Sei sulla pagina 1di 26

LITERATURE REVIEW Research over several decades has proven the importance of the acquisition of cognitive strategies and

metacognitive knowledge and skills in order for students to become successful self-regulating learners (Dignath & Buttner, 2008; Zito, Adkins, Harris, & Graham, 2007). Meta-analyses of data have found that students who are able to efficiently and reliably apply learning strategies, and to understand their own learning, not only increase their task performance but also improve their engagement, motivation, self-efficacy and attributions (Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1996; Hattie & Purdie, 1999; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, Afflerbach, 2006). Metacognitive ability also plays a vital role in the far transfer of knowledge to unfamiliar contexts (Mayer, 1998). An important finding in the research on the value of cognitive strategy and metacognitive skill instruction, is that acquiring a broad range of cognitive strategies, particularly complex and domain-general strategies, alongside an understanding of how, why and when these skills work best, provides the most benefit to student learning and the development of self-regulation (Hattie & Purdie, 1999). Students demonstrate considerable variation in their knowledge and use of cognitive strategies and metacognition. Many students develop these skills to a certain extent vicariously from their parents, peers, and teachers, however, many students fail to spontaneously acquire these abilities (Bandura, 1989; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, Afflerbach, 2006). For this reason, explicit instruction in cognitive strategies can be used to improve metacognitive knowledge and skills, while explicit instruction in metacognition has been demonstrated to assist students to develop self-regulatory learning behaviour (Pintrich, 2002; Mevarech & Amrany, 2008; Mevarech & Fridkin, 2006; Schraw 1998). In this study, Schraws (1998) Strategy Evaluation Matrix (SEM) and Regulatory Checklist (RC) supply the foundations for the instructional tools used to promote and evaluate students knowledge about learning. The versions of the SEM and RC that were used have been adapted using age-appropriate language, and slightly abbreviated to ensure the content is manageable for young learners (see

Appendix A). The key features of both the SEM and RC remain, with the SEM incorporating declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge of cognitive strategies, and the Regulatory Checklist focusing the students attention on the three essential elements of self-regulation which are planning, monitoring, and evaluating. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model informed the instructional approaches used in the intervention sessions (Graham, Harris and Mason, 2011). SRSD is an evidence-based approach to strategy instruction with six recursive stages of instruction (developing background knowledge, discussion between teacher and student, teacher modelling, memorisation of strategy, guided practice and independent performance) which support the acquisition of strategies for learners of all ages (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011). It is hoped that the use of these tools and instructional approaches, devised and endorsed through substantial research in the field, will aid the participants of this study in building their cognitive strategy repertoire and developing an increased awareness of how learners are able to mediate their learning experiences. Much of the research into cognitive strategy and metacognition instruction has focused on learners in upper primary, secondary and university settings. This has been largely been predicated on the assumption that young children are not developmentally able to acquire the sophisticated thinking processes associated with these skills. However, research by Schneider and Sodian (1997) demonstrates that a barrier theory, whereby children only begin utilising metacognitive strategy beyond the age of about 6, is not supported by evidence. Rather, children experience a developmental progression in competent strategy use from kindergarten onward, with sophisticated strategy use and metacognitive awareness progressing further during adolescence, before peaking in young adulthood (Lockl & Schneider, 2006). Similarly, several researchers have found that children entering primary school often exhibit basic forms of self-regulation in tasks appropriated to their interest and ability (Perry, Phillips & Dowler, 2004; Perry , VandeKamp, Mercer, & Nordby, 2002; Whitebread, 1999; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters,
2

