Abstract
SummaryAccurate knowledge monitoring is critical to the learning process, as it allows one to regulate studying and test preparation. Thus, a number of investigations have attempted to improve metacognition in the classroom, with the ultimate goal of improving student exam performance. However, such interventions have had inconsistent success using varying paradigms. We compared the effectiveness of five interventions aimed at improving prediction accuracy in a laboratory environment: review, salient feedback, motivation warning lecture, incentives, and reflection. Only the salient feedback and the motivation warning lecture interventions significantly improved participants' prediction accuracy from test 1 to test 2. Review, incentives, and reflection did not improve predictive or postdictive calibration. Well‐timed salient feedback and a lecture warning students not to be biased by desired grades were effective methods of improving calibration accuracy. Results offer effective interventions to improve metacognition that could be used in a classroom setting.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
