Trialled and tested: Metacognition and self-regulated learning

(upbeat music) - Welcome to the very first episode of this podcast, which is a collaboration between the Education and Development Foundation and Evidence-Based Education. In this pilot episode and in future episodes, we're going to explore a specific piece of information or guidance within the EEF suite of resources and try to bring that to life through discussion with others. In addition, we'll be providing brief updates from the network of research schools around England to find out what they're doing to support the use of evidence to improve teaching practice. So my name's Jamie Scott from Evidence-Based Education and the focus of this episode is metacognition and self-regulated learning. And we're going to start things off with a chat with Alex Quigley. Alex, would you like to introduce yourself? - Hello, I'm Alex Quigley. I'm a senior associate at the EEF. I was one of the co-authors of the Metacognition and Self-Regulation Garden Report. I've just joined the EEF. Formerly, I was director of Huntington Research School and I've been an English teacher for 15 years. - Okay, so Alex, let's get straight into it. The Education and Diamond Foundation Toolkit lists metacognition and self-regulation approaches as having consistently high levels of impact with people's making on average seven months of additional progress over a 12-month period. So the potential is really significant. And in talking to you, I'd like to put myself in the position of a teacher who wants to understand more about what it is and how I could implement the approach effectively in my classroom. So Alex, my first question is about the name itself. The toolkit refers to both metacognition and self-regulated learning. What's the difference between those two things? - Okay, so I think self-regulation is the umbrella term and that contains metacognition within it. So if you take self-regulated learning, actually it's all those behaviors that a child undertakes as they learn. It includes subject knowledge. It includes metacognition, the strategies and choices a child makes. But it also includes things like motivation, self-control, emotion. So it's a pretty broad and unobviously crucial area and for teachers to understand. Metacognition sits underneath it and the clue is in the word really. So you've got cognition, what you know, your subject knowledge. Metacognition are the strategies and choices that you take with that subject knowledge. So if a child is undertaking a mathematical equation, then they need to select the right strategy. So it might be if they're doing a young child in primary school is got a tricky dividing question, they might select the bus stop method. And selecting that method is metacognitive. Evaluating whether it's the right method for the job, knowing whether it's worked, trying to evaluate your answer. All of those things are metacognitive. So it's how you think about your thinking and the strategies and choices that you make. And the problem with it, I think, is that we're being metacognitive all the time and therefore it's present as we learn. It's in every school day and every act almost. And I think we need to better understand it, get really sharp on what it looks like in the classroom and name it really clearly. And then we can start to be more explicit about supporting a child to be more metacognitive, to better plan, to better monitor how they're doing, to better evaluate whether they've done something well and what they're going to take with their learning forward so that they become better and better and better. - Right then, so does it come down to simply planning, monitoring and evaluating learning or is that unhelpfully simplistic? - I think being simple is really important. I think teachers are really busy so you won't get sharp, clear answers to things. I think it's really important and helpful in this sense to say that that's half the story and almost the second half of the story. If we just go back one step, I think there's a three step process, metacognitive knowledge. And those three things, knowledge of the task, knowledge of strategies for that task and knowledge of yourself. And if we just take metacognitive knowledge to a simple everyday activity, so it might be how I traveled to get here today. So if I took that task, I knew what time, I needed to get here, I needed to get here for one in the afternoon. I also knew a little bit about the map. I knew where I was going in the first instance so I didn't need to use strategies like satellite navigation, et cetera. I could have got the bus, I could have driven, but my strategy was to take my car. And in terms of myself and my own ability, well, I knew I could drive, but also emotionally, I wanted to make sure I was on time, get here a little bit early. So just when we undertake a simple daily task, we're always bringing metacognitive knowledge about ourselves, about the task itself, and about the strategies that we have. Really effective learners do this implicitly all the time, and it's often tacit knowledge. What a great teacher does in the classroom, whether they're teaching kings and queens in history, whether they're teaching multiplication in mathematics, they make really clear the different strategies, they're really aware, and they help the child understand the complexity of the task, and they also carefully help the child understand their own emotions, their own motivations towards the task. So metacognitive knowledge is the first half of the story, that's our one, two, three, and then we get to the fancy term apologies, metacognitive regulation, and that is actually that plan monitor and evaluate. If I go back to my example of how I got here today, well, the metacognitive regulation kicks in once I've started that journey. So I've got my plan in place, and I set off in my car, and I'm following my plan, and all the way I'm