Advertisement

Measuring the Level of Metacognitive Regulation in Graduate Health Sciences Students: What Is the Value of a Prompt?

  • Cortny A. WilliamsEmail author
  • Leslie A. K. Takaki
  • Ron LeFebvre
Original Research

Abstract

Students with strong metacognitive and self-regulated learning skills will better adapt to the rigor of graduate health sciences education, and as professionals, they will be able to better manage unpredictable patient populations. In this observational study, we presented students with information about study strategy characteristics and used self-evaluation surveys to measure the level of the metacognitive skills planning, monitoring, and evaluating of study strategies in students in their first and second terms of a doctor of chiropractic program. Ninety-eight percent of students were willing to adopt new strategies and evaluate their effectiveness, and 75% of students were able to follow through with and maintain all or a portion of their new study plan. Within the self-reported data, we identified a continuum of passive to active learning strategy choices associated with variable levels of self-evaluation and follow through. Students reporting more active or high-impact learning strategies with positive motivators in their self-evaluations were more likely to follow through with and maintain a new study plan. These data suggest a need for educators to support and develop strategies to encourage a more robust student response to learning prompts. By both designing and modeling prompts on metacognitive and self-regulated learning in a positive environment, educators empower learners to apply these tactics to task specific work. Supportive interactions with the educator will incentivize learners to develop a better awareness of metacognitive regulation and make positive behavior changes in response to learning prompts.

Keywords

Metacognition Self-regulated learning Study strategies Learning prompts 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

40670_2019_699_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Young AFJ. Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. J Sch Teach Learn. 2008;8(2):1–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coutinho S, Neuman G. A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style and self-efficacy. Learn Environ Res. 2008;11(2):131–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9042-7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    White C. Smoothing out transitions: how pedagogy influences medical students’ achievement of self-regulated learning goals. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(3):279–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9000-z.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dinsmore DL, Alexander PA, Loughlin SM. Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20(4):391–409.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veenman MVJ, Spaans MA. Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: age and task differences. Learn Individ Differ. 2005;15(2):159–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.12.001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veenman MVJ, van Hout-Wolters BHAM, Afflerbach P. Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacogn Learn. 2006;1(1):3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Pract. 2002;41(2):64–70.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zohar A, Barzilai S. A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Stud Sci Educ. 2013;49(2):121–69.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bannert M. Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Z Pädagogische Psychol. 2009;23(2):145.  https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ifenthaler D. Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. J Educ Technol Soc. 2012;15(1):38–52.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    English MC, Kitsantas A. Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem- and project-based learning. Interdisc J Probl Based Learn. 2013;7(2):6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruin ABH, Dunlosky J, Cavalcanti RB. Monitoring and regulation of learning in medical education: the need for predictive cues. Med Educ. 2017;51(6):575–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13267.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhn D. How do people know? Psychol Sci. 2001;12(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00302.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuhn D. Metacognitive development. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2000;9(5):178–81.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scott Ridley D, Schutz PA, Glanz RS, et al. Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. J Exp Educ. 1992;60(4):293–306.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943867.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucieer SM, Jonker L, Visscher C, Rikers RMJP, Themmen APN. Self-regulated learning and academic performance in medical education. Med Teach. 2016;38(6):585–93.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1073240.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanton JD, Neider XN, Gallegos IJ, et al. Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: when prompts are not enough. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015;14(2):ar15.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0135.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Medina MS, Castleberry AN, Persky AM. Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017;81(4):78A.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cho KK, Marjadi B, Langendyk V, Hu W. The self-regulated learning of medical students in the clinical environment—a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):112–3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0956-6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown PC, Roediger HL, McDaniel MA. Make it stick. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press; 2014. [u.a.]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAndrew M, Kamboj RS, Pierre GC. Do dental students use optimal study strategies? J Dent Educ. 2015;79(1):33–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cutrer W, Miller B, Pusic M, et al. Fostering the development of master adaptive learners: a conceptual model to guide skill acquisition in medical education. Acad Med. 2016;92(1):70–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001323.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panadero E. A review of self-regulated learning: six models and four directions for research. Front Psychol. 2017;8:422.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Järvelä S, Kirschner PA, Panadero E, et al. Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools. 2015Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dye KM, Stanton JD. Metacognition in upper-division biology students: awareness does not always lead to control. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2017;16(2):ar31.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0286.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. Educational psychology handbook. handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. 2011.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ewijk CD, Dickhäuser O, Büttner G. Assessing how teachers enhance self-regulated learning: a multiperspective approach. J Cogn Educ Psychol. 2013;12(3):338–58.  https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.338.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moos DC, Ringdal A. Self-regulated learning in the classroom: a literature review on the teacher’s role. Educ Res Int. 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robbins SB, Lauver K, Le H, et al. Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? Psychol Bull. 2004;130(2):261–88.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R. Psychological correlates of university Students’ academic performance. Psychol Bull. 2012;138(2):353–87.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Western StatesPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations