Thinking about thinking: changes in first-year medical students’ metacognition and its relation to performance
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown the importance of metacognition in medical education. Metacognitive skills consist of two dimensions: knowledge of metacognition and regulation of metacognition. AIM: This study hypothesizes that the knowledge and regulation of metacognition is significantly different at the beginning and end of the academic year, and a correlation exists between the two dimensions of metacognitive skills with academic performance. METHODS: The Metacognitive Skills Inventory comprising 52 Likert-scale items was administered to 159 first-year medical students at the University of Malaya. Students' year-end results were used to measure their academic performance. RESULTS: A paired sample t-test indicated no significant difference for knowledge of metacognition at the beginning and end of the academic year. A paired sample t-test revealed significant difference for regulation of metacognition at the beginning and end of the academic year. A very strong correlation was found between the two dimensions of metacognition. The correlation between knowledge and regulation of metacognition with students' academic result was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in students' metacognitive regulation and the moderate correlation between knowledge and regulation of metacognition with academic performance at the end of the academic year indicate the probable positive influence of the teaching and learning activities in the medical program.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In previous studies with undergraduate medical students, MAI scores did not differ significantly over the span of an academic year.
“In previous studies with undergraduate medical students, MAI scores did not differ significantly over the span of an academic year (Hong et al.,2015)”
From Promoting metacognition in an allied health anatomy course (2023) · cites this paper as Hong et al.,2015
The Results section reports no significant change in total metacognitive-skills scores from the beginning to the end of the academic year among 159 first-year medical students (p=0.052). However, the Methodology section says the study used the Metacognitive Skills Inventory (MSI), a different scale adapted from the MAI, so the claim is not supported as stated for MAI scores. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAs a life-long skill, metacognition can be continuously improved, particularly with consistent practice and when an individual encounters novel challenges at different stages of their education and careers.
“As a life -long skill, metacognition can be continuously improved, particularly with consistent practice and when an individual encounters novel challenges at different stages of their education and careers (Hong et al., 2015).”
From Promoting metacognition in an allied health anatomy course (2023) · cites this paper as Hong et al.,2015
The Results section reports improved metacognitive regulation among first-year medical students over one academic year and suggests that teaching activities may have contributed. It does not establish continuous improvement through consistent practice or improvement when people encounter new challenges across different stages of education and careers; the Abstract Results also report no significant change in metacognitive knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 79
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- [2]Sternberg RJ Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence 1985 Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 43 118
- [3]Kentridge RW Heywood CA Metacognition and awareness Conscious Cogn 2000 9 308 12 10924250
- [7]Brown AL Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters Am Psychol 1997 52 399 413 9109348
- [8]Edelbring S Measuring strategies for learning regulation in medical education: scale reliability and dimensionality in a Swedish sample BMC Med Educ 2012 12 76 22894604 PMC3502389
- [13]Hoseinzadeh D Shoghi B The role of metacognition knowledge component in achievement of high school male students 2012 3rd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance Iran: Elsevier
- [15]Sreeramareddy C Shankar P Binu V Mukhopadhyay C Ray B Menezes R Psychological morbidity, sources of stress and coping strategies among undergraduate medical students of Nepal BMC Med Educ 2007 7 26 17678553 PMC1951961
- [17]Miller PH Metacognition and attention 1985 New York Academic Press
- [18]Maudsley G Strivens J ‘Science’, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘competence’ for tomorrow's doctors. A review of terms and concepts Med Educ 2000 34 53 60 10607280
- [22]Schraw G Olafson L Weibel M Sewing D Zohar A Dori YJ Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program Metacognition in science education 2012 The Netherlands Springer 57 77
- [23]Tanner KD Promoting student metacognition CBE-Life Sci Educ 2012 11 113 20 22665584 PMC3366894
- [27]Eichbaum QG Thinking about thinking and emotion: the metacognitive approach to the medical humanities that integrates the humanities with the basic and clinical sciences Perm J 2014 18 64 75 25662528 PMC4206174
- [28]Stansfield RB Schwartz A O'brien C Dekhtyar M Dunham L Quirk M Development of a metacognitive effort construct of empathy during clinical training: a longitudinal study of the factor structure of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy Adv Health Sci Educ 2015 445 1 13 25828541
- Authors
- Hong, W. H., Vadivelu, J., Daniel, E. G. S., & Sim, J. H.
- Affiliations
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- University of Malaya (MY)
- Corresponding author
- Hong, Wei Han
- Venue
- Medical Education Online
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27561
- ISSN
- 1087-2981 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4551498
- OpenAlex
- W2125833365
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 2.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Medical Education Online (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- metacognition, metacognitive regulation, academic performance, first-year medical students, medical education
- MeSH terms
- Metacognition, Educational Measurement, Humans, Malaysia, Students, Medical, Thinking, Knowledge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
