Self-Regulated Learning in the IB Diploma Programme: A qualitative comparison of strategy use by IB Diploma students with learning difficulties and those with a history of high achievement

High-achieving students

High-achieving students are generally perceived as possessing advanced metacognitive (Gaultney, 1998; Reis et al, 2000; Morisano and Shore, 2010; Pajares and Kranzler, 1995), cognitive (Morisano and Shore, 2010; Ruban and Reis, 2006) and epistemic awareness (Muil et al, 2013), enabling them to demonstrate greater ‘cognitive capacity to deal with complex issues and to learn material in a more meaningful way’ (Ruban and Reis, 2006: 154). Inherent in many conceptions of ‘giftedness’ are aspects of SRL, including task commitment (Renzulli, 1988; Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Renzulli, 2012), adaptive affect (Tannenbaum, 2003), motivation (Clinkenbeard, 2012; Tannenbaum, 2003), and learning strategies (Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990; Ruban and Reis, 2006; Munro, 2003) that are more advanced and more effective than those of their peers (Schunk and Ertmer, 2000; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990). Ruban and Reis (2006) argue that high-achieving students are more likely than their peers to possess ‘an arsenal of self-regulatory methods that help them succeed in academic settings’ (p 148).

Students with learning difficulties

The term ‘learning difficulties’ refers to diagnoses such as dyspraxia, dyslexia, and dyscalculia that arise from ‘neurological differences in brain structure and function [that] . . . affect a person’s ability to receive, store, process, retrieve or communicate information . . . [and] are both real and permanent’ (Cortiella and Horowitz, 2014: 3). These neurological differences can affect phonemic awareness, semantic awareness, processing speed (Watson et al, 2016; Trainin and Swanson, 2005), working memory, and other areas of processing. Because the processing differences that contribute to learning difficulties frequently also impact metacognitive awareness and executive functioning skills (Mason and Reid, 2018; Cortiella and Horowitz, 2014; Watson et al, 2016; Butler and Schnellert, 2015), many students with learning difficulties struggle to take ownership of their own learning.

Rather than proactively self-regulating their learning, many students with LD demonstrate a reproductive, ‘survival model’ (Ruban and Reis, 2006: 154). They tend to use fewer and simpler strategies than their peers, have difficulty effectively adapting strategies to a particular task (Montague, 2008) and, in many cases, do not even perceive strategies as useful (Ruban et al, 2003; Watson et al, 2016; Zimmerman, 1990). However, it is important to note that the academic performance of highly self-regulated students with LD can be indistinguishable from that of non-LD peers (Harris and Graham, 1999; Reis et al, 2000), indicating that SRL-promoting educational environments can be of particular benefit for these students (Butler and Schnellert, 2015; Montague, 2008). In fact, for many, this type of environment may be the only form of ‘support’ they need (Butler and Schnellert, 2015).

The SRL-Enhancing Potential of the IB Diploma Programme

In the IB Diploma Programme, teaching and learning are considered interdependent processes and the voice of the learner, not just the teacher, is emphasised (IB, 2009; IB, 2014b). Teachers are encouraged to take a ‘metacognitive approach’ (IB, 2009: 8), and are discouraged from teaching to a textbook or involving students as ‘passive recipients’ (IB, 2009: 37). With regard to the development of cognitive awareness, work is evaluated using well-articulated subject-specific assessment criteria (Tookey, 1999) to ensure students develop their understanding of what constitutes excellence and how to achieve it. To further support this, students and teachers are encouraged to routinely engage in criteria-driven ‘reflection, self-assessment and conferencing’ (IB, 2006: 2), and plentiful opportunities to practice are offered (IB, 2009). The IB’s emphasis on the development of ‘powers of the mind or ways of thinking’ (IB, 2014a: 15) and aim that students develop the view that ‘other people, with their differences, can also be right’ (IB, 2014b: i) suggests that the development of epistemic awareness is also a significant priority.

Moreover, DP standards for teaching and learning (IB, 2014b) are highly congruent with what research suggests is SRL-promoting instruction (see Azvedo et al, 2008; Patrick and Middleton, 2002; Winne, 2010; Schunk and Zimmerman, 2007; White and DiBenedetto, 2018; Butler and Schnellert, 2015). In particular, DP teaching and learning is meant to be student-centred and process-focused, and explicit instruction of Approaches to Learning (ATL) skills (thinking, social, communication, research and self-management skills) is an integral element of classroom teaching in all subject groups (IB, 2016; IB, 2015). This type of environment is considered beneficial for high-achieving students (Renzulli, 2012; Tookey, 1999; VanTassel-Baska, 2000; Stoeger and Ziegler, 2005) and students with learning difficulties alike (Mason and Reid, 2018; Butler and Schnellert, 2015).

