The strategies that students use for learning directly affect their learning process and learning outcomes (Dinsmore & Hattan, 2020). A plethora of studies have indicated that students tend to use strategies supporting surface learning instead of more complex strategies that facilitate deep and long-term learning (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Due to low cognitive skills and knowledge, young children are capable of effectively using easily applicable learning strategies like rehearsal (Schleepen & Jonkman, 2012). When first applying a complex strategy, students may experience utilization deficiency (Clerc et al., 2014), interpret their low performance as related to the inefficiency of the strategy, not to their low skills, and, if not encouraged by teachers, turn back to using earlier, well-known strategies. Thus, students need support in learning to use various learning strategies, particularly complex ones. Teachers may suggest specific learning strategies, discuss their adequacy for specific learning tasks and difficulties in applying them, but also show their efficiency and support their practicing (Schnellert & Butler, 2020; Dunlosky et al., 2013). In this process, teachers’ knowledge of learning strategies is of critical importance (Schnellert & Butler, 2020). 

Previous research has indicated that teachers’ knowledge of learning strategies tends to be modest (e.g., Dignath & Büttner, 2018; Ohst et al., 2015). So far, teachers’ knowledge has mainly been assessed with evaluations of the effectiveness of strategies (Michalsky, 2021; Glogger-Frey et al., 2018), although a few studies have also examined teachers’ recommendations regarding learning strategies (McCabe, 2018). However, little attention is given to consistency of recommendations and evaluations. As learning and teaching is affected by the cultural and educational context (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), studies should be carried out in different educational systems, therefore current study is focusing on teachers’ practices in Estonia.

Research question and aim

The aim of this research was to examine teachers' knowledge about learning strategies.  

The research was guided by following questions and hypotheses:

First, which strategies do teachers recommend for students? Do teachers recommend different learning strategies for the two scenarios – learning for the next-day test (Scenario A) or for the test in three weeks (Scenario B)? We presumed that teachers would recommend mainly strategies that support deep learning (McCabe, 2018). We also expected  that teachers recommend more surface-learning strategies for Scenario A due to limited time for learning (Roediger & Pyc, 2012). 

Second, do teachers combine strategies and recommend both deep- and surface-learning strategies, for Scenario A (learning for next-day test)? We expected that few teachers would recommend only surface learning strategies (McCabe 2018). 

Third, are teachers’ recommendations and evaluations for learning strategies in consonance? We assumed  that teachers who recommend a specific strategy evaluate its effectiveness higher than teachers who do not recommend it.

Fourth, do evaluations differ in groups of teachers who recommend only deep-strategies, only surface-strategies, and both types of strategies? We hypothesized that teachers who recommended only deep strategies evaluate surface strategies lower than teachers who recommended only surface learning strategies and both deep and surface learning strategies. 

Participants The study involved 340 Estonian in-service teachers and pre-service teachers (89.3% females). The average age was 39 years (SD = 13.07, range 19-76) and the average work experience was 10.4 years. Measures The questionnaire was used to examine teachers’ knowledge on learning strategies, which consisted of two parts (McCabe, 2011): 1) Scenarios. Descriptions of two scenarios were given and teachers were asked to recommend strategies students could use. The scenarios were the following: Scenario A: Imagine an average basic school student. The student has to process three pages of text from the textbook for the next day. He/she knows that his/her knowledge will be tested. The student has read the text thoroughly once. What would you recommend to do next? Describe up to three most effective learning strategies. Describe these in as great detail as possible and justify their suitability. Scenario B: Imagine an average basic school student. The student has to prepare for a major test which is coming up after three weeks. He/she has to understand the topic of a chapter of several tens of pages, be capable of answering questions and solving tasks. The student has studied the chapter and solved tasks, and now he/she has three weeks until the test. What would you recommend to do next? Describe one effective strategy in as detail as possible and justify its suitability. 2) Evaluations. Teachers were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of listed 24 learning strategies (McCabe, 2011?) (e.g. Creating associations, interleaving, rehearsal, distributing,passive strategies etc) Teachers were asked to rate the effectiveness of the learning strategies using Likert type of scale 1 – the strategy is ineffective to5 – the strategy is very effective”. Data analysis strategy To answer the first and second research questions (which strategies do teachers recommend for students and do teachers combine strategies and recommend both deep- and surface-learning strategies) descriptive statistics and Z test were used. To answer the third research question, t-tests were used. Effect sizes were determined by estimated Cohen's d (small effect d ≥ .20; medium effect d ≥ .50; large effect d ≥ .80; Cohen, 1988). Repeated-Measures ANOVA was used to conduct interactions between five dependent variables. For the fourth research question One-Way Anova was used to assess differences in evaluations between three groups: 1) teachers who recommended only deep strategies; 2) teachers who recommended only surface strategies; 3) teachers who recommended both deep and surface strategies.

The results showed that teachers recommended more strategies that support deep learning in both learning situations. A few teachers recommended only strategies that support surface learning. Besides deep learning strategies, surface-level ones were recommended mainly together with deep learning strategies. It was also found that teachers evaluate deep learning strategies as more beneficial than surface level strategies. We also assessed the differences between the groups. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups (teachers who recommended strategy / teachers who did not recommend strategy), the differences were in distributing and rehearsal, so it cannot be said that those who recommend the strategy necessarily rate these strategies higher. Differences between the groups “teachers, who recommended only deep strategies” and “teachers, who recommended deep and surface strategies” were also partly reported. There were significant differences between the interleaving, rehearsal and passive strategies. From these results, it can be concluded that teachers prefer deep learning strategies and also value these strategies higher. It is important that the teachers’ knowledge about learning strategies is good, then there is also a greater possibility that the teachers will also teach this knowledge to the students. In the future, classroom observations should be carried out in order to assess which strategies the teachers recommend using and which strategies they actually use with students, if any.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, pp. 993–1028). NY: Wiley. Clerc, J., Miller, P. H., & Cosnefroy, L. (2014). Young children's transfer of strategies: Utilization deficiencies, executive function, and metacognition. Developmental Review, 34(4), 378-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.002 Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2018). Teachers’ direct and indirect promotion of self-regulated learning in primary and secondary school mathematics classes – insights from video-based classroom observations and teacher interviews. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 127-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9181-x Dinsmore, D. L., & Hattan, C. (2020). Levels of strategies and strategic processing. In Handbook of strategies and strategic processing (pp. 29–46). Routledge. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 Glogger-Frey, I., Deutscher, M., & Renkl, A. (2018). Student teachers' prior knowledge as prerequisite to learn how to assess pupils' learning strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.012 McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition,39(3), 462-476. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2 McCabe, J. (2018). What Learning Strategies Do Academic Support Centers Recommend to Undergraduates? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.10.002 Michalsky, T. (2021). Preservice and Inservice Teachers' Noticing of Explicit Instruction for Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630197 Ohst, A., Glogger, I., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2015). Helping preservice teachers with inaccurate and fragmentary prior knowledge to acquire conceptual understanding of psychological principles. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725714564925 Roediger III, H. L., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,1(4), 242-248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.002 Schnellert, L., & Butler, D. L. (2020). Exploring the potential of collaborative teaching nested within professional learning networks. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(2), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0037