Discerning Myths from Methods: University Faculty’s Understanding of Learning Science and Metacognition on Pedagogy

Download PDF Article Download Graphical Abstract Discerning Myths from Methods: University Faculty’s Understanding of Learning Science and Metacognition on Pedagogy Abstract This study assessed the pedagogical knowledge and metacognitive awareness of pedagogy of faculty (N = 107) at a large state university in the United States. The purpose was to ascertain whether faculty could distinguish effective learning practices from ineffective ones, as determined by empirical research in learning science. Faculty responded to items regarding the efficacy of effective practices and others shown by research to be neuromyths or misconceptions. Faculty across all colleges correctly identified most of the effective practices but also endorsed myths/misconceptions, ultimately showing limited pedagogical knowledge. Tenured faculty showed stronger pedagogical knowledge than newer faculty. Faculty were also assessed on their confidence in their knowledge of pedagogical practices. Respondents demonstrated poor metacognitive awareness as there was no relationship between confidence in pedagogical knowledge and actual pedagogical knowledge. Surprisingly, education faculty scored no better in pedagogical knowledge than faculty of any other college and also showed low metacognitive awareness. Results indicate that universities preparing doctoral students for faculty positions should ensure candidates are exposed to accurate information regarding learning science. The implications for colleges of education are more dire in that they may be failing to prepare candidates in the most essential aspects of the field. Keywords pedagogy, learning science, cognitive myths, metacognition, faculty, teaching methods JEL Classification I20, I21, I23 1. Introduction Teaching, whether at the university level or K-12 level, is generally considered to be comprised of two broad fields of knowledge: content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. There is little doubt as to the relative value of content knowledge because instructors would be unable to guide student learning on a subject they had little understanding of themselves. In this scenario the instructor would not be able to recognise or facilitate learning of accurate information, nor would the instructor be able to address misconceptions. Furthermore, without sufficient content knowledge the instructor also cannot effectively scaffold student learning (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020). In all fields, at the foundational level, content knowledge provides the structural groundwork for teaching and learning. The second of the two broad fields of knowledge essential to teaching, pedagogical knowledge, focuses on how humans learn and the processes that may best facilitate that learning. Pedagogical knowledge may entail sociocultural aspects of learning, such as an understanding of how the learning environment may impact the ways students respond to instruction or how language and culture influence a child’s construction of their own knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge also draws upon cognitive science, or more specifically, what has become known as the learning sciences. This would include knowledge about, for example, how memory processes unfold or how cognitive load may impact a student’s ability to learn unfamiliar information (Sweller, 1988). While there is no debate over the importance of content knowledge in teaching and learning, there is some question regarding whether sufficient attention is devoted to the psychological science on learning that underpins pedagogical knowledge (Cuevas, 2019; Willingham 2019). Certainly, the curricula for those who are preparing to be university instructors in any field, e.g., physics, history, etc., on content knowledge, as are to the of content knowledge In that prepare K-12 a more attention to how to the level and of the research over has shown that that be as cognitive (Kirschner & & large study (N = that or education and learning, were the was by of education and to science that of a in neuromyths learning & and other research has that neuromyths in may be to those in education & 2020). also the in neuromyths to be that are to those how humans learn are as as research to the would be instructors would be ineffective methods their to the that such methods student learning, they also the of shown to be in ineffective methods would the known to learning & that an understanding of pedagogy on learning science would be by two whether faculty were learning and whether they regarding how students In this study the level of pedagogical knowledge of faculty at a large state university in the United a teaching by their understanding of learning and learning. essential of this was to level of metacognitive awareness of their pedagogical knowledge, as an understanding of their own knowledge of how learning is to influence their to more effective practices Learning identified learning of were by research as to learning and of research has and would be as or misconceptions. In the learning for there would be little debate learning regarding their were not because the of their may on regarding their and as such may be effective in some but not in the of for students in content and of but is not in all The were to all content and The of what to be the research on of the learning in the of be in Myths and is as the ability to and in & & and a of on a for memory and cognitive load (Sweller, memory is an to and information over a of & and is as a cognitive load to the for information by memory (Sweller, and information the cognitive load the learning environment has this would cognitive the of a student to showed learning. research that in had a impact on college & and & an in cognitive and also that in cognitive as memory and cognitive load are by is to be to Learning The that learning and that instruction to learning is the most cognitive (Kirschner & & that on students learning instruction in across a of and in that all research has that learning not and that instruction to has no & the the that teaching to learning not learning & 2020). The of learning has identified as in education that and the of instruction across and college (Cuevas, some ways to such neuromyths and as and as a that were who may learn best that are not in empirical or by no that this of had learning and that the of is a as not effectively and the of knowledge and that students may how to the of or they from to to learning. and to the that students be to for learning as and not in learning the of that the empirical education research that the of students Learning In their learning and other methods of instruction such as learning and instruction are to on student from the instructor the of such of empirical research shown that instruction is not effective at student and is not the cognitive science on learning Learning is by in memory (Kirschner & Hendrick, could processes and to and memory (Cuevas, because students are unfamiliar on their own learning, such instruction a on memory (Kirschner cognitive to to information that effective methods should cognitive load and that that memory and cognitive as methods in learning (Kirschner & Hendrick, to an education student and a of learning and be as or in students because of in a from a or in learning a or a & to may in such as to learning & the of learning is on should on by students and learning and a relationship between and the of and that should on as a for learning. that were and of research on that they not learning or and should to learning. Learning and the has demonstrated that students in they are to information from & & indicate that the of is more effective than for and information & the of and and a is sufficient to stronger of information than not in at than a of empirical research on what is known as the has that the of as a or a of learning and to more study & that to the in but that learning across all content and are students are in to the also in and & of research that or information learning and of This is by a in and upon in The that humans two cognitive for information, and and that the two are there is an that for than would be of the & & Hendrick, 2020). The two are but are an because the two not cognitive would as as a of cognitive load low are to information and memory is to there two by (Kirschner & Hendrick, on research has for the processes that for to memory & & a of research from the of cognitive has the of on learning and for in & & & The of is to and two essential of learning & and and and for or information, specifically, information, information or or for and a for students to information their own are to such as & & and the of to & shown to be to students of and ability in a that is for student of research indicate that students in information a and is an effective in and content knowledge for such as instruction to in pedagogical as such as learning become more instruction has as the most effective of instruction (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020). The is comprised of such as the knowledge and to the of and processes for include of information and students had sufficient and become the of are aspects of and is by research in cognitive science and The for the of instruction is that the of teaching and learning there are to of two the of research for the and on student learning across over all subject the of and instruction on across a and that the of instruction were than or learning, an instructor or student between learning on the between study in stronger than and has shown learning to be effective across and in in in and that is the most for learning. In that information on between study and at that is not or in learning the has value to to students across such a of and that there is research the of as an little attention is devoted to in The purpose of this study was to the pedagogical knowledge of faculty at a large state university in the a teaching their knowledge of practices for there is research for or Faculty at research universities on research faculty at teaching universities the of their and to to knowledge of teaching at a university teaching, and pedagogy, is the because the of education is pedagogy, education would be to the understanding of faculty from all the university were purpose of the study was to metacognitive awareness by their confidence in their pedagogical knowledge and whether their their actual level of knowledge. The is that faculty showed confidence but low knowledge and low of metacognition, they would be of their misconceptions. a such faculty would be to or that may ultimately their on the other faculty showed stronger metacognition, low confidence and also low knowledge, they would be more to to the of their content because they would be of their in that they showed confidence and of knowledge, this would be the scenario and should in learning as as the faculty also had sufficient understanding of content and awareness. The study was by the research faculty a understanding of regarding learning as by cognitive learning faculty the most of they to or they to