Once students easily identified where in their learning these metacognitive components took place, I introduced them to metacognitive questions related to each component. For instance, a question relating to task knowledge could be, “What materials or resources do I need?” A possible question for strategy knowledge is, “Is the strategy I’m using working?” Students then collaboratively sorted the metacognitive questions under the headers Personal Knowledge, Task Knowledge, and Strategy Knowledge. Finally, students discussed which questions were appropriate during the Plan stage, the Monitor stage, and the Evaluate stage of learning.
Students were then introduced to a bookmark containing a checklist encompassing each component of metacognition within the Plan−Monitor−Evaluate framework. In the beginning lessons I modeled and did Think-Alouds using the bookmark several times, together with a cloze format of guiding questions to help students come up with other questions that may be appropriate. Students then practiced use of the bookmark. The bookmark was reviewed each day and throughout the lesson as a method of ensuring we were on task; students were gradually given greater responsibility answering the questions themselves.
To help students further internalize this learning structure I made sure that any anchor charts I created followed the Plan−Monitor−Evaluate structure. For example, when focusing on the reading strategy of determining importance, I created an anchor chart listing each of the steps of the strategy under the Plan−Monitor−Evaluate headers:
Plan: What is my purpose for reading? What am I supposed to find out?
Monitor: Does what I’m reading match my purpose? Does this detail help me understand the main idea better?
Evaluate: Does the information I gathered meet my purpose? Can I summarize the most important parts of what I read?
After a six-week period, when students were more comfortable using the bookmark to guide their processes, the general education classroom teacher then began to use the bookmarks with the students during small groups.
Data
Data were collected over an eight-week period for classroom assessments in reading comprehension and math problem solving assessments with two-step word problems. Data were also collected to measure the frequency that student prompting was required to determine if improvements in student independence were made. Students using the strategy showed an improvement of 48 percent on math assessments and 42 percent on reading assessments. (Student performance in math was significantly lower at baseline than in reading.) Students showed a significantly greater decline in the frequency of prompting in a small group setting outside of the general education classroom—a 60 percent decline—than inside the general education classroom—a 34 percent decline. However, it should be noted that data measuring student independence with the checklist in the classroom were gathered for the first two weeks of generalization, whereas data for independence in the self-contained setting were gathered for six weeks.
Student Feedback
P., fifth-grade student with Other Hearing Impairment (OHI) due to ADHD:
“The bookmark helped me a lot figure out how to do what I need to do. I don’t need to sit all confused anymore.”
B., fourth-grade student with Specific Learning Disability (SLD):
“At first I didn’t like it because it was a lot of steps to do and think, but then I started liking it because it actually made work easier. I didn’t realize it made it easier until I lost my bookmark though. Stuff was harder all over again, but I asked for a new one.”
L., fourth-grade student with SLD:
“It looked like a lot but then it helped me make things make sense. I knew what to do.”
FIGURE 1.6 Cognitive/Metacognitive Strategy Instruction Poster
SOURCE: Sharpe, Strosnider, & Toso, 2017.
FIGURE 1.7 Cognitive/Metacognitive Strategy Instruction Bookmark (Front and Back)
SOURCE: Toso, 2015.
Supportive Technologies
Since technology is useful in leveling the field for accessibility to learning and helps to meet the diverse learning needs of all students, each chapter of this book will address specific websites, software, and apps that support executive function skill training. We use technology as a tool to complement the strategies we teach. We choose technology tools that address multiple age groups. Please note that technology resources are developed daily. CommonsenseMedia.org is an excellent resource for teachers seeking information regarding current technology for their students. Below is an example of the supportive technology table provided in each chapter.
TABLE 1.4
The 7-Step Model for Executive Function Skills Training
Based on observations during our decades of experience, we the authors have developed a 7-Step Model for executive function skills training incorporating UDL and metacognition. This model is potentially evidenced-based, as supported by our observations, data collection and informal assessments regarding the student’s ability to learn and correctly use the strategies. By addressing both learning strengths and difficulties, this approach is effective for all types of learners. The seven steps, which are explored in detail in the remainder of this chapter, are shown in figure 1.8, 7-Step Model. The completion of the steps within the model is a flexible process in that some steps may have already been accomplished when you start the process. For example, you may already know that a student has been identified with an executive function deficit in a specific area. This knowledge would eliminate step 1 of the model process. Each step of the model should be regarded as a tool to prompt your thinking in terms of how to help the student learn. This may require an open mind to different approaches to instructional planning. In addition, a Modified 7-Step Model is included later in this chapter to address the needs of teachers who wish to implement the model with an entire class.
Subsequent chapters of this book walk the reader through the 7-Step process, using examples of students of different ages who exhibit typical executive function skill deficits. The components of each step are modeled for the teacher.
FIGURE 1.8 The 7-Step Model and 7-Step Model Modified
Examining Each of the 7-Steps in Detail for an Individual or Small Group
Step 1
Determine the student’s EF deficits and note them in the Executive Function (EF) Planning Chart.
Assessment
This is completed through reviewing the student’s records as well as through observations of the student and interviews with the student, as well as his or her family members and other and previous teachers. Formal and informal assessments may also be used to help determine EF deficits. While there is no federal mandate to assess executive functioning and no preferred battery of tests to determine that a student has deficits in certain executive function skills, formal assessments used in the diagnosis of a disability under IDEA often include relevant information and are offered at no cost to the parents (Tucker, 2015).