3rd year project

In Uncategorized on February 4, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Heres an overview of my 3rd year project, I am looking to move forward in this area of research and would appreciate any feedback or comments!

Can metacogntive exercises improve monitoring accuracy in students?


To replicate results found in Nietfeld, Cao & Osbourne (2006) study and successfully train individuals to improve their monitoring accuracy using metacognitive exercises.


Participants were all 1st year psychology undergrads, taking stats module

3 groups: Calibration, Certainty & Study Skills (control).

All groups carried out the same weekly test based on the material covered in their stats lectures. The tests comprised of 20 MCQs, with a certainty bar for each item.

The difference between each group was how the MCQs were marked:

–          Calibration group calculated there monitoring accuracy in the form of a calibration score.

–          Certainty group used certainty based marking (i.e. they were rewarded/punished depending on how confident                   they were in their test answers being correct & the actual answer)

–          The study skills group used answers correct

week 1: Intro to metacogntion. groups were given an initial talk on what metacogntion is, as well as what was expected of them within the experiment.

week 2 – 5: Training period. Experimental groups were given weekly metacognitive exercises* before test administered (study  group had study skills exercise**), time was taken after each test to make sure participants were marking their exams correctly.

week 6 – 10: self paced learning, exercises were removed and individuals were left to complete exams in their own time.

*Metacogntive exercises involved some reflective questions and were designed to make individuals consider there learning; what they found difficult and what they need to improve.

**study skills exercises covered basic study areas such as time management, organisation of notes etc


No differences appear to have been found between groups (still carrying out analysis).


Within the experiment we had a major problem in terms of attrition, with the group numbers going from 20 per group to 5-7 by the end weeks

Did we actually teach skills? It appears that we taught the concept of metacogntion but not the actual skill.

We also tied the experiment too close to the participants statistic module, this resulted in the participants viewing the tests as ‘extra revision’, focusing more on answers correct than their confidence in answers.


It will seem like the experiment was a complete failure, but I believe it has added to our knowledge of how to investigate the area (mostly how not to!) which I aim to use when researching the area through a masters next year.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: