Impact of supplemental material use on student metacognitive monitoring and calibration

Abstract

Objective. To determine whether third year Doctor of Pharmacy students’ self-reported use of optional supplemental material impacted their ability to accurately predict their performance on a low-stakes assessment. Methods. An instructor created optional supplemental material in the form of an online quiz. Students were asked to report whether they used the supplemental material and to predict and postdict their performance on an in-class assessment. The relative accuracy of the predictions and postdictions as well as the assessment grades and overall course grades were compared between students who reported using the supplemental material and those who reported not using the supplemental material. Results. More than half of the students (60%) reported using the supplemental material. Most students underpredicted their performance on the in-class assessment, but there was no difference in the accuracy of predictions based on supplemental material use or non-use (-1.2 vs-1.0) or on the postdictions (-1.3 vs.-1.0). Students who reported using the supplemental material performed better on both the low-stakes assessment (7.7 vs 7.2 out of 10) and overall in the course (87.0% vs 84.9%). Conclusion. Pharmacy students’ self-reported use of optional supplemental material does not appear to impact their ability to accurately predict their performance on a low-stakes assessment.