Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018

VOL. 43, NO. 2, 272–285

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1334872

Prompting undergraduate students’ metacognition of learning:

implementing ‘meta-learning’ assessment tasks in the biomedical
sciences
Kay Colthorpe, Tania Sharifirad, Louise Ainscough, Stephen Anderson and Kirsten Zimbardi
School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
To succeed at post-secondary education, it’s essential that students develop Metacognition;
an understanding of their own knowledge and learning processes. This meta-learning; biomedical
metacognition of learning, or ‘meta-learning’, helps students to become science; self-regulated
more effective learners, as they become more aware of their self-regulatory learning
processes and recognise the effectiveness of their study strategies. To
increase biomedical science students’ self-awareness, we have designed and
implemented meta-learning assessment tasks across our biomedical science
courses. Most students reported that meta-learning tasks had a positive
impact on their learning, as they prompted self-regulatory processes of
forethought and self-reflection. We found that students were equally likely
to change or not change their study strategies across subsequent semesters.
Those students that did not change were generally high achievers, believing
their study approaches were most effective, but their performance did
not improve across semesters. In contrast, students who adapted, mostly
by modifying how they appraised and rearranged records or improved
planning and time management, performed less well overall but significantly
improved their performance across semesters. Meta-learning tasks may
prompt students to become more self-reflective and independent learners
by affecting their approach to learning, enabling them to reflect on their
study strategies, adapt and improve performance, and may enable the
development of lifelong learning skills.

Introduction
It is well established that the degree of students’ prior knowledge, ability and skills do not completely
explain their level of academic achievement (Zimmerman 2001; Dunlosky et al. 2013). Despite similar
entrance scores, some students excel academically, whereas others experience difficulties in meeting
academic standards. Investigations of the factors which correlate with academic achievement reveal
important differences in how students both recognise and regulate their own learning (Dunlosky et al.
2013; Mega, Ronconi, and De Beni 2014). For students entering post-secondary education, it is essential
that they rapidly develop the skills and insights needed to become independent learners, as they move
from an often structured and supportive school environment to one in which they are expected to
become highly self-directed and autonomous (van der Meer, Jansen, and Torenbeek 2010). However,
many new university students are inadequately prepared to overcome the challenges faced in this new

CONTACT  Kay Colthorpe  k.colthorpe@uq.edu.au

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   273

environment (Allgood et al. 2000; Boud 2010). If one of the primary purposes of higher education is
to develop the basis on which all future learning is built (Boud and Falchikov 2006), then it is essential
that all students are provided with opportunities to develop an understanding of their own knowledge
and learning processes. This metacognitive understanding of learning, or ‘meta-learning’, is the process
of developing an awareness of one’s own knowledge, motives and learning; literally ‘learning about
learning’ (Biggs 1985).

Meta-learning
Conceptually, meta-learning is a mixture of understanding, processes and attitudes. It includes the
self-knowledge about how one learns, particularly an awareness of the learning strategies and behav-
iours applicable to a learning context (Jackson 2004; Boström and Lassen 2006). It also includes ‘knowl-
edge of completion’, in which learners develop an appreciation of the knowledge that they have gained
and an understanding of how to use this knowledge (Boström and Lassen 2006). Meta-learning also
relates to learners’ attitudes, such as their belief that the way they self-regulate is the best way for them,
and that they have the capacities and skills to apply their knowledge (Jackson 2004).
Based on this perspective, meta‐learning is an active, internal process in which a learner’s point of
view regarding themselves and their surroundings will change and be regulated (Boström and Lassen
2006; Winters 2011). Engaging effectively in meta-learning has been shown to improve academic perfor-
mance (Biggs 1985). It has been suggested that aiding the metacognition of learning can help students
to become more effective learners, as they become more aware of self-regulatory behaviours and begin
to recognise the effectiveness of various strategies they use (Jackson 2004). Meta-learning can also be
a very effective tool to assist students in becoming independently self-reflective (Biggs 1985; Winters
2011). As meta-learning relates to students’ self-awareness regarding their learning processes, it is
closely aligned to the self-regulation of learning (Zimmerman 2002; Winne 2010); that is, the thoughts,
feelings and actions that students use to help them attain their academic goals (Zimmerman 2000).

Self-regulation of learning
Over the last few decades, a number of models for self-regulation have been postulated (Pintrich 1995;
Boekaerts 1997; Winne and Hadwin 1998; Zimmerman 2000). In each of these models, self-regulation is
not considered simply as an ability or skill, but as a process in which learners use their metacognitive,
motivational and behavioural strategies in a self-directed way to shape their own learning (Puustinen
and Pulkkinen 2001). Students are proactive in self-regulating their learning, and it is more effective
when they are aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and are guided by their goals and motivations
(Zimmerman 2002). The most widely accepted of these models, proposed by Zimmerman (2000), con-
sists of three phases, the forethought, performance and self-reflection phases, which represent a cycle
of self-regulated learning.
In Zimmerman’s three-phase model, the forethought phase involves self-motivation beliefs and task
analysis that occurs prior to learning (Zimmerman 2002). Self-motivation beliefs arise from both ability
and self-efficacy, referring to the learners’ personal perceptions of their ability to learn successfully,
together with intrinsic interest and values of the learning task ahead (Bandura 1986). Task analysis refers
to goal setting and strategic planning. It has been found that setting goals which are task-oriented and
planning to achieve such goals significantly influence academic performance (Pintrich 2000; Barzegar
2012). The second, performance phase, which occurs as learning is taking place, includes the processes
of self-control and self-observation. Self-control includes imagery, self-instruction, attention focusing
and task strategies, where the learner concentrates on implementing and deploying specific strategies,
and monitoring and controlling personal functioning (Zimmerman 2002). In this phase, the learner is
proactive in managing and adjusting both their study time and the study environment, changing it as
needed to improve efficiency (Lynch and Dembo 2004).
274    K. COLTHORPE ET AL.

