Impacts of pre/post examination metacognition prompts on study strategies and predicting grades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defined broadly as thinking about our thinking, metacognition refers to our awareness of the cognitive processes used when engaged in a learning activity. Most researchers agree that metacognition is a skill that can both be taught and learned and is particularly useful in helping learners keep track of their understanding of an issue, organize and prioritize their attention and learning resources, and review their own progress. The current project seeks to utilize data from existing course assessments in an undergraduate large enrolment course, collected over the Winter 2019 and 2020 terms. To better understand how student learning and studying evolve when being prompted to reflect on these strategies in consequence to learning successes and/or challenges over a semester of study. Overall, students became better predictors of their actual grades with each successive assessment. Students scoring in the top 66% of the class became better predictors than students scoring in the bottom 33% during the progression of the term. Qualitative analysis of the extent to which inclusion of pre/post exam prompting and reflections on study habits influence predicted and actual achievement identified 3 themes in changes to study approaches that appear to influence grade predictions. First, students who appear to have refined the number of study techniques used became better predictors of their grades. Second, students who remained consistent with the number of study techniques used also became better predictors of their grades throughout the semester. Third, students who consistently experienced large gaps between their predicted and actual grades indicated using higher numbers of study techniques compared to the students with lower gaps. This study was conducted using an ethics protocol for human subjects approved by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (H-08-19-4834).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".