Limits of Metacognitive Prompts for Confidence Judgments in an Interactive Learning Environment-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Limits of Metacognitive Prompts for Confidence Judgments in an Interactive Learning Environment

Published:2024-01-01 Issue:1 Volume:6 Page:
ISSN:2544-7831
Container-title:Open Education Studies
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Klar Maria¹,Buchner Josef²,Kerres Michael³

Affiliation:

1. Chair of Educational Technology & Instructional Design, University of Duisburg-Essen , Essen, 45141 , Germany

2. Institute for ICT and Media, St. Gallen University of Teacher Education , St. Gallen , 9000 , Switzerland

3. Chair of Educational Technology & Instructional Design, University of Duisburg-Essen , Essen , 45141 , Germany

Abstract

Abstract Metacognitive activities are reported to improve learning but prompts to support metacognition have only been investigated with mixed results. In the present study, metacognitive prompts for confidence judgments were implemented in a learning platform to provide more insights into their effectiveness and their limits. Comparing the prompted group (n = 51) with the control (n = 150), no benefits of the prompts are seen: Performance is not better with prompts, and there is no improvement in metacognitive accuracy over time within the prompted group. Notably, half of the prompted group did not use the metacognitive prompts as intended. Alternative ways to integrate such prompts are discussed.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/edu-2022-0209/pdf

Reference35 articles.

1. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning? Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 39–58. doi: 10.1007/s11409-007-9009-6.

2. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2013). Scaffolding hypermedia learning through metacognitive prompts. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 171–186). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_12.

3. Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151. doi: 10.1080/00220970109600653.

4. Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 269–290. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.73.4.269-290.

5. DiFrancesca, D., Nietfeld, J. L., & Cao, L. (2016). A comparison of high and low achieving students on self-regulated learning variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 228–236. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.010.