Improving Metacognition in the Classroom
Abstract
Abstract. Students are often overconfident in educational settings and struggle to differentiate between well-learned and poorly-learned concepts. The present article reviews current research on strategies that help students assess their understanding, with a focus on research using authentic educational tasks and materials. We propose a framework for these strategies that we refer to as wait-generate-validate. The wait-generate-validate strategies can give students a more objective measure of their learning from lectures, understanding of course concepts, text comprehension, problem-solving ability, and test preparedness. These strategies have been shown to lead to more effective study decisions and greater learning. Lastly, we translate the reviewed research into practical tips for students and teachers and conclude with recommendations for future research regarding how students judge their learning in diverse educational contexts.
References
(2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
(2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
(2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a Cognitive Tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(2), 101–128.
(2016). Help helps, but only so much: Research on help seeking with intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0089-1
(2010). Missing the trees for the forest: A construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020218
(2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006
(2011). The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 39(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0002-y
(2005a). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_2
(2005b). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_1
(2013). International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (Vol. 26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3
(2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.523
(2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5/6), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9
(2014). Effects of problem solving after worked example study on primary school children’s monitoring accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3008
(2017). Effects of problem solving after worked example study on secondary school children’s monitoring accuracy. Educational Psychology, 37(7), 810–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1150419
(2014). Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.004
(2013). Completion of partially worked-out examples as a generation strategy for improving monitoring accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.09.001
(1979). Maintenance of knowledge: Questions about memory we forgot to ask. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.108.3.296
(2010). How accurately can older adults evaluate the quality of their text recall? The effect of providing standards on judgment accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1553
(2008).
Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy . In J. DunloskyR. A. BjorkEds., Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 73–94). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805503(1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55
(2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
(2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970109600653
(2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.73.4.269-290
(2016). Virtual reality: Low-cost tools and resources for the classroom. TechTrends, 60(5), 517–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0102-z
(2016). The effect of instructor fluency on students’ perceptions of instructors, confidence in learning, and actual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000077
(2013). Appearances can be deceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1350–1356. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0442-z
(2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
(2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computer-based training environments. Instructional Science, 30(6), 433–464. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020516301541
(2017). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: Overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning, 12(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9159-5
(2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(3), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.005
(2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x
(2016).
Methodology for investigating human metamemory: Problems and pitfalls . In J. DunloskyS. K. TauberEds., The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 23–37). Oxford University Press.(1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20(4), 374–380. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210921
(1997). Similarity between the cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the cue for test is not the primary determinant of JOL accuracy. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2476
(2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
(2002).
Influence of practice tests on the accuracy of predicting memory performance for paired associates, sentences, and text material . In T. J. PerfectB. L. SchwartzEds., Applied metacognition (pp. 68–92). Cambridge University Press.(2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011
(2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
(2010). Learning from text: Knowing the test format enhanced metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9057-1
(1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059004395
(2012).
The effectiveness of a pedagogical agent’s immediate feedback on learners’ metacognitive judgments during learning with MetaTutor . In S. A. CerriW. J. ClanceyG. PapadourakisK. PanourgiaEds., International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 651–652). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30950-2_105(2014). Metacognitive scaffolds improve self-judgments of accuracy in a medical intelligent tutoring system. Instructional Science, 42(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9275-4
(2007). The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.238
(2008). Judgments of learning are influenced by memory for past test. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.006
(2015). When confidence is not a signal of knowing: How students’ experiences and beliefs about processing fluency can lead to miscalibrated confidence. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9313-7
(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
(2017). Even after thirteen class exams, students are still overconfident: The role of memory for past exam performance in student predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9158-6
(2013). Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9093-0
(1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 702–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.702
(1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197714
(2012).
Intelligent tutoring systems . In K. R. HarrisS. GrahamT. UrdanA. G. BusS. MajorH. L. SwansonEds., APA handbooks in psychology®. APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3. Application to learning and teaching (pp. 451–473). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-018(2019).
Improving students’ metacomprehension accuracy . In J. DunloskyK. RawsonEds., The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 619–646). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.025(2013).
Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring . In R. AzevedoV. AlevenEds., International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_2(2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93
(2002). The overconfident principles of economics student: An examination of a metacognitive skill. The Journal of Economic Education, 33(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480209596121
(2019).
Calibration and self-regulated learning: Making the connections . In J. DunloskyK. RawsonEds., The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 647–677). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.026(2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9021-5
(2008).
Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration . In J. DunloskyR. A. BjorkEds., Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 429–455). Psychological Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805503(2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160
(2020). Children’s reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper. Computers & Education, 145, Article 103737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103737
(2020). Enhanced monitoring accuracy and test performance: Incremental effects of judgment training over and above repeated testing. Learning and Instruction, 65, Article 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101245
(2017). Category learning judgments in the classroom: Can students judge how well they know course topics? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.12.002
(2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
(2010). Test-enhanced learning of natural concepts: Effects on recognition memory, classification, and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1441–1451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020636
(2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning and Instruction, 34, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.002
(2013). Test anxiety in mathematics among early undergraduate students in a British university in Malaysia. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.742867
(2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017341
(1997). Enhanced memory at delays: Why do judgments of learning improve over time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(6), 1394–1409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.6.1394
(2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 923–954.
(1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
(2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002
(2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x
(2016).
Self-regulated learning: An overview of theory and data . In J. DunloskyS. K. TauberEds., The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 325–340). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.23(2013). Feedback reduces the metacognitive benefit of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032147
(2009). Using standards to improve middle school students’ accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017599
(2009). Persistent overconfidence despite practice: The role of task experience in preschoolers’ recall predictions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.10.002
(2015). Individual differences in category learning: Memorization versus rule abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0475-1
(1998). Predicting performance on text: Delayed versus immediate predictions and tests. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 959–964. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201176
(2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman–Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014876
(2009). The read-recite-review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02325.x
(2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x
(2014). Improving metacognitive accuracy: How failing to retrieve practice items reduces overconfidence. Consciousness and Cognition, 29, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.008
(2016). The influence of retrieval practice on metacognition: The contribution of analytic and non-analytic processes. Consciousness and Cognition, 42, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.03.010
(1988). Effects of processing variables on comprehension monitoring activities. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 31(2), 98–105.
(2018).
Identifying how metacognitive judgments influence student performance during learning with MetaTutorIVH . In R. NkambouR. AzevedoJ. VassilevaEds., International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 140–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91464-0_14(1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychology Bulletin, 95(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109
(1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
(1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
(2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Educational, 74(1), 7–28.
(2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-006-9595-6
(2018). The double curse of misconceptions: Misconceptions impair not only text comprehension but also metacomprehension in the domain of statistics. Instructional Science, 46(5), 723–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9452-6
(2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69
(2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326022
(2013).
Retrieval-monitoring-feedback (RMF) technique for producing efficient and durable student learning . In R. AzevedoV. AlevenEds., International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 67–78). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_5(2013). The power of successive relearning: Improving performance on course exams and long-term retention. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9240-4
(2011). Accurate monitoring leads to effective control and greater learning of patient education materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024749
(2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007
(2016).
Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory . In J. DunloskyS. K. TauberEds., The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.4(2019). Metacognition. Teaching of Psychology, 46(2), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.4
(2020). A guide to effective studying and learning: Practical strategies from the science of learning, Oxford University Press.
(2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021705
(2006).
The help tutor: Does metacognitive feedback improve students’ help-seeking actions, skills and learning? . In M. IkedaK. D. AshleyT. W. ChanEds., International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 360–369). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11774303_36(2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
(2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
(2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
(2019). Improving metacognition: A comparison of interventions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 918–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3556
(2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.004
(2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3
(2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18(7), 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.506441
(2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction, 51, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002
(2014). Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: Implications of interpolated testing for online education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.02.001
(2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5
(2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66
(1994). Delaying students’ metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.290
(2005). Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1267–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1267
(2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959927
(2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 97–118). Routledge.
(2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028660
(2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X510494
(2016). Prior experience shapes metacognitive judgments at the category level: The role of testing and category difficulty. Metacognition and Learning, 11(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9144-4
(2007a). The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 668–678.
(2007b). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: Dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193305
(2013a). Activation of inaccurate prior knowledge affects primary-school students’ metacognitive judgments and calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.005
(2013b). The effect of delayed-JOLs and sentence generation on children’s monitoring accuracy and regulation of idiom study. Metacognition and Learning, 8(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9100-0
(2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.007
(2017). Relation of metacognitive monitoring and control processes across the life-span. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 86–101.
(1989). Effects of examples and embedded questions on the accuracy of comprehension self-assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 435–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.435
(2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(4), 393–405.
(2018). When analogies harm: The effects of analogies on metacomprehension. Learning and Instruction, 55, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000096
(2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00006-1
(2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20(6), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.687052
(2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learning and Instruction, 46, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.002
