Using metacognitive strategies in teaching to facilitate understanding of light concepts among year 9 students

Background: Enhancing students’ metacognitive abilities will help to facilitate their understanding of science concepts. Purpose: The study was designed to conduct and evaluate the effectiveness of a repertoire of interventions aimed at enhancing secondary school students’ metacognitive capabilities and their achievements in science. Sample: A class of 35 Year 9 students participated in the study. Design and methods: The study involved a pre-post design, conducted by the first author as part of the regular designated science programme in a class taught by him. In order to enhance the students’ metacognitive capabilities, the first author employed clearly stated focused outcomes, engaging them in collaborative group work, reading scientific texts and using concept mapping techniques during classroom instruction. The data to evaluate the effectiveness of the metacognitive interventions were obtained from pre- and post-test results of two metacognitive questionnaires, the Metacognitive Support Questionnaire (MSpQ) and the Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire (MStQ), and data from interviews. In addition, pre-test and post-test scores were used from a two-tier multiple-choice test on Light.Results: The results showed gains in the MSpQ but not in the MStQ. However, the qualitative data from interviews suggested high metacognitive capabilities amongst the high- and average-achieving students at the end of the study. Students’ gains were also evident from the test scores in the Light test. Conclusion: Although the quantitative data obtained from the Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire did not show significant gains in the students’ metacognitive strategies, the qualitative data from interviews suggested positive perceptions of students’ metacognitive strategies amongst the high- and average-achieving students. Data from the Metacognitive Support Questionnaire showed that there were significant gains in the students’ perceptions of their metacognitive support implying that the majority of the students perceived that their learning environment was oriented towards the development of their metacognitive capabilities. The effect of the metacognitive interventions on students’ achievement in the Light test resulted in students displaying the correct declarative knowledge, but quite often they lacked the procedural knowledge by failing to explain their answers correctly

European experts consensus: BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency testing in first-line ovarian cancer

Background: Homologous recombination repair (HRR) enables fault-free repair of double-stranded DNA breaks. HRR deficiency is predicted to occur in around half of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ovarian cancers harbouring HRR deficiency typically exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Current guidelines recommend a range of approaches for genetic testing to identify predictors of sensitivity to PARPi in ovarian cancer and to identify genetic predisposition. Design: To establish a European-wide consensus for genetic testing (including the genetic care pathway), decision making and clinical management of patients with recently diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and the validity of biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of PARPi in the first-line setting. The collaborative European experts’ consensus group consisted of a steering committee (n = 14) and contributors (n = 84). A (modified) Delphi process was used to establish consensus statements based on a systematic literature search, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: A consensus was reached on 34 statements amongst 98 caregivers (including oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, genetic researchers, and patient advocates). The statements concentrated on (i) the value of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and HRR deficiency testing, including when and whom to test; (ii) the importance of developing new and better HRR deficiency tests; (iii) the importance of germline non-BRCA HRR and mismatch repair gene mutations for predicting familial risk, but not for predicting sensitivity to PARPi, in the first-line setting; (iv) who should be able to inform patients about genetic testing, and what training and education should these caregivers receive. Conclusion: These consensus recommendations, from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from across Europe, provide clear guidance on the use of BRCA and HRR deficiency testing for recently diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer