1. Metacognitive strategies as predictor for better test results Part of Present & Discuss Session ‘Stimulating metacognitive skills among students’ Wilbert van der Heul

2. Practical foundation: reason for this study 9 januari 2016 –At the Albeda College, a Regional Community College, students of personal healthcare assistant (level 3) and (medical) nurse (level 4) score low at their knowledge-tests for anatomy; –Assumption: students do not know how to learn anatomy (declarative knowledge) and teachers use limited didactics;

3. Theoretical foundation: metacognition 9 januari 2016

4. Self-regulation and self-efficacy 9 januari 2016

5. ‘When students use more metacognitive skills, they may score better on their anatomy-tests’ 9 januari 2016

6. Two design requirements 1.Focusing on the acquisition and application of metacognitive strategies, particularly self-regulation; 2.Focusing on the enhancement of self-efficacy. Explicit attention for self-regulation; Selecting-Organising-Integrating-model (Mayer, 1999) – active learning: multiple didactics, pictures, colours / italics; Constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003); Trial-exams (Marzano, 1999) 9 januari 2016

7. Design wishes In consultation with fellow teachers and management: Structure Straightforward Compatible with existing classes achievable (if possible: not to complicated) 9 januari 2016

8. Instructional design (learning arrangement / intervention) 9 januari 2016

9. Research goals and questions Goals: to positively influence the metacognitive strategies of the student and better test results. 1: What is the influence of the learning-arrangement on the learning behaviour of the student concerning the anatomy- class in terms of metacognitive strategies, self-regulation and self-efficacy? 2: What influence does the learning-arrangement have on the test-results? 9 januari 2016

10. Research design 9 januari 2016

11. Participants and Measurement Personal healthcare assistant: N = 56; experiment: 33 (2 groups); reference 23: (I group); Medical nurse: N = 85; experiment: 47 (2 groups), reference: 38 (2 groups) Total N = 141 Measuring learning behaviour of the students: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, (Pintrich et al., 1991)  learning strategies and motivation: 81 items  divided in 15 scales, 9 for learning strategies (including self- regulation) and 6 for motivation (including self-efficacy); 7-point-likert scale from 1 (not for me) to 7 (totally me); Alpha: between 0.61 and 0.94 9 januari 2016

12. Data-analysis Two-way repeated measures between groups ANOVA with co-variances Total scale learning strategies Self-regulation Self-efficacy Total scale motivation Dependent variables: total scores of the scales Independent variables: experiment- and reference groups of both programs Co-variances: total hours lessons anatomy, total hours homework, total hours studying for test 9 januari 2016

13. Results Personal Healthcare Assistant (level 3) 9 januari 2016 Metacognitive strategies: F(2) = 3.906, p = 0.026; average effect (p.e.s.= 0.122); Between groups: F(2) = 3.614, p = 0.035; average effect (p.e.s.= 0.114)

14. Results personal healthcare assistant (level 3) 9 januari 2016 Self-regulation: F(2) = 3.794, p = 0.028; average effect (p.e.s. = 0.119) Between groups: F(2) = 3.280, p = 0.045; average effect (p.e.s. = 0.105).

15. Results (medical) Nurse (level 4) 9 januari 2016 Metacognitive strategies: F(2) = 0.210, p = 0.811 Between groups: F(2) = 0.540, p = 0.584 Self-regulation: F(2) = 0.309, p = 0.735 Between groups: F(2) = 0.676, p = 0.511

16. Results (medical) Nurse (level 4) 9 januari 2016 Motivation experiment after 20 weeks: F(2) = 3.999, p = 0.021; small effect (p.e.s. = 0.067) When learning-arrangement will be continued a significant difference between groups is possible: F(1) = 5.949, p = 0.018, average effect (p.e.s. = 0.096)

17. Conclusion 9 januari 2016 There is an influence of the learning-arrangement on the learning behaviour of student: Level 3: metacognitive strategies, self-regulation, long-term  motivation Level 4: motivation, long-term even significant effect between groups

18. Recommendations 9 januari 2016

19. Nevertheless Why has the learning-arrangement no influence on the test- results (yet)? 9 januari 2016