IDENTIFYING DISPARITIES BETWEEN STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING AND THE REALITIES OF PERFORMANCE WITHIN AN INTRODUCTORY GEOSCIENCE COURSE

Every geoscience instructor has experienced variability in student performance. For example, some students seem to do well with one topic and can’t seem to grasp others without significant effort. The ability to identify deficiencies in one’s learning primarily falls to an important educational skill called metacognitive monitoring accuracy. For many students, the deficiencies between their perceived knowledge and their actual performance only becomes evident when they receive the results of a summative course exam. Unfortunately, traditional class formats provide few opportunities for students to develop metacognitive monitoring skills so that they can readily identify and correct their learning deficiencies before they negatively affect their course grade. We sought to compare and contrast student monitoring accuracy and performance through the systematic collection of student confidence data during formative (online practice quizzes) and summative (midterm exam) assessments in a large (n~90) physical geology course. During the formative quizzes, we provided students with feedback on both their content knowledge and information about the gap between their performance and their confidence in their answer for each question. In addition, students were provided graphical information pertaining to performance and confidence to make their thinking in the course visible. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of participating students to gain further insights into student perceptions of their learning and experiences in the course. Analysis revealed direct relationships between students’ performance and their monitoring accuracy as high performing students were much better at predicting their achievement on assessments. Additionally, there were interesting suggestions of other effects such as gender (e.g., females were found to have corrected for initial inaccuracy between midterm exams) and topic (e.g., students being consistently overconfident in their knowledge of mantle generation).