there in the level of knowledge of learning practices between faculty from faculty from education than faculty in other in this there faculty from content who a for in or for not of learning there in the level of knowledge of learning practices between faculty to university faculty metacognitive awareness of their level of knowledge of teaching and learning and were from faculty at a university comprised of in the United a of students and faculty at the of The is to be and of faculty are a low of faculty. to the Classification the university is & The of the students and the the university are at the level, but the also and doctoral The a of colleges for a state and and Science and and University The were comprised of faculty (N = 107) from college at the The of by college were to the relative of college = = = = = = to their Respondents were to = = = = or and two to all faculty to the (N = identified as identified as identified as or and not to on were not The study a that on for the essential were of and The study not include an and were a were a an of knowledge was as the of that would more be the of a The Learning was by the to students and faculty across all The is by the to colleges and universities across the United and was to on such as the and and more of the and be in and this study the to the faculty of the The faculty of the for this study was comprised of and information, in such as research and and The of the items a some items and The items were comprised of were to the by the the items in to address of The items for this study were in the and were two pedagogical knowledge items or confidence in pedagogical knowledge. The and of the items are Pedagogical pedagogical knowledge, a was The of and learning and learning that by The the learning learning, the efficacy of the efficacy of and the of The learning of the and The was that pedagogical knowledge could be assessed two how an learning and how effective they were The items were limited by two to the of the were able to a of items because of over and the of a and there to and research for or as to science as this second there are learning or that may efficacy in some but not and this was the could not ensure that the of the items was the of the items on the they were on a from to the were scored as or for the effective learning that they were effective by or they were the they or they were an for the and or that they were that was as an they or that they were this was scored as a The be in in Pedagogical In psychological and or metacognitive awareness has by confidence in their knowledge, or on a a and an to ascertain whether the two are & the their actual knowledge level, this would indicate the their own knowledge as and they scored on the they would shown metacognitive awareness. they their own knowledge as low and scored low on the this would also metacognitive awareness because the would an accurate and would be that they were not of the In an would poor there was a or no between their and the could be that the assessed as low of knowledge but scored on the may be the the from or was of their own In this the their knowledge or the more of a of metacognitive awareness would be a between the two to the their own knowledge on the but on the on the In they would to be in their knowledge level was not recognise their own of knowledge to a limited understanding of the field. This is a research known as the & a their own and is that they sufficient knowledge of a that they of knowledge that they is known as & 2019). metacognitive awareness regarding knowledge of pedagogical practices and learning, a confidence items research on learning and the influence this has on their confidence in their knowledge of best confidence in their of best and their pedagogical practices to their items were on a In this a was for faculty that a of their and knowledge of best practices in to student learning. This was to a between confidence level in pedagogical knowledge and actual pedagogical knowledge as determined by the on the pedagogical knowledge items to the level of metacognitive awareness of faculty in to learning for the for this was The be in Results for Pedagogical by and In to address the research question to the faculty understanding of the pedagogical a was for all (N = could from the all to all were that pedagogical were effective or the that the or were effective learning practices. were for The across all faculty on the pedagogical knowledge items was the of the = This not indicate pedagogical knowledge and that faculty than of the items correctly on in the the for the pedagogical items of faculty are by the and & University of 1. Pedagogical by The second question the knowledge of effective learning practices in of learning they demonstrated the most and understanding faculty from all the or items that instructors scored most on were learning and learning of they those practices to learning. than the faculty the correctly on and While faculty were not effective at to pedagogy, they were more accurate in effective all faculty that instruction and are to students Furthermore, faculty the importance of to a and The of by learning across all faculty and to college be in in are on for college a faculty not all the but in the faculty to all the of and and the of Science and had who not the in was by Faculty from the of who should the most regarding pedagogy, scored than faculty in other colleges regarding and were more to recognise that learning is ineffective of faculty scored to faculty from other colleges on all the other for the and and the effective practices. of faculty were regarding the of for learning Faculty across colleges were able to effective such as and but scored regarding and Learning Faculty (N & (N = of (N = (N = Science (N = Science and (N = University (N = Learning Learning = = effective on Learning Faculty and Pedagogical by the research to whether there were in pedagogical knowledge regarding the to field. In were in whether education faculty showed stronger pedagogical knowledge to faculty from other fields pedagogy is the content of education of the for the by college and the of faculty from the colleges were between and of a There was no college faculty more than the of faculty who not to their college scored in pedagogical knowledge than those from the of Faculty from all other colleges education faculty regarding their level of pedagogical knowledge. ascertain whether there were in pedagogical knowledge to field, faculty were by college and were from the pedagogical knowledge as the all across were as the of of was not in any of the Results no in pedagogical knowledge between faculty from colleges = = = an of the that education faculty not faculty from other that all faculty from across the university scored regarding pedagogical knowledge across all the to whether there were in pedagogical knowledge to regarding the and or the effective practices. that there were no by college in the myths/misconceptions, = = = or the effective = = faculty from all colleges demonstrated of knowledge of and effective practices. were because faculty from the of would be to in pedagogical knowledge for and effective practices pedagogical knowledge is to their field. this was not the There would be no to faculty from the other colleges to better or than any other college pedagogical knowledge generally not their of study or Pedagogical by of was whether faculty regarding pedagogical knowledge to may be considered a of teaching Respondents were by and were on pedagogical knowledge, myths/misconceptions, and effective practices as faculty were in the by were for pedagogical knowledge, = = = and for the myths/misconceptions, = = = but not for the effective = = = pedagogical knowledge, identified that = = and = scored than Furthermore, scored than = The for that were better able to correctly more than = and instructors = and to more and more of in instruction on regarding may be in and that in the was between and in and the was between and and the for faculty at all the = for who scored that = Pedagogical by Pedagogical by for Myths and Pedagogical by for of Pedagogical was whether faculty demonstrated metacognitive awareness of their own of pedagogical knowledge. in the metacognition, or metacognitive has by level of confidence in their own knowledge or on an of that knowledge or ability and a to whether their actual knowledge or on the this the on the in Pedagogical and their on the Pedagogical to for a relationship between the the metacognitive awareness of pedagogy for all faculty who a a = = metacognitive awareness is shown there is a between confidence or of their own knowledge or ability and actual in those or no would indicate poor in that the of their own knowledge or not their actual in the was the across all faculty in the In to faculty in the of who would pedagogical knowledge and awareness of their own of in the no between their level of and their actual level of pedagogical knowledge, = = also for in metacognitive awareness between faculty on no were on this more faculty showing no awareness in this than newer faculty. faculty confidence that their teaching was by their effective teaching practices and not that other faculty had better knowledge of those practices While faculty of effective they also endorsed and regarding pedagogy, they scored the The of this study were to pedagogical knowledge, as a of effective practices and of faculty at a large state university and to their metacognitive awareness regarding their own practices. In to whether to as by and by as a for in The a of faculty who to all the pedagogical they were as of whether those were or or were effective This in a in faculty correctly effective practices as to learning but also endorsed and misconceptions. This that faculty at the university in this study are in their regarding ineffective practices and practices by research This is research that to in neuromyths a of to the & Faculty the of the pedagogical items most in the of and as effective practices. example, of faculty learning and learning to be to student learning, more than were and The that the of faculty correctly was the of most as ineffective the effective the of faculty correctly the efficacy of and a the of and While faculty demonstrated an understanding that are also of the and are This may indicate that instructors are not between effective and ineffective a research & that faculty may ineffective this is the is that teaching methods may be in college as at the level, & The were regarding the pedagogical knowledge of faculty to not how faculty at would was that may stronger pedagogical knowledge to more in that some faculty may at other universities or positions faculty may not more would be that newer faculty would be more learning science than because they had more exposed to the research their The scenario more to be the than the and in pedagogical knowledge. While faculty of all regarding effective were to and than and faculty across to regarding effective practices. the more or faculty were more to and than faculty. on is that are not exposed to accurate learning science in their doctoral and that and are at that The most of this study in Surprisingly, of faculty, is in