TPC Journal V7, Issue 1-FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 1 41 The secondary research question was: Does the magnitude of any changes in metacognitive functioning depend on the degree to which SSS was implemented with fidelity? Implementation fidelity was not strongly related to SSS effect size. Cohen’s d effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) were computed for each school to assess the impact of SSS on self-regulation of arousal. Schools 2, 3 and 4 (who had reasonable fidelity of implementation) had effect sizes of .20, .17 and .26 respectively. Schools 1 and 5 (who had the greatest deviation from implementation fidelity) reported effect sizes of .30 and .13, respectively. Therefore, the schools in this study showed considerable variability in effect sizes (.13 to .30). School differences across other factors (e.g., experience levels of SSS leaders, grade levels of students) may have contributed to this variability. In summary, although significant findings were not found for pre- and posttests related to the Jr. MAI, significant findings were found for the SESSS subscale self-regulation of arousal ( p < .001), indicating that students increased their ability to regulate levels of potentially debilitating arousal after participating in the SSS intervention. Examination of Cohen’s d effect sizes suggested that implementation fidelity, or the amount that schools varied from the scope and sequence laid out in the SSS manuals, did not correlate to level of effect size. This result suggests that the SSS intervention resulted in positive outcomes even when practitioners modified the scope and sequence to fit the needs of their setting. Discussion Evaluation Question 1. Does SSS delivered in a naturalistic setting impact students’ metacognitive functioning? The results of the present study suggest that when implemented in a naturalistic setting, SSS can be expected to result in statistically significant increases in students’ abilities to regulate potentially debilitating emotional arousal. These enhanced abilities might reasonably be expected to result in benefits related to improved academic performance (Durlak et al., 2011) and better school behavior (perhaps helping students increase their self-control related to daily interpersonal conflict and stressful events; Galla & Wood, 2015). The overall effect of SSS on emotional self-regulation, while statistically significant, was comparatively small. The present study failed to find evidence that SSS influenced other aspects of students’ metacognitive functioning, including their knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition, use of strategies related to the self-direction of learning, or use of strategies to support fellow classmates’ learning. Evaluation Question 2 . Does the magnitude of any changes in metacognitive functioning depend on the degree to which SSS was implemented with fidelity? While the schools in this study showed considerable variability in effect sizes, implementation fidelity was not strongly related to SSS effect size. For example, School 1 scored lowest on implementation fidelity, but demonstrated the greatest effect size (.30). The degree of departure from fidelity was not large enough to detract from SSS’s effect on students’ self-regulation of arousal. Relationship to Previous SSS Findings The present study failed to replicate the results of previous studies that found significant effects of SSS on students’ metacognition (Lemberger & Clemens, 2012; Lemberger et al., 2015). While the present study as well as Lemberger and Clemens’ study (2012) both used the Jr. MAI to measure changes in students’ metacognition, the two studies differed in terms of SSS delivery format (classroom vs. small group). The failure to replicate Jr. MAI-measured changes after SSS participation may be related to differences in the format (classroom vs. group) for SSS delivery, or to differences in the delivery context (naturalistic vs. controlled).