monitoring, am I going to be on time? Is the traffic busy? Are York races gonna hold me up at the final fair long? And then evaluation, once I get there, did I make it on time? Did I go the right route? Would I go the same way again in the same instance? And again, what teachers do all the time, and often without realizing it, were constantly nudging children through this metacognitive regulation. And actually, the better explicit we are, the better children understand different tasks, and over time, they seem to take these processes on. And the more explicit we are, the more guided we are in modeling, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation, then the better our children become as learners. And the more independent they become. - Okay, so already now, as is human nature, I'm immediately trying to make sense of what you said and I'm forming judgments about it, building on my own preexisting experiences and knowledge. In your experience, what are the common misconceptions about metacognition and self-regulated learning, and how might they be unhelpful? - Okay, I think one common misconception is that you can teach metacognition separately and generally, often these kind of manifest themselves as thinking skills, you know, lessons in school where you take approaches to, you're given a problem, and you're given different strategies to tackle it. And if successful, that gives you a bit of a boost, and then the notion being that you were going to mathematics, and you're given a mathematics problem, and you'd be able to take how you felt your motivation, some of the strategies from that problem, you're given in your thinking skills lesson, and you're able to transfer it. What we know is that, you know, children and adults actually really struggle to transfer skills across different domains. Actually, metacognition, the clue is in the word, rests on your cognition, your subject knowledge. So if you're going to tackle a complex math problem, actually, what's crucial first, what's the foundation, is that you've got good number sense, you've got different strategies to unpick that problem, you can read the words in the question, you can link it to questions similar that you've tackled in the past. So metacognition is very grounded in subject specific knowledge and understanding, and I think that means that you can't just teach metacognition separately and expect a child to be metacognitive in all the different areas of the curriculum. I think another really common misconception is that metacognition is a higher order thinking skill for older pupils. Actually, what we know is that very young children, from as young as four or five, are metacognitive, they praise a task, they make judgments, they might throw the toy out of the cot, a bit of active metacognition. And actually, we know that very older pupils, all the way up to university graduates still don't. a dyplor o ffegtywch i ffegtywch i ffegtywch i ffegtywch i ffegtywch i ffegty Mae'n ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn ffordd yn So, from what I have read, the metacognition and self-regulation approaches that have been evaluated do tend to involve applying strategies to specific tasks involving the subject knowledge that's so important, rather than just the generic thinking skills. So, can you now give us an example of how the approach could be applied to something specific? Okay, so let's take GCC examination, so today children across the country are being given GCC grades and as an English teacher myself, I know many children who sat there and they've sat in English Literature examination, let's take Shakespeare essay. And what we know is that the child has gone into that room and they've brought a huge amount, years and years of studying Shakespeare and trying to distill it into an essay in little more than an hour. And what they bring in terms of the metacognition in terms of planning, in terms of checking whether their response is effective, whether it's a good essay and evaluating it if they've hopefully have a little bit of time at the end of the examination, all of those strategies are very subject specific because actually you can't plan a good essay without having that knowledge of Shakespeare's social context of the quotations you needed to remember. Of what the question was asking of different themes and ideas that typically attend these examination questions. And then the monitoring, as you go through that examination, again it requires lots of that subject specific cognition, that knowledge around what a good essay looks like, around what good Shakespeare's knowledge, the examiner is wanting you to draw out about how to connect, you know, one of Hamlet's quotations. To a really clever link between themes and ideas and social context. And then evaluating how much time you have, again it comes down to how well, you know, how well you can have a mental model of what a really good essay looks like under those time conditions. So, you know, whenever we're talking about mental condition, we're talking about very specific tasks, the notion, the language of planning, monitoring, and evaluating seems quite generic, but the application is always very task specific. So my thinking is developing as I listen to you talking about it and it's really interesting, I think, because people are doing this all the time, some people are just more aware of it than others. So it feels to me that some people are very present in what they're doing and some people might be freestyling or just on autopilot, and I think it's very easy as a human being to be on autopilot in activity. So what I'm wondering is, can you teach someone to be better and more aware of what they're doing? Yeah, I think the evidence that underpins the guide and report undertaken by Professor Daniel Merce and Christine Bachhove, they looked at, I think it was around 1300 studies. And what's quite consistent is that if you