Afflerbach, 2006). Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters & Afflerbach (2006) argue that this supports the idea that metacognitive knowledge and skills develop during pre-school or early school years at a very basic level, before increasing in sophistication to meet the demands of formal learning. A metaanalysis by Dignath & Buttner (2008) investigated the promotion of self-regulated learning amongst primary school students. They found self-regulated learning can be effectively taught in primary schools and, in line with Hattie, Biggs & Purdies (1996) earlier study, found higher effect sizes in younger students than in senior high school or university students. These results should be viewed cautiously however, as domain-specific knowledge can play an important role in childrens ability to acquire strategic skills and to understand their application (Alexander & Judy, 1998; Mayer, 1998). For example, studies by Alexander et al (1995; 1998) found that the cognitive demands of literacy in the early years can be such that students do not have enough cognitive capacities left over to devote to metacognitive processes. In contrast, in other domains, such as mathematics, children are generally able to exhibit strategic and metacognitive skills much sooner. Mevarech & Amrany (2008) suggest that knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition may occur separately and that strategy use may be present unconciously in some students without concious self-reporting. The lack of ability of young students to articulate their knowledge and self-report on their learning behaviours can result in difficulties in evaluating knowledge and skill aquisition in young childen. Researchers in the field of metacognition have not yet formed a consensus on whether the use of less conscious processing activities that have become automatised, such as planning learning or checking answers, can be correctly referred to as metacognitive. Banduras (1989) assumption that such behaviour is modelled after the effective behaviour of teachers, parents and peers through observation and vicarious learning without much conscious processing of the modelled behaviour further complicates consideration of this issue. Several difficulties arise when considering strategy and self-regulation instruction in primary school classrooms. Before instruction can successfully occur in the classroom, teachers require professional
3

development in order to appreciate the value to their students of these skills, to acquire evidencebased teaching strategies, and to find ways to support self-regulatory practices in the classroom on an on-going basis (Askell-Williams, Lawson, & Skrzypiec, 2012). In addition, as these skills do not form part of the core curriculum, it is often considered difficult to find the time to include this type of instruction in a crowded curriculum (Askell-Williams, Lawson, & Skrzypiec, 2012). A further barrier to the implementation of instruction, is that relatively little research is available on evidence-based approaches to instructing very young students in cognitive strategies and metacognition.

JUSTIFICATION Developing automaticity in the use of a broad range of cognitive strategies and metacognitive processes takes a considerable amount of experience over time. Thus, it is the contention of this author that it is preferable to implement metacognitive strategy instruction programs in schools at the earliest opportunity. Most existing studies with young learners have focused on domain-specific strategy acquisition, such as reading strategies, and relatively few studies have examined the teaching or assessment tools best suited to the needs of young children. Further research is needed into these areas, as much of the research into strategy use and metacognitive interventions has been conducted with upper primary, secondary and university students. Many of the studies and meta-analyses regarding the efficacy of self-regulatory instruction rely upon data from these older age groups. For example, in Hattie & Purdies (1999) meta-analysis of strategy instruction research, only 3% of the students in the studies were primary school students. The key area this study aims to examine is the impact of metacognitive skills training on two students metacognitive ability. Particularly, this study will investigate how an intervention conducted at different age levels allows for an insight into developmental factors in the efficacy of interventions. The choice of this area for research was informed by Pressley, Graham & Harris (2006) who suggested a study of limited proportions may provide some preliminary indicative data about

methodological approaches to research in this area as well opportunities to investigate the outcomes of the experiment. Lockl & Schneider (2006) assert that the early acquisition of the concept of representation, as indicated by successful performance on theory-of-mind tasks, can be considered as a precursor of metacognitive knowledge. This was based in the assumption that the acquisition of the concept of knowledge precedes an understanding of concepts such as remembering or forgetting, which then flows on to an understanding of their own and others memories and a deeper understanding of how their memory works and which variables inuence memory performance. Lockl & Schneider (2006) also found that in addition to theory of mind, specic language skills, in particular the comprehension of metacognitive vocabulary, contribute to later knowledge of memory and learning. They demonstrated a reciprocal association between metamemory development and the acquisition of metacognitive vocabulary. Based on these findings, it is hoped that the exploration of theories of mind and metacognitive vocabulary which occurs incidentally within this unit, will contribute to the students developmental capacity to acquire deeper understandings of metacognition in future. While this study aims to investigate these learners responsiveness to the intervention and the developmental appropriateness of the methodological approaches of the intervention, it is also hoped that several other questions may be at least partially addressed through this study. One such question is to what extent pre-intervention data indicates an existing knowledge base and skill set which the children have developed naturally through their own inquisitiveness, experimentation, vicarious learning and developmental progress in learning. A further area of interest that arises within this study is the degree to which cognitive strategy use and metacognitive behaviour may be present without explicit conscious processing. That is, the extent to which young children conduct metacognitive activity and self-regulative knowledge without the ability to articulate and reflect on their use of these skills and their possession of this knowledge. For the purposes of this study, this author considers externally controlled learning of behaviours, such as vicariously learnt strategy use,
5