Sampling criteria

Participants for the study, all female and from the same single-sex school, were selected on the following basis:

Participants

The multiple case study ‘cases’ included four students (of a possible ten who met all the criteria) with learning difficulties (one with moderate LD in the first year of the DP, one with multiple moderate learning difficulties in the first year of the DP, one with multiple moderate learning difficulties in the second year of the programme, and one with multiple significant learning difficulties in the second year). It also included six students (of a possible fifteen) who were on the school’s Enrichment Programme register (three in the first year of the DP and three in the second year). In this article I discuss three work samples submitted by each of three participants (a low self-regulator with moderate LD in the first year of the DP, a high self-regulator with multiple significant learning difficulties in the second year, and a high self-regulator from the high-achieving group). All names used are pseudonyms, to protect the anonymity of participants, who provided informed consent and were assured of the confidentiality of the data gathered.

Methods

To allow for investigation of the strategies students used during independent learning, participants first self-selected and submitted between four and six work samples (Butler and Cartier, 2018; Lichtinger and Kaplan, 2015; Hadwin et al, 2004) that they felt reflected their approaches to learning within the IB Diploma Programme. Because accurate information about students’ awareness of the SRL strategies they use is just as important as identifying the strategies they use (Boekaerts and Cascallar, 2006), participants also submitted written cued/prompted reflections (Butler and Cartier, 2018; Hadwin et al, 2004) describing why they selected the strategies represented by their work samples, the learning goals underpinning their strategy use, whether their strategies were successful, and how they knew. To provide further insights into students’ strategy use, I also conducted semi-structured interviews. Each roughly 45-minute interview was divided into two parts. First, I asked stimulated recall questions (Kaplan et al, 2011; Lichtinger and Kaplan, 2015), with work sample as a reference. Questions explored why participants had used particular strategies, how they had learned them and what other strategies might achieve similar learning goals. The purpose of these questions was fourfold: to triangulate, clarify, and build upon reflection data; to develop a sense of the SRL processes underpinning students’ strategy use and tease out whether any of the three theoretical perspectives underpinning this investigation was particularly relevant; to build a comprehensive picture of the situated nature of how each participant approached her learning in the DP and why she did so in that way; and to mitigate limitations associated with more open-ended self-reporting. I also asked open-ended questions (de Groot, 2002; Patrick and Middleton, 2002; Lichtinger and Kaplan, 2015) to explore participants’ views regarding the habits of effective learning.

Data analysis

To analyse the data, I adopted Miles and Huberman’s (1994) approach to content analysis. Miles and Huberman advocate ‘progressive focusing’ by interweaving data collection and analysis simultaneously from the outset of the investigation through multiple phases of increasingly focused data analysis. They also advocate utilising displays specifically tailored to the study to ‘reduce’ qualitative into quantitative data to facilitate analysis, helping the researcher to strengthen or, if needed, alter original interpretations and make comparisons within and across cases. The relevant displays for this part of the investigation were a Work Samples Evaluation Sheet (Appendix A), an Interview Within-Case Display (Appendix B), and a Reflection Within-Case Display (Appendix C).

Ultimately, data was analysed in nine distinct phases. The purpose of the first three phases of analysis was familiarisation, including summarising initial thoughts and initial display-building, revising decision rules, and scrutinising and revising displays. More in-depth analysis began several weeks after familiarisation concluded and was conducted in six phases. During these phases I ‘blind’ recoded all interview transcripts, built new displays for each case, conducted intra-rater reliability checks, and built new displays and moderated until holistic ratings had achieved 95% agreement. Table 1 demonstrates the number of passes of moderation undertaken for the three within-case displays central to analysis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Number of passes during moderation of analysis.

	Under 95% Agreement (first moderation)	Under 95% Agreement (second moderation)	Under 95% Agreement (third moderation)
Work Samples Evaluation Sheets n=50	n=3	n=0	n/a
Interview Within-Case Displays n=10	n=7	n=2	n=0
Reflection Within-Case Displays n=10	n=4	n=0	n/a

Did the number of strategies implemented by participants in the two groups differ?

The strategies listed in Table 2 emerged from the data and expand upon those described by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986). In this table, the letter ‘Y’ indicates that all participants in a particular category used a particular strategy, while ‘N’ indicates that only some or none of the participants in a particular category used the strategy. To compare the number of strategies utilised by participants in each group and grade level, the Ys in each column were tallied.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Number of participants who reported using particular strategies aggregated by year and group.