teach explicitly, teach meta-cognitive strategies that children over time become more meta-cognitive, actually the evidence shows that teachers become more meta-cognitive over time as well in the act of teaching. And one example for me would be, I've seen a lesson and before it was a lesson about drawing a self-portrait, I was observing an art teacher, and it's probably the best lesson I've seen, I can remember seeing in 15 years. And on one level, it was quite simple in that what the teacher did, incredibly skillfully, was just to walk through to model the process of that drawing. And what he did, first he talked about the task and the children were quite familiar around portraits and self-portraits. He walked through the different strategies, why they were using pencil, for example, and actually then he went to that step of planning, monitoring, and evaluation. He did it in a way that didn't explicitly use the terms monitoring evaluation. But what he did brilliantly was verbalize each step of the planning process. And then he was verbalizing as he was doing the drawing himself. The evaluation at the end, he really involved the children in evaluating the sketch he quickly done. And it was seemingly intuitive and probably for that teacher may be quite intuitive. But what he did was, in his questions, verbalized the planning out loud, so what had he done before for such a self-portrait? Well, he'd apportioned lines, he created a little grid before he really got into shaping the face. His monitoring, as he was going, he was just asking those little questions around proportion, around the depth of shading. And the children were listening, they were engaging, they were answering questions. And all along what he was doing was he was actually training them to think and to be metacognitive during that task. Now, if you harass those children, 50 minutes earlier, to do a self-portrait, they'd have been able to do a self-portrait. And I'm sure it's been okay. And many children would have been metacognitive in doing so and done a good job. Many would not. But having gone through his modeling process, what I watched in that lesson was children being metacognitive for 30 minutes, carefully step by step, breaking down this complex art task. And it was really skillful. And by the end, they were being evaluative and they were comparing one another on the table, they were looking back at the teacher's example. And no one mentioned the word metacognition in the entire lesson. But what I came away with was how skilled the teacher had been at training children to be metacognitive. So we know from individual studies and the meta-analyses as well that there can be a really significant positive impact in using these strategies and metacognition and self-regulation. What I'm interested in is what's the difference between having a small positive impact with this and having a really significant positive impact and getting that sort of seven months learning gain over 12. What's the difference? I think that's quite a tricky one to answer. I think there are always real key active ingredients that are essential for success. I think given metacognition is so involved with the emotions of learning, with subject knowledge, with motivation, all these complex different factors. It's quite tricky to can divide, select what are those active ingredients you must have. I think if we were to try and draw those out, I think what you appear to see in the evidence space is that the teaching of metacognition is explicit, is structured, it is cumulative. And what that requires is actually teachers to be quite deeply trained and it requires pretty much most teachers in a given school to be really strongly aware of an understanding metacognition and the different strategies and then training consistently over time. So there needs to be a real clear, high quality CPD and shared language, but that actually pupils need lots and lots of practice and that requires every teacher in a primary school. So a child who goes from year 2, 3, 4 has that consistency of approach year on year. Whereas in a secondary school, people are going from subject to subject and that there are common approaches to planning. There are common focused approaches to how a child might monitor their learning and evaluate. What I've seen in quite a few schools is that when there is an analysis of how well we do this already, that teachers are quite honest that there's a bit of a variable knowledge of metacognition quite understandably. And that actually, we do some things well. So planning seems to be done consistently well. Whereas a child genuinely evaluating their learning seems to fall away because people don't have the time, not quite sure how to do it well. But where you see in the projects where it's really strongly consistent, there's a real rigour and structure, there's a real kind of system. Mae'n gyda'n gweithio gwneud i'r unrhyw snyddiad sy'n rhywbeth i'r unrhyw snyddiad â'r unrhyw snydiad â'r unrhyw snyddiad â'r unrhyw snyddiad â'r unrhyw snyddiad â'r unrhyw snyddiad â'r unrhyw a gweithio'r gwaithio. Mae'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio a gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r gwaithio'r Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio o'r i'n cymryd ar gyda'r ymryd o'r ymryd o'r ymryd o'r ymryd ymryd ymryd ymryd ymryd ymryd ymryd ymryd ymryd ymry a ddim yn ddiweddol yn ffordd. Mae'n ddyn ni'n ddyn ni'r ffordd yn ddyn ni'r ddyn ni'r ddyn ni'r ddyn ni'r ddyn ni'r ddyn ni Mae'r gweith am ddechrau. Mae'r gweith am gweith am gweith am gweith am gweith am gweith am I knew I couldn't become an expert on the subject itself, but I just needed to familiarise myself with it. So the objective that I had was to be able to ask some sensible questions of you, I suppose. And so I needed to know enough about it to be able to form those questions. And so I needed some questions. And so that's what I did. I knew I needed a microphone and a recording device. So I had to get those and make sure that I knew how to use those, because I didn't want to talk to you and not having press record or something and waste everyone's time. And then I needed to get here. And so there were some logistical things. So it seems quite seamless now that you piece all those things together. Was that a nice clear process? Was it a bit bumbling? Were you well organised? Are you a well oiled machine? I'm not. I think there's a part of me that's definitely sort of free styles a little bit. But I suppose once I started to get into it kind of, it all started to come together. And I think what's helpful and why net cognition, when you break it down to small steps and you can get it right and use it in the classroom so powerful, is that everything you just described is the process of metacognitive knowledge. So you first thought about the task, you knew what you had to talk about, you knew about yourself, you didn't know enough about it. So you had to find out more in terms of strategies, you knew where to look, to find out more information. And then also in terms of the task, you knew some of the technical, practical aspects of it, so you broke that down. And actually, when you start to break down and give headings for these things, actually we can start to take what is a complex messy thing that's quite difficult for some people, easy for others. But we can give it clear labels and steps. And then actually once it gives us then the language to evaluate it. And that's what being metacognitive is. It's being really conscious of your thinking. It's being really, I think the term, using common sense, but common sense isn't very common. And metacognition gives you a framework to think more effectively. And actually, so getting even further into it, you asked how I planned for the podcast. What's quite interesting that I'm reflecting on now is that the questions that I formed in the moment, the sort of the monitoring part of this exercise I suppose, I needed to refine the questions because they weren't necessarily structured in the best way to make sure that the conversation flowed in a sensible way. So there was an element of monitoring going on there as well. And I suppose the evaluation part, if we're going to go through the sort of three part of the process, is going to come when I get back and I listen to it. Yes, but I'm sure you'll enjoy that. Well, and I think what's useful is that actually now you've got labels for things. You can start to compartmentalize some of the challenges that you've got. And that's what metacognition does. It offers us a framework to better learn, to be more effective in the daily tasks that we undertake. And I think the problem with it is that it hit an in-plane site that really good learners in school from a quite young age are doing this quite efficiently. And then actually, and some arm. And over time, if it's not taught explicitly, then actually the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and some children. Just those children who are very good at school and those children who aren't, they're a bit bumbling and they're a bit disorganized. And they lose a grade here and they don't do homework there. And actually, this offers us a real scaffold, a real structure to improve learning. And I think in schools, we've got a new, bigger, harder curriculum. Teachers are grappling with how to kind of share that knowledge and understanding. People are struggling with it. I think that's the kind of common experience. What metacognition does is offer us a framework to tackle that complexity, to break it down to small steps. It is a bit messy. It is a little bit complicated, but that's why we need really high quality training around it. And I think actually it's integral to understanding learning and to building our curriculum to teaching really well. After my chat with Alex, he suggested that I get in touch with Megan Dixon. Megan is director of literacy at the Aspire Educational Trust. And so I spoke to Megan about how some of the metacognitive strategies and self-regulation strategies can be applied in literacy learning. Hi Megan. Hi Jamie. Megan, I've just been speaking to Alex Quigley about metacognition and self-regulation, to find out more about what it is and how it can be applied in the day-to-day practice of teachers. So following our chat, he suggested I ask you about the SRSD approach to writing and why it's useful. Would you mind talking me through that please? So SRSD puts together the cognition of writing the nuts and bolts that we need to know, the metacognition of planning, monitoring and evaluating the process, and helps add and support with the motivational aspects of it too. As writers have supported to notice the bits they found hard and develop self-talk, little words and phrases and motifs they can use to keep themselves going at the point of difficulty. So SRSD is widely used in the USA and was child in this country, in England, in a large EF child which had really, really successful outcome with an effect size of 0.74. Which means it's something that really we shouldn't be really thinking about, particularly for learners in key stage 2 and key stage 3. It's something that we've developed in our trust and is really effective in supporting both teachers and the children that we work with to get some really successful outcomes in writing in any genre and with any approach non-fiction or fiction or even poetry. Megan, can this or how does this translate to other aspects of literacy learning like reading comprehension strategies? Well, we can really focus on metacognition and metacognitive and self-regulatory thinking when we're teaching meeting comprehension. Because if we think about that plan monitor and evaluate cycle that sits under under pens matter cognition, that sits at the heart of what we know really good comprehenders