Metacognitive Strategies and Attributes

Metacognitive Strategies and Attributes



Chapter 5: Conclusion

Summary of the study

The study of metacognitive strategies and instructional methods that have contributed to the success of at-risk students at alternative educational settings such as charter schools gained strength from the federal law and legislation that emphasized accountability from all public schools that receive federal funding. A good example of such accountability requirements is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which mandated all public schools (including charter schools) to “demonstrate at least minimal progress for every student in every school; if adequate yearly progress (AYP) is not met after two years, parents may move their children to other schools, and federal dollars may but taken away from low performing schools” (Richardson, Morgan, and Fleener, p.37). NCLB emphasized the high stakes testing to measure students' progress in standardized norm- or criterion-referenced tests. NCLB has been deeply explored in earlier discussions here above and found to be a useful tool for the measurements of school accountabilities.

This study therefore explores academic performance of at-risk students in charter schools compared with the performance of those students in conventional public schools. The questions are: “How does academic performance vary across students attending different types of charter schools? Do students in start-up schools do better or worse than students in conventional schools? Are students in schools with non classroom-based instruction perform at achievement levels below or above those in schools that offer instruction in a classroom setting?” (Rand's Publications, 2003, p. 38).

The metacognitive strategies and instructional methods that help at-risk students succeed at alternative, unconventional educational settings also rests with effective teaching methods and administrative leadership styles of school leadership. The study also explores different learning styles of students and how these styles contribute to their educational success.

Conclusion

To work effectively with at-risk students: initiatives require buy-in “school wide.” As early as the late 1980s, Druian and Butler (1987) highlighted the techniques, processes, and procedures that generally resulted in effective, high-quality education. Then they did an interesting thing: they researched to see if these same techniques, processes, and procedures would achieve similar results with at-risk youth. In general, they found that key characteristics of effective schools included leadership, a climate of high expectations, and clear instructional objectives - all reflected in the great variety of classroom activities and management techniques. They also found that successful school programs for at-risk students included a strong level of commitment by the instructional staff, strong leadership, and small program size. Their work further pushes the belief that the instructional relationships and activities that characterize effective schools also best address the needs of at-risk students. Grossen (2004) identifies teacher “buy in” and school wide commitment as vital in implementing teacher directed instruction models.

Programs and strategies need to create a sense of belonging for the child. Programs that target the school as a whole but bring especially significant benefits for at-risk students are desirable. Success with prevention strategies that include actions taken to anticipate, forestall, or deal with ...