Training metacognition in the classroom: the influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions

Abstract

In two semester-long studies, we examined whether college students could improve their ability to accurately predict their own exam performance across multiple exams. We tested whether providing concrete feedback and incentives (i.e., extra credit) for accuracy would improve predictions by improving students' metacognition, or awareness of their own knowledge. Students' predictions were almost always higher than the grade they earned and this was particularly true for low-performing students. Experiment 1 demonstrated that providing incentives but minimal feedback failed to show improvement in students' metacognition or performance. However, Experiment 2 showed that when feedback was made more concrete, metacognition improved for low performing students although exam scores did not improve across exams, suggesting that feedback and incentives influenced metacognitive monitoring but not control.In an ideal world each one of us, when asked about the quality or efficiency with which we can accomplish goals, could provide a correct answer. As it is though, no one is immune to flawed self-assessment; doctors, nurses, business managers, and other trusted professionals routinely commit errors of self-assessment, which is one aspect of metacognition (Dunning et al. 2004). Metacognition refers to a person's "knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena" (Flavell 1979, p. 906). Three aspects of metacognition that have been researched extensively are metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and metacognitive control. In this paper, we focus on metacognitive monitoring, which is an individual's ability to assess the state of their cognitive activity, and metacognitive control, which is an individual's ability to regulate cognitive activity (Dunlosky & Metcalfe 2009). To illustrate these two aspects of metacognition, consider the following example: A student is studying for an anatomy exam and she asks herself how well she remembers the bones of the hand. When she answers this question about the current state of her learning, she has Metacognition Learning (2011) 6:303-314

Influence of Fluid Intelligence on Accuracy of Metacognitive Monitoring in Preschool Children Fades with the Calibration Feedback

“…Calibration feedback, in the line with previous research (Krajč, 2008;Miller & Geraci, 2011;Ryvkin et al, 2012), seems to produce more promising results. Calibration feedback alone explained 26% of the variance in monitoring accuracy; 6% more than performance feedback did.…”

“…Therefore, calibration feedback provides information about the correctness of task performance as well as the accuracy of the metacognitive judgment regarding it. Most promising are mixed interventional designs that benefit from both repeated testing and provided feedback (Hacker, Bol, & Keener, 2008), especially in low performing students (Krajč, 2008;Miller & Geraci, 2011;Ryvkin, Krajč, & Ortmann, 2012). Nietfeld et al (2006) found a significant treatment effect (repeated testing) on monitoring accuracy and performance in students who received monitoring feedback (overall calibration and bias scores) but not in students who received no feedback.…”

Assessment of Learner Metacognition in a Professional Pharmacy Elective Course

“…Future efforts may target employing incentives, such as extra credit or participation points; though success using incentives is inconsistent. 18 Reduction in the number of peer-and self-assessments completed throughout the semester may alleviate assessment fatigue and increase thoughtful participation. Faculty may also consider promoting self-awareness of metacognition through teaching the purpose and usefulness of necessary skills as well as having students complete the "Metacognition Awareness Inventory" at the beginning and end of the semester.…”

“…22,23 Providing individualized feedback for students may be a time-consuming endeavor for faculty and have conflicting results on metacognitive processes, as demonstrated previously. 12,18 In our study, two pharmacy residents who served as course co-coordinators split this responsibility. On average, each took approximately one hour per activity to draft and send comments for their respective group of seven to eight students, or roughly eight to 10 minutes per student.…”

The effect of feedback on children’s metacognitive judgments: a heuristic account

“…A procedure that has been assumed to increase the accuracy of both adults' and children's monitoring processes involves providing external feedback to draw participants' attention to the fact that their performance was evaluated as poor (Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2008;Efklides & Dina, 2004;Kornell & Rhodes, 2013;Metcalfe & Finn, 2011, 2012Miller & Geraci, 2011;Roll, Aleven, McLaren, & Koedinger, 2011). Nevertheless, although the positive influence of external feedback on adults' (Metcalfe & Finn, 2011) and older children's (Metcalfe & Finn, 2012) metacognitive judgments seems to be well established, to our knowledge, this effect has never been studied in participants under the age of 8 years.…”