In the final phase, self-reflection, learners undergo self-judgement and self-reaction. Self-judgement
includes the learners’ self-evaluation regarding the learning task. Students make subjective judgement
of their own performance to a given standard of performance, and attributions, in which they identify
reasons for errors or successes (Zimmerman 2000, 2002). Self-reaction involves self-satisfaction and
adaptive/defensive responses. In this phase, a positive feeling regarding expectations and satisfaction
can enhance motivation (Zimmerman and Kitsantas 1999). An adaptive reaction can result in modifying
an inappropriate strategy during future learning. In contrast, a defensive reaction will diminish focus
and effort on learning (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2002). As personal, behavioural and environmental
factors change throughout the learning process, productive learners need to continually monitor their
performance (Winne and Hadwin 1998). Based on self-regulatory processes, Zimmerman and Schunk
(2004) categorised learners as either proactive or reactive, stating that reactive self-regulators avoid
the use of forethought and mostly focus on performance, whereas proactive self-regulators apply
forethought to improve the function and quality of subsequent phases.

Assessment for learning

In the context of learning science, whether as the primary purpose of study or as a foundation for other
professional degrees, teaching and assessment practices have a long-held strong focus on disciplinary
knowledge (Neumann 2001). Traditionally, assessment in the sciences has emphasised the products of
learning, but largely ignored the processes of learning. Assessment tasks are used primarily to grade
students, to certify their level of achievement, but may also facilitate learning by providing students with
information regarding their performance (Boud and Falchikov 2006). However, there are few reflective
components in assessment tasks within the sciences, so students have limited formal opportunities or
encouragement to reflect on the progress of their learning or knowledge acquisition, especially as they
move to subsequent units of study. Despite this, science educators consider conceptual understanding
to be of great importance, and want students to be able to apply their knowledge in novel contexts
(Boshuizen and Schmidt 2008). This is particularly relevant in professional programmes, where discipli-
nary scientific knowledge underpins professional practice, and students must transfer knowledge to
clinical settings (Boshuizen and Schmidt 2008). Without insight and self-awareness of the knowledge
they have acquired and the processes by which they acquired it, students may have limited ability to
transfer that knowledge to different contexts or future learning tasks.
Given the rate at which new knowledge is now generated in the science and health professions,
the knowledge students acquire during their undergraduate studies is likely to be rapidly superseded.
To maintain their professional knowledge and stay abreast of new developments after graduation, it
is essential that students develop the skills to become lifelong learners. Importantly, one of the key
attributes of a lifelong learner, as identified by Candy, Crebert, and O’Leary (1994), is having ‘a repertoire
of learning skills’ (our emphasis). This entails having skills in task analysis and planning, particularly in
recognising what knowledge is required and how to acquire it, skills in self-judgement, both of learn-
ing and adequacy of one’s knowledge, and the ability to accurately evaluate the products of learning
(Candy, Crebert, and O’Leary 1994; Boud and Falchikov 2006). Given the long-term value of these skills,
students should be provided with opportunities to develop and hone them. Ideally, this should occur
throughout all aspects of an undergraduate programme, but it is especially important that it occurs
within assessment tasks, as summative assessment provides both a strong impetus for learning and
indication of what is valued (Boud and Falchikov 2006).

Creating opportunities for meta-learning

To increase biomedical science students’ awareness of their knowledge and learning processes, we have
designed and implemented ‘meta-learning assessment tasks’ across many of our biomedical science
courses. Our underlying aims in developing these tasks were that they would prompt students to: (i)
regularly revise the content they had recently covered, (ii) consider that knowledge in the light of their
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   275

previous knowledge of the topic and/or how it related to other topics, (iii) reflect on the processes by
which they learn and their effectiveness and (iv) consider what knowledge they still needed to learn
and to plan to achieve that. We designed each meta-learning task as part of a series, deployed at
2–3 week intervals across a semester, with 4–5 tasks per semester. Specifically, the tasks were deployed
at strategic time points throughout the semester to prompt students to be more proactive learners,
to engage in more effective, higher quality learning strategies, particularly from the forethought and
self-reflective phases of the self-regulatory cycle (Zimmerman and Schunk 2004). While the primary
purpose of the tasks was to aid immediate learning through revision, reflection and increasing effective
strategy use, our long-term goals were that the meta-learning tasks would aid skill development for
future learning, increasing students’ skills as assessors of both their knowledge and learning processes
(Boud and Falchikov 2006).
Each meta-learning task generally contained six open-ended questions, often with multiple parts.
Tasks implemented early in the semester included questions which prompted students to reflect on
recent lecture content (Table 1, A). These early meta-learning tasks also prompted students to articu-
late their goals (Table 1, B) and motivations for the course (Ridley et al. 1992). Students were asked to
identify factors which could influence their learning process (Tanner 2012; Ainscough et al. 2017), and
to consider study strategies (Nota, Soresi, and Zimmerman 2004) they planned to use to manage those
factors (Table 1, C). Tasks completed just prior to mid-semester assessment prompted students to utilise
forethought strategies to promote effective study (Zimmerman 2002; Tanner 2012), and were targeted
to the type of task they were undertaking (Table 1, D, E). Meta-learning tasks completed after the mid-se-
mester assessment aimed to encourage students to reflect on strategies they had used in preparation
for their mid-semester assessment, and to determine whether or not they were effective (Table 1, F,
G). Students were encouraged to consider how they could improve their study for future assessment
(Tanner 2012). In the last meta-learning task for a course, the final question asked students to describe
the impact of the meta-learning assessment tasks and how they affected their learning (Table 1, H).
Meta-learning tasks have also been implemented across successive semesters with the same cohort
of students. As students develop broader disciplinary knowledge and are increasingly familiar with
the tasks, questions that encourage integration of knowledge or target-specific types of reflections
were included. For example, the students were asked to link their physiological knowledge across the
topics from multiple semesters: ‘Each of the modules so far have touched on the various functions of
several different organs. Try to think of an organ that was mentioned in multiple modules and identify
the relationships between its functions in the different modules’. Students were also asked to reflect
on specific self-regulatory behaviours, such as self-evaluation (Zimmerman 2002):
One process that is considered to be particularly valuable for learning is ‘self-evaluation’. How do you go about
making sure that you understand what you have been studying? What methods do you use to test your own
knowledge and how often do you do it?
As strategy adaptability has been suggested to be beneficial (Heikkilä et al. 2010), students were also
asked to consider adaptations in study strategies they may have made across the successive semesters
and to identify reasons why they did or did not do so.
In designing these meta-learning tasks, there were a number of pragmatic design limitations to
consider. The tasks were deployed in courses with cohorts of 100–400 students, and were often used
to either replace or complement existing online quizzes that had little or no requirement for manual
marking. To encourage uptake, additional academic workload associated with the tasks had to be rel-
atively small, and they had to seamlessly integrate with existing course learning management systems.
As we believed increasing self-awareness through the tasks would benefit students (Biggs 1985; Tanner
2012), we wanted to both encourage all students to complete them and demonstrate the value we
placed on these reflective processes (Boud and Falchikov 2006). Thus, we felt the meta-learning tasks
should contribute marks towards course assessment. However, as the tasks were not designed to grade
the quality or extent of students’ reflections, marks were awarded for relevant and complete answers,
so the contribution towards overall course grade was necessarily small.
 276 

Table 1. Examples of meta-learning questions, with potential timing of implementation and aim for each question.

Meta-learning question Timing Aim

A Identify a concept that you didn’t understand well in first two weeks of the Early in semester Prompt students to reflect on recent lecture content
lectures. Briefly state that concept. Describe what action you will take to
  K. COLTHORPE ET AL.

clarify your understanding of this

B Students come into a course with quite different expectations. Describe your
personal goal(s) for this course
C Write down a major thing that has hindered your learning over the past few
weeks. This could be something specific to the course, but may also be some-
thing more general. What could you do in the future to reduce the impact of
this hindrance on your learning?
D With the mid-semester exam fast approaching, have you set yourself any study
goals and if so, what are they?
E What strategies will you be using specifically to make your studying as effec-
tive as possible for the upcoming exam?
F What strategies did you use for your exam preparation? Which of these worked
well for you?
G Think back to your experience of studying for the mid semester exam, the
strategies you used and reflect on the results you achieved. Describe the
strategies that you intend to use during your preparation for the end of
semester exam. Do these differ from your previous strategies?
H The meta-learning assessment tasks that you have done this semester are a
recent introduction to this course. Please feel free to make any comment on
whether you thought they have or have not been useful to you, and explain
either how they may have helped, or could be made more helpful for you
Early in semester
Early in semester
Prior to mid-semester assessment tasks
Prior to mid-semester assessment tasks
After mid-semester assessment tasks
After release of mid-semester assessment marks
and/or feedback, prior to end-of semester
assessment
End of semester
Direct students to articulate their goals and motivations for
the course (Ridley et al. 1992)
Aid students identification of factors which may influence
their learning processes, and strategies that may help
deal with those factors (Tanner 2012)
Prompt students to set goals for upcoming assessment
task(s) (Zimmerman 2002; Tanner 2012) targeted to the
type of task
Prompt students to consider the study strategies they plan
to use for assessment tasks (Nota, Soresi, and Zimmer-
man 2004)
Encourage reflection on effectiveness of study strategies
used for in preparation for mid-semester assessment
To encourage students to consider how they could improve
their study for future assessment (Tanner 2012)
Ask students to describe the impact of the meta-learning
assessment tasks and how the tasks may have affected
their learning
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   277

Since their inception, the meta-learning tasks have been deployed across a number of undergrad-
uate courses in the biomedical sciences, on each occasion being incorporated as a component of the
regular assessment, and collectively contributing between 5 and 15% of the assessment in any given
course. While the primary purpose of the tasks is to benefit student learning, the responses students
provide within the tasks can also be used to elucidate students’ perceptions, identify their self-regula-
tory behaviours and gauge longitudinal changes in the self-reported patterns of learning strategy use.
In this study, we evaluated the impact of meta-learning assessment tasks using students’ perceptions
of the value of those tasks. We also investigated students’ responses regarding their self-regulatory
behaviour in successive courses to identify longitudinal changes in strategy use and the impact that
may have had on academic achievement. Finally, to identify if the introduction of the tasks was asso-
ciated with any changes in student performance, we compared examination grades prior to and after
the inclusion of the tasks.

