Metacognitive strategies may be defined as cognitions that learners employ to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning process in order to achieve specific learning goals. The extent to which students use these strategies is dependent on both personal variables and characteristics of the learning environment that either foster or hinder it (e.g. Winne, 2001). Among individual characteristics potentially associated with metacognitive strategy use, specific motivational beliefs have not been extensively explored. From an environmental point of view, while teachers can directly instruct students in metacognitive strategies, teaching practices that create a supportive learning environment also play an important role (e.g., Otto, 2012). Overall, exploring the predictors of metacognitive strategy use requires attention to the complex interplay between environmental factors and individual psychological characteristics.

The objective of this study was to identify factors predicting the use of metacognitive strategies in learning mathematics among first-year high school students in Lithuania. Specifically, we examined whether students’ motivational beliefs and perceived quality of teaching uniquely contribute to the variation in metacognitive strategy use. Metacognitive strategy use was operationalized as cognitions used by learners during each of the four phases of self-regulated learning, postulated by Pintrich (2000): planning, monitoring, control and evaluation. The sample comprised of 1487 first-year high school students (43.4 % boys, 55.9 % girls, 0.7 % other; mean age = 14.88, SD = 0.34) from 24 public schools located in cities (41.8 % of the study sample), towns (42.5 %) and rural areas (15.7 %) throughout Lithuania.

To measure motivational beliefs of studying math from the perspective of expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983), we assessed expectancies for success (6 items), three dimensions of values (interest value (7 items), utility value (11 items) and attainment value (6 items)) and four dimensions of cost (effort cost (3 items), opportunity cost (5 items), psychological cost (5 items) and emotional cost (5 items). Further, students reported on several aspects of perceived teaching, including cognitive activation (5 items), instructional guidance (5 items) and psychological control (7 items). Prior achievement was obtained from standardized test results provided by school. Metacognitive strategy use was measured as a single construct with 13 items.

Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with sociodemographic characteristics and prior math achievement entered in the first step, motivational beliefs in the second, and perceived teaching variables in the last. Each step showed a significant change in R², with the final model explaining nearly 39% of the variation in metacognitive strategy use. Student gender from background variables, expectancies for success, all three aspects of value, and effort cost from motivational variables, and cognitive activation from teaching variables were significant predictors in the final regression model, while prior achievement, other facets of cost, teacher psychological control and instructional guidance were not. Overall, the findings show that both motivational characteristics and perceived teaching add substantially to the understanding of high school students’ metacognitive strategy use while learning math.

Keywords: Metacognitive strategies, motivational beliefs, perceived teaching, high school.