Implementation for evidence informed approaches - Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning across the school

When embarking on our ‘evidence informed’ journey, I felt I was in a good position within school as the deputy head, having previously led on school priorities and affecting change. I was well aware of the possible types of responses from staff when implementing something new – devil’s advocates, seen it all before, do not like change, blockers, on board, minimal engagement, and the enthusiasts! Knowing that everyone being on board was vital to affect change, it was essential that the implementation process be done right, engaging staff in the process from the outset, empowering them to enable positive change. As a school, we followed the process outlined in the EEF guidance A School’s Guide to Implementation.

Implementation in schools framework (figure 1, page 4)

“..the process helps schools do implementation. The behaviours and contextual factors help them do it well”

We adopted the above behaviours that drive effective change, and agreed on our approaches to developing metacognition after staff had had their own say and input, and had been through a process of trial and reflection.

Here is how we structured our implementation around the 3 key recommendations in the report.

Recommendation 1 – Adopt the behaviours that drive effective implementation

Engage – We were keen to look into approaches that would impact on outcomes, both academically and for children’s wellbeing (SEMH). We decided to approach this with teaching staff and look at the evidence informed approaches that were open to us, and the impact these approaches had had in the studies provided. Initially this was not restricted, with all approaches a possibility - however the required outcomes for our priorities, and further considerations we needed to identify for our specific children/setting, needed to be taken into account.

Unite - Teachers were given time to investigate and find the approaches that interested them, as the more passionate they were about the strategies, the better the outcomes for pupils. Dedicated time shows SLT investment in this project and dedication to getting it right. Exploration took place, where staff selected their approaches – there were a lot! These ranged from metacognition to reading comprehension and parental engagement. We discussed how they would be feasible, why it mattered, proposed outcomes and what the expected reflection process would be, whilst considering the age of the children and class dynamics.

Reflect - Teachers were enthused and motivated to trial these approaches within their own class/year group (as a 2 form entry school, the majority of teachers chose to work together in year groups) and were beginning to plan these out using the EEF implementation plan template (available on the EEF website - Editable implementation plan template) alongside a worked example featured within the guidance – figure 5, page 35).

The result was several completed plans, all of which had the problem outlined, intervention identified, strategies, outcomes and final outcomes. More importantly, everyone was on board with clarity in their chosen approach and purpose, knowing there would be continued reflection and adaptation.

These approaches ran for a year with continued reflection and review (adaptations to be made for greater impact identified and actioned) on the chosen approaches taking place termly and documented on our class forms and implementation plans – again time was given and vital to the process where staff discussed and fed-back to one another so that all were involved in each other’s journeys.  

Recommendation 2 – Attend to the contextual factors that influence implementation

Deciding on our whole school approach came from the teachers after their trials, who agreed to move forward with metacognition in all year groups and classes. However, this looked different in varying pockets dependent on the children and context (KS/year/class). Metacognition had demonstrated to us the greatest impact regarding SEMH which in turn supported data outcomes (attainment and progress).

The original metacognition implementation plan (written by the teacher who trialled this approach in year one) created the basis for all, and was re-written for the context of the children they now taught and knew well (second year). As staff had been along for the journey, this was achieved with continued professional discussion, development, input and dedicated time. Our teacher who had already been trialling this method could present their findings to others, show how they had overcome barriers and clearly identify areas of impact. These teachers became our advocates, leading the way for others, providing evidence proving their systems worked for our children in our school, with the ability to provide support. This was great!

What was being implemented was already evidence informed, had clear systems and structures (which could still be adapted and altered dependent on individuals or groups) and had all those on board who could enable this change school wide – we were winning!

Recommendation 3 – Use a structured but flexible implementation

Structured process – Metacognition worked extremely well in writing, applying the key principles of this strategy with questioning/prompts, used on a day-to-day basis, all written by teachers for their children. This became the foundation which we built upon in delivering our approach.

We managed this implementation term-by-term with training regarding metacognitive approaches, culture and conduct – teachers selected those most within the environment/dynamic for their children. In our current year (3^rd year) of implementation, CPD continues to be high on our agenda, focusing on these areas and sharing practice with one another. The review and adaptation cycle has continued, allowing us to sustain our process and continue to support our priorities as a school, and what we value for our pupils. This process helps support our dedication to ongoing learning and improvement.

Integrating the 14 Mechanisms to support the implementation process (figure 6, page 38)

Building knowledge – continued professional development throughout the cycle with dedicated time, planning processes and follow-through.  

Motivating teachers – strategies chosen by teachers; valuing views and opinions; passionate about the approach(es) and seeing the impact in our setting for our children. Purposeful!

Developing teaching techniques – dedicated time; sharing good practice; observing others (modelling); access to support materials; starting small and building on these foundations (managing cognitive load).

Embedding practice – remaining high on the agenda throughout the 3 years; identified within school SDP priorities; links to staff PMR centred targets; review and adaptation cycle to ensure practice remains current and purposeful for our classes/pupils.  

Underpinning implementation - our school context and culture journey

We are fortunate to have professional respect for one another and trust in each other’s judgements, valuing each staff member’s input, and appreciating individual expertise in shaping our school. We never want to stagnate, with intrinsic principles for continuous development and forward-thinking approaches, holding pupils and the school community at the heart of what we do.

---

Written by Lacey Davies, Evidence Lead in Education and Deputy Headteacher at Pear Tree Mead Academy

Find out more about Lacey here.

To read our other ELE blog posts, click here.

To sign up to receive new ELE blog posts directly to your inbox, click here.