by Antonio Gutierrez, Georgia Southern University

In a recent meta-analysis of 67 research studies that utilize an intervention targeted at enhancing metacognitive awareness, Jacob and Parkinson (in press) argue that metacognitive interventions aimed at improving executive function processes are not as effective at improving student achievement as once believed by scholars and practitioners alike. In essence, the evidence in support of robust effects of these types of interventions in improving achievement is inconclusive. While descriptive research studies continue to report high associations between metacognitive awareness and performance or achievement measures, Jacob and Parkinson argue that the experimental evidence supporting a strong role of metacognitive training in improving student performance is scant. I have recently pondered a similar dilemma with research on the effect of metacognitive monitoring training on students’ performance, confidence judgments but especially calibration. The literature on these topics converges on the finding that metacognitive monitoring training improves performance and confidence in performance judgments but not necessarily calibration (see e.g., Bol et al., 2005; Gutierrez & Schraw, 2015; Hacker et al., 2008).

While Jacob and Parkinson’s meta-analysis is illuminating, I wonder whether, like the calibration literature, the conclusion that executive function interventions are not as effective at improving achievement may be due to very different conceptualizations of the constructs under investigation. In the case of calibration, the mixed findings may be due to the fact that the metacognitive monitoring interventions were not likely targeting the same thing. For instance, some interventions may have been targeting a reduction in calibration errors (overconfidence and underconfidence), others may have been targeting improvement in calibration accuracy, whereas yet others may have been targeting both, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Because these interventions were targeting different aspects of calibration, it could be that the inconclusive findings were due to a confounding of these various dimensions of calibration … comparing apples to oranges, if you will. Could the lack of robust effects of executive function interventions on achievement be due to a similar phenomenon? What if these studies were not targeting the same executive function processes, in which case they would not be as directly comparable as at first glance? Jacob and Parkinson’s (in press) study may lead some to believe that there is little to be gained in investing time and effort in executive function interventions. However, before we abandon these interventions, perhaps we should consider developing executive function interventions that are more specific and finer grained such as by targeting very specific aspects of the executive function rather than a more general approach.

References
Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy, and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269-290.

Gutierrez, A. P., & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of strategy training and incentives on students’ performance, confidence, and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education: Learning, Instruction, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2014.907230

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition Learning, 3, 101-121.

Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (in press). The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.3102/0034654314561338