as inferior to the self-determined explicit acquisition of metacognitive knowledge. However, these acquired skills form an excellent basis for young learners to begin to construct declarative and conditional knowledge about these proceduralised skills (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, Afflerbach, 2006). As these metacognitive strategies are being taught in a decontextualised setting, rather than in a whole class context, and within a limited time frame, it is not possible to fully extrapolate the likely outcomes were this study to be conducted in a classroom setting. The lack of opportunities for distributed practice, in a range of contexts, with performance feedback will limit the capacity of these learners to proceduralise their knowledge. It is predicted that the students will possess very limited knowledge of cognitive strategies and metacognition prior to the strategy intervention and it is further predicted that they will have a limited ability to articulate the knowledge that they do possess. At the conclusion of the intervention, It is predicted that the students will have acquired some new strategic and regulatory skills knowledge and be better able to express their thinking about learning. It is anticipated that developmental differences will be apparent between the younger and older student in their learning knowledge, strategy knowledge and, ability to acquire further metacognitive knowledge and skills.

METHOD PARTICIPANTS The two participants in this survey attend a public school in the northern metropolitan area of Melbourne, Australia. Student L was 7 years and 10 months old at the commencement of the study and attending her second term of Grade 2. Student M was 5 years and 7 months old and attending his second term of Prep.

PRE-INTERVENTION DATA As an individualised measure of cognitive strategy use and metacognitive learning behaviours, the children were administered pre-intervention testing in the form of oral interviews. The examiner interviewed them in their home, asking open-ended questions on a range of topics based on an ageappropriate interpretation of Schraw & Dennisons (1994) 52 item metacognitive interview. The questions chosen for this interview assessed domain-general knowledge about learning as well as domain-specific knowledge. This was due to the fact that several theorists and researchers have argued that domain-specific cognitive strategy use and self-regulation precedes domain-general use of these skills (Dignath & Buttner, 1998). The students were interviewed separately and their responses were transcribed. The short answer format was chosen, rather than Schraw & Dennisons Likert scale format, as it gave opportunities to probe more deeply into the extent of their knowledge. The childrens responses were then evaluated against a hierarchical scale (see Appendix B) according to a qualitative assessment in which marks were given according to the evidence of metacognitive or strategic behaviour demonstrated in the response (see appendix C). Preintervention data indicated a generally low level of strategy knowledge and an absence of metacognitive knowledge. In particular both students appeared to see learning as a teacher led activity whereby they relied on instruction and feedback from the teacher to guide and evaluate learning.

INSTRUCTION The design of this intervention was based on the SRSD model of instruction. Across the two sessions, the students activated their background knowledge, engaged in discussions with the teacher, witnessed modelling of the strategy and then experienced scaffolded and independent practice of the skill. The first session took place with both students participating in the same intervention whereas in the second session, each student participated individually in identical sessions.

In the first session, the children were introduced to the idea that we can think and talk about how we learn. This was achieved through teacher modelling of how a new computer game is learnt. The teacher first demonstrated a poor performance of a simple game while thinking aloud about her cognitive processes including planning, monitoring and evaluating. The teacher then showed the children the adapted RC and unpacked the terminology used in the RC. The teacher then discussed with the children how the learning process described in the RC might be useful in improving performance of the game. The teacher then played the game again while modelling her cognitive processes before, during and after the game. The teacher then explained to the children that the same process that helps us to learn skills in games can be used to help any type of learning. With reference to the RC anchor chart, the teacher discussed how the RC could inform task performance. With reference to the strategy selection component of the RC, the teacher then explained the purpose of the SEM and co-constructed an SEM with both students participating in a scaffolded discussion to provide input as to strategies that they already know and use (see Appendix D). In the second session, the students selected and undertook a learning task, with scaffolded instruction in applying both the SEM and RC to the task. The students were asked to select a learning task that they would find engaging and that would benefit their learning at school. Student M expressed an interest in learning to read high-frequency words while Student L chose to learn the names of Australian states and their capital cities. The teacher revised what had been learnt in the previous session by talking through the SEM and the RC once more. The students completed the lesson by using the SEM and RC to guide their learning task. Observation sheets were used to record each students application of the SEM and RC in their learning task (see Appendix E). At the conclusion of the session, the students were asked to reflect on the value of using the SEM and RC.