do. We know that when someone sits down who's a really good comprehender to understand a text, they're all ready activating their prior knowledge about what the text is going to do, the sorts of things they might find out, the things they want to get from it. And activating their knowledge about what they might do if they find something that they don't understand or don't agree with or that doesn't sit with their current understanding of that topic or subject. As someone's reading, they are constantly as a good comprehension monitoring them. their own comprehension and their own reading processes. So at the back of their mind subconsciously, they're always thinking, does that make sense? Does that look right? Does that fit with what I already know? Does that fit with what was before the text? Does that fit with my predictions? And if at any point that chimes a response when they think, oh, no, that doesn't quite work. Really effective comprehenders have lots and lots of ways of going back and checking. So they're constantly monitoring their own understanding and then constantly repairing their understanding if they realize that they've got it wrong. And then at the end, they evaluate the process so they will sit back and say, this was a good text because, or, I learned this from this text, or this helped me in this way and evaluate how effective they were at doing this. And you know that when you sit there late at night and you've read two pages of a book on all of a sudden, you realize you've not taken in a word. You're evaluating your processes and evaluating and monitoring your thinking and your strategies. So we can do this and teach this when we are teaching comprehension, when we're working with students to develop their really effective reading comprehension skills. And it's really important that we do. One of the strategies that's quite often used is a strategy that was developed again in the States by two researchers, Palisca and Brown. And they developed, again, a cycle, a new monic that's called reciprocal teaching. Reciprocal teaching gives us another structure, another form that we can use to help prompt thinking and metacognitive behaviors when understanding reading. It can be applied to any text in any situation, starts off with a prediction. So thinking aloud or thinking eternally, what sort of things might we expect from this text or this next paragraph, predicting what it might be involved and what we might find out, and then after reading, we would encourage students to clarify so to notice any vocabulary or phrases or parts of the text that didn't work for them, that they didn't understand in that context. And to resolve that challenge, make sure that they understand every part of it. Then they would question their understanding and question what built up to developing a deeper layer of comprehension and inference. And then finally, I would summarize that. Typically, if I'm working with students, I would work paragraph by paragraph and the summary would be a short subtitle, which kind of condenses the extract, the meaning of the paragraph that was in front. And this kind of playing really close attention as you're reading, again, it's quite time consuming, but it serves to emphasize the processes that really affect your readers. Really effective comprehenders seem to do as they're approaching close reading of the text. I'm not talking about skimming and scanning to find out where information is here. I'm talking about really reading deeply, closely to understand. - Thank you, Megan. That's really helping me break down my understanding and to understand how it can be applied. Finally, do you have any other thoughts or suggestions for teachers interested in metacognition and self-regulation? - I think that metacognition and self-regulation and teaching this explicitly in the classroom is actually really difficult. And we can pay really close attention as practitioners to how we talk, because as we're talking to and with children, we can be constantly modeling these processes. So for example, rather than just giving children a list of instructions we can start off by saying, okay, how might we plan to do this? What might we need? Who are we going to write for? Who is this text written for? What do we expect to find when we are involved in this activity or this process or to produce this piece of work at the end? And then we can encourage all the way through children to be monitoring their own understanding. That helps us too as well, because if the children, the students are monitoring their own understanding and articulating that aloud, it helps us with our assessment of where their understanding is at. And then evaluating the process too. And we can achieve this through general, often metacognitive talk and real talk, not talking ad, but talking with and littering our conversation, digging deeper and asking the students constantly to think about why they understand something and how they understand something, why they've made a decision that might be different from their others. And I'm really exploring not just the actual art of learning, the actual knowledge that they've learned or the skills that they've learned, the things that they've memorized, but how they've memorized it and how that's made them feel of which aspects were more effective. Robin Alexander from University of Cambridge has studied this in a huge amount and he describes discussion and debate in terms of dialogic teaching of backwards and forwards, where everyone within the class comes to a general and mutual understanding and deep understanding as a really effective. It's really difficult to do and can take again time. But I think it's time that's really well-spent. It doesn't just happen there. We have to think about it. And it's, I think, one of the hardest things I've learnt to do as a practitioner in the classroom. Thank you, Megan. Like you said, the learning gains