Do you take a structured approach, or let teachers do it their own way? Possibly, you try to find a middle ground?
Right now, this feels like one of the biggest ‘tug-of-war' battles we’re having in education. How much do we mandate around a school, for the sake of ‘consistency’, and how much free rein do we give teachers to allow ‘individualism’ to shine?
This article ponders where we are right now in education, before considering how this impacts metacognitive theory in the classroom.
I began thinking more deeply around this debate whilst at researchED South West. Discussions around structure and teacher agency seemed to dominate the day, especially in relation to teacher retention.
We know that teachers are leaving the classroom all thetime, and the situation is worsening. In this academic year, 44% more teachers say they are intending to leave the profession than in the 2022/23 academic year and teacher departure rates are close to the 2021/22 peak (McLean et al, 2024).
One thing we know keeps teachers in the classroom and improves job satisfaction, however, is agency (Worth, 2020). Where teachers have ownership over their choices in the classroom, more productive learning takes place, too (Schleicher, 2018).
It appears quite definitive, therefore, that valuing teacher agency is critical to not just keeping teachers in the classroom, but also improving teachers’ effectiveness.
On the flip side though, structure and routine brings consistency. Increasing fidelity of interventions improves final outcomes of implemented interventions (Moore et al, 2024).
Jon Hutchinson writes about current trends towards consistency across schools in Multi-Academy Trusts:
"On the face of it, this scaling up of fidelity seems to have been effective. Schools that were judged to be chaotic and low-performing were rapidly turned around, and new schools achieved remarkable results in areas where they had historically languished in the league tables…
This set the scene for things to become even more granular. Once you have had some success with fidelity, you begin to look for marginal gains…
This is where we find ourselves now. In many trusts, and in many schools, little of what a teacher does is free from some form of prescription. And that is where it gets knotty.
Increasingly, there’s a pushback against fidelity from across the ideological spectrum.” (Hutchinson, 2024)
Implementing an approach (with a strong evidence base, like Metacognition) with high levels of fidelity should lead to improved outcomes, which has got to be a win, right?
Consistency can help strengthen outcomes, but then so can teacher experience and agency. We walk a tightrope between seemingly opposite positions.
"The recent EEF implementation guidance updates based on evidence that intelligent adaptations can improve implementation outcomes. They recommend identifying and monitoring fidelity to core components - when to be “tight” - but also creating structures for teachers to discuss implementations, including contextualised adaptations." - Rebekah Fant-Male, Complete Mathematics
Despite this significant conundrum for school practices in general, the solution for metacognition is somewhat more straightforward. I argue that metacognition needs to be highly structured when it is theorised, but has the potential to be implemented in many different ways in the classroom.
This article will now consider what needs to be tightly structured, and what can be left to the agency of teachers.
When introducing Metacognition with teachers, there are a number of areas where there needs to be clarity and structure. These are:
There are multiple definitions for metacognition across literature. Though these are not necessarily contradictory, it is far better that all teachers are exposed to one definition which is repeated consistently. I’ve discussed this further elsewhere and ultimately, my suggestion is:
‘Metacognition is the little voice inside your head that constantly evaluates and informs your decisions’ (Burns, 2023).
It is crucial that all teachers agree on component parts of knowledge of regulation: knowledge of self, knowledge of strategies and knowledge of task. With an agreed understanding of these three areas, it should be structured that:
It is equally as important for teachers to be in agreement on the definition of regulation of cognition, as well as what plan, monitor and evaluate mean. Key definitions associated with Metacognition are discussed in this blog. In much the same way as above, it should be structured that:
Up to this point, I have discussed aspects of metacognition which teachers should be making explicit, but which probably feature in the modelling, feedback and lesson structures teachers are already using. However, metacognitive strategies are more visible, and perhaps the most important area for metacognitive structure.
Before we can even get to the stage of structure, strategies need to be determined. This is for discussion in another article, but some key points for leaders:
a. suitable for all subject areas
b. suitable for students' current levels of metacognitive ability (i.e. simpler strategies for a cohort that is metacognitively novice)
c. easily built into lessons and potentially, homework
Once these strategies have been determined, it is crucial that key points of fidelity are identified for successful implementation. If students do not recognise the same strategy across teachers or departments because it looks so different in its implementation, metacognitive progress is going to be limited and the purpose of only selecting three strategies will be defeated. This in turn will make it more difficult for teachers. It will take longer to embed strategies and their impact will be reduced.
Therefore, it is important to identify what needs to be mandated across all classrooms. There are some important high fidelity areas: how metacognition works, metacognitive language and which strategies are used (and how). Typically, this will include agreed-upon templates and key language for delivering each strategy, to ensure consistency and transferability between subjects and teachers.
What should be clear from this section is that structure is centred around theory. It is important that teachers have:
Joyfully, once in the classroom, so long as the structures discussed above are adhered to, teachers should be able to have full agency over how they introduce these strategies into their classrooms. Teachers know their classes. Teachers know their curriculum. Teachers know when it will work for them to introduce new strategies. Therefore, there is no need to mandate:
Over time, through observation and experience, best practice can be shared. As recommended by the Education Endowment Foundation, during implementation, teachers should be given time and structures to meet and talk about what has worked for them, and share challenges (Sharples et al, 2024). Teachers can learn from each other, improve their own practice, and in turn, strengthen their students' learning yet further when given opportunities to collaborate in a school culture which values innovation.
One example would be the metacognitive strategy ‘justifying strategies’. This falls within the modelling category and proposes that teachers justify the strategies that they use during their modelling. This helps illuminate expert insight, and ensures that decisions based upon experience are made explicit, and not implicit, within modelling.
This powerful strategy is as useful in Maths, say for example when solving an equation with brackets, as it is in English, for example when teasing out key words within a poem.
Structure and agency can be conflicting. Structure helps maintain consistency and can reduce poor implementation, but in turn, can negatively impact teacher agency. Years of experience and know-how could be wasted and in the worst cases, reduce teachers to robotically delivering formulaic lessons.
Fortunately, metacognition provides us with a great example of how to implement ideas which offer balance between these two areas. Fidelity to definitions, making the implicit explicit, and having consistency in how strategies are used is key. Meanwhile, teachers are given agency over the contexts in which they use metacognitive strategies.
By discussing strategies and their efficacy with colleagues, teachers can also use their collective knowledge, skills and professional experience to deploy these strategies and their contextual adaptations in the most effective manner possible, supported by common language and shared meaning.
Burns. N. (2023). Inspiring Deep Learning with Metacognition. London. Sage.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hutchinson, J. (2024). 'The Sweet Spot for Teacher Autonomy and the War Against Fidelity’, TES, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mwedka2r (accessed 23 May 2023)
McLean, D., Worth J., and Smith A. (2024). Teacher Labour Market in England 2024. NFER. pp. 1-32.
Moore, D. et al. (2024) Review of Evidence on Implementation in Education’ London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Schleicher. A. (2018). Educating Learners for Their Future, Not Our Past, ECNU Review of Education, 1(1), pp. 58-75.
Sharples, J. Eaton, J. and Boughelat, J. (2024). A School’s Guide to Implementation. Education Endowment Foundation: London
Worth. J. (2020). ‘Teacher Labour Market in England. Annual Report 2020’, NFER, pp. 1-20