	Grade 11 HA (n=3)	Grade 12 HA (n=3)	Grade 11 LD (n=2)	Grade 12 LD (n=2)
Rereading of notes or textbook	Y	Y	Y	Y
Practice problems/past papers	Y	Y	Y	Y
Flashcards	N	N	N	N
Rewrite notes in new format	Y	Y	Y	Y
Consolidate notes	Y	Y	Y	Y
Study with others	N	N	N	N
Memorise’	N	N	N	N
Self-test	N	Y	Y	Y
Highlight and annotate	N	Y	N	Y
Writing process	N	Y	N	Y
Planning/time management	Y	Y	Y	Y
Use colours, diagrams, or tables to help visualise	Y	Y	N	Y
Self-evaluation or reflection	Y	Y	Y	Y
Test corrections	N	N	N	N
Essay plans for revision	N	Y	N	Y
Help-seeking	N	N	Y	Y
Regular previewing and/or regular revision	Y	Y	Y	Y
Wider reading or independent reading	N	Y	N	Y
Motivation control	N	Y	N	N
Affective control	Y	N	Y	N
Avoiding distractions	N	N	N	N
Frequency of strategies self-reported by all participants in each grade level	9	14	10	14

Although the literature frequently suggests that students with learning difficulties use fewer strategies than their peers (Ruban et al, 2003; Watson et al, 2016; Zimmerman, 1990, Butler et al, 2011), this was not the case in the current investigation. Of the 21 strategies students submitted or self-reported, there were nine that all high-achieving Grade 11 participants submitted or self-reported, fourteen that all high-achieving Grade 12 participants submitted or self-reported, ten that all Grade 11 participants with LD submitted or self-reported, and fourteen that all Grade 12 participants with LD submitted or self-reported. Conversely, time spent in the Diploma Programme did appear to make a difference. For both the LD and high-achieving groups, participants in the second year of the DP consistently used more strategies (14) than did participants in the first year of the DP (10 and 9 respectively).

Did the type of strategies participants in the two groups implemented differ?

As shown in Table 2, the types of strategies that participants with learning difficulties submitted or self-reported were similar to those submitted or self-reported by high-achieving participants. A slightly larger number of high-achieving participants self-reported using flashcards, studying with others, highlighting and annotating, engaging in writing as a process, wider reading, avoiding distractions and using strategies to control motivation or emotions. A slightly larger number of participants with learning difficulties self-reported asking for help and testing themselves. However, as suggested by Karpicke et al (2009), some differences in the strategy use reported here may mask actual similarities. For example, participants who used flashcards or completed practice problems or past papers may have been engaging in self-testing without explicitly stating this.

Some other differences between the two groups were using colours, diagrams or tables to visualise material, and creating essay plans to revise for essay examinations. Only Grade 11 participants with learning difficulties did not report implementing these strategies. It was also interesting that most participants did not report correcting errors on tests, suggesting that they did not utilise tests as a method of formative assessment in order to improve learning and performance. Only one participant, a Grade 11 participant with LD, reported using this strategy. However, because participants in both groups are likely to have used strategies while enrolled in the Diploma Programme that they did not either submit or self-report, Table 2 should be interpreted as a helpful ‘snapshot’ of participants’ actual approaches to learning, rather than the whole picture.

Did the quality of strategies implemented by participants in the two groups differ?

Given the limited space available for this analysis I draw upon three illustrative examples submitted by each of three representative participants: Claire, a low self-regulator with learning difficulties; Samantha, a high self-regulator with learning difficulties; and Ally, a high self-regulator in the high-achieving group. To make distinctions between lower and higher quality strategy implementation, I evaluate participants’ cognitive, metacognitive, and epistemic processing as reflected by the work samples they submitted. Evaluations were made utilising a ‘Work Samples Evaluation Sheet’ (see Appendix A) in conjunction with interview and reflection data.

‘Adequate/emulation’ quality strategy

The first work sample Claire submitted was a four-column chart she created for Environmental Systems and Societies (ESS). Her teacher had provided a model biome case study to help students understand the expectations, and Claire decided she would create hers on the back of the model for easier comparison between biomes. I evaluated Claire’s work sample Adequate/Emulation for cognitive awareness. She had adapted the strategy to the task by creating appropriate headings, she reduced the number of words to one quarter or less of the original text, and her notes reflected some of Winne’s (2018) SMART processes. For example, she transformed the information into a new representation that facilitated rehearsal, recall, understanding, and analysis, and she had searched for information about her biome. However, Claire had not accurately monitored the degree to which her own case study corresponded to the standard provided, and had overestimated her performance. ‘On the back I wrote down that [biome] information for a desert so I could easily compare the two.’ Furthermore, Claire had not demonstrated higher order thinking according to Bloom’s taxonomy, which she could have done by incorporating diagrams, sketches, or further examples to facilitate deeper conceptual understanding, and her case study did not reflect rigorous content knowledge or sound understanding.