RESULTS In this study, analysis of student responses and observable behaviours were used to determine the effectiveness of the metacognitive strategy instruction that was undertaken. Three types of postintervention data were collected. The first post-intervention data collected was a parallel form of the pre-instruction questionnaire, administered under identical conditions to the pre-instruction evaluation, and the responses were again analysed according to the hierarchical rubric. In addition, a second short answer questionnaire was administered to evaluate the students metacognitive knowledge with a particular focus on their ability to recall and/or explain the Strategy Evaluation Matrix and the Regulatory Checklist. Both of these questionnaires were administered two weeks after the completion of the instruction in order to evaluate the childrens long-term recall. Due to the lack of self-reporting of metacognitive skill and strategy use typical of students of this age group, the questionnaire responses were supplemented with observations of students use of cognitive strategies and metacognitive skills (Pintrich, 2002). These observations of student learning behaviours took place during the intervention session outside of school hours, in the students home. In the questionnaire responses, the children exhibited some slight, but not
4

Figure 1: Pre- and post- instruction questionnaire response scores


3 Student M preinstruction Student M postinstruction Student L preinstruction Student L postinstruction

significant, improvements in their knowledge of domain-specific cognitive strategies and metacognitive knowledge on some questionnaire items. For both students, scores on some questions actually declined
2 1 0

between pre- and post-instruction. Overall, the students self-reporting of metacognitive strategy knowledge remained limited and they did not incorporate any of the aspects of the Strategy Evaluation Matrix or the Regulatory Checklist in their responses to these questions about learning. On the second questionnaire, which evaluated the students recall of the SEM and RC, the students showed significant differences in the amount of information they recalled and the level of detail they were able to supply when providing elaborations (See example: Figure 2). Student L was able to provide detailed answers to questions regarding the Regulatory Checklist and could expand on her recall of the regulatory process to provide examples of each stage. In contrast, Student M offered brief responses which he was unable to support with examples.

Both students demonstrated some difficulty in recalling, or elaborating on, conditional knowledge in the Strategy Evaluation Matrix and neither were able to recall all of the strategies included in the matrix. When asked, both students stated they had not used any of the knowledge they acquired during the intervention in their classroom learning. Observations of the students during the learning tasks revealed an improvement in both students regulation of learning and independent use of the strategies. In particular, Student M demonstrated an ability to innovate on the initial use of a learning strategy to improve his learning outcomes.

10

CRITICAL DISCUSSION This intervention confirms the validity of previous research which indicates that in order for strategy and metacognition instruction to be effective it must be conducted in context, over a period of time with significant opportunities for distributed practice of the skills feedback on use (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011). The students did make some progress however, which would tend to indicate that the methodologies employed in the instruction, using the SRSD model and the adapted SEM and RC were a valid approach to delivering instruction. This study also found that the differences in the selfreporting of metacognitive and strategy skill use may be more closely related to a developmental inability to acquire and articulate declarative knowledge rather than to a developmental inability to acquire metacognitive and strategy procedural skills. This gap between declarative knowledge and procedural skill abilities could be an area in which further research yields more information about childrens developmental capacity to benefit from metacognitive interventions. Pre-intervention data supports the theory that strategy use and metacognitive skills develop through childrens observations of the modelling of such behaviour. However, the results of the preintervention data tend to indicate strategies are most used and most effective when they are explicitly taught, such as Student Ls knowledge of domain-specific literacy strategies. These findings support Banduras belief that without sufficient modelling and feedback these behaviours do not fully develop. An interesting finding from this study was the inability of both students to reflect on, or articulate their reflections on, their cognitive strategy use and self-regulatory behaviour. Even when the children had demonstrated an ability to use these skills appropriately and effectively in their learning, they were unable to either articulate or reflect upon the use of these strategies. It would be interesting in future studies to examine the impact specific feedback on observed strategic and metacognitive behaviour has on the students abilities in this area. Similarly, the results of this study are also consistent with the belief that assessment of cognitive strategy use and metacognitive
11

behaviour is best assessed by observations or similar measures of online behaviour rather than through questionnaires due to young students inability to self-report or articulate their knowledge. It would be interesting to see further research in this area using a similar intervention which is then followed by the application of these skills over an extended period and applied to classroom contexts with feedback. This would enable a more thorough assessment of the viability of instruction of this type in the early primary school years.

