New Orleans, Louisiana
June 26, 2016
June 26, 2016
August 28, 2016
Educational Research and Methods
This paper, an evidence-based practice paper, describes two metacognitive teaching tools that were tested in classroom environments for their efficacy and ease of adoption. Ease of adoption refers to the subjective measures of (a) ease of implementation, (b) minimal displacement of class time, and (c) no requirement for a change in pedagogy. The two tools promote metacognition, which has an extensive evidence base for promoting learning in a wide range of subjects and across grade levels. The first tool tested is the exam wrapper. Examinations or tests provide a measure of student performance and offer feedback to students of their learning and the need to perhaps adjust their learning strategies. Many students, however, focus on the grade rather than the comments or corrections. Even when students make the effort to look at the mistakes, they often miss the opportunity to reflect on the deeper root causes and instead focus on the superficial error. Without deep reflection students may not gain the awareness that they need to confront misconceptions or make strategic changes in their learning. The second tool tested is the assignment correction, a variant of exam wrappers but used for more frequently occurring activities such as homeworks or quizzes. The idea is that, perhaps, improving metacognition requires frequent practice. If the exam wrapper could be adapted for use with graded assignments, it would provide such practice. To remain a tool that is easy to use, however, assignment corrections must be briefer than an exam wrapper, easy to assign, collect and score, and continue to consume little to no class time for completion. The two tools were tested in various engineering courses and mixed results were found: While both tools were adoptable, only the exam wrapper appeared to be efficacious in this study.
Chen, J. (2016, June), Effective and Adoptable Metacognitive Tools Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.26901
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2016 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015