In terms of metacognitive awareness, I evaluated Claire’s four-column chart Adequate/Emulation, although some aspects were more effective than others. For example, I rated it Substantial/Self-Control for creating ‘desirable difficulties’ because it reflected the spacing effect, the generation effect and the testing effect. The notes were her own, written in a format that could facilitate self-testing, and formed part of her programme of regular revision. In the ‘avoiding illusions of competence’ category, she had focused on relevant information rather than interesting but irrelevant details, and purposely selected a strategy she believed would work: ‘It’s just really based on what I feel would work best in the situation.’ Claire’s four-column chart, however, reflected little effort: ‘[My teacher] did say . . . [we] don’t necessarily need this much information for the exam but [she] thought [we] should have it anyway.’ There was also too little information in these notes to help Claire effectively monitor what she knew or did not know.

I evaluated Claire’s four-column chart Limited/Observation for epistemic awareness. On the one hand, she had explored a new strategy: ‘I did maybe two [four-column charts] last year, [but] I’ve used them a lot more. I find them a really easy way of organising something in a really specific way.’ She had also transformed the material into a format with potential to promote rigorous content knowledge, conceptual understanding, and long-term retention (deep learning) by offering opportunities to analyse and compare various aspects of a biome as well as practice retrieval. However, her implementation was shallow. Although her teacher’s example demonstrates rigorous content knowledge and conceptual understanding, Claire’s 4-column chart included only simple, rote facts with no effort at linking them together. The information she included was also so sparse that it demonstrated little awareness of the uncertainty or variability of complex knowledge. Furthermore, although she had selected this strategy because she assumed it would work, she did not provide any basis for this judgement, nor did she describe how she might monitor her understanding or provide standards for ‘knowing.’

‘Excellent/Self-Regulation’ quality strategy

The next work sample that Claire submitted was a Spanish past paper. I evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-Regulation in the cognitive awareness criteria because it involved SMART cognitive processes and was an appropriate strategy for examination preparation. It also reflected evidence of task complexity according to Bloom’s Taxonomy and, based on her achieving 12 of 14 marks, sound understanding in relation to subject-specific criteria.

An evaluation of Excellent/Self-Regulation in the metacognitive awareness criteria reflected Claire’s creation of ‘desirable difficulties’, in particular the ‘spacing effect’ because this strategy formed part of her programme of regular revision, and the ‘testing effect’ because she attempted the paper without looking back at her notes. She had also avoided developing illusions of competence by interleaving reading, writing and vocabulary and, given that this was a published past paper, she had focused her attention on relevant information. This strategy also demonstrated high levels of metacognitive monitoring: ‘I used it to see what level I needed to be on.’ Finally, she had noted vocabulary she had struggled with and described how she had resolved these issues, suggesting an awareness of her strengths and weaknesses.

I evaluated Claire’s implementation of the Spanish past paper as Excellent/Self-Regulated for epistemic awareness. In the surface/deep criteria, the strategy was evaluated as Excellent/Self-Regulation for depth because it required conceptual understanding as well as recall. It also suggested awareness of the variability of knowledge in that Claire recognised the need for a complex strategy for a complex learning goal. In the ‘evidence of multiple standards for knowing’ criteria, this strategy was evaluated as Excellent/Self-Regulation because Claire had checked her work against the mark scheme and corrected her errors. In the ‘indication of awareness of uncertainty, ambiguity or incoherence of complex knowledge’ criterion, this strategy was evaluated as Excellent/Self-Regulation because she had realised this strategy might not ensure competence on its own: ‘If there were particular words I didn’t recognise I took note of it and wrote down the translation, [in case] maybe I should add it to flash cards or something.’

‘Substantial/Self-Control’ quality strategy

The final work sample discussed here is a four-column chart Claire had created to synthesise her learning at the end of the ‘Broken English’ unit in her Language and Literature class. I evaluated this strategy Substantial/Self-Control for cognitive awareness. For example, it involved SMART cognitive processes, was appropriate for and adapted to the task, and demonstrated elaboration: ‘I reviewed the literature we’d read and the notes I’d made . . .’ Claire’s implementation of this strategy also suggested analysis and evaluation, rather than just recall and understanding: ‘Instead of doing it knowledge-wise, [this] was more of an opportunity to re-evaluate and analyse what we’d already done.’ However, the amount of information she included was quite limited as a synthesis of an entire unit’s learning, indicating she had not monitored the degree to which the information she included corresponded to the standards, and her implementation of this strategy did not demonstrate application or creation in relation to Bloom’s taxonomy or sound understanding in relation to the criteria.