Methods
Institutional and course context
The University of Queensland is a large, research-intensive Australian university, with over 40,000 under-
graduate and 8000 postgraduate students. Students studying allied health programmes at the University
of Queensland undertake core courses in the biomedical sciences, often studying courses together as
mixed cohorts. The participants in this study were second year undergraduate students in the Bachelor
of Physiotherapy (n = 128) or Bachelor of Speech Pathology (n = 118) programmes, undertaking the
courses ‘Physiology I’ in semester 1, 2015 and ‘Physiology II’ in semester 2, 2015. Of these students, 71%
were female and 16% were international, with an average age of 20.4 years. These courses provide the
opportunity for students to develop an understanding of the functions and requirements of mamma-
lian tissues, organs and systems. In Physiology I, this included cell, nerve and muscle physiology and
systematic physiology of the cardiovascular, respiratory and renal systems; and in Physiology II, phys-
iology of the gastrointestinal, endocrine, sensory and motor nervous systems in health and disease.
A course BlackboardTM (Blackboard Inc., Washington DC, USA) website was available for students
throughout each semester. Course contact hours consisted of three hours of lectures every week
together with a three-hour practical class in 8 of the 13 weeks of semester. Lectures were scheduled
twice a week, were recorded through Echo360TM (Echo360 Inc, Dulles, VA, USA) and made available to
students 1–2 days after each lecture took place.

Course assessment
Assessment for both courses included a mid-semester written examination worth 20% or 17% of course
assessment in Physiology I and II, respectively, an end-of-semester written examination worth 55% in
Physiology I or 59% in Physiology II, and either an assignment (in Physiology I) or three online content
quizzes (in Physiology II). In addition, both courses had meta-learning assessment tasks. In Physiology
I there were four tasks at approximately three-week intervals, with two occurring prior and two after
the mid-semester examination. The tasks collectively contributed 12% to the assessment. In Physiology
II, there were three meta-learning tasks, collectively worth 9%, which were interspersed between the
three content quizzes, so that students had alternating online assessment tasks at two-week intervals
throughout the semester. In both courses, each meta-learning task was made available on the course
Blackboard site for one week, and students could complete the task at any time during that week.

Quantitative analysis
To gauge the potential impact of the introduction of meta-learning tasks on academic performance,
end of semester examination scores of all students undertaking Physiology I during the three years
 278 

Table 2. Impact of meta-learning assessment tasks with examples of student responses to a question regarding the usefulness of meta-learning tasks. Themes within the responses were inductively
identified and then matched against the self-regulatory phases and sub-phases proposed by Zimmerman (2000).
  K. COLTHORPE ET AL.

Phase Sub-processes Themes Examples

Forethought Task Analysis Setting goals I find these tasks helpful to remind myself that I need to reflect on my study, and to set goals to meet
during the semester
Planning and time management I think they have been useful in that they have made me think about how I want to study for physiology,
whereas normally I would probably just start studying without a specific plan in mind
Self-motivation beliefs Perception of ease Yeah, i find them useful as they can give the extra few marks you need to get to your final mark for the
course
Motivation In a way, writing my goals down on here and my strategies and aims for studying have helped me be
more motivated to fulfil these goals
Self-reflection Self-judgement Revise understanding of concepts or Answering questions about a concept I understood and one I didn’t helped me to revise concepts and
content encouraged me to remember what we’d been talking about in class
Self-evaluation I found them a really good way of determining what things I know, and what concepts I’m struggling
with so I could identify areas where I need extra help
Self-reaction Reflection on learning or content I enjoy the metalearning tasks. They have been a useful way to reflect on where I am at with course
content
Reflection on study strategies They have been helpful to me, as they have helped me realise and think about the strategies I need to
undertake to efficiently understand the concepts and ideas presented in this course
Reflection (non-specific) I think the meta learning tasks allows some time to reflect
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   279

prior to and three years after the introduction of the meta-learning tasks were compared by t-test,
performed using PrismTM (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA). Only results for Physiology I were used as,
except for the introduction of the meta-learning tasks, the course content was essentially unchanged
throughout this period. However, this analysis does not account for any cohort variations during this
time, so these results should be viewed with caution. Additional t-tests were performed on the end
of semester examination scores of consenting students for semesters 1 and 2, 2015 to determine the
impact of strategy adaptability. All quantitative data is presented as mean ± standard error of the mean,
and results were considered significant if p < 0.05.

Qualitative analysis
Responses from consenting students were imported from Blackboard into ExcelTM (Microsoft, Redmond,
WA, USA), de-identified and then analysed using NVivo 11TM (QSR International, MA, USA). In this study,
both inductive and deductive thematic analyses were performed (Braun and Clarke 2006). Responses
to the question regarding the usefulness of the meta-learning tasks were initially coded by affect, then
inductively coded based on themes derived from the data. Where multiple themes existed within a
single response, each was coded separately. Each theme was then aligned to the phases and sub-pro-
cesses of the self-regulation cycle (Zimmerman 2002). Representative examples of student responses
are presented in Table 2. Strategy adaptability was analysed using a deductive approach, with differ-
ent categories of strategies from self-regulated learning theory (Zimmerman 2000; Nota, Soresi, and
Zimmerman 2004). Each response was coded by the nature and type of strategy reported. To ensure
that the categorisation of themes and strategies was performed reliably, a second member of the
research team classified the responses of 47% of students. The initial agreement between coders was
87%. For discrepant responses, the two coders discussed and reached consensus, and then revised the
coding accordingly.

Ethical considerations
Prior to the commencement of this study, ethics approval was obtained from the University of
Queensland Human Behavioural and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee. All students were
invited to provide informed consent, with 108 students (45% of the cohort) consenting to do so. An
un-paired t-test showed that the average overall achievement in the course of consenting students
(74.8 ± 1.2%) did not differ significantly from the whole cohort (73.3 ± 0.8%), suggesting that the con-
senting students were a representative sample. All data were de-identified prior to use and all qualitative
analyses took place while researchers were blinded to student academic performance.

Results
Academic performance of students prior to and after the introduction of meta-learning assessment
tasks was evaluated using a t-test, comparing end of semester examination scores in Physiology I.
During 2013–2015, after the introduction of the meta-learning tasks, the examination scores of students
(n = 640) were significantly higher (68.2 ± 0.59%) than that of students (n = 754) during 2010–2012
(64.9 ± 0.45%; p < 0.05), prior to the introduction of the tasks. However, this change in examination
performance cannot be solely attributed to the introduction of the meta-learning tasks and should
be viewed with caution.
To identify the impact of meta-learning tasks on learning, students were asked whether they thought
that tasks had been useful and, if so, how. Student responses were initially characterised by affect,
with most students (85%) reporting that meta-learning had a positive impact on their learning. While
the remaining 15% of students reported that they felt the meta-learning tasks were not useful, none
reported that they had a negative effect on their learning. The responses were subjected to an inductive
thematic analysis, which revealed multiple themes. Students mentioned that the tasks aided with goal
280    K. COLTHORPE ET AL.

Figure 1. Frequency of responses from consenting students (n = 108) to a question regarding the usefulness of meta-learning tasks.
Responses were categorised into themes identified in an inductive analysis of data. Students could report more than one theme.

setting and motivation, helped them to plan or manage their time better, prompted them to revise
concepts or content, aided reflection on their learning, understanding of study strategies and enhanced
self-evaluation (Table 2). The most commonly reported themes were reflection on study strategies and
on learning or understanding (Figure 1). Students often cited more than one reason why they thought
the tasks were useful, for example, one student said:
I feel the meta-learning tasks have been very helpful in helping me reflect upon my learning strategies, goals for
the course and my study. Answering questions about a concept I understood and one I didn’t helped me to revise
concepts and encouraged me to remember what we’d been talking about in class. Without these learning tasks,
I don’t think I would’ve thought about goal setting in preparation for upcoming exams and instead would have
simply ‘gone through the motions of studying’ without setting a dead line. I really hope we have these tasks next
semester for our physiology course as I feel they were most beneficial!
Thirteen students mentioned that the tasks were easy to do and/or provided ‘easy marks’. One student
highlighted how this had helped reduce stress, saying:
I don’t think they have been particularly useful, however they are basically free marks for us and help decrease
some of our stress levels, so in that respect I think they have been extremely beneficial and I hope for the next lot
of students sake they are included in the curriculum again!
In addition, a small number of students (n = 3) mentioned that they thought the tasks were a good
vehicle for providing feedback to teaching staff, for example, one said:
I quite liked the meta learning tasks. It seems like a nice, indirect way to give feedback to the course coordinators
and allows those who wouldn’t normally to voice an opinion about the way the course is conducted.
The themes identified were further classified based on the phases and sub-processes of the self-reg-
ulatory cycle (Zimmerman 2000), with all themes being allocated into sub-processes from either the
forethought or self-reflection phases (Table 2). Students’ responses regarding self-reflection often
included evidence of their increasing self-awareness. Specifically, students used terminology regarding
the meta-learning tasks such as ‘they helped me realise and think about’, ‘made me think about how I
want to study’ and ‘they make me more aware’.
While most of the students who reported that they perceived the task were not useful (n = 16) did
not give a reason for their beliefs, those that did said either that they had well-established study habits
(n = 4) or regularly reflected (n = 2) and therefore felt that the tasks were unnecessary, although some
(n = 5) appreciated the ‘easy’ marks. However, the majority of these students (n = 9) stated that they
would have preferred quizzes to examine content rather than meta-learning tasks. For example, one
student said:
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   281

I like the idea of frequent quizzes, however, I feel these tasks have been easy marks and while that works out well
for my percentage, it’s not really helping my learning. I think doing weekly quizzes on the content just learnt would
be much more helpful and would help me guide my study.
Two students who reported that the tasks were not useful personally mentioned that the tasks could
be useful to others. One said:
As I am constantly reflecting on my own study strategies, I felt the meta-learning tasks offered me no extra help,
as I answer similar questions in my head on a daily basis. However, for someone who isn’t reflective I feel like the
questions posed would be helpful in assessing their current study strategies.

