Trialling A Metacognitive Training Intervention Laurence Odell Background

Trialling A Metacognitive Training Intervention Laurence Odell

Background ● Many sixth form students seem to lack the ability to reflect and self-regulate effectively, and are using poor strategies as a result ● Metacognition has been highlighted as an important factor in academic success ● Metacognitive training has been used to improve students’ awareness of their own thinking and the study skills they employ

The Intervention ● Students from four A Level classes were divided into attainment-based groups, using average GCSE scores ● A weekly “learning log” was completed by students for four weeks, with a different metacognitive focus each week (based on Siegesmund, 2016) “Think about your preparation for the test this week” 1. 2. 3. 4. What sort of study techniques have you personally been using? Explain how similar these are to the techniques you used last week. What are one or two of the most helpful class activities you took part in this week? Explain how these activities helped you to learn well.

The Intervention ● Metacognitive awareness was measured at the beginning and end of the intervention, using an established scale (MAIT-18, Schraw & Dennison, 1994) Clearly indicate your choice after each statement. 1) I ask myself periodically if I am reaching my goals. _______ 2) I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer. _______ 3) I try to use strategies that have worked in the past. _______

The Intervention ● A study skills inventory (adapted from Siegesmund, 2016) was used to assess the behaviours students were using, and how these changed ○ Students indicated from a list of positive study strategies which they were using 1) Re-reading book chapters and class notes. _______ 2) Using flashcards. _______ 3) Testing myself (i. e. covering labels on diagrams with post-its and walking through diagram; writing my own figure legends to text/lecture figures). _______

Data Collection ● Four week intervention period ● Scores from MAIT-18 and SSI ● Weekly test scores of students recorded for whole class and each attainment group ● Interviews with students from each of the three prior attainment groups

Results - Test Scores

Results - Test Scores by Group

Results - Significance of Changes ● Student scores indicated a significant increase between pre-intervention (M = 2. 81, SD = 0. 56) and post intervention (M = 3. 11, SD = 0. 51) measurements on the MAIT-18 inventory (p < 0. 0001, t = -6. 44, df = 61), suggesting an increase in metacognitive awareness. ● Scores on the SSI inventory were found to show a significant increase in the use of recommended study strategies in this sample (p < 0. 0001, t = -8. 031, df = 61) between pre-intervention (M = 3. 14, SD = 0. 65) and post-intervention (M = 4. 03, SD = 0. 55) measurements.

Results

Results

Conclusions ● Intervention was well-received and the results of this small-scale application were promising, both for test scores and changes to behaviours ● Need for a longer intervention, more data collection intervals, larger sample and a control group. ● Improvements to measures could include 10 -point Likert scale for greater specificity ● Possible next steps - focus should be narrowed. Try different interventions and compare attainment or attitudes, or focus on one intervention for longer.