Metacognition, an ability to reflect on one’s thinking, stemmed as an early area of research interest in the 90s (Zimmerman, 1995, Hamman et al., 1996, Metcalfe and Shimamura, 1996), as a development to Flavell’s (1979) definition of metacognition as ‘one’s stored knowledge or beliefs about oneself and others as cognitive agents, about tasks, about actions or strategies’ (Flavell, 1979, p.906).

Metacognition and the application of metacognitive knowledge, skills, and strategies is one of the “ultimate goals of all learning” (Hattie, 2012, p.102, McElwee, 2009). The educational benefits of metacognition are recognised globally: from America (Murphy and Castel, 2022), to Malaysia (Kummin and Rahman, 2010), and to The Netherlands and Belgium (Meijer et al., 2013). In England, this focus has been recently enhanced due to the Education Endowment Foundation’s (EEF’s) renewed focus on metacognition (EEF, 2021).

One’s ability to apply metacognitive study strategies to their own learning, unsupervised, has long been recognised as important in education (Sperling et al., 2004, Hidayah et al., 2016, Marulis and Nelson, 2021). Research conclusions encourage educators to revitalise their instruction by embedding metacognitive practices (Sadykova et al., 2024). However, many studies do not seek the perspective of students, and some disregard their value (Kornell and Bjork, 2007, Skerritt, 2022). It is acknowledged that for a whole-school initiative to be successful it needs to be well implemented and maintained (Desimone, 2002, Freeman et al., 2014, Hudson et al., 2020), meaning that every member of the school community – students, support staff, classroom teachers, and the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) - need to be working unanimously on the same goal with the same purpose, as outlined consistently in various examples of school policy and practice guidance (Stirling and Emery, 2016, Cowne et al., 2018). This case study research brings together the opinions regarding metacognitive study strategies from multiple perspectives within the school community to strengthen the various sources of evidence and address this gap in the literature (Rowley, 2002).

Student perceptions of metacognition are addressed, but only in international research with mature learners. Conclusions suggest that metacognitive study strategies are both useful in assisting those attending lecturers in a different language to their own, and that they feel the value and benefit of these strategies too (Selamat and Sidhu, 2011). Strategies addressed in Selamat and Sidhu’s study do not form an exhaustive list of those used within English secondary education: including only summarising, planning, and testing (Selamat and Sidhu, 2011). Additionally, the age of the students means that their perceptions of metacognitive study strategies cannot be used as a comparison or indication for how the students of this study – aged 11-16 years old – perceive the use of metacognitive study strategies to be at the detriment of benefit of their educational progress. Wall and Higgins’ creation of Pupil Views Templates (PVTs) consolidates that gap, as they provide evidence for students’ metacognitive understanding and skilfulness, rather than exploring and detailing the student view of metacognition and the process (Wall et al., 2005, Wall and Higgins, 2006).

Therefore, the research questions for this doctoral study are:

1. What does the introduction of metacognitive strategies within the English department look like in current practice?
   1. How do students use metacognitive strategies within their English lessons?
   2. How does students’ metacognitive awareness relate to their self-reported metacognitive behaviours?
2. In what ways do members of the school community perceive metacognitive study strategy activities as promoting and/or hindering students’ learning in the secondary English class?
3. How do classroom teachers perceive the impact of this implementation on their practice?
4. How do members of SLT perceive the school’s implementation of metacognitive study strategy activities?