In the metacognitive awareness criteria, I evaluated this strategy Substantial/Self-Control for metacognitive monitoring, particularly pace of learning, task completion, and reliability of strategy: ‘I could have done a mind map . . . but I wanted to do something that was quite organised and straightforward.’ I also evaluated it highly for creating desirable difficulties, because she had reviewed the entire ‘Broken English’ unit, generated her own notes, and written them in a format that would facilitate self-testing. However, the limited amount of material Claire had included, in relation to an entire unit’s learning, could lead to illusions of competence.

In the epistemic awareness criteria, I evaluated this strategy Adequate/Emulation. I evaluated it Substantial/Self-Control for surface/deep strategies, as the headings and information Claire had included indicated that she was aiming for conceptual understanding rather than ‘rote’ facts. However, I rated it Adequate/Emulation for each of the other criteria. Without further examples or suggestions of how she might monitor her learning, Claire had not demonstrated ‘multiple standards for knowing’ or awareness of multiple perspectives, or of the uncertainty, ambiguity and incoherence of complex knowledge. She had also not demonstrated awareness that a complex task (reviewing an entire unit in preparation for an examination) may require a deeper strategy, aiming for the development of more rigorous content knowledge and practising the skills she would need, as well as reviewing the content.

‘Excellent/Self-Regulated’ quality strategy

The first work sample Samantha submitted was an essay she had redrafted, based on her teacher’s feedback, after her mock English examination. I evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for cognitive awareness because it involved SMART cognitive processes and was appropriate for the purpose of improving her examination performance. Because Samantha had redrafted an analytical piece of writing, this strategy also demonstrated evidence of task complexity. In terms of her understanding, Samantha initially struggled with evaluating her performance in relation to task criteria, but through her use of this strategy her own task calibration had improved: ‘[My teacher] gave me feedback on my mock exam . . . I’ll just keep reworking it until it’s a 7’.

I also evaluated Samantha’s redrafted essay Excellent /Self-regulated in the metacognitive awareness criteria. Reworking it until it achieved a 7 indicated the creation of ‘desirable difficulties’, and submitting it for feedback suggested that Samantha was compensating for her weaknesses and avoiding illusions of competence. Self-initiated formative assessment had helped her use strengths (proactivity and effort) to overcome a weakness (poor task calibration): ‘This was a really useful activity for me because I saw where I went wrong . . . I could tick off all of his comments.’

I evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for epistemic awareness. Using her teacher’s feedback to redraft her essay was a deep strategy that enabled Samantha to develop rigorous content knowledge and conceptual understanding, promoted long-term retention, and gave her an opportunity to hone task-specific skills. It also indicated awareness of the variability of knowledge; in other words that complex tasks, such as preparing for an essay examination, require deep strategies. Moreover, submitting it to her teacher suggested awareness of multiple standards for knowing and of the uncertainty and ambiguity of complex knowledge. Samantha also described adapting this strategy for other tasks, depending on her learning goals, suggesting an exploratory orientation: ‘If I’m doing an English essay, I might bullet the key points . . . so in the first paragraph I would do this, and in the second I would do that, and the third paragraph and so on’.

‘Excellent/Self-regulated’ quality strategy

The second work sample Samantha submitted was a table in which she compared two literary works. I evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for cognitive awareness. Samantha had adapted this strategy to the task by focusing on comparative commentary skills and using subheadings such as authors’ backgrounds, literary features, and themes. While reducing the amount of material to less than one quarter of the original number of words, she had also referenced quotations and page numbers. Her table demonstrated recall, understanding, application, analysis, and evidence of task complexity, and she had searched for information that met the standards and transformed the material into a new representation, demonstrating SMART processing.

I also evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for metacognitive awareness as it demonstrated the generation, spacing, and testing effects: ‘[When revising with my friends], we go, “Tell me about the author’s history?” and then we tick off what was in there.’ Using her table in this way also suggested that Samantha was avoiding illusions of competence. Samantha also found this strategy very reliable: ‘If I’m writing a practice essay . . . I can just go to the boxes and tick off what’s in there and plan from this document.’

