Cargando…

Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough

Strong metacognition skills are associated with learning outcomes and student performance. Metacognition includes metacognitive knowledge—our awareness of our thinking—and metacognitive regulation—how we control our thinking to facilitate learning. In this study, we targeted metacognitive regulation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stanton, Julie Dangremond, Neider, Xyanthe N., Gallegos, Isaura J., Clark, Nicole C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Cell Biology 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25976651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135
_version_ 1782377800586493952
author Stanton, Julie Dangremond
Neider, Xyanthe N.
Gallegos, Isaura J.
Clark, Nicole C.
author_facet Stanton, Julie Dangremond
Neider, Xyanthe N.
Gallegos, Isaura J.
Clark, Nicole C.
author_sort Stanton, Julie Dangremond
collection PubMed
description Strong metacognition skills are associated with learning outcomes and student performance. Metacognition includes metacognitive knowledge—our awareness of our thinking—and metacognitive regulation—how we control our thinking to facilitate learning. In this study, we targeted metacognitive regulation by guiding students through self-evaluation assignments following the first and second exams in a large introductory biology course (n = 245). We coded these assignments for evidence of three key metacognitive-regulation skills: monitoring, evaluating, and planning. We found that nearly all students were willing to take a different approach to studying but showed varying abilities to monitor, evaluate, and plan their learning strategies. Although many students were able to outline a study plan for the second exam that could effectively address issues they identified in preparing for the first exam, only half reported that they followed their plans. Our data suggest that prompting students to use metacognitive-regulation skills is effective for some students, but others need help with metacognitive knowledge to execute the learning strategies they select. Using these results, we propose a continuum of metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students. By refining this model through further study, we aim to more effectively target metacognitive development in undergraduate biology students.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4477731
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher American Society for Cell Biology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44777312015-06-25 Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough Stanton, Julie Dangremond Neider, Xyanthe N. Gallegos, Isaura J. Clark, Nicole C. CBE Life Sci Educ Article Strong metacognition skills are associated with learning outcomes and student performance. Metacognition includes metacognitive knowledge—our awareness of our thinking—and metacognitive regulation—how we control our thinking to facilitate learning. In this study, we targeted metacognitive regulation by guiding students through self-evaluation assignments following the first and second exams in a large introductory biology course (n = 245). We coded these assignments for evidence of three key metacognitive-regulation skills: monitoring, evaluating, and planning. We found that nearly all students were willing to take a different approach to studying but showed varying abilities to monitor, evaluate, and plan their learning strategies. Although many students were able to outline a study plan for the second exam that could effectively address issues they identified in preparing for the first exam, only half reported that they followed their plans. Our data suggest that prompting students to use metacognitive-regulation skills is effective for some students, but others need help with metacognitive knowledge to execute the learning strategies they select. Using these results, we propose a continuum of metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students. By refining this model through further study, we aim to more effectively target metacognitive development in undergraduate biology students. American Society for Cell Biology 2015-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4477731/ /pubmed/25976651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135 Text en © 2015 J. D. Stanton et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2015 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0). “ASCB®” and “ The American Society for Cell Biology ®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.
spellingShingle Article
Stanton, Julie Dangremond
Neider, Xyanthe N.
Gallegos, Isaura J.
Clark, Nicole C.
Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough
title Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough
title_full Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough
title_fullStr Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough
title_short Differences in Metacognitive Regulation in Introductory Biology Students: When Prompts Are Not Enough
title_sort differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: when prompts are not enough
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25976651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135
work_keys_str_mv AT stantonjuliedangremond differencesinmetacognitiveregulationinintroductorybiologystudentswhenpromptsarenotenough
AT neiderxyanthen differencesinmetacognitiveregulationinintroductorybiologystudentswhenpromptsarenotenough
AT gallegosisauraj differencesinmetacognitiveregulationinintroductorybiologystudentswhenpromptsarenotenough
AT clarknicolec differencesinmetacognitiveregulationinintroductorybiologystudentswhenpromptsarenotenough