Research Study

1. Phase A was the initial term of this cohort’s secondary schooling. The data point represented the baseline for the study.

2. Phase B intervention followed a conventional ad hoc, bolt-on training strategy. Students, typically in a cohort or large groups, were exposed to specific strategies, their cognitive processes, the “how” and the “why: they aided learning and the evidence of their impact. Upon reflection, separating the study skills from the process and subject-specific learning content was a barrier to broader strategy uptake. It did not focus sufficiently on the underlying behaviours that affect student self-efficacy and self-regulation in integrating these taught strategies into routines.

3. The Phase C approach responded to the deficiencies with Phase B’s ad-hoc approach. Churchie’s School Executive, seeing the potential of A Learner’s Toolkit, established a timetabled study strategies subject. The structured programme developed a sequential and systematic student instructional training continuum. In a significant change from Phase B, the program directly translated the Toolkit strategies to the relevant subject, curricula, and assessment instruments. The design afforded curriculum time for the continuum and the translation and evaluation of the study strategies that reach beyond just students knowing about specific strategies. Initially, the instruction focused on developing student metacognitive processes to fight forgetting to build understanding. From this base, the programme shifted to training students in building their ability to independently select the most appropriate high utility study strategy to suit the various subjects, curriculums, and assessments. At this stage, the programme supported students to take control of their learning over the remainder of their educational journey. This was achieved by designing and implementing a study routine enacted by their self-regulation, thereby distilling their belief and commitment to the strategies.