Impact of Weekly Reflection Prompts on First-Year Engineering Students' Metacognitive Strategies

Emily Stratman & Dr. Heidi A. Diefes-Dux Author

07/24/2021 Added

17 Plays

Description

Determining if the word choice used in weekly reflection prompts influences students’ level of thinking when reflecting on feedback on their performance in a course

Searchable Transcript

Search:

[00:00:01.110]Hi, my name is Emily Stratman, and the research
[00:00:03.680]project I'll be sharing with you today is
[00:00:04.680]how the wording used and reflection prompts affects the metacognitive practices
[00:00:08.850]of first-year engineering students.
[00:00:13.530]A simple definition of metacognition is thinking about how one thinks.
[00:00:17.650]Within metacognition, there are different dimensions including experiences,
[00:00:21.750]which relate to an awareness of one's level of understanding of a topic,
[00:00:25.920]goals and tasks, which are outcomes one hopes to achieve,
[00:00:29.340]and actions and strategies, which are the steps taken to achieve such goals.
[00:00:33.990]Research shows that engaging in metacognitive practices is a key part of effective learning,
[00:00:39.910]and reflection prompts are one way to encourage the use of these practices,
[00:00:44.350]as they play a key role in one's ability to develop learning strategies.
[00:00:47.860]However, there is a lack of research on reflection in engineering courses.
[00:00:52.390]Reflection prompts that focus on specific concepts or learning objectives,
[00:00:55.750]as well as prompts that direct students to feedback on their work,
[00:00:59.020]help students identify their strengths and weaknesses,
[00:01:01.870]self-regulate their learning, and engage in different types and levels of metacognitive strategies.
[00:01:10.680]The purpose of this study is to determine if the word choice used in weekly reflection prompts
[00:01:15.450]influences students' levels of thinking when reflecting on feedback on their
[00:01:19.680]performance in a course.
[00:01:21.600]The research question addressed in this study was:
[00:01:24.930]How do reflection prompts impact the level of metacognition expressed by
[00:01:28.980]first-year engineering students in weekly reflections on their learning?
[00:01:35.190]This study took place at a large Midwest university and the participants were
[00:01:39.420]first-year undergraduate students in a second semester required engineering course.
[00:01:43.320]The study was conducted during two semesters:
[00:01:47.310]spring of 2017 with a total course enrollment of 1,600 students,
[00:01:52.080]and spring of 2018 with a total course enrollment of 1,521 students.
[00:01:57.750]Reflections were taken from one course section from each semester.
[00:02:02.820]In 2017, there were 117 students in the section
[00:02:07.130]and in 2018, there were 114 students.
[00:02:10.884]Throughout the semester students completed problem sets based on course learning objectives
[00:02:16.710]and received feedback on them.
[00:02:18.538]Students received feedback on their work from the previous week on Sunday night,
[00:02:23.220]submitted problem sets before the start of class on Tuesdays, and completed a
[00:02:27.360]reflection at the beginning of this same class.
[00:02:30.150]This gave them a chance to reflect on what was or wasn't going well for them,
[00:02:34.080]things they could improve on, and what they could do to improve.
[00:02:38.520]Reflections included a combination of closed- and open-ended questions.
[00:02:42.310]For this study we specifically focused on reflections over the topic of user-defined functions.
[00:02:50.930]The reflection prompts were worded differently during the two semesters.
[00:02:54.830]The prompts from 2017 focused on asking students
[00:02:57.480]what actions they had already taken or planned to take
[00:03:01.180]based on the feedback they received, and what they plan to do
[00:03:04.670]to improve on learning objectives they struggled with.
[00:03:07.155]These prompts specifically called attention to actions and plans
[00:03:10.870]based on feedback.
[00:03:12.940]The 2018 prompts focused on students' ability to complete skills that showed
[00:03:17.920]proficiency for each learning objective.
[00:03:20.530]These questions asked students what was going well or what was difficult for them
[00:03:24.220]based on evidence of proficiency.
[00:03:29.650]To analyze the responses, we used qualitative coding analysis.
[00:03:33.520]A coding scheme used in a study by Ku & Ho provided a basis for our coding scheme,
[00:03:38.080]which has five metacognitive dimensions.
[00:03:41.709]Planning responses included preparation for task execution and procedures and requirements for a task.
[00:03:48.630]Monitoring focused on task comprehension as a form of self-assessment,
[00:03:52.990]and students' reflections on their level of understanding were not influenced by
[00:03:56.800]outside factors such as instructor feedback or points received.
[00:04:01.550]Evaluating was assessing one's thoughts or performance with the influence of outside factors
[00:04:06.500]and focused on identifying a problem and or solution related to a task or goal.
[00:04:12.250]Action comments focused on what students said they had or had not done.
[00:04:16.930]Transfer comments connected experience with course concepts in the past
[00:04:20.671]or in other concurrent courses.
[00:04:23.260]A non-codable code was added for responses that were left blank or did not
[00:04:26.950]answer the reflection questions.
[00:04:29.590]There were low, medium, and high levels within the dimensions of the coding scheme
[00:04:33.370]based on the components students did or did not include in their reflections.
[00:04:39.730]Overall, responses were more spread among the metacognitive dimensions in 2017 than in 2018.
[00:04:46.227]Responses to the questions asked in 2017 showed higher levels of planning,
[00:04:51.090]evaluating, and action strategies,
[00:04:53.710]and the questions from 2018 showed primarily monitoring strategies.
[00:04:58.720]In 2018, there was a smaller gap between the number of responses coded at the
[00:05:03.134]low and medium levels of monitoring than there was in 2017.
[00:05:08.200]Although 2018 responses did not have significantly high numbers of transfer codes,
[00:05:13.030]this dimension was used more often in 2018 than in 2017.
[00:05:21.150]This study found several relationships between the wording of reflection prompts
[00:05:25.080]and students' metacognitive strategies.
[00:05:28.390]In regard to the 2017 prompts, specifically asking students what they planned to do or had done
[00:05:34.200]resulted in a high number of planning and action responses, and asking students
[00:05:38.760]how feedback influenced their past or future future actions resulted in high
[00:05:43.410]levels of evaluating. For the 2018 prompts, asking
[00:05:47.970]students what was going well for them or what needed improvement based on their
[00:05:51.630]proficiency resulted in high numbers of monitoring responses,
[00:05:55.620]but low amounts of planning and evaluating.
[00:05:59.000]Students are unlikely to reflect on how outside factors, such as instructor
[00:06:03.400]feedback, influence their understanding unless reflection prompts
[00:06:07.060]direct them to do so.
[00:06:08.890]Reflection prompts that encourage monitoring are more likely to also encourage
[00:06:12.730]the use of transfer strategies. Additionally,
[00:06:15.850]low numbers of evaluating at the high level
[00:06:18.370]suggest that students fail to use feedback to develop learning strategies or
[00:06:22.870]improve their understanding of course concepts,
[00:06:25.270]which was shown by both semesters. Based on these results,
[00:06:28.870]the wording used in reflection prompts does influence student's metacognitive strategies.
[00:06:36.340]The purpose of this study was to address the question:
[00:06:39.160]How do reflection prompts impact the level of metacognition expressed by first-year
[00:06:43.360]engineering students in weekly reflections on their learning?
[00:06:47.290]This was done by collecting students' responses to weekly reflection prompts
[00:06:51.190]over two semesters, with each semester using different wording in the prompts.
[00:06:56.320]We used qualitative coding analysis to determine which metacognitive strategies
[00:07:00.610]students responses demonstrated. Our results showed that the prompts used in
[00:07:05.200]2017 had higher levels of planning, evaluating, and action,
[00:07:09.550]while the responses to the 2018 prompts showed primarily monitoring strategies.
[00:07:15.040]Based on these results,
[00:07:16.090]we can conclude that the wording used in reflection prompts does impact
[00:07:19.540]students' metacognitive strategies.
[00:07:23.320]Thank you for taking the time to watch this presentation.
[00:07:27.010]These were the sources used throughout.

The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!

You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.

Comments

0 Comments

Impact of Weekly Reflection Prompts on First-Year Engineering Students' Metacognitive Strategies

Description

Searchable Transcript

Comments icon comment

Related Channels

Comments