Research & Training Blog

By Rick Bryck, Ph.D., Senior Director, Landmark College Institute for Research and Training and Marc Graff, Ph.D. , Assistant Professor, Education & Special Education, Graduate School of Education, Touro University 

Background

Navigating the complexities of academic tasks often requires a strong command of one's internal language, or "inner speech." This cognitive tool is crucial for comprehending challenging texts, planning, and making decisions, especially during the writing process. However, individuals with executive function (EF) challenges, particularly those who are neurodivergent (diagnosed with a learning disability, ADHD, or autism), can sometimes struggle to effectively utilize inner speech. This limitation can significantly impact their academic performance. This article explores a novel intervention designed to bolster inner speech and, consequently, academic success in this population.

Traditional interventions, such as verbalization and reflection methods, have shown limited effectiveness, especially for neurodivergent learners. While some studies have explored self-instructional techniques and reflection training, these approaches haven't consistently addressed the unique EF difficulties faced by this group. Traditional self-instructional approaches, while incorporating elements of verbalization, haven't involved methods suited to the unique EF difficulties neurodivergent individuals may experience in applying internal language. For instance, while self-monitoring interventions have led to performance gains in children with ADHD, self-instructional techniques have not always proven effective, and research on reflection training has generally been implemented primarily with neurotypical participant samples.

We report on a study conducted with neurodivergent college-age students. We employed a strategy intervention that trained students to engage in "self-talk" within learning activities. This approach supports internal language during demanding tasks like reading comprehension and essay writing. The verbalization inherent in this intervention is expected to aid in maintaining and refocusing attention, while the reflection component is designed to leverage "psychological distancing," a mechanism that can enhance self-regulatory capacity and counter the impulsivity and planning challenges often associated with executive dysfunction. This "thinking-aloud" technique, combining self-directed verbalization and reflection, aims to empower learners with a strategy they can independently apply across various learning situations.

Research Questions

Our study sought to answer two key questions: 

1) Does training college students to engage in “thinking aloud,” in the form of self-directed verbalization and reflection, during academic tasks lead to performance gains on these tasks? and 

2) Is there a relationship between the effect of the verbalization-reflection technique, in terms of performance gains on specific learning tasks, and initial executive function ability?

Project Rationale

To summarize, the rationale for this project was motivated by the following:  

Self-talk helps with academics

Self-verbalization techniques, like self-instruction, can help when faced with challenging academic tasks (e.g., comprehending difficulty passages, problem solving, etc.). 

Update on Previous Work 

Although techniques such as these have been studied previously, they have not been devised in mind of the unique EF challenges typically faced by neurodivergent students.

Gap in the Literature 

Previous research with self-talk metacognition strategies with college-aged neurodivergent students is scarce. 

Methodology 

The study employed a pretest-posttest experimental design, recruiting college-aged neurodivergent students and randomly assigning them to either a training or control group. The training group participated in three strategy sessions focused on the verbalization-reflection technique. These strategy training sessions covered three core components:

1. Self-Questioning: Participants were taught to verbally pose questions about the material they are learning, using complete sentences. This involved asking questions like "What is the text saying?" or "What am I writing about?"
    
2. Reconstitution: Participants were shown how to verbally respond to their self-questions using full sentences. During writing activities, this also includes "writing-aloud" their self-responses related to the essay topic.
    
3. Post-Reading and Writing Reflection: Participants practiced verbally reflecting on their learning process and the steps they took, fostering internalization and maintenance of the technique.

A comprehensive battery of assessments was given to all participants both before and after training. The intention was to measure a host of critical concepts, including core academic abilities like reading and writing, as well as a number of control and potential moderating variables, such as executive function, prior verbal abilities (both vocabulary and phonetics), ADHD symptomology, and general demographic information. The full list of instruments used is listed below: 

Pretest

• Reading comprehension (Nelson-Denny) 
• Short essay composition  
  • Prompt examples: 
    • “Do video games influence people’s behavior?” 
    • “Do you prefer living big city or small town?”
  • Scored by both experimenters using a rubric by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) 
• Executive Function (inhibitory control using the Flanker task) 
• Verbal skills 
  • Vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocab Test (PPVT)
  • Phonetics (Word Attack sub-test of the Woodcock-Johnson (IV))
• ADHD symptomology (Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS)
• Demographics survey 

Posttest

• Reading comprehension (Nelson-Denny; alternative form) 
• Essay (alternative forms) 
• Survey: Use and engagement of strategies

 

Results 

Our primary dependent variables of interest were achievement in reading and writing scores; critically, we hypothesized that the difference between post and pre scores (gains) would be higher in the training group compared to the control group. Main findings are detailed below, with interesting potentially moderating effects also described. 

