CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307Innovations in Medical EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsReflective Practices in Education

Strategies for Improving Learner Metacognition in Health Professional Education

Open access
Medina, Melissa S., Castleberry, Ashley N., Persky, Adam M.·2017·American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
DOI 10.5688/ajpe81478PMC PMC5468716
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Metacognition is an essential skill in critical thinking and self-regulated, lifelong learning. It is important for learners to have skills in metacognition because they are used to monitor and regulate reasoning, comprehension, and problem-solving, which are fundamental components/outcomes of pharmacy curricula. Instructors can help learners develop metacognitive skills within the classroom and experiential setting by carefully designing learning activities within courses and the curriculum. These skills are developed through intentional questioning, modeling techniques, and reflection. This article discusses key background literature on metacognition and identifies specific methods and strategies to develop learners' metacognitive skills in both the classroom and experiential settings.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5688/ajpe81478

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A lack of metacognitive skills can lead to an overestimation of abilities or reduced self-monitoring and thus medical errors.

    “Conversely, a lack of metacognitive skills can lead to an overestimation of abilities or reduced self- monitoring and thus, medical errors (Medina et al.,2017, Royce et al.,2019 ).”

    From Promoting metacognition in an allied health anatomy course (2023) · cites this paper as Medina et al., 2017

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 71 · Cited by 307

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Jacobs J, Paris S. Children's metacognition about reading: issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educ Psychol. 1987;22 (3):255-278.
  2. Dunlosky J, Metcalfe J. Metacognition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2009.
  3. Zineldin M, Zineldin J, Vasicheva V. Approaches for reducing medical errors and increasing patient safety: TRM, quality and 5 Qs method. TQM Journal. 2014;26(1):63-74.
  4. Zhang J, Patel VL, Johnson TR. Medical error: is the solution medical or cognitive? J Amer Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(6):S75-S77.
  5. Bell C, Moore J, Couldry R, Grauer D. The use of individualized pharmacist performance reports to reduce pharmacist-related medication order entry errors following electronic medical record implementation. Hosp Pharm. 2012;47(10):771-775.
  6. Iba ´n ˜ez-Garcia S, Rodriguez-Gonzalez CG, Martin-Barbero ML, Sanjurjo-Saez M, Herranz-Alonso A. Adding value through pharmacy validation: a safety and cost perspective. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(2):253-260.
  7. Dawson NV, Arkes HR, Siciliano C, Blinkhorn R, Lakshmanan M, Petrelli M. Hindsight bias: an impediment to accurate probability estimation in clinicopathologic conferences. Med Decis Making. 1988;8(4):259-264.
  8. Dawson NV, Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Kemka A, Shaw P, Arkes HR. Hemodynamic assessment in managing the critically ill: is physician confidence warranted? Med Decis Making. 1993;13 (3):258-266.
  9. Dunlosky J, Thiede KW. What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study. Acta Psychol. 1998;98(1):37-56.
  10. Karpicke J, Butler A, Roediger Iii H. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory. 2009;17(4):471-479.
  11. Carrier LM. College students' choices of study strategies. Percept Motor Skills. 2003;96(1):54-56.
  12. Winne PH, Jamieson-Noel D. Exploring students' calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2002;27(4):551-572.
  13. Hartlep KL, Forsyth GA. The effect of self-reference on learning and retention. Teach Psychol. 2000;27(4):269-271.
  14. Persky AM, Hudson S. A snapshot of student study strategies across a professional pharmacy curriculum: are students using evidence-based practice? Curr Teach Learn Pharm. 2016;8 (2):141-147.
  15. Thiede KW, Dunlosky J. Toward a general model of self- regulated study: an analysis of selection of items for study and self- paced study time. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999;25(4):1024- 1037.
  16. Gureckis TM, Markant DB. Self-directed learning: a cognitive and computational perspective. Persp Psychol Sci. 2012;7(5):464- 481.
  17. Rehder B, Hoffman AB. Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cogn Psychol. 2005;51(1):1-41.
  18. Pintrich PR. Issues in self-regulation theory and research. J Mind Behav. 2000;21(1-2):213-220.
  19. Zimmerman BJ. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):82-91.
  20. Kanfer R, Ackerman PL. Motivation and cognitive abilities -an integrative aptitude treatment interaction approach to skill acquisiton. J Appl Psychol 1989;74(4):657-690.