pedagogy, not better understanding of than faculty from other the of learning, education faculty were as to and learning and no more to recognise practices by In the was not education faculty scored in pedagogical knowledge than the faculty from of the other faculty across the university showed a of metacognitive awareness in to their pedagogical knowledge. The of a between faculty confidence in their knowledge of teaching and learning practices and their actual knowledge of those practices a limited understanding of their own knowledge in the In in their knowledge of pedagogy was not to actual of knowledge on the This was of faculty from the of as low of knowledge of confidence in that knowledge are to their and ways to their knowledge or In this such faculty would be to upon or learn over The between actual knowledge and confidence in own knowledge was by the of faculty, who that others at the university not more pedagogical than themselves. In this in their teaching but may also be for that the of faculty were in and in fields in learning science was not to their a that there were no others at the university more in pedagogy could to faculty are in more effective methods or learning research on teaching practices. This may that of K-12 education may limited instruction in learning science and ultimately to on to guide their This of confidence low of knowledge, the & The most in the of knowledge on a subject those little and their knowledge to be in a they limited of the study is that the cannot be as the of demonstrated what be the because confidence actual knowledge Faculty in an field, most from research this that the not to those the of knowledge or those knowledge is their field. In this all had of and some knowledge of the learning sciences. that learning science on pedagogy is that those teaching may limited of knowledge of at the confidence their the is to that there is no to that the are or to the university that as the of the as the were not at this The of faculty at the university their from what are considered to be research the as is that their at the universities who positions teaching at other would this may indicate in the of university faculty for teaching of the study was that the to knowledge of pedagogical practices was to There were two for as an of a were limited in the of items were able to be that items are not to a of pedagogical without to ascertain the of a of effective practices and for more of pedagogical knowledge. The second for the limited of pedagogical items was that was to for there was an of research to the that could the science to be and were not to or content a such as is across but research has most to instruction & and is how may to language or practices the of shown to be but for and in the of pedagogical knowledge was limited to a of practices. was the question of how is the research in that level of and there may be debate and for for determined there was the of and the of empirical to upon such as those by the or a of in (Kirschner & Hendrick, of is by of who may of are in the and of the to the limited the of the in Pedagogical was not as as would = was by of the items to ascertain whether the to be more in any as a but the was by all could upon this by stronger items or from the the of the would was was that the were from large state university and the was to faculty as faculty were at a of the of research not the as limited to a of the that was the of the that their to at a of such as and research as as in K-12 In the a in faculty not a understanding of pedagogical are effective in to those are not to learning science, they that they Faculty were able to correctly effective practices but could not distinguish those from and and the of such as learning and learning indicate that faculty may not be the most teaching The limited of metacognitive awareness that such faculty may be to better methods they are that a of they not learning. is that those faculty from the colleges of and and would not be as of the cognitive science learning as their doctoral was on the of knowledge and research to their the is more for those in the of The for faculty from colleges are University that prepare candidates to be college faculty ensure that they include to faculty research on learning and how cognitive science teaching practices in most universities for teaching and learning to as for faculty, in the of should to the most and accurate information and shown by learning science to be misconceptions. two are at that they be The regarding for colleges of education are more Pedagogy is the content of colleges of education prepare K-12 K-12 and and university who their in in colleges of education are not of the most teaching and learning their students also not become of K-12 and at because all of the education faculty at the university in this study their from a of that the may be and may not for level of pedagogical knowledge, may learning such as learning is in in the of 2020). the efficacy of by colleges of education and to those they were in should those in to and the of colleges of in to to for colleges of education and state of education in the may not be their of that their teaching and learning practices. should not be sufficient to to a should be what to student learning in to become better but that is not those teaching at the university level not a understanding of of learning. in the would be for universities and colleges to the and curricula to ensure that attention was devoted to on how learning This would the to such This may entail universities instructors that may not be at the in to that faculty who may not