Reading

We did not observe a between-groups (training vs control) difference in pre to posttest gain score, contrary to our hypothesis. In other words, as a whole, there were not large differences between the two groups at posttest compared to pretest. 

However, a closer look at the data revealed an effect that did support the utility of the support strategy: for training participants, there was a moderate to strong positive association between the amount participants reported using the strategy and gains in reading scores; in other word, perhaps not surprising, but those that actually used the strategy more during reading showed improved reading scores. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1.

Reading Score Gains as a Function of Reported Use of the Strategy

 

Similarly, when asked about how much they believed the strategy had enhanced their reading comprehension skill, larger improvement was seen on reading scores for those endorsing a belief that the strategy worked for them compared to those reporting lower belief that the strategy was useful. (See Figure 2.).

Figure 2.

Reading Score Gains as a Function of Reported Improvement with the Strategy

Results: Writing

At the group level, we observed a slight improvement in the training group on the writing measure from post to pretest, however this difference, compared to the control group, was not statistically significant. However, when we again looked at individual differences on key variables, we did observe an interesting association between gains in writing and pretest essay scores. For participants in the training group, a strong and significant negative correlation was found between the initial, pretest writing scores and gains at posttest, r(13)= -.77, p = .006, yet essentially no correlation between these measures was observed in the control group, r(13) = -.02, p = .95; See Figure 3). This seems to suggest that students with lower initial writing scores may have benefitted from using the self-talk strategy, while students with higher initial scores were potentially hindered by the strategy. 
 

Figure 3.

Correlations between Initial Writing Scores and Gains in Writing Scores by Group

Summary

Taken as a whole, these results suggest individual differences in the effectiveness, or receptiveness, of the strategy training. Namely, those with greater fidelity in using the strategy may benefit more, as may those with poorer initial writing skills. Put another way, while we didn’t observe group (average) differences, as predicted, when we look at individual differences, there are some findings that suggest other variables may be moderating these effects – namely adherence to and/or belief in the strategy (participants that used the strategy and/or believed it was helpful) did improve in reading. One interpretation of writing results is that students who were already pretty good at writing might not benefit, or at least as much, from the self-talk strategy, whereas those with more room for improvement did benefit from the self-talk strategy.

The implication from this study suggests, like most strategy training, we likely need to tailor metacognitive and self-talk strategies to student profiles, based on current ability level, particularly for neurodivergent students, as well as trial and error. The broader implication, and reminder, here is that metacognitive skill use is not an “all or none” phenomenon; rather, it can be used selectively when facing particularly difficult tasks, getting stuck on a problem, or devising a plan for approaching a complex problem.  

Some key concepts and takeaways to keep in mind: 

General Self-Talk Strategies You can Use with Students (or yourself!) 

Self-Questioning 

Quiz/ask yourself reflection questions about the meaning of reading, problem, or assignment

Reconstitution 
Explain in your own words (e.g., summarize)

Diagnosis 
Monitor and self-check for comprehension

Here is a self-talk “road map” you may find helpful to guide this strategy use with students:  

Step 1

What is the question?

• If you feel that you understand the question, go to Step 2. 
• If you are unsure what the question is asking, analyze: 
  • What information does the question give you? 
  • What information do you still need to find? 

Step 2

• Rephrase the question
• Explain the question in your own words.  

Step 3

• Think about the question
• If you think you are ready to answer the question, go on to Step 4. 
• If you don’t think you can answer the question yet, analyze: 
  • What information am I being given in the question? 
  • What do I need to find? 
  • How do I find it? 

Step 4

• Answer the question
• Explain your answer. 

In Conclusion

We want to leave you with a few key reminders about metacognition and self-talk: 

• Metacognitive strategies can be taught
  • Consider effective strategy implementation, e.g., “deliberate practice.” 
     
• Developing self-talk is theoretically crucial for school and general life skills (like EF skills).  
   
• This is not an “all or none” strategy; it can be used selectively:
  •  e.g., when a student faces difficult tasks, gets stuck, or is unsure how to approach a task/problem.