This "OAGC Page" supplements my proposal – Use Metacognitive Thinking Strategies to improve Learning and Problem Solving – and I'm hoping it will be helpful for members of the Conference Program Subcommittee.  Before continuing, here is...

a personal update, written May 2:  I'm an enthusiastic educator who has been especially excited since early-April when my focus shifted from other topics back to my core interest of improving our Education for Problem Solving, in ways that include helping students improve their developing-and-using of metacognitive strategies.  I've been rereading my Edu-HomePage and (as usual) being inspired by creative ideas to revise it.  The ideas kept coming faster than my writing speed, leading to many iou's.  Then I began thinking about how much I enjoyed (and learned from) the 2024 OAGC Fall Conference and — discovering that the deadline to submit a proposal for 2025 hadn't passed — decided "yes, I want to do this."  Since then I've been revising this page (although today it became finished) and my website, mainly the HomePage and Metacognitive Education for Gifted Students but also other pages.  Many iou's remain, and during May I'll continue developing-and-revising the website.    

 

This page provides useful extra information, plus links to sections (mostly in the HomePage of my website about Education for Problem Solving) for explanations that are more complete than in the two descriptions (Short & Detailed) below.   The Detailed Description ends with personal information:

 

It could be useful to read my bio-page about "life on a road less traveled." ...   The OAGC-Page explains why this might be relevant when evaluating my proposal,  and why I'm hoping we can build a community of educators who want to discuss options for using metacognition to improve education.

Here is "extra information" with two explanations for why :

 

1) The "road less traveled" has provided many benefits.  But it makes me "unknown" within OAGC, so you should be thinking "who is this guy?" and "is he competent?* can we trust him?"  By contrast, most other proposers already have been externally evaluated.  For example, you know a person is competent & trustworthy when a district has hired them (as a classroom teacher, intervention specialist, coordinator, or director) in their program for gifted students.  With me this valuable information is missing, but you can get other info in my bio-page.

* I've done many presentations (in talks with questions-and-responses) plus formal discussions and poster sessions, most recently with talk/Q&R in a seminar for OSU Engineering Education (2022), and earlier (2014-15-16) with Round-Table Discussions {descriptions + handouts} for California STEM Symposium,* while I was living in Anaheim serving as caregiver for Mom in our family home.  When she died at 95 (after a long-and-good life) I returned to Madison WI, then moved to Columbus in 2022.   /   A "bonus" I'll do is to make the first slide interesting — with my favorite diagram (in the non-gray part) + questions — so participants can "begin thinking about the ideas early" before the session officially begins.    /   * In 2014 I was surprised that my proposal was accepted, because I had no "school position" and "wasn't known by anyone."  But evidently the evaluators thought my ideas were innovative-and-valuable so they decided "yes, we want these ideas to be part of our program."

 

2) And here are two possibilities to consider:

     You were chosen to be on the Program Subcommittee, so you know other educators and you could help "build a community of educators who want to discuss options for using metacognition to improve education" for gifted students and for others.  I'm hoping this will happen.  While considering my request you would be doing two more evaluations, to decide if this kind of community is worth facilitating, and (if yes) who to contact;  then they can make further decisions.  If others want to explore possibilities, we could begin with informal discussions just to share ideas – with no collaborations expected – although I think co-creating better education might be a beneficial result.

     If another person is proposing a conference session about using metacognition for education – or if you invite someone by asking "are you interested?" – maybe we could cooperate to coordinate what we're doing, by just mentioning the session (and some ideas) of the other speaker, or with informal co-contributing.   Or even by sharing a session as co-presenters;  I can imagine how this might be productive, even though I have plenty of ideas (more than enough) to fill a session by myself.

 

&&&&&   Short Description   &&&&&

 

       Use Metacognitive Thinking Strategies to improve Learning and Problem Solving

      Give students educationally useful experiences, and use metacognitive thinking strategies (self-questioning, reflection, SRL, my problem-solving model,...) to help them learn more from their experiences, improve their knowledge and skills.  Use the wide scope of "problem solving" to build motivational transfer-bridges (from school into life) throughout the curriculum.

 

 

Dr. Craig Rusbult   —   craigru57@yahoo.com

 

&&&&&   Detailed Description   &&&&&

 

[ If this proposal is accepted, ]  my session will use key ideas from the HomePage of my website, Education for Problem Solving, but topics won't necessarily be in the order you see below.    /    I've made an OAGC-Page for reviewers [it's this page] with extra information, and links to details in the HomePage.