that have been shown from the research evidence really do suggest that it is worth trying to invest that time that it takes to do this really well and to do it properly and to make it explicit in everybody's teaching and learning. Thank you so much for talking us through it and helping me with my understanding and developing that further. Before you go, Jamie, I've just had a thought. It's really interesting to think about the fact that, although there's a lot of evidence to show that, we can really support your learners if we develop their meta-communative thinking and their self-regulation as well as learners. We can do that as well as practitioners ourselves. So using these meta-communative processes to be really reflective about how successful we are in the classroom planning small tweets and changes, evaluating and monitoring our progress as we teach. Yes, monitoring the progress of the children and young people or the young people in front of us, but also monitoring our own progress, to be managed to engage that level of talk or interaction that they will be in plan to. And then evaluating at the end our own learning as well as the learning of the children in front of us. It's a constant cycle that goes around all the time. It's something that I think makes teaching endlessly fascinating. - Well, what a meta end to our chat about meta-communition and self-regulation. Thank you very much, Megan, take care. - I really enjoyed finding out more about meta-communition and self-regulation. It prompted me to think about the relationship between meta-communition and self-regulation and cognitive load theory. We know that human processing power is limited. So given a complex problem or task, many learners will have too much to think about. They become overloaded and will struggle to find a solution unless they're able to break down a task or problem into smaller parts, unless they're aware of the limitations in their knowledge and have strategies and processes to structure and sequence their approach. But we're drawing to a close now, not before we get a quick update from Caroline Creepy, from Sandringham Research School and Roger Higgins of Norwich Research School to find out about their current work. - Funnily enough that our work recently has involved supporting schools with meta-cognition and self-regulation. We were particularly inspired by the E.E.F.'s new guidance report on meta-cognition and self-regulation. We obviously knew beforehand from the E.E.F.'s toolkit how powerful this can be to support students to make progress as further. And we found that the guidance report articulated so clearly what meta-cognition is and its component paths. And so during the summer, we hosted two Twilight events for teachers, which gave them a whistle stop tour of the guidance and the recommendations involved. Both sold out rather quickly and I must say at the event themselves, all of the delegates and the teachers asked so many questions and they were really interested in the different dimensions of the guidance. To us, that revealed a genuine appetite of teachers and school leaders to find out more and to know more. This month, in fact, on Friday the 28th of September, we're hosting a whole day course looking at the guidance report. We wanted to extend it to a whole day to give delegates more time to delve into each part and consider how the recommendations translate into classroom practice and to have a look at some of the examples and models that they might use in their own classroom. if teachers are. interested in finding out more about this event or indeed any others at the Sanjum Research School, our website, sanjum.researchschool.org.uk has a list of all our events. Hello, my name is Roger and I work at Norwich Research School. Coming up this term specifically linked to Metacognition, you might be interested in joining us for our free twilight exploring the EF guidance report on Metacognition and self-regulated learning. Check out our website for how to book, but it is free and it's running in early October. We'll also be continuing for the second year the Norwich Norwich Research Leeds Network, which meets half-termly. Quite a few schools in the area are looking at how to train and embed staff practice in Metacognition in their schools and the Research Leeds Network will give you an opportunity to hear how fellow schools are doing that to share challenges and to share ideas. You might be interested to know that we are running our second cohort of a CDD program called Long-term Learning, which has a heavy emphasis on Metacognition. While we're running, we're already in with a big cohort, we're probably going to repeat day one of that training. There's still an opportunity for you to catch up and join that cohort. Get in touch with us again via the website to find out more. Finally, it may interest you to know that we're working with much more intensive support with 10 primary schools in Norwich to train up a senior member of staff as a Research Leeds and a number of them are choosing to lead work focused on Metacognitive strategies. So it's really exciting and we're looking forward to helping those schools deliver what should be high impact approaches in their classrooms. Thank you. That's it for this podcast. Thank you for listening. I hope you found it interesting and useful. If you haven't already got your copy, you can download the EEF Metacognition and Self-Regulation Guidance Report from the Education Endowment Foundation website. I'd like to thank all of our guests Alex Quigley, Megan Dixon, Caroline Creeby and Roger Higgins. Thanks also to the Institute for Effective Education at York for their help with the logistics. Finally, we'd love to hear your feedback. Was the podcast too long? Should we have gone into more detail or was it just right? Similarly, if you have any suggestions for the topic of a future podcast, then please get in touch. (gentle music)