Strategy adaptability
To determine whether students reported changing strategies over semesters, the final task of semester
2 asked students:
You have nearly completed this years’ physiology courses, and have done several exams and assessments along
the way. Did you change your approach to studying as the year progressed, if so, how? Did this help improve your
understanding of physiology?
Of the consenting students who responded to this question (n = 93), 49% said they had not changed
their approach. The majority said that this was because their approach was effective, either at achieving
high grades ‘No, I kept my study approach the same throughout the year and this so far has helped me get
the marks I’ve wanted’, or for their understanding ‘I did not change my approach to studying as the year
progressed cause I think the approach that I used is suitable for me and it is effective to help me improve my
understanding of physiology’.
One student reported that they had intended to change their approach, but had been unable to: ‘I
aimed to change my approach but due to time and health constraints have been unable to improve
my study habits by much’. Of the remaining 51% of respondents who said they had made changes to
their approaches or strategies, 41 students described the way in which they had changed their strat-
egies, most often in an attempt to improve their understanding. For example, one student described
the benefits they found from seeking social assistance:
Yes, I have changed my approach to studying. Rather than having the main strategy as independent study, I have
been trying to study in groups as this facilitates discussion and confirms our understanding. I recently participated
in a study group with my friends and so far, my understanding of physiology has appeared to [be] improved.
Responses from these students who reported changing their study strategies were classified based
on the categories of Nota, Soresi, and Zimmerman (2004). The most common change, reported by 40%
of respondents, was in ‘transforming records’ (Figure 2), defined as the student actively appraising and
rearranging records or resources to improve their learning (Colthorpe et al. 2015). For example, one
student described how they had changed their approach to writing notes: ‘I really began to incorporate
drawings and flow charts a lot more, whereas in previous years I was mostly focussed on rote-learning
steps and paragraphs’. Another described how they changed the way they summarised lecture material:
This semester I started creating lecture summaries of each module. This is where I re-write up all the notes and take
screenshots of slides that have important diagrams on them and then underneath explain each of the diagrams
in lay terms.
A further 25% of respondents reported improving their planning or time management, and 17.5%
changed to a more collaborative approach by seeking social assistance (Figure 2).
To determine whether changing their approach to study had an impact on students’ academic
achievement, t-tests were used to analyse examination performance. Students who responded that
they had not changed their approach to study during the year had significantly higher end-of-semester
examination scores (78.3 ± 1.4%) in their second semester physiology course than students who said
they had changed (71.5 ± 1.8%; p < 0.01). Similarly, in the first semester, students who did not change
their approach performed significantly better (78.3 ± 1.7%) than those who changed (66.6 ± 1.9%;
p < 0.0001). However, paired t-tests comparing the semesters 1 and 2 examinations within each group
282    K. COLTHORPE ET AL.

Figure 2. Strategies students reported adopting when asked ‘Did you change your approach to studying as the year progressed, if so,
how?’ Data are presented as the percentage of students who described how they had changed their approach to study (n = 41). The
strategies they reported were classified based on the categories of Nota, Soresi, and Zimmerman (2004), adapted for the university
context. Student could identify strategies in more than one category.

showed that the students who stated they did not change their approach performed equally well in
both semesters, averaging a grade of ‘distinction’ (second highest course grade) in both semesters. In
contrast, students who stated that they changed their approach during the year significantly (p < 0.01)
improved their performance from semester 1 to semester 2, increasing their marks on average by almost
5%, although they were not quite able to match the achievements of the other group.

Discussion
The development of meta-learning assessment tasks as part of course assessment aimed to improve
student metacognition of their learning and, in doing so, promote the development of lifelong learn-
ing skills. In this study we implemented such meta-learning tasks in science courses for allied health
students. The majority of students reported that the meta-learning tasks had a positive impact on their
study, identifying various ways in which they felt the tasks had aided them. When considered against
the theoretical framework of the self-regulation cycle (Zimmerman 2002), the positive impacts which
emerged from student perceptions represented processes that were primarily from the forethought
or self-reflection phases of the cycle.
The responses students provided in tasks suggest that they perceived that answering meta-learning
questions gave them opportunities to develop a direction for their learning, through setting goals and
planning, to improve their self-judgements through revising content and self-evaluation and to become
more reflective and self-aware learners by providing them with opportunities to reflect on their learn-
ing and study strategies. This suggests that the meta-learning tasks were a helpful prompt for them
to complete the self-regulatory cycle (Zimmerman 2002). In addition, a number of students reported
that the tasks were ‘easy’, either as an easy way to gain marks, or as an easy way to keep up with the
content. Prior research has found that students are more likely to choose tactics which are easy to apply
(Winne 1996), so students’ perception of ease may increase their motivation to engage with the tasks.
However, the results also suggest that students’ self-evaluation was somewhat limited. While
self-evaluation was identified as a positive impact of meta-learning, only a small proportion of stu-
dents stated that they had adopted self-evaluation strategies as they progressed. Self-evaluation is
defined as the judgements of one’s performance and recognition of one’s strengths and weaknesses
to improve future learning outcomes (Hewitt 2011), and is considered an important component of
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   283

self-regulated learning as it helps students to be aware of their knowledge and ability (Dunlosky et al.
2013). For successful self-evaluation, students must use either externally or internally generated feed-
back regarding their performance to evaluate their progression towards goals (Bol et al. 2012). Some
students also mentioned that they would have preferred more content-based questions, and potentially
these could have assisted students further with their self-evaluation. To increase the extent to which
students self-evaluate more frequently, future meta-learning tasks could be modified to include more
questions that either address content specifically and/or are integrated to include both content and
learning. These modifications may increase the value and capacity of the meta-learning tasks.
While most student responses to the impact of meta-learning were positive, some students sug-
gested that they thought the meta-learning tasks had not been beneficial. Of those students who
provided reasons for this deficiency, the majority of responses fell into two themes, those who were
already aware of their strategies, versus those who thought they would benefit more from content-based
questions. Students who said that they were already aware of their strategies stated that their learning
processes were well established and they did not need to change them, or that they were capable of
managing their learning strategies without prompting. Considering that these students have high
university entrance scores and are also in their second year at university, it is not surprising that many
would already have well-developed and effective learning strategies. However, knowledge per se of a
strategy does not necessarily mean that students can apply it in an effective way (Zimmerman 2000). It
is possible that students may know particular strategies that have previously worked well for them, but
they may be unaware of how to adapt their strategies to be most effective in a specific learning context.
As the academic year progressed, some students, particularly those who were performing less well,
reported adapting their learning strategies, and potentially this change may have been influenced by
the meta-learning tasks. Students predominantly reported changing by ‘transforming of records’, which
implies they spent more time re-appraising and reflecting on information and their understanding of it
(Colthorpe et al. 2015). Many students also reported improving their time management and planning.
Overall these findings suggest the students have become both more reflective and better at planning
their learning in the second semester, as they move towards a combination of forethought, perfor-
mance and self-reflection phase strategies (Zimmerman 2002). These students also showed significant
improvements in their academic performance in examinations from semester 1 to semester 2.
Potentially, the meta-learning tasks influenced students’ academic achievement in a positive direc-
tion by prompting them to apply more strategies from the forethought and self-reflection phases, which
have been reported as difficult to use (Bonestroo and de Jong 2012). This finding also suggests that the
meta-learning tasks may be particularly beneficial for poorer achieving students whose self-regulatory
behaviours are less well established. Prompting such students to reflect on and articulate their learning
strategies, particularly with regard to the effectiveness of those strategies, may provide impetus for
them to seek more effective learning behaviours. However, while this longitudinal shift in strategy use
was apparent, it cannot be solely attributed to the introduction of the meta-learning assessment tasks.
It may be that these changes represent the normal maturation of self-regulatory behaviours of these
students as they progress through their studies.