 

Here are some plans for designing the presentation:

• A re-sequencing of topics — to make the session a "real-time experience" that is more enjoyable & productive for participants — will be part of the improving that occurs in the next 5+ months.  The final result (in October) will be a revision of what is outlined below.  And...

• Here are three "big picture" ideas that will be emphasized:

   1) general Metacognitive Strategies (MC Strategies) are valuable in many ways, and...

   2) these general MC Strategies can be effectively combined with specific MC Strategies – using my model for problem-solving Design Process – that offer significant "added value" to what-and-how students are learning.   /   #2 is the bulk of what's below, with #1 at the beginning and — much more briefly than in the session, where it will be carefully examined & discussed — #3 at the end.

   3) Maybe both kinds of MC Strategies can be smoothly implemented.  Maybe.  Although I'm very confident about #1 and #2, unfortunately there are rational reasons to avoid an explicit teaching of MC Strategies but there are rational reasons to predict that implementation will be easier when we use MC Strategies for Gifted Students.

Returning to the Detailed Description,

  [MOU1] 

metacognitive Self-Regulation is effective:   When metacognitive Self-Regulation — combining Metacognition (to observe thinking) and Self-Regulation (to observe & control feeling and behaviors) — is applied for learning (as in Self-Regulated Learning, SRL) and this is done well, it produces a variety of useful benefits, especially for gifted students.    [ Oops - I don't know if claiming "especially for gifted students" is justified by evidence.  But there is evidence that all kinds of students benefit when they do metacognition well, and their metacognition generally improves when it's explicitly taught.  And I think many gifted students will be especially motivated to improve their metacognition.

SRL Cycles and my Problem-Solving Process:   My simplest model for Problem-Solving Process (i.e. for Design Process) has a Cycle of Generating Options (for a Problem-Solution) and Evaluating Options;   and we ask "revise Option?" before re-Generating.  Basically this is [equivalent to] the Plan-Monitor-Adjust in an SRL Cycle.     [ "Plan-Monitor-Adjust" is changed to the more common "Plan-Monitor-Evaluate" in my section comparing SRL with Design Process that shows their essential equivalence, and explains how with each strategy you Plan (mentally) and Do (physically) in iterative cycles. ]

Define and Solve:   In my Design Process, first you Define a Problem by choosing an Objective (for what to improve), understanding the Now-Situation, defining Goals for a better Goal-Situation.  Then Solve the Problem by Generating Options & Evaluating Options, in iterative Design Cycles (Generate-Evaluate-Generate-Evaluate-...) until you decide that an Option is a satisfactory Problem-Solution.
The overall change is...   The Now-Situation  —[process of Problem Solving]—>  A Goal-Situation.     { MORE about my model for Design Process, with Define-and-Solve plus Quality Checks & Reality Checks}

use Quality Checks and Reality Checks:   When people solve problems, we Evaluate an Option by comparing 3 elements (Predictions & Observations, Goals) in 3 Comparisons that are Evaluations.  We do Quality Checks (by comparing Predictions with Goals, or Observations with Goals, asking The Design Question, "how close is the matching?" with Quality defined by Goals;  mismatches stimulate-and-guide creative Generation of a new Option) for General Design.   In a similar way, we do Reality Checks (comparing Predictions with Observations, asking The Science Question, "am I surprised?") for Science-Design.    /    In my favorite diagram (it has a link in OAGC Page) students can see-and-understand the logical integrating of Design-with-Science in my model,  helping them develop a logical integrating of Design-with-Science in their thinking.

 

Performing and/or Learning:   When you want your best possible performance now, you have a Performance Objective.  When you want your best possible learning now – so you can improve your best possible performing later – you have a Learning Objective.       { For example, a basketball team wants to learn well in an early-season practice, and perform well in a late-season tournament game. }   [ By adding an important aspect of life, the objectives become Performing and/or Learning, plus Enjoying. ]

Metacognitive Regulation for Problem Solving:   Design Process is an extension of my PhD work to develop a model for Scientific Method and use it to analyze C&I.  Is there a method?  Yes and No.  The "No" is because no single method is used by all people in all situations.  While designing we use flexible goal-directed improvising, analogous to a hockey skater but not a rigidly choreographed figure skater.  During a process of solving, your improvised Action-Decisions about "what to do next" (considering urgency & importance) are guided by Observations (of current Now-Situation compared with a Goal-Situation) and Conditional Knowledge about an Action's functional capabilities (what it achieves) and its conditions-of-application (for when it's useful);  this Coordinating of Actions converts creative-and-critical thinking skills into process skills,  so they can use time more effectively & design a better Solution.

Regulation of Metacognition:   While doing Metacognitive Regulation, we Regulate Metacognition by deciding when to use metacognition (or to avoid it & just think – this can be especially useful when you have a Performance Objective) and how to use it.    [ Regulating Metacognition is an extremely important skill.  I think it's fascinating, have studied many aspects of it – including Tim Gallwey's "Inner Game" approach – in the context of teaching-and-doing many kinds of physical & mental skills – for tennis, juggling, improvising, learning, problem solving,... ]  

getting more and learning more:   If education is "learning from life-experiences," better education is learning more from experiences.  We can help students get more experiences (of the kinds that are educationally useful) and help them learn more from their experiences, with metacognitive strategies;  e.g. a sequence of ERP (Experiences + Reflection –> Principles) uses process-of-inquiry to teach principles-for-inquiry.

In my edu-HomePage an important set of sections is developing-and-using a growth mindset  plus (re: the topics above)  getting more & learning more  –  developing-and-using effective metacognition  –  regulating metacognition to make it more effective  –  education that improves metacognition. }

 

what we design:   For a design project (i.e. a problem-solving project) the objective can be to design (to find, improve, or invent) a better product, activity, relationship, and/or strategy [usually involving decisions] (in General Design) and/or (in Science-Design) a better explanatory theory.  These problem-solving objectives – extending far beyond traditional "design fields" – include almost everything students do in School, and in Life.

two wide scopes for Problem Solving:   With my broad definitions — a problem is an opportunity (in any area of life) to make things better, and problem solving happens whenever we make something better — almost all that we do is a Problem-Solving Activity.  And a similar Problem-Solving Process is used for almost all that we do;  it's similar but not identical, like "variations on a theme" in music.

wide scopes improve transfers:   Using research-based principles (summarized in How People Learn) we expect transfers-of-learning to increase when we teach knowledge in multiple contexts (in a variety of PS Activities) and we teach knowledge in an easily-generalizable form (with similar PS Process).

two kinds of transfer:    Using metacognition in Design Process will help a student increase their transfers-of-learning Between Areas (inside School & in many areas of their Life) and Through Time (from the Past & Present into their Future).

wide scopes –> building bridges:   If a student believes these two transfers will occur, they can think "if I improve my School-Learning, it will improve my Life-Living, will help me achieve my goals for Life," giving them personal motivations to learn in school, and personal confidences ([by developing-and-using] a growth mindset) that they can improve the quality of their learning-thinking-doing in all areas of Life.  They are building bridges from their current School-Life into their future Whole-Life, in their short-term future now (e.g. this week) and long-term future later.  They think "making my education better makes my life better," so they want to improve their own Personal Education, to make it (and their life) better.

 

coping with challenges:   Can teachers effectively teach metacognitive strategies?  and do this with  reasonable time investments?  Richard Cohen (primary author of The Metacognitive Student) says Yes-and-Yes,* claiming that teaching general metacognitive strategies is easy to learn and easy to implement with training that "can be done in a day," fits into any curriculum, works at any age level, lets teachers choose to use metacognitive strategies a little or a lot, for personally customized scaling.     [* These claims are made in the book, and during an interview;  iou - I'll finish writing this tonight, May 9, and will link to the exact locations within the interview-video. ]

general strategies and specific strategies:   Teachers can use only general strategies (e.g. those of Cohen, or SRL ,...) or combine these with specific strategies (e.g. Design Process).  A combining offers many educational benefits, and I'll explain how a school (and its teachers) can do this effectively.     [ principles for combining Design Process with other strategies ]

questions about challenges:   I'll ask participants to discuss the pros & cons of using metacognitive strategies (general or combined) for an Ideas-and-Skills Curriculum with ideas, skills, skills-with-ideas. And to discuss possibilities for coping with the challenges of effective implementation.    [[ some

 

 

Your guidelines say "do not send vitae" but it could be useful to read my bio-page that tells the story of "my life on a road less traveled" and why "I have mixed feelings about the results."  The OAGC-Page explains why this might be relevant when evaluating my proposal,  and why I'm hoping we can build a community of educators who want to discuss options for using metacognition to improve education.     [ the two explanations for why ]

 

 

&&&&&&&&&&  end of page  &&&&&&&&&&