  21. Dunlosky J, Kubat-Silman AK, Hertzog C. Training monitoring skills improves older adults' self-paced associative learning. Psychol Aging. 2003;18(2):340.
  22. Facione PA, Facione NC. Externalizing the critical thinking in knowledge development and clinical judgment. Nurs Outlook. 1996;44(3):129-136.
  23. Ku KYL, Ho IT. Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacogn Learn. 2010;5(3):251-267.
  24. Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J. Not all metacognition is created equal. New Dir Teach Learn. 2003;2003(95):73-79.
  25. Stalmeijer RE. When I say . . . cognitive apprenticeship. Med Educ. 2015;49(4):355-356.
  26. Gallo DA, Geraci L, Iii HLR. Processing approaches to cognition: the impetus from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory. 2002;10(5):319-332.
  27. Bransford JD, Johnson MK. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav. 1972;11(6):717-726.
  28. Finney S, Pyke J. Content relevance in case-study teaching: the alumni connection and its effect on student motivation. J Educ Busin. 2008;83(5):251-258.
  29. Frymier AB, Houser ML. Does making content relevant make a difference in learning? Commun Res Report. 1998;15(2):121.
  30. Frymier AB, Shulman GM. What's in it for me -increasing content relevance to enhances student motivation. Commun Educ. 1995;44(1):40-50.
  31. Rosenshine B, Meister C. Reciprocal teaching: a review of the research. Rev Educ Res. 1994;64(4):479-530.
  32. Schwartz DL, Bransford JD. A time for telling. Cogn Instruct. 1998;16(4):475-522.
  33. Tanner KD. Promoting student metacognition. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012;11(2):113-120.
  34. Hacker DJ, Bol L, Bahbahani K. Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacog Learn. 2008;3(2):101-121.
  35. Hartwig MK, Was CA, Isaacson RM, Dunlosky J. General knowledge monitoring as a predictor of in-class exam performance. Br J Educ Psychol. 2012;82(3):456-468.
  36. Karpicke JD, Blunt JR. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science. 2011;331(6018):772-775.
  37. Roediger III HL, Putnam AL, Smith MA. Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. Psychol Learn Motiv Adv Res Theory. 2011;55:1-36.
  38. Mullet HG, Butler AC, Verdin B, von Borries R, Marsh EJ. Delaying feedback promotes transfer of knowledge despite student preferences to receive feedback immediately. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2014;3(3):222-229.
  39. Aleven VAWMM, Koedinger KR. An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cogn Sci. 2002;26(2):147-179.
  40. Nietfeld JL, Cao L, Osborne JW. The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacogn Learn. 2006;1(2):159-179.
  41. Artino Jr AR, Dong T, Dezee KJ, et al. Achievement goal structures and self-regulated learning: Relationships and changes in medical school. Acad Med. 2012;87(10):1375-1381.
  42. Uemura M, Tomikawa M, Nagao Y, et al. Significance of metacognitive skills in laparoscopic surgery assessed by essential task simulation. Min Invas Therap Allied Technol. 2014;23(3):165-172.
  43. Perry NE, VandeKamp KO, Mercer LK, Nordby CJ. Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol. 2002;37(1):5-15.
  44. Oh RC, Reamy BV. The Socratic method and pimping: optimizing the use of stress and fear in instruction. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(3):182-186.
  45. Brancati FL. The art of pimping. JAMA. 1989;262(1):89-90.
  46. Detsky AS. The art of pimping. JAMA. 2009;301(13): 1379-1381.
  47. Jacks ME, Blue C, Murphy D. Short-and long-term effects of training on dental hygiene faculty members' capacity to write SOAP notes. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(6):719-724.
  48. Marcum JA. An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual- process theory of cognition and metacognition. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(5):954-961.
  49. Coutinho SA. The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. Educate. 2007;7(1):39-47.
  50. Hartman H, Sternberg RJ. A broad BACEIS for improving thinking. Instruct Sci. 1992;21(5):401-425.

Authors
Medina, M. S., Castleberry, A. N., & Persky, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
81
Issue
4
Pages
78
ISSN
0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5688/ajpe81478
PMC
PMC5468716
OpenAlex
W2623551618
Cited by
307
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
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 › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
Keywords
metacognition, health professions education, pharmacy education, student self-regulation, critical thinking, lifelong learning, reflection, questioning strategies, modeling technique, experiential learning, curriculum development
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Education, Pharmacy, Health Occupations, Humans, Learning, Problem Solving, Thinking, Medical Errors

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