Conclusion
Highly self-regulated learners use a variety of learning strategies and adapt their strategies effectively
when faced with changing learning environments, but self-awareness, self-evaluation and feedback
are keys to this process (Boström and Lassen 2006). Zimmerman (2000) has stated that self-regulation
is not an easy task for individuals to undertake. Consequently, students need feedback and support
to become aware of their strengths and weaknesses and to be able to reflect on their learning. Meta-
learning assessment tasks may help students to be more proactive and effective learners by focusing
on developing self-awareness (Zimmerman and Schunk 2004). These tasks provide students with the
opportunity to develop a better understanding of their consciousness and the knowledge that adapt-
ing and using different strategies can enhance their learning (Biggs 1985; Meyer 2004; Winters 2011).
284    K. COLTHORPE ET AL.

Providing all undergraduate students with opportunities and prompts to reflect, through the use
of tasks such as these, may help them develop into more self-reflective and independent learners by
affecting their overall approach to learning, enabling them to reflect on their study strategies and reach
a higher conceptual level (Jackson 2004; Meyer 2004; Winters 2011). In this study, we found that often
students perceived meta-learning assessment tasks to be a starting point to becoming more reflective in
their own learning and considered them as a tool to challenge their knowledge and learning processes.
Perhaps the most valuable response to these tasks is from the students:
I have really liked these tasks. Taking time to reflect upon performance, identifying strengths and weaknesses and
developing strategies to overcome the latter is an important skill that I will need as a practicing physiotherapist. I
feel that these activities have helped me with this process and to gain an appreciation of how effective the process
can be in lifting performance! Thank you!

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Kay Colthorpe, PhD, Dip.App.Sc. (Ag), G.Dip.Ag.St., G.Cert.Ed. (HE), is a teaching-focused senior lecturer in the School of
Biomedical Sciences at the University of Queensland, Australia. She has a strong research interest in self-regulated learning
and meta-learning, and teaches physiology across science and allied health programs.
Tania Sharifirad, BSc (Hons), completed her Honours program in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of
Queensland, Australia, with a project that focused on improving student outcomes through meta-learning tasks. She is
currently undertaking a Bachelor of Physiotherapy.
Louise Ainscough, PhD, BA, BSc (Hons), G.Cert.Ed. (HE), is a teaching-focused lecturer in the School of Biomedical Sciences at
the University of Queensland, Australia. She teaches physiology and histology across allied health programs at all year levels.
Stephen T Anderson, PhD, B.Agric. Sc. (Hons), G.Cert.Ed. (HE), is a teaching-research senior lecturer in physiology in the
School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Queensland, Australia. He has a keen interest in utilising meta-learning
assessment to promote lifelong learning.
Kirsten Zimbardi, PhD, BSc (Hons), G.Cert.Ed. (HE), is an honorary lecturer in physiology and pharmacology at the University
of Queensland with extensive experience in the transformation of key aspects of the science curriculum. She is currently
pursuing a career as a principal data scientist in the private sector.

References
Ainscough, L., E. Stewart, K. Colthorpe, and K. Zimbardi. 2017. “Learning Hindrances and Self-regulated Learning Strategies
Reported by Undergraduate Students: Identifying Characteristics of Resilient Students.” Studies in Higher Education,
1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1315085.
Allgood, W. P., V. J. Risko, M. C. Alvarez, M. M. Fairbanks, R. Flippo, and D. Caverly. 2000. “Factors that Influence Study.” In
Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, edited by R. F. Flippo and D. C. Caverly, 201–219. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Princeton-Hall.
Barzegar, M. 2012. “The Relationship between Goal Orientation and Academic Achievement – The Mediation Role of Self
Regulated Learning Strategies – A Path Analysis.” In International Conference on Management, Humanity and Economics,
112–115. Thailand: Phuket.
Biggs, J. B. 1985. “The Role of Metalearning in Study Processes.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 55 (3): 185–212.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1985.tb02625.x.
Boekaerts, M. 1997. “Self-regulated Learning: A New Concept Embraced by Researchers, Policy Makers, Educators, Teachers,
and Students.” Learning and Instruction 7 (2): 161–186.
Bol, L., D. J. Hacker, C. C. Walck, and J. A. Nunnery. 2012. “The Effects of Individual or Group Guidelines on the Calibration
Accuracy and Achievement of High School Biology Students.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 37 (4): 280–287.
Bonestroo, W. J., and T. de Jong. 2012. “Effects of Planning on Task Load, Knowledge, and Tool Preference: A Comparison of
Two Tools.” Interactive Learning Environments 20 (2): 141–153. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.484253.
Boshuizen, H. P. A., and H. G. Schmidt. 2008. “The Development of Clinical Reasoning Expertise.” Clinical Reasoning in the
Health Professions 3: 113–121.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   285