I evaluated Samantha’s table strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for epistemic awareness. Inventing her own deep strategy indicated an exploratory orientation, and including multiple examples under each subheading and using this strategy to write practice essays to submit for feedback indicated awareness of multiple standards for knowing and of the uncertainty and ambiguity of complex knowledge. Moreover, using a deep strategy to prepare for an essay exam suggested awareness of the variability of knowledge, and Samantha’s engagement with teachers and peers to ensure accurate task calibration demonstrated she was supporting her own judgements with reasoning and evidence.

‘Excellent/Self-regulated’ quality strategy

For her third work sample, Samantha submitted a highlighted, annotated passage from ‘The Great Gatsby’. I evaluated this strategy Excellent for cognitive awareness. Highlighting and annotating literary techniques and themes was task-appropriate and involved SMART cognitive processes. Because Samantha was analysing text, rather than trying to comprehend it, her implementation of this strategy also suggested evidence of task complexity according to Bloom’s taxonomy.

I also evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for metacognitive awareness. Samantha was aware of her strengths and weaknesses and thus read the text while listening to her audio book, pausing to make analytical annotations in the margins. Generating annotations, as part of the triple modality of this strategy (listening, reading and writing) reflected the creation of desirable difficulties. Furthermore, Samantha’s focus on literary techniques and themes reflected an emphasis on relevant, rather than high interest but irrelevant, details. Including this information in the table previously described, using it to write practice essays, and discussing it with friends, suggested a high level of metacognitive monitoring.

I evaluated Samantha’s highlighting/annotating strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for epistemic awareness. Analytical highlighting and annotating was a deep strategy that enabled her to develop rigorous content knowledge, conceptual understanding and an appropriate text-analysis skill, indicating an awareness that complex tasks, such as literary analysis, require deep strategies. Moreover, Samantha identified quotations to support her interpretations, suggesting an awareness of multiple standards for knowing as well as awareness that reasoning and evidence must be provided to support knowledge claims. Her independent use of this strategy demonstrated an exploratory orientation, as interview data indicated that students in this context often waited for the teachers to tell them what to annotate during class discussions, rather than doing so independently.

‘Excellent/Self-regulated’ quality strategy

The first strategy Ally submitted was a highlighted and annotated newspaper article she had read for Geography. I evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for cognitive awareness. Ally searched for information that corresponded to the Geography case study standards, monitored the degree to which the information corresponded to those standards, linked this information to other articles on the same topic, and translated the information into a new representation, demonstrating SMART cognitive processes. ‘If I’m making one point about armed conflict, I can bring in two examples [which] impresses the examiner.’ As annotations were organised by Geography case study criteria, this strategy is appropriate for and adapted to the task. Ally’s annotations also reflected sound understanding of the ‘Famine’ topic and she had reduced the number of words to one quarter or less of the original text.

I also evaluated Ally’s Geography article Excellent/Self-regulated for metacognitive awareness. She created desirable difficulties and avoided creating illusions of competence by reading, highlighting and annotating multiple articles on the same topic: ‘Different newspapers will have different opinions, so it’s better to make sure, rather than focusing on one single newspaper.’ Ally’s implementation of this strategy also reflected high levels of metacognitive monitoring and awareness of her own strengths and weaknesses: ‘In an exam, sometimes I’ll forget a statistic on a single case study, but then I’ll remember one from a different country . . . so what I do is have knowledge from different case studies.’

Ally’s Geography article was also evaluated Excellent/Self-regulated for epistemic awareness. It involved critical thinking and elaboration, suggesting awareness that deep strategies promoting rigorous content knowledge, conceptual understanding and long-term retention are most appropriate for complex tasks, such as case studies. Furthermore, drawing from several articles indicated an emphasis on multiple standards for knowing, awareness of the uncertainty, ambiguity and incoherence of complex knowledge, and awareness that interpretations should be backed with reasoning and evidence: ‘One newspaper might say armed conflict was the reason for the famine, whereas another one might say, actually, there were low harvests that year.’

‘Excellent/Self-regulated’ quality strategy

I evaluated the second work sample Ally submitted, a transcript of an Economics essay she had dictated into her phone, Excellent for cognitive awareness. She had used this strategy to improve her Economics essay-writing skills, and she had ensured that her essay corresponded closely to the standards by including definitions, examples, and graphs. As she dictated her essay from memory, this strategy also reflected Ally’s ability to remember as well as to understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and create.

