by Dr. Lauren Scharff, U. S. Air Force Academy*

This simple but somewhat of a tongue-twister question takes us to several challenging aspects of teaching and learning that link to both student and instructor metacognition:

1. How do students self-assess their understanding and abilities prior to assessments?
2. Are students able to accurately know what they are expected to be able to demonstrate for an assessment?
3. What can we as instructors reasonably do to be transparent regarding our learning expectations and to support student development of accurate self-assessment?

Generally speaking, humans ARE good at self-assessment, as long as the self-assessment activity/tool is well-aligned with the actual assessment activity/tool (e.g. see Nuhfer, 2015). However, there are many possible reasons why students may not accurately self-assess, and several of those are directly under our control as instructors.

Thus, I believe we should engage in metacognitive instruction by developing our awareness of common reasons that students may not accurately self-assess, what we might be doing that inadvertently leads to those pitfalls, and some means by which we can support more accurate student self-assessment. We should then intentionally use that awareness to adjust what we do. This combination of awareness and self-regulation provides the foundation for metacognitive instruction.

Based on my observations and discussions with colleagues across the years, here are three common reasons students might not accurately self-assess along with some strategies instructors might take to support better student self-assessment:

1. Lesson-to-Exam Misalignment – For example, classroom instruction and activities sometimes focus on basic concepts and definitions, while exams ask for evaluation and synthesis. Students may self-assess their competency based on what was presented in the lesson, but then feel surprised and perform poorly on the exam when they are asked to go beyond the lower level. Even if instructors “warn” students that they will need to engage in higher-level processing on the exams, if students haven’t been given the opportunity to experience what that means and practice it, those students may not accurately self-assess their preparedness for the exam. Instructors should analyze the levels and types of learning materials they present in class and require of students during formative learning activities (in-class activities, homework, quizzes). Then, they should align their exams to have similar levels of expectation. If they desire higher-level learning to be demonstrated on exams, they should redesign their learning activities to allow scaffolding, practice, and feedback with those higher-level expectations.
2. Confusing Questions – Students often claim that questions on exams are confusing, even if they don’t seem to be confusing from the instructor’s perspective. Thus, students might actually be accurate in their self-assessment of their understanding of a topic, but then fail to demonstrate it because they were confused by the question or simply misread it. Test anxiety can add additional cognitive load and make it more likely for students to misread questions. Thus, instructors should review their questions to find ways to more clearly indicate what they expect in a response. For example, if there are two parts to the question, rather than having a long question, break it into part (a) and part (b). This symbolism clearly communicates that a good response should have two parts. It often can be difficult for the person writing the question to assess the clarity of their question because they know what they mean, so it seems obvious. (Instructors can also fall into this trap when reviewing test banks questions and the correct answer is clearly indicated. Once the answer is known, it seems obvious.) Being aware of these pitfalls and taking the time to critically analyze one’s test questions is a good way to engage in metacognitive instruction. Having a colleague from a different area of expertise read through the questions before finalizing them can also help catch some instances where clarity could be improved.
3. Smooth Presentations – Instructors are experts, and they generally like to be perceived as such. Thus, it is far more common for instructors to present problem work-outs or other complex material in ways that make it look smooth and easy. That seems good, right? Actually, smooth presentations can mislead students into thinking that the material is easy and not prompt them to ask questions. Following a smooth presentation, students might then self-assess as understanding the material when really they would not be able to work out a problem on their own. Explicit step-by-step examples in textbooks also sometimes fool students into thinking they know how to workout problems if the assigned homework can be completed by following the examples. Instructors should consider verbalizing points of possible confusion that they know often catch students or sharing their own struggles as they learned the material in the past. As they work out problems in front of class, they could ask what worked, what didn’t, and what changes could be made in the problem-solving approach (or writing approach, or presentation of an argument, etc.). They should also emphasize to students that they will be better able to self-assess their preparation for an exam if they work out problems without the examples in front of them.

The above challenges for accurate student self-assessment and instructor strategies to address them are just a start to help us become metacognitive instructors and help students become more metacognitive learners. In my next post I will share with you my recent exploration into the use of Knowledge Surveys. This tool directly helps students develop more accurate self-assessment. Further, with direction and encouragement from the instructor, knowledge surveys can help students become metacognitive learners by using their awareness of their learning to guide their use of learning strategies.

There are many routes to becoming a metacognitive instructor, although all require intentionality in developing awareness of factors impacting student learning and using that awareness to self-regulate instructional efforts. It is a process with many options and possible strategies, where even small efforts can lead to big pay-offs in student learning and development.

———–

Nuhfer, E. (January 2015). Self-assessment and the Affective Quality of Metacognition: Part 2 of 2. Blog post on Improve with Metacognition, retrieved from https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/self-assessment-and-the-affective-quality-of-metacognition-part-2-of-2/

* Disclaimer: The views expressed in this document are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U. S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Govt.