12

REFERENCES Alexander, P., & Judy, J. (1998). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic achievement. Review of Educational Reasearch, 58(4), 375-404.

Alexander, P. A., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 137.

Askell-Williams, H. , Lawson, M., & Skrzypiec, G. (2012). Scaffolding Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in Regular Class Lessons. Instructional Science, 40(2), 413-443.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6) Six theories of child development (pp. 160). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Bruning, H., Schraw, G. & Norby, M. (2011), Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Dignath, C. & Buttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning 3, 231264.

13

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.

Hattie, J. & Purdie, N. (1999). The relationship between study skills and learning outcomes: A metaanalysis. Australian Journal of Education, 43(1), 72.

Lockl, K. & Schneider, W. (2006). Precursors of metamemory in young children: the role of theory of mind and metacognitive vocabulary. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 15-31.

Mayer, R. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 4963.

Mevarech, Z. & Amrany, C. (2008). Immediate and delayed effects of metacognitive instruction on regulation of cognition and mathematics acheivement , Metacognition and Learning, 3, 147 157.

Mevarech, Z. & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and meta-cognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 8597.

Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examing features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 18541878.

14

Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacherstudent interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 515.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219.

Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Eductional Psychology, 76, 119.

Schneider, W., & Sodian, B. (1997). Memory strategy development: Lessons from longitudinal research. Developmental Review, 17, 442461.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113125.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460 475.

Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.

15

Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004), The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89109.

Whitebread, D. (1999). Interactions between childrens metacognitive abilities, working memory capacity, strategies and performance during problem-solving. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 489507.

Zito, J., Adkins, M., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-Regulated Strategy Development: Relationship to the Social-Cognitive Perspective and the Development of Self-Regulation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 77-95.

16

APPENDICES APPENDIX A

Adapted Regulatory Checklist

How do I learn?

Plan
What is my goal? What will I do?

Evaluate
Did it work? Can I get better? How can I get better?

Monitor
How am I going? Do I need to change anything?

17

APPENDIX B

Hierarchical rubric to evaluate questionnaire responses


Level Definition Example

A proposition where the learner identifies learning as a receptive process.

Sit quietly and do what the teacher says.

The statement shows evidence of the use of domain-specific strategies to learn however the learner is unable to articulate the process as a strategy.

You can use dinosaurs and they help you to count doubles.

The statement explicitly identifies a domainspecific learning strategy and states why it is useful.

If its journal writing we can use a sandwich. The sandwich is an orientation sentence and at the end you put a feeling statement and in the middle for like the salad and cheese you put details.

The statement names a domain-general strategy to learn.

Go back to what Ive already learnt

The statement explicitly identifies a domaingeneral learning strategy and states why it is useful.

Go back to what Ive already learnt because then I only need to concentrate on the new information to learn and it helps me to remember new information.

18

APPENDIX C
Pre-intervention Questionnaire Student M, 5 years 7 months Question and response What do you know about learning? I dont know the question. (prompted, rephrased as what does learning mean?) When you know something new. a) If you want to learn something, what do you do? Go to school and think. Keep my brain on. b) What if you want to learn something outside of school? Well, for a book you can read it or you can look at the pictures because that helps you to learn to read. Or if its not a book you can just do it but you get permission first. What do you do if you want to learn about maths or numbers? At playtime you can use the magnet numbers and a white board and a marker and then I just look at it and put all the numbers in order like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 At school how do you learn? I listen to the teacher. I look at pictures for reading. I listen very well. I watch Jolly Phonics on the projector because we have the whiteboard at the front and then you can use the projector and it makes the pictures and songs on the big screen and we can watch it and we listen to the songs and listen to the story first too. If youre reading a tricky book what can you do to help you? I use my bubblegum. You can look for rhyming the words on the page. I can ask my teacher or Mum. 1 1 1 1 0 Score

If you had to give someone advice on how to be a good learner, what would you tell them? 0 Listen to the teacher. What do you need to do to write well? Im good at my writing cos I listen so good. I remember all the letters. (prompted) I learn my letters from Jolly Phonics because it shows like if were doing k it shows a big K and a little k on the picture. How do you learn to spell new words? 2 I sound it out cos I use my bubblegum. 1

19

Pre-intervention Questionnaire Student L, 7 years 10 months Question and response What do you know about learning? 0 I dont know, nothing. If you want to learn something, what do you do? Listen to the teacher, or listen to whoever is speaking. What if you want to learn something outside of school? Read it if its a book or read the instructions What do you do if you want to learn about maths or numbers? Look at it. If its times tables you can look for patterns in the numbers like counting by 5s. Remember some of them like 12 x 12 is 144. I know this because I looked at it because its the biggest one. At school how do you learn? I learn because Miss B (teacher) does like good teachers are supposed to do. Like explain what it is about and explain what you have to do. I sit and listen and she goes through the steps and then we do it. Then we give it to the teacher to correct. Then we can draw pictures if its OK or we get free time or a maths game or we can read. If youre reading a tricky book what can you do to help you? Sound it out, see if it makes sense (prompted) sound it out again, look at vowels, look for a bossy e. You can just have a guess at words you dont know. If you had to give someone advice on how to be a good learner, what would you tell them? Sit, listen, no fiddling and dont talk. What do you need to do to write well? We use an orientation sentence. If its journal writing we can use a sandwich. The sandwich is an orientation sentence and at the end you put a feeling statement and in the middle for like the salad and cheese you put details. (prompted) You have to include who, what, when and where in the orientation sentence like On Saturday Mum and I went to the shops to get bread. How do you learn to spell new words? How I learnt to spell because was I looked at the tricky word chart and I kept on repeating the letters because there was test in class and I was going mad because I really wanted to spell it right on the test so I really wanted to learn it so I just kept repeating it until I knew it. 20 1 0 2 2 0 0 Score

Post-intervention Questionnaire Student M, 5 years 8 months Question and response What do you know about learning? Learning is fun. You have to be quiet when the teacher asks you. Learning is to help you 0 Score

a) If you want to learn something, what do you do? Think. Sound it out. Use bubblegum. b) What if you want to learn something outside of school?

0 Listen, then do it. Really, really try hard. What do you do if you want to learn about maths or numbers? If you want to learn 5 + 5 = 10 then you make 5 and you double it and two rows makes ten. At school how do you learn? Thinking. Saying what youre thinking about. In maths, you can use dinosaurs and then double it to make numbers. (*At school that day, he had used concrete materials with a partner to make doubles to ten in a subitising/addition activity) 1 1

If youre reading a tricky book what can you do to help you? 1 Sound it out. If you had to give a peer advice on how to be a good learner, what would you tell them? I would tell them I could help them and tell them that you cant make double zero because zero is nothing and if you double zero its just zero. What do you need to do to write well? Neat writing. At school we use Jolly Phonics cards for better sounds for sounding out words that we want to write that we dont know. 1 0

How do you learn to spell new words? Use the letter sounds like n makes nnnn sound. 1

21

Post-intervention Questionnaire Student L, 7 years 11 months Question and response What do you know about learning? 0 Knowing what to do. Getting taught. a) If you want to learn something, what do you do? 0 Listen to the teacher. Do what Ms B says. Do it and try your hardest. b) What if you want to learn something outside of school? 0 Copy what it says on the paper and then practice it. What do you do if you want to learn about maths or numbers? Go back to what Ive already learnt. Like if its 16 + 28 I go back to what Ive already done and if its a trading sum then I do trading but if its a normal one then I just do it like normal 3 Score

At school how do you learn? Listen to the teacher. Like if I am on the computer and I want to know how to make the letters change then I just ask and then do what the teacher says. If youre reading a tricky book what can you do to help you? Sound out the words, have a guess, read it over again, sound it out again, guess again. At some point I get it right. If you had to give someone advice on how to be a good learner, what would you tell them? Sit on the floor and do what the teacher says. Listen. If youre writing you have to stick to the topic and not just put in a new character or something halfway through. 0 2 0

What do you need to do to write well? Practice words, sound them out, have a go at spelling. When youre finished, hand it to the teacher and see how close you got. How do you learn to spell new words? You can use a poem or a song to sing it, Look at the words and repeat the letters, use the song. Sound out the letters. 3 1

22

APPENDIX D

Strategies we can use to help us learn


Strategy How to use it When to use it Why to use it Concentrating on one thing and repeating it helps it to go into your memory

Repeat it

Repeat it quietly in your head or out loud

When you need to remember something simple

Bubblegum

Stretch out the sounds in a word

When you want to read a word you dont know

It is the way to find out how a word sounds and what it is

Draw a picture

Draw a picture or a diagram that shows what you have read or heard

When lots of words make ideas confusing

It helps to think of the main ideas. Pictures help our brains to remember.

Use a computer program

Answer the questions or play a game

To practice in a different way things youve been learning for a long time

Use the pictures, words and sounds to see how much you know and to get practice

Think about what you already know before you start

Think about what you already know, and what you dont know, before you start

Before you start learning something new

It makes it easier to remember new things and to think of questions you have

Make connections to what you already know

Think if the new information is like something you know really well already

When you have lots of new information to understand

Helps you to understand things and to remember them

Make groups

Find categories to put things into

When you have lots of different things to remember

It helps to understand when you have a lot of information

23

APPENDIX E
What strategy will I use?

Observations of students learning task Student M


Student actions Student unsure of how to proceed, Teacher prompts reminded him first stage was to plan.

Stated plan as to learn all of my magic words(all 100 high-frequency words)

Reminded to use small achievable goal

Selected the eight words assigned to him for that week which he was already able to decode by sounding out

Recapped main points of plan stage by saying we have decided what we want to do which is learn our magic words and we have our goal which is to be able to read 4 of them as soon as we see them by the end of the day. The other part of planning is to think about our strategy. Asked him which strategy he thought would be best.

He suggested repetition.

We looked together at strategy list to see if any better strategies were available

He chose making groups and grouped the words according to their initial letter sounds and practiced reading the words out emphasizing their initial letter sound. After he had read each word a couple of times he switched the words around into new groups one group based on word ending sounds and another based on the shapes of the letters (a below the line group which contained words with letters such as y and g. He continued to read the words aloud to himself

Complimented him on his use of the grouping strategy to notice characteristics of the words

He said he did a good job and that now he knows all those words. He said next time he would do the same thing and that maybe he could make different groups with the next set of words he was assigned.

Asked him how he felt he went and if his strategy was effective. Also if he would do the same thing next time or change what he did the next time he had words to learn

24

Observations of students learning task Student L


Student actions States plan as learn the names of all the capital cities and states of Australia Teacher prompts Prompts to remember goals should be achievable in the time available. I prompted that there were 8 states altogether

Looked at the map and decided to learn those on the east coast. Wrote down Queensland Brisbane, New South Wales Sydney, Victoria - Melbourne

Prompted to select strategy from SEM

Stated that drawing a picture would be good but she said she wasnt good at drawing Australia

Prompted that quality of art wasnt the point and a rough idea was sometimes a good learning tool. She agreed she might try this after she tried another strategy first.

Selected activating prior knowledge from SEM We went through what she already knows. What city does grandma live in? Queensland or is it Brisbane. Said Brisbane and so she said QLD must be the state because she knew both words were associated with grandma. Knew Victoria and Melbourne as this is where we live.

Complimented her strategy choice as now she only had to focus on the unfamiliar state and on improving her recall of the third state.

She then decided that having finished with her first strategy she would switch to drawing a picture

Reminded her that the monitoring stage was while she was learning Asked her how she thought her strategy was going or if she needed to change something. She said it was ok and no problem, it was working. Prompted for any further prior knowledge she might have about east coast states however she was unable to recall anything more.

She began drawing her picture of Australia but faltered at labeling the states. Prompted her revisit her prior knowledge Used prior knowledge to label Victoria, then Queensland and used elimination to label NSW

Completed map with city names using same process

I reminded her we were at the evaluate stage and asked her what she thought

she said oh the how did it go part - I know it and said she had done really well to learn almost half of Australia. Said she might do something different next time but she wasnt sure

25

26