I also evaluated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for metacognitive awareness. By dictating from memory Ally practiced retrieval. She further avoided illusions of competence by generating her own notes and printing the transcript to revise later, indicating a dual code presentation. Ally’s emphasis on efficiency and awareness of her own strengths, weaknesses and learning preferences were particularly striking: ‘I don’t like to write essays when I’m practising for exams because it’s so time-consuming. I like to have conversations as if I’m explaining something to someone . . . when I’m revising, I can go over this transcript.’

Ally’s transcript was also evaluated Excellent/Self-regulated for epistemic awareness. It was a deep strategy in that it involved analysis, evaluation, and the application of rigorous content knowledge, suggesting awareness that complex tasks, such as an Economics essay, require deep strategies. It was also inventive, indicating an exploratory orientation. Furthermore, describing high prices resulting from collusive oligopolies as a disadvantage and the innovation in terms of pharmaceutical development as an advantage, this strategy demonstrated an emphasis on multiple perspectives as well as acceptance of the ambiguity of complex knowledge. Moreover, Ally’s planned inclusion of graphs indicated awareness that interpretations should be supported through reasoning and evidence.

‘Excellent/Self-regulated’ quality strategy

The third work sample Ally submitted was a past paper text she had annotated. This strategy was evaluated Excellent for cognitive awareness. Highlighting and annotating was appropriate for Unseen Commentary preparation, reflecting SMART cognitive processes. Also, Ally had identified a wide range of literary devices including alliteration, personification, hyperbole, and sensory imagery, demonstrating task complexity according to Bloom’s taxonomy and indicating sound understanding in relation to subject-specific criteria.

In terms of metacognitive awareness, this strategy was also evaluated as Excellent/Self-regulated. Ally’s implementation of this strategy indicated creation of desirable difficulties and avoidance of illusions of competence: ‘I print both the prose and the poem because we get a choice, and I’ll attempt both to see if in an exam I’d be able to answer both and to develop the skills and challenge myself.’ I also rated this strategy Excellent/Self-regulated for metacognitive monitoring, particularly reliability of the strategy, pace of learning, and confidence: ‘I’ll give myself around 15 minutes, because that’s how long I usually spend in the exam. I’ll read it a few times to really understand it, and then I’ll pick out the key themes, the key ideas, and the literary devices.’

Ally’s highlighted, annotated text was also evaluated Excellent/Self-regulated for epistemic awareness. She had used a deep strategy, involving analysis and application of rigorous content knowledge and appropriate skills to prepare for the Unseen Commentary, a complex task. This strategy also reflected an exploratory orientation. ‘I only recently started this strategy . . . I found this on my own.’ Moreover, Ally had underlined quotations associated with literary devices she had identified, suggesting awareness of a need to provide reasoning and evidence to support her interpretations.

The impact of epistemic awareness on self-regulated learning

Ally, a highly self-regulated participant in Grade 12, submitted a high quality highlighted and annotated newspaper article she had read to prepare for the case study portion of her Geography examination. The topic under consideration was ‘famine’. Demonstrating an interest in integrating differing perspectives and sources, and in questioning whether evidence from those sources aligned or conflicted, she had read articles from a range of newspapers describing different famines and differing national responses to them. She had printed the article she submitted in a reduced scale and created a wide margin on one side for annotations which she grouped under the categories she wanted to elaborate in her case study: causes, consequences, and solutions.

Under each category she had written several points, each of which could generate a different argument. For example, under ‘causes’ she had written ‘armed conflict’, ‘low harvest’, and ‘soaring food prices’ in bullet points. She had also evaluated solutions as more and less successful. Moreover, Ally had highlighted supporting quotations, indicating an emphasis on justifying her conclusions with evidence. And, finally, reading multiple articles on a range of famines indicated awareness of the uncertainty, ambiguity, and incoherence of complex knowledge. Ally’s highlighted, annotated newspaper article represents a deep strategy used to develop rigorous content knowledge, conceptual understanding, and sophisticated task-appropriate skills. This strategy was well-adapted to the complex task of preparing a case study for an open-ended Geography topic such as ‘famine’.

We now turn to the case of Claire, a Grade 11 participant who demonstrated low levels of SRL. Claire submitted a low quality four-column chart of a biome to prepare for the case study portion of her Environmental Systems and Societies (ESS) examination. Her teacher had prepared a detailed model of a case study to help ESS students understand the expectations, yet Claire’s case study looked nothing like the model. Although she had written her notes in a four-column format with task-specific headings, she created headings that promoted the acquisition of rote content knowledge (location, example, climate, production, and biodiversity), rather than headings that would facilitate conceptual understanding and analysis.

