Educators occasionally notice the disconnection between students’ expectations and their performance. Students get surprised by their poor performance quite often. Their predictions are mostly inaccurate due to overconfidence. There exists a connection between low performance and low metacognitive accuracy, and students whose performance is poor are the most inaccurate. Low-performing students over-predict their performance as they are unconscious of their lack of knowledge, which hinders them from studying and attaining knowledge (Saenz et al., 2019). Metacognitive potential ids related to academic performance. Metacognition is the capability of critically reflecting on learning processes and experiences to inform future improvement. The purpose of calibration is to verify the accuracy of predictions or determine the errors. It shows a metacognitive monitoring process that gives information about the knowledge that one possesses at a cognitive level.
According to Saenz et al. (2019), many interventions have used of feedback methods to enhance students’ calibration. This study uses review, saliency, incentives, practice tests, and reflection interventions. Review interventions involve predicting similar performance tests done previously. Students are given review questions before the primary test to observe their performance and accuracy in prediction based on similar tests done prior. It does not add new knowledge; instead, reviewing maintains what one already knows.
Saliency intervention involves students getting feedback on the accuracy of their predictions rather than making a prediction based on the grades they want to get. Interventions that are based on students’ motivations may be effective (Saenz et al., 2019). Motivational warning lecture intervention encourages students not to rely on emotional bias such as overconfidence to predict results. Overconfidence results in low test performance. Underconfidence is connected with good performance as it displays more remarkable study behavior. Incentive interventions enhance calibration when they supplement other interventions as incentives alone do not add any additional knowledge to the students. Incentives may include a lecturer promising a reward for improvement.
Using practice tests as an intervention to improve prediction accuracy improves metacognition as they are a type of performance feedback. They are brief and complex and only improve accuracy at times because some practice tests decrease prediction accuracy (Saenz et al., 2019). Reflection intervention allows students to reflect on their predictions for a more extended period without getting feedback. It gives them the chance to examine their knowledge and then make a second assessment within a short period, many times.
In the calibration test conducted on students to examine the effects of interventions to enhance metacognition, the saliency intervention was the most successful. It produced the most significant calibration improvement. Results were compatible, and various findings showed that feedback could improve calibration accuracy (Saenz et al., 2019). The motivation warning lecture about the future bias effects of preferred performance decreased metacognitive error in a significant way. It showed improved calibration scores but was lower than the saliency intervention.
The review, incentives, and reflection interventions were unsuccessful. The interventions were not effective enough to produce calibration change. Even when participants were promised a reward for accurate predictions, their calibration did not improve. The reflection intervention failed as participants were only encouraged to reflect on their predictions instead of being given methods to improve the accuracy of their predictions. The review intervention failed because participants had already practiced through a test before receiving the intervention. (Saenz et al., 2019) It was not beneficial as those tests did not offer the participants any further insights concerning their abilities or the tests.
Conclusion
Students may feel overconfident and fail to differentiate between concepts they have understood and those they have not understood. Educators can improve students’ metacognition by teaching skills such as; problem-solving, critical thinking, and decision making. Using metacognitive strategies makes the students flexible, self-directed, and creative learners. This paper discusses various interventions that are used to enhance metacognition. Saliency and the motivational lecturer warning can be implemented in a class of students who want to improve calibration. Improving the ability to predict how well one will perform is essential to enhance metacognition. Additionally, reflecting on the resources to use, why they are crucial, how they are used to improve self-reflection, performance, emotional control, and enhance metacognition.
References
Saenz, G. D., Geraci, L., & Tirso, R. (2019). Improving metacognition: A comparison of interventions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 918–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3556.
write