Supporting Metacognitive Development in Early Science Education: Exploring Elementary Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Metacognition

Metacognition is the understanding and control of cognitive processes. Students with high levels of metacognition achieve greater academic success. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine elementary teachers’ beliefs about metacognition and integration of metacognitive practices in science. Forty-four teachers were recruited through professional networks to complete a questionnaire containing open-ended questions (n = 44) and Likert-type items (n = 41). Five respondents were selected to complete semi-structured interviews informed by the questionnaire. The selected interview participants had a minimum of three years teaching experience and demonstrated a conceptual understanding of metacognition. Statistical tests (Pearson correlation, t-tests, and multiple regression) on quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data indicated that teachers largely understood metacognition but had some gaps in their understanding. Participants’ reported actions (teaching practices) and beliefs differed according to their years of experience but not gender. Hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that the first block of gender and experience was not a significant predictor of teachers' metacognitive actions, although experience was a significant predictor by itself. Experience was not a significant predictor once teachers' beliefs were added. The majority of participants indicated that metacognition was indeed appropriate for elementary students. Participants consistently reiterated that students’ metacognition developed with practice, but required explicit instruction. A lack of consensus remained around the domain specificity of metacognition. More specifically, the majority of questionnaire respondents indicated that metacognitive strategies could not be used across subject domains, whereas all interviewees indicated that they used strategies across subjects. Metacognition was integrated frequently into Ontario elementary classrooms; however, metacognition was integrated less frequently in science lessons. Lastly, participants used a variety of techniques to integrate metacognition into their classrooms. Implications for practice include the need for more professional development aimed at integrating metacognition into science lessons at both the Primary and Junior levels. Further, teachers could benefit from additional clarification on the three main components of metacognition and the need to integrate all three to successfully develop students’ metacognition.

AN INVESTIGATION ON ROUTINE FOLLOW-UP CARE FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER

BACKGROUND: Follow-up care aims to provide surveillance with early detection of recurring cancers and to address treatment complications and other health issues in survivorship. It is assumed that follow-up care fulfills these aims, however little evidence supports routine surveillance detecting curable disease early enough to improve survival. Cancer survivors are a diverse patient population, suggesting that a single follow-up regimen may not meet all patients’ follow-up needs. Little is known about what effective follow-up care should include for head and neck cancer patients in a Canadian setting. Identification of subgroups of patients with specific needs and current practices would allow for hypotheses to be generated for enhancing follow-up care. OBJECTIVES: 1a) To describe the follow-up needs and preferences of head and neck cancer patients, 1b) to identify which patient characteristics predict needs and preferences, 1c) to evaluate how needs and preferences change over time, 2a) to describe follow-up care practices by physician visits and imaging tests, and 2b) to identify factors associated to the delivered follow-up care. METHODS: 1) 175 patients who completed treatment between 2012 and 2013 in Kingston and London, Ontario were recruited to participate in a prospective survey study on patients’ needs and preferences in follow-up care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to describe patient survey responses and to identify patient characteristics that predicted needs and preferences. 2) A retrospective cohort study of 3975 patients on routine follow-up from 2007 to 2015 was carried out using data linkages across registry and administrative databases to describe follow-up practices in Ontario by visits and tests. Multivariate regression analyses assessed factors related to follow-up care. RESULTS: 1) Patients’ needs and preferences were wide-ranging with several characteristics predicting needs and preferences (ORECOG=2.69 and ORAnxiety=1.13). Needs and preferences declined as patients transitioned into their second year of follow-up (p<0.05). 2) Wide variation in practices was found, with marked differences compared to existing consensus guidelines. Multiple factors were associated with follow-up practices (RRTumor site=0.73 and RRLHIN=1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics can be used to personalize care and guidelines are not informing practice. Future research should evaluate individualized approaches to follow-up care.