TPC Journal V7, Issue 1-FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 1 39 Available data indicate that the SESSS is a reliable assessment tool. Carey et al. (2014) reported an overall alpha coefficient of 0.91. Furthermore, Villares et al. (2014) reported that the coefficient alphas for the three SESSS subscales (self-direction of learning, support of classmates’ learning and self- regulation of arousal) were .89, .79 and .68, respectively. Data Analysis In order to answer the current study’s research questions, the authors conducted separate multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with a repeated measure (pretest-posttest time) for the Jr. MAI and the SESSS. In the Jr. MAI, the two subscales (knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition) were the dependent variables. For the SESSS MANOVA, the three subscales (self-direction of learning, support of classmates’ learning, self-regulation of arousal) were the dependent variables. After performing the MANOVAs, follow-up repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted, where appropriate, to determine the significance of the pretest-posttest changes for individual subscales. Effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) also were calculated to determine the magnitude of pretest-posttest change in subscale associated with the intervention. For significant subscale changes, effect sizes were compared across schools to ascertain whether the level of fidelity of SSS implementation was related to the intervention’s size of effect. Results MANOVA analyses with a repeated measure (pretest-posttest) were performed to determine the differences between Jr. MAI and SESSS subtests across the pretest-posttest time periods in order to answer the primary evaluation question. The primary question was: When implemented in a naturalistic setting, does SSS impact students’ metacognitive functioning, as determined by (1) knowledge and regulation of cognition as measured by the Jr. MAI (Sperling et al., 2002) and (2) use of skills related to self-direction of learning, support of classmates’ learning and self-regulation of arousal as measured by the SESSS (Carey et al., 2013)? The results of these MANOVAs are shown in Table 2. For the Jr. MAI, the repeated measures MANOVA revealed a significant difference (F (1, 1562) = 3267.47, p < .00l) between the two subscales (knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition). However, no significant difference existed between the pretest and posttest time points. The interaction effect of main effects, subscale and time was not significant. Table 2 Repeated Measure MANOVA: Effects of SSS on Students’ Metacognitive Activity Dependent Measures Jr. MAI SESSS Main effects Subtest 3267.47 *** 356.24 *** Time .3900 19.84 *** Interaction effect Subtest * Time 1.4400 28.25 *** Note. ***p<.001 In contrast, SESSS repeated measures MANOVA revealed both a significant main effect of Subscale (F (2, 1610) = 356.24, p < .00l) and a significant interaction effect of Subscale x Time (F (2, 1610) = 28.25,