Elements of reasoning and evidence were therefore missing from Claire’s notes. This lack of analysis suggests that, for Claire, memorising facts may be paramount. She did not demonstrate an understanding of the relevance of the facts she included, nor did she attempt to make connections to other habitats or topics. Moreover, her four-column chart listed only facts about the Sahara Desert, rather than making comparisons with other deserts, demonstrating limited awareness of the uncertainty, ambiguity, or incoherence of knowledge. She did not seek multiple standards for knowing, relying only on sources provided by her teacher rather than investigating further using the required case study approach. The sparseness of the information she included reflected limited understanding of the complexity of biomes. Overall, Claire’s biome case study notes did not suggest awareness that a complex task, such as a case study, required deeper strategy use, and she seemed unaware of the constructed, contextual nature of knowledge or the conceptual, meaning/thinking-oriented nature of the DP curriculum.

Ally’s advanced epistemic awareness and Claire’s limited epistemic awareness clearly influenced the quality of the strategies they used during independent learning. However, given the higher levels of epistemic awareness reflected in Samantha’s work samples, it is apparent that limited epistemic awareness is not an inevitable ‘symptom’ of a learning difficulty. Significantly, one of the DP standards for teaching and learning involves engaging students as thinkers and inquirers and addressing ‘human commonality, diversity and multiple perspectives’ (IB, 2014b: 25). This indicates that, from the IB’s perspective, epistemic awareness is ‘teachable’. Indeed, Wright’s (2015) life history research illustrates that one of the enduring and positive impacts the DP has on its graduates is the development of their skills of critical analysis and the ‘broadly critical orientation to the world’ (p 49) it instils.

How student-centred, process-focused instruction could potentially facilitate epistemic awareness

These participants’ varying levels of epistemic awareness suggests that knowledge from the IB Diploma Programme Theory of Knowledge course may not transfer easily to other subjects. However, there are pedagogical practices that DP subject teachers are encouraged to engage in which can facilitate the development of epistemic awareness. Modelling, scaffolding, formative assessment, collaborative learning, discussion and other activities that illuminate, draw upon, and value multiple perspectives all serve to challenge students’ thinking and, in doing so, encourage a more effective approach to learning (IB, 2014b; IB, 2009). Muis and Singh (2018) argue that this sort of teaching is precisely what develops epistemic awareness.

Collaborative learning is one example of an SRL-promoting practice (Li, 2012; Black et al, 2006; Patrick and Middleton, 2002), encouraged by the IB as part of DP pedagogy, with potential to develop epistemic awareness. Epistemological development can be extremely difficult, even traumatic, for many students (Kember, 2001) because it involves challenging core beliefs about how learning happens. However, collaborative learning promotes social interdependence and positively influences students’ perceptions of the supportiveness of the environment (Johnson and Johnson, 2009), potentially mitigating negative impacts of epistemic development. Moreover, because collaborative learning allows for the ‘externalisation of epistemic thinking’ (Muis and Singh, 2018: 451), collaboration provides those with lower levels of epistemic awareness access to more highly developed students’ ‘powers of mind and ways of thinking’ (IB, 2014a: 15). These opportunities may help students better understand the complex, relative, and constructed nature of knowledge.

Formative assessment, also encouraged by the IB as part of DP pedagogy, is another practice with potential to enhance epistemic awareness. Black and Wiliam (2009) argue that formative assessment involves ‘considerations of instructional design, curriculum, pedagogy . . . and epistemology’ (p 8), suggesting that formative assessment cannot be practiced effectively without taking into consideration epistemological issues. With this in mind, teachers can purposefully design formative assessment to illuminate these issues and to contribute to students’ epistemological development. Participants suggested that formative assessment enhanced their ability to think critically, particularly when they received feedback on annotations, essay plans, and essays. The most highly self-regulated students were also inclined to use criteria to formatively self-evaluate their own performance, or to swap papers with a peer, providing them with evidence supporting their own judgements regarding the quality of their work. Less self-regulated participants presumed they had achieved well without actually using the criteria to evaluate their own work.

Process-focused instruction also emerged from the data as extremely useful for helping participants learn how to engage more critically with ideas and information. DP assessments are designed to ‘reward evidence of independent student thinking leading to considered individual responses’ (IB, 2009: 37). Being taught effective processes helped participants of all abilities meet these demands, but was particularly helpful for participants with LD. For example, being taught acronyms such as PEEL (Point, evidence, evaluate, link) helped Samantha understand that each paragraph in her Geography essays should develop her argument. Being encouraged to colour-code each of the PEEL features in her first essay reiterated this, and Samantha was able to transfer this learning to other Geography essays she wrote over the course of the DP without prompting to do so by her teacher.