowledge, suggesting that learners need knowledge in the different knowledge domains (content-based and process-based) that contribute to thinking during problem solving for learning. Berthold, Nuckles and Renkl (2007) suggested that more work needs to be done on convincing students of the value of cognitive and metacognitive prompts for learning success. Our interest has been to design and apply, in authentic classroom settings, instructional interventions to improve students’ learning capital. In designing our instructional interventions we were informed by Mayer’s (1998) three stages of knowledge acquisition, namely: focussing attention on the key ideas, organisation of key ideas, and elaborative processing of the subject-matter information in order to achieve integration of knowledge. Diagramming and concept mapping are recommended techniques for different stages of the learning process, including knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation for problem solving, and knowledge retrieval (Hilbert & Renkl, 2008; Mintzes & Novak, 2000; White & Gunstone, 1992). Work by Novak and colleagues (Edmondson, 2000; Mintzes & Novak, 2000; J. D. Novak, Mintzes, & Wandersee, 2000) has demonstrated that concept mapping and other visual representations such as Vee-diagrams can facilitate learning due to the need to organise nodes (concepts) hierarchically or heterarchically, and the need to make the links, or interrelationships between the nodes explicit. Hilbert and Renkl (2008) differentiate four main functions of concept mapping that are salient when concept maps are used to learn from text. These four functions are: elaboration; reduction; coherence; and metacognition. Note there is substantial overlap between Hilbert and Renkl’s four functions and the categories identified from Mayer’s work above. Using concept mapping, or diagramming, as tools to provoke and to support functions for learning is hypothesised to promote substantial gains in students’ learning performance (Hilbert & Renkl, 2008; Mintzes & Novak, 2000; J. D. Novak, 1990; J. D. Novak et al., 2000; Pearsall, Skipper, & Mintzes, 1997; White & Gunstone, 1992). However, although the observed benefits of creating visual representations of material to be learned, or material to be employed when problem solving for learning, has been promoted for some time now, our observations in classrooms suggested that relatively few students appeared to self-generate visual representation strategies during learning. For example, in our survey of 1372 Year 7, 8 and 9 students across four metropolitan schools in Adelaide in 2008, in response to the question: Mark whether you agree or disagree with the statement, “I draw pictures or diagrams to help me understand [my best] subject. ” Thirty per cent of students gave a “Strongly disagree” response. Table 1 displays the total range of students’ responses to that question, suggesting that concept mapping and diagramming are not frequently used strategies by this cohort of students. Table 1: Student response frequencies for drawing pictures or diagrams. Score Frequency Valid Percent Strongly disagree 1 412 30.03 2 213 15.52 3 201 14.65 4 250 18.22 5 111 8.09 6 94 6.85 Strongly agree 7 91 6.63 Total 1372 100.00 * missing=1 I draw pictures or diagrams to help me understand [my best] subject Two possible hypotheses suggest why this relatively low use of visual representation strategies might be the case. The first might be that many students do not self-generate visual strategies to support their learning. If this is the case students need explicit teaching and guided practice in such techniques, as well as evidence that such strategies are valuable for learning. A second hypothesis is that teachers either do not feel equipped, or do not value, or feel they do not have space in the curriculum, to teach strategies such as drawing diagrams and concept maps. Thus teachers may also need explicit instruction in strategies for creating visual representations, evidence of the value of such strategies, and ways of embedding into their regular teaching supportive instructional strategies that do not consume (seemingly unavailable) curriculum time. Thus, in this paper, we focus our attention on explicitly teaching diagramming and concept mapping as tools to promote focussing, organisation and elaborative processing, and metacognitive monitoring, of knowledge, The particular strategy we adopted was to embed into the curriculum of regular class lessons explicit teaching of diagramming and concept mapping without substantially taking time away from the class teacher’s typical plans for the science lesson. In addition, we attempted to embed in the regular science lessons, using the set science text and the teacher’s usual lesson delivery, opportunities to provide students with guided practice in drawing diagrams and concept maps to represent organise and elaborate knowledge. In summary, our research questions were: 1. Can we design and embed into regular class lessons instructional interventions that will provoke students to make more use of diagramming and concept mapping as strategies for learning? 2. What changes can be observed in students’ use of diagramming and concept mapping as our instructional intervention progresses? Method Context The executive staff of one of our secondary school Australian Research Council Linkage grant partners expressed an interest in incorporating learning strategy instruction into the programmed curriculum for a Year 9 science class. The school is a large public secondary school in South Australia and had over 220 students in year 9 in 2008. The students’ families range from lower to upper socio-economic status families, with 12% of students eligible for fee support (school card). A Year 9 science teacher volunteered to collaborate with the researchers in the design and delivery of an integrated science learning strategy curriculum over three school terms in 2008. Students in the class were 14 or 15 years old, with 11 girls and 16 boys, mostly of Caucasian heritage. One student had a negotiated learning plan to accommodate identified learning difficulties. Thirteen students, (of 28) and their parents/caregivers, from the selected class provided consent for us to report their responses in publications leading from the research. Instructional Interventions and data collected Over school terms 2, 3 and 4 of 2008 the researchers attended one or two Year 9 science lessons per week. In some lessons the researchers observed the lesson and assisted students as requested with their class work. In addition, on pre-arranged occasions, but still in regularly scheduled lessons, the researchers explicitly delivered learning strategy instruction to the class of students and collected student work samples to form the data base for this study. The learning strategy instruction delivered during term 2 is the focus of this paper, and was constructed around the instructional aim of: “Building students’ learning capital: Using diagrams and concept maps to