与注重术语的作业相比,生物入门课程中的元认知备考作业可提高 ACT 成绩较低学生的考试分数。

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Diane K Angell, Sharon Lane-Getaz, Taylor Okonek, Stephanie Smith
{"title":"与注重术语的作业相比,生物入门课程中的元认知备考作业可提高 ACT 成绩较低学生的考试分数。","authors":"Diane K Angell, Sharon Lane-Getaz, Taylor Okonek, Stephanie Smith","doi":"10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preparing for exams in introductory biology classrooms is a complex metacognitive task. Focusing on lower achieving students (those with entering ACT scores below the median at our institution), we compared the effect of two different assignments distributed ahead of exams by dividing classes in half to receive either terms to define or open-ended metacognitive questions. Completing metacognitive assignments resulted in moderately higher exam scores for students on the second and third exams. Metacognitive assignments also improved accuracy (difference between predicted and actual exam scores) for the second and third exam in lower ACT students, but that improvement was driven largely by higher exam scores in the metacognitive group. Thus, despite the fact that the metacognitive assignments specifically asked students to reflect on their previous exam performance, their previous estimates and predict how well they expected to perform on the exam they were preparing for, there was little evidence that these assignments influenced lower achieving students' confidence levels any more than assignments where students defined terms. While understanding relevant terms was certainly important in this course, these results highlight that open-ended metacognitive prompts may improve exam scores in some students in introductory biology classrooms.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":"23 1","pages":"ar6"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10956609/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metacognitive Exam Preparation Assignments in an Introductory Biology Course Improve Exam Scores for Lower ACT Students Compared with Assignments that Focus on Terms.\",\"authors\":\"Diane K Angell, Sharon Lane-Getaz, Taylor Okonek, Stephanie Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Preparing for exams in introductory biology classrooms is a complex metacognitive task. Focusing on lower achieving students (those with entering ACT scores below the median at our institution), we compared the effect of two different assignments distributed ahead of exams by dividing classes in half to receive either terms to define or open-ended metacognitive questions. Completing metacognitive assignments resulted in moderately higher exam scores for students on the second and third exams. Metacognitive assignments also improved accuracy (difference between predicted and actual exam scores) for the second and third exam in lower ACT students, but that improvement was driven largely by higher exam scores in the metacognitive group. Thus, despite the fact that the metacognitive assignments specifically asked students to reflect on their previous exam performance, their previous estimates and predict how well they expected to perform on the exam they were preparing for, there was little evidence that these assignments influenced lower achieving students' confidence levels any more than assignments where students defined terms. While understanding relevant terms was certainly important in this course, these results highlight that open-ended metacognitive prompts may improve exam scores in some students in introductory biology classrooms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cbe-Life Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"ar6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10956609/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cbe-Life Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在生物入门课堂上准备考试是一项复杂的元认知任务。针对成绩较差的学生(入学时 ACT 分数低于本校中位数的学生),我们比较了在考试前布置两种不同作业的效果,即把班级分成两半,让学生接受术语定义或开放式元认知问题。完成元认知作业后,学生们在第二次和第三次考试中的分数略有提高。元认知作业还提高了 ACT 成绩较低的学生在第二次和第三次考试中的准确率(预测成绩与实际考试成绩之间的差异),但这种提高主要是由元认知组较高的考试成绩推动的。因此,尽管元认知作业特别要求学生反思他们以前的考试成绩、他们以前的估计以及预测他们在所准备的考试中的预期成绩,但几乎没有证据表明这些作业比学生定义术语的作业更能影响成绩较差学生的信心水平。在本课程中,理解相关术语固然重要,但这些结果突出表明,在生物入门课堂上,开放式元认知提示可能会提高一些学生的考试成绩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metacognitive Exam Preparation Assignments in an Introductory Biology Course Improve Exam Scores for Lower ACT Students Compared with Assignments that Focus on Terms.

Preparing for exams in introductory biology classrooms is a complex metacognitive task. Focusing on lower achieving students (those with entering ACT scores below the median at our institution), we compared the effect of two different assignments distributed ahead of exams by dividing classes in half to receive either terms to define or open-ended metacognitive questions. Completing metacognitive assignments resulted in moderately higher exam scores for students on the second and third exams. Metacognitive assignments also improved accuracy (difference between predicted and actual exam scores) for the second and third exam in lower ACT students, but that improvement was driven largely by higher exam scores in the metacognitive group. Thus, despite the fact that the metacognitive assignments specifically asked students to reflect on their previous exam performance, their previous estimates and predict how well they expected to perform on the exam they were preparing for, there was little evidence that these assignments influenced lower achieving students' confidence levels any more than assignments where students defined terms. While understanding relevant terms was certainly important in this course, these results highlight that open-ended metacognitive prompts may improve exam scores in some students in introductory biology classrooms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信