Repeated testing sessions and scholastic aptitude in college students' metacognitive accuracy

We performed three experiments to examine the effects of repeated study-judgement-test sessions on metacognitive monitoring, and to see if better students ( those with higher Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT scores) outperform low SAT students. In all experiments, mean metacognitive accuracy ( bias scores and Gamma correlations) did improve with practice. Most improvement involved students' ability to predict which items would not be recalled later. In addition, students with high SAT scores recalled more items, were less overconfident, and adjusted their predictions more effectively. Thus, high SAT students may be able to adjust their metacognitive monitoring effectively without feedback, but low SAT students appear unlikely to do so. Educators may need to devise more explicit techniques to help low SAT students improve their metacognitive monitoring during the course of a semester.