**3. Using SOAR to teach with metacognition**

By using a SOAR Teaching Frame —in this case, the SOAR Teaching Frame for Disciplinary Discussions—as a lens to plan, teach, and reflect upon their instructional practice, teachers are by definition teaching with metacognition. That is, they are gaining awareness about and control over how they think and teach by using the High-Impact, Cross-Cutting, and Foundational Practices to plan, monitor, evaluate, and adjust their instructional goals and teaching strategies. To support teachers through this process we have developed an implementation rubric that is aligned with each practice in the disciplinary discussions teaching frame. **Table 1** contains the section of the rubric that is aligned with the High-Impact Practice.

Moving along the rubric from "no implementation" to "full implementation" enables a teacher in the planning stage to focus specifically on what she needs to include in her lesson. For instance, if her students are still developing the conversation skills necessary to engage in disciplinary discussions (Element 1), the implementation rubric will help the teacher recognize the need to introduce and refer to those skills as well as provide support for students to use them in tasks and activities. Then, when the lesson is over and the teacher is reflecting on how successful it was, the rubric can help her recognize what worked and what did not work. For instance, she may realize that the supports she used enabled some students to use the conversation skills to engage in a discussion, but other students clearly needed something more. This insight will help the teacher adjust her instruction during the next lesson.

We are currently using the SOAR Teaching Frames in professional learning programs for teachers, coaches, and instructional leaders in partner schools and school districts across the United States. We have also brought the SOAR model and


#### **Table 1.**

*Implementation rubric: disciplinary discussions.*

materials to Teacher Preparation Programs and New Teacher Induction Programs. Based on these experiences we have identified stages of awareness and action that instructors typically go through when using SOAR to teach with metacognition (see **Figure 2**).

The first stage represents someone who is not familiar with SOAR and therefore is unable to use it as a lens to plan, teach, and reflect. The second stage depicts someone who has been introduced to SOAR but who is still learning how to use a teaching frame and the instructional practices that support the metacognition of learners engaged in disciplinary discussions. Teachers at this stage of the continuum tend to equate SOAR with the use of certain instructional strategies (e.g., Layering Text, What Makes You Sat That?) rather than a specific High-Impact, Cross-Cutting or Foundational Practice. Teachers at the third stage of the continuum have developed a deeper understanding of SOAR as evidenced by their ability to use a High-Impact, Cross-Cutting or Foundational Practice as a lens to plan, teach and reflect, but because their focus is at the practice level, the metacognitive impact of the planning-reflecting process is limited. Finally, teachers at the last stage have developed an understanding of how all of the practices of the SOAR Teaching Frame work together and can be used as a lens to plan, monitor, evaluate, and adjust their instructional goals and teaching strategies in accordance with their students' needs and the sociocultural context. Using SOAR in this way to teach with metacognition has the greatest impact on the academic development of students.

**21**

**Figure 2.**

*Metacognitive continuum—teachers.*

*Teaching with and for Metacognition in Disciplinary Discussions*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86665*

**4. Using SOAR to teach for metacognition**

Our research and professional development experiences over the past decade have convinced us that many teachers struggle to acquire and apply the conceptual understanding and skills necessary to develop students' metacognitive knowledge; in other words, the ability to teach for metacognition. One reason for this is that reflecting on and improving performance on a task is easier when the task requires physical action, e.g., hitting a golf ball. You can watch a video of yourself engaged in this task or listen to feedback from a coach who observed you. Cognitive tasks, on the other hand, are invisible and cannot be directly observed, making it harder for students to reflect on their performance and take action to correct it when necessary. So, the instructional challenge most teachers face is how to help students improve their performance on tasks that are dependent upon invisible cognitive progresses. Our research indicates that SOAR can support teachers in this endeavor [3, 27].

As we explained in the preceding section, the Disciplinary Discussions Teaching

Consistently engaging students in reflective processes and explicitly teaching metacognitive strategies are at the heart of teaching for metacognition. But as is the case with any learning, not all students progress at the same pace. We have identified stages of awareness and action that learners typically go through as they

Frame as a whole—High-Impact, Cross-Cutting, and Foundational Practices provides the lens that enables instructors to teach with metacognition. Using SOAR to teach for metacognition requires a narrower focus: the Cross-Cutting Practice of Fostering Metacognition for Disciplinary Learning. This practice's emphasis on visibly enacting and deconstructing metacognitive processes and strategies enables teachers to design instruction that will develop and activate their students' metacognition. Students will become aware of what they know and do not know by engaging in reflective processes, and they will be able to take action to address flaws

or gaps in what they know by employing self-regulation strategies.

develop their metacognitive abilities (see **Figure 3**).

*Teaching with and for Metacognition in Disciplinary Discussions DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86665*

**Figure 2.**

*Metacognition in Learning*

ELEMENT 1: Build disciplinary conversation skills

ELEMENT 2: Provide extended and supported opportunities for students to engage in disciplinary discussions

**No** 

**implementation**

Teacher does not introduce or refer to disciplinary conversation skills.

Teacher does not provide opportunities for disciplinary discussions.

Teacher introduces and/or refers to disciplinary conversation skills, but does not provide support for students to use them during tasks and activities.

Teacher provides limited and/or unsupported opportunities for students to engage in disciplinary discussions. Routines for disciplinary discussions are not evident, or students are not required to use them during tasks and activities.

**Full** 

Teacher introduces and/or refers to disciplinary conversation skills and provides support to enable all students to use them during tasks and activities with diverse partners.

Teacher introduces and/or refers to disciplinary conversation skills and provides support to enable most students to use them during tasks and activities.

Teacher provides supported opportunities for students to participate in disciplinary discussions. Routines for disciplinary discussions are evident, and teacher provides support to enable most students to use them during tasks and activities.

**implementation**

Teacher provides extended and supported opportunities for students to participate in disciplinary discussions. Routines for disciplinary discussions are evident, and teacher provides support to enable all students to use them during tasks and activities.

materials to Teacher Preparation Programs and New Teacher Induction Programs. Based on these experiences we have identified stages of awareness and action that instructors typically go through when using SOAR to teach with metacognition

The first stage represents someone who is not familiar with SOAR and therefore is unable to use it as a lens to plan, teach, and reflect. The second stage depicts someone who has been introduced to SOAR but who is still learning how to use a teaching frame and the instructional practices that support the metacognition of learners engaged in disciplinary discussions. Teachers at this stage of the continuum tend to equate SOAR with the use of certain instructional strategies (e.g., Layering Text, What Makes You Sat That?) rather than a specific High-Impact, Cross-Cutting or Foundational Practice. Teachers at the third stage of the continuum have developed a deeper understanding of SOAR as evidenced by their ability to use a High-Impact, Cross-Cutting or Foundational Practice as a lens to plan, teach and reflect, but because their focus is at the practice level, the metacognitive impact of the planning-reflecting process is limited. Finally, teachers at the last stage have developed an understanding of how all of the practices of the SOAR Teaching Frame work together and can be used as a lens to plan, monitor, evaluate, and adjust their instructional goals and teaching strategies in accordance with their students' needs and the sociocultural context. Using SOAR in this way to teach with metacognition has the greatest impact on the academic development

**20**

of students.

(see **Figure 2**).

*Implementation rubric: disciplinary discussions.*

**Table 1.**

*Metacognitive continuum—teachers.*