Boström, L., and L. M. Lassen. 2006. “Unraveling Learning, Learning Styles, Learning Strategies and Meta-cognition.”
Education and Training 48 (2/3): 178–189.
Boud, D. 2010. Assessment 2020: Seven Propositions for Assessment Reform in Higher Education. Sydney: Australian Learning
and Teaching Council.
Boud, D., and N. Falchikov. 2006. “Aligning Assessment with Long-term Learning.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
31 (4): 399–413. doi:10.1080/02602930600679050.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Candy, P. C., G. Crebert, and J. O’Leary. 1994. “Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education.” In A Focus
on Learning, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Teaching & Learning Forum, edited by L. Summers, ii–viii. Perth: Edith Cowan
University.
Colthorpe, K., K. Zimbardi, L. Ainscough, and S. T. Anderson. 2015. “Know thy Student! Combining Learning Analytics and
Critical Reflections to Develop A Targeted Intervention for Promoting Self-regulated.” Journal of Learning Analytics 2
(1): 134–155.
Dunlosky, J., K. A. Rawson, E. J. Marsh, M. J. Nathan, and D. T. Willingham. 2013. “Improving Students’ Learning With Effective
Learning Techniques.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14 (1): 4–58.
Heikkilä, A., M. Niemivirta, J. Nieminen, and K. Lonka. 2010. “Interrelations Among University Students’ Approaches to
Learning, Regulation of Learning, and Cognitive and Attributional Strategies: A Person Oriented Approach.” Higher
Education 61 (5): 513–529. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9346-2.
Hewitt, M. P. 2011. “The Impact of Self-evaluation Instruction on Student Self-evaluation, Music Performance, and Self-
evaluation Accuracy.” Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (1): 6–20.
Jackson, N. 2004. “Developing the Concept of Metalearning.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41 (4):
391–403. doi:10.1080/1470329042000276995.
Lynch, R., and M. Dembo. 2004. “The Relationship between Self-regulation and Online Learning in a Blended Learning
Context.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 5 (2): 1–16.
van der Meer, J., E. Jansen, and M. Torenbeek. 2010. “‘It’s Almost a Mindset that Teachers Need to Change’: First‐year Students’
Need to be Inducted into Time Management.” Studies in Higher Education 35 (7): 777–791. doi:10.1080/03075070903383211.
Mega, C., L. Ronconi, and R. De Beni. 2014. “What Makes a Good Student? How Emotions, Self-regulated Learning, and
Motivation Contribute to Academic Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 106 (1): 121–131.
Meyer, J. H. F. 2004. “An Introduction to the RoLI™.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41 (4): 491–497.
Neumann, R. 2001. “Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching.” Studies in Higher Education 26 (2): 135–146.
Nota, L., S. Soresi, and B. J. Zimmerman. 2004. “Self-regulation and Academic Achievement and Resilience: A Longitudinal
Study.” International Journal of Educational Research 41 (3): 198–215. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001.
Pintrich, P. R. 1995. “Understanding Self-regulated Learning.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 63: 3–12.
Pintrich, P. R. 2000. “The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-regulated Learning.” In Handbook of Self-regulation, edited by
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner, 451–502. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Puustinen, M., and L. Pulkkinen. 2001. “Models of Self-regulated Learning: A Review.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research 45 (3): 269–286. doi:10.1080/00313830120074206.
Ridley, D. S., P. A. Schutz, R. S. Glanz, and C. E. Weinstein. 1992. “Self-regulated Learning: The Interactive Influence of
Metacognitive Awareness and Goal-setting.” The Journal of Experimental Education 60 (4): 293–306.
Tanner, K. D. 2012. “Promoting Student Metacognition.” Cell Biology Education 11 (2): 113–120. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033.
Winne, P. H. 1996. “A Metacognitive View of Individual Differences in Self-regulated Learning.” Learning and Individual
Differences 8 (4): 327–353.
Winne, P. H. 2010. “Improving Measurements of Self-regulated Learning.” Educational Psychologist 45 (4): 267–276.
Winne, P. H., and A. F. Hadwin. 1998. “Studying as Self-regulated Learning.” In Metacognition in Educational Theory and
Practice, edited by D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser, 277–304. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Winters, T. 2011. “Facilitating Meta-learning in Art and Design Education.” International Journal of Art & Design Education
30 (1): 90–101.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. “Attaining Self-regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective.” In Handbook of Self-regulation, edited
by M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 13–39. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2001. “Theories of Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview and Analysis.” In
Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, edited by B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk,
1–37. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2002. “Becoming a Self-regulated Learner: An Overview.” Theory into Practice 41 (2): 64–70. doi:10.1207/
s15430421tip4102_2.
Zimmerman, B. J., and A. Kitsantas. 1999. “Acquiring Writing Revision Skill: Shifting from Process to Outcome Self-regulatory
Goals.” Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (2): 241–250.
Zimmerman, B. J, and D. H. Schunk. 2004. “Self-regulating Intellectual Processes and Outcomes: A Social Cognitive
Perspective.” Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development,
323–349.
Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.