: Metacognition in Geography: Better Thinking, Better Exam Answers Using EEF Metacognition Strategies to Improve Geography Exam Answers
—
Blog
Metacognition in Geography: Better Thinking, Better Exam Answers
Using EEF Metacognition Strategies to Improve Geography Exam Answers
Share on:
by Cornwall Research School
on the
Penny Laban
Penny is the Head of Geography and Literacy Coordinator at Penair School in Truro, Cornwall where she has focused on curriculum design and implementation to improve engagement and student outcomes in Geography. Penny uses inspiration from her work with the Kingsbridge Research School and the EEF when developing reading across the whole-school curriculum. She has a particular interest in the role that literacy plays in closing the gap for our most disadvantaged students.
The Education Endowment Foundation’s updated Metacognition and Self‑Regulated Learning resources provided a timely reminder that improving exam outcomes is not just about content knowledge, but about helping pupils learn how to think, plan, and regulate their approach to complex tasks. When reflecting on year 10 performance in end of unit tests we recognised that whilst students were using ‘BUG the question’ on the extended writing tasks, they were not efficiently planning for and thinking about the demands of the question. We decided to use the new Promoting Metacognitive Talk resource to reshape our lesson planning so that metacognitive talk becomes an integral part of preparing students to write higher‑quality exam answers.
A key focus of the EEF guidance is its emphasis on explicit instruction. When planning an exam‑focused lesson, this includes articulating the planning phase aloud: identifying command words, selecting relevant knowledge, and deciding how best to structure an answer. Making this thinking visible helps pupils internalise strategies they can later apply independently in exam conditions. We created resources to use think, pair, share activities to allow students to develop their thinking about a response to an exam question.
Students have had lots of previous modelling of exam questions, so they are well-aware of the requirements and structure of similar questions. Metacognitive talk is particularly powerful when woven into shared practice. Structured teacher questioning encouraged pupils to reflect on their choices — What does the command word mean? Where have I seen a similar question before? Which strategy worked best in the past? What might I do differently next time? These prompts shifted the classroom discourse away from simply checking answers towards examining thinking, reinforcing the message that self‑regulation develops through guided practice rather than assumption.
Students were guided through metacognitive talk to plan their response and attempt an answer. An area of the metacognitive process that our classes needed to work on was the process of self-monitoring and evaluation during and after the task. By structuring the monitoring phase with specific questions, students were able to refine their answers before completing the task.
Over time, we hope that embedding this approach will support pupils to plan, monitor, and evaluate their writing with increasing confidence. By repeatedly embedding metacognitive strategies into exam preparation lessons, we are aiming to help our students build a reliable internal dialogue — one they can draw upon silently in the exam hall when it matters most.