The case study research approach was adopted for this research due to the prevalent focus on student and staff perceptions, gathered in their real-life setting (Crowe et al., 2011) – via observations, surveys, and semi-structured interviews: both one-to-one and in focus groups. Student focus groups included Pupil Views Templates (PVTs). This case study research focuses on the English department of one school in England, located along the south coast. The English department is part of a bigger mainstream, non-selective secondary school, which includes a resourced provision for students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Fundamental to this research was the desire to give students a platform to share their perceptions on their education. Whilst highlighting student perceptions was the paramount influence of this research, being able to understand the perceptions of staff delivering the teaching (and non-teaching, if believed to be detrimental) of metacognitive study strategies, and other members of staff in the school community, also became an important factor for this research. The focus and emphasis on individual perceptions, both student and staff, based on their own understanding, experiences, and reflection (Honebein, 1996, Magoon, 1977) situates this study within a constructivist paradigm; there are multiple subjective realities which is socially constructed by and between – in this research, students and staff – as individuals. Initially, students completed a survey and the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (JrMAI-B). Staff from selected departments were invited to complete a similar survey. Observations were conducted prior to the focus groups to develop the observations from the classroom to group discussion (Krueger, 1998, O.Nyumba et al., 2018). A pilot study was utilised to test the methodology (Lancaster et al., 2004, Thabane et al., 2010, Malmqvist et al., 2019), allowing for adjustments to be made to the semi-structured aspect of the interviews, and the observation checklist, prior to the commencement of the main study. The observations were used to see how students use metacognitive study strategies in their lessons. 516 students completed the survey and JrMAI. From which, 25 students (of varying demographic information: gender, attainment, PP, SEND) were selected to share their perceptions on metacognitive study strategies in the focus group interviews with the PVTs (O.Nyumba et al., 2018). 33 members of staff from varying faculties (English Department, Senior Leadership Team, Learning Support Assistants (LSAs), and The ASD Resourced Provision LSAs) completed the survey, with 21 of those participating in respective focus group interviews.

Early findings suggest that students perceive metacognitive study strategies as helping with their learning, as 79% reported that they help. Additionally, students in this study have a lower Regulation of Cognition than they do Knowledge of Cognition (Brown, 1978). This may imply that students have a repertoire of metacognitive study strategies available to use, yet they may not be able to effectively plan, monitor, and reflect on their own learning. Students know the strategies but not when or how to use them effectively. Despite students having a higher self-reported Knowledge of Cognition, some students still use strategies that they consider to be ineffective. 21.71% of students reported highlighting to be their preferred strategy, yet only 9.88% of students reported highlighting an a strategy that they consider to be effective. The prevalent focus on student and staff perceptions will combine the two, where previous research has focused solely on staff perceptions. Simultaneously, this will support the students being at the focus of the research, where previous studies have made assumptions about students’ preferred strategy uses based on frequency (Karpicke et al., 2009), discarding their perceptions. Additionally, 17.65% of participants have a Special Educational Need (SEND), this research aims to include students in research from which they are so often excluded due to inaccurate assumptions about their ability to engage with research, and inappropriate research designs that only further marginalise their voices (Aldridge, 2016). Finally, it is hoped that this study will explore the implementation of pedagogical approaches to enhance this in future to both reduce staff workload and increase the benefits for students’ learning. This doctoral research study is currently at the data analysis stage, so there are some findings, but these are still being developed.

BROWN, A. L. 1978. Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition., Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum. COWNE, E., FRANKL, C. & GERSCHEL, L. 2018. The SENCo Handbook : Leading and Managing a Whole School Approach, Milton, Routledge. CROWE, S., CRESSWELL, K., ROBERTSON, A., HUBY, G., AVERY, A. & SHEIKH, A. 2011. The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 100. EEF. 2021. Metacognition and self-regulation [Online]. Education Endowment Foundation. Available: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/metacognition-and-self-regulation [Accessed]. FLAVELL, J. H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. HATTIE, J. 2012. Visible learning for teachers : maximizing impact on learning, London ; New York, Routledge. KARPICKE, J. D., BUTLER, A. C. & ROEDIGER, H. L. 2009. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. KORNELL, N. & BJORK, R. A. 2007. The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224. METCALFE, J. & SHIMAMURA, A. P. 1996. Metacognition; Knowing about Knowing, Cambridge, MIT Press. SELAMAT, S. & SIDHU, G. K. 2011. Student Perceptions of Metacognitive Strategy Use in Lecture Listening Comprehension. Language Education in Asia, 2, 185–198. SKERRITT, C. 2022. A sinister side of student voice: surveillance, suspicion, and stigma. Journal of Education Policy, 1–18. SPERLING, R. A., HOWARD, B. C., STALEY, R. & DUBOIS, N. 2004. Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning Constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139. WALL, K. & HIGGINS, S. 2006. Facilitating metacognitive talk: a research and learning tool. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29, 39–53. WALL, K., HIGGINS, S. & SMITH, H. 2005. 'The visual helps me understand the complicated things': pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 851–867. ZIMMERMAN, B. J. 1995. Self-Regulation Involves More Than Metacognition - a Social Cognitive Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30, 217–221.