LEARNING TO LEARN
Literature review
Metacognition concerns not just what students are
learning, but how they are learning, i.e. how they learn
best by ‘learning to learn’ (Quigley and Stringer, 2018).
Training students in metacognition creates ‘more
awareness and understanding among pupils to help
them engage and embed their learning more effectively’
(Mughal, 2018). Developing students’ metacognitive
abilities is thought to increase progress by an additional
seven to nine months (Evidence Based Education, 2018;
Lockyear 2018). Assessment for learning (AfL) involves
formative feedback. It identifies where students are in
their learning, where they need to get to, and how to
get there (Wiliam, 2011). AfL is known to ‘substantially
increase student attainment’ (Elliot et al., 2016). One
strategy to demonstrate to students how to progress
learning is the provision of assessment criteria prior to
completing an assessment. This is thought to have a
positive impact in assisting student understanding of
task requirements (Bell et al., 2013).
A quantitative study
into feedback strategies
and the impact upon
metacognition
Elen Harris, Teacher of Geography
Introduction
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) marking
review report (Elliott et al., 2016) highlighted two areas
where there was a paucity of research: ‘Testing the
impact of marking policies which are primarily based
on formative comments and rarely award grades’ and
‘Investigating the most effective ways to use class
time for pupils to respond to marking’. This piece
of action research attempts to ascertain if marking
without grades, and providing feedback with a grid
and comment, leading to directed improvement and
reflection time, creates a quantifiable improvement in
students’ metacognitive abilities.
Assessment criteria grids can be particularly beneficial
for providing feedback. Methods to help students to
engage with feedback to assist their metacognition
include ‘closing the gap’ marking where the teacher
puts a double tick next to a good point, or writes coded
feedback such as WWWT? (what’s wrong with this?)
or RTQ (read the question). The student then works to
identify why this specific feedback was given and seeks
to improve (Fletcher-Wood, 2013), therefore engaging
more than they would having simply read written
feedback. Coded feedback encourages students to
self-correct rather than relying on having mistakes
corrected (Bates, 2016). Interestingly, research suggests
there is no discernible difference in outcome between
providing coded or lengthier written feedback, so long as
students understand the codes (Elliott et al., 2016).
Another method to improve student engagement is not
providing a numerical grade as ‘grades stop learning’
(Wiliam, 2011, p 123). It is argued that feedback with
grades dictates a greater level of ego involvement and
competition with students competing with peers for
the better grade (Woolfolk et al., 2013), as opposed to
greater task involvement from just giving comments,
which students have to focus on more thoroughly
(Wiliam, 2011). This sense of competition can be
particularly detrimental for anxious pupils, those
lacking in self-confidence, or those less prepared for
assessments (Woolfolk et al., 2013). The EEF marking
review (2016) recognises that students will not benefit
from feedback unless time is given to respond to
marking. Such time has various different names – ‘feed
forward time’, and ‘directed improvement and reflection
time (DIRT)’ (Kay et al., 2016). Studies suggest it is
valuable to give students DIRT time in class to engage
with and respond to feedback (Elliott et al., 2016).
21