The Metacognitive Lab Report
A working idea that applies scientific reasoning and writing to promote reflection.
The Idea
The consultation to discuss the instructor’s asynchronous online course took a turn. This particular individual and I have a good rapport. We are invested in student success, are willing to test creative solutions, and believe in the measured integration of technology insofar as it supports student learning. So, when we met over Zoom to discuss their asynchronous online STEM course, I expected it to be business as usual. My instructional design alarm bells rang when the instructor shared a comment about the summative assessments: their asynchronous online students consistently performed worse than the in-class students they teach. This was presented as evidence of the online course’s rigor when compared to their in-person course. For the instructor, poorer student performance confirmed the course’s academic rigor; they didn’t consider it a marker of inequitable design. My eyebrows nearly levitated off of my forehead.
When I asked what was different between these course formats, the instructor mentioned that in-person students had the opportunity to work in pairs to revise exam responses that were marked incorrect. The same opportunity was not afforded the asynchronous online students because the asynchronous exams were open for a week and were not proctored in a designated class session. Despite our LMS’s (Canvas) capabilities to release graded versions of exams either manually or at a designated date and time, I respected the faculty member’s comfort and concerns about the integrity of the exam. However, this seemed to be a primary obstacle to their asynchronous students’ success; they were missing a crucial metacognitive activity.
It’s no secret that thinking about one’s way of thinking (metacognition) benefits learning. Research produced since the 1970s has consistently shown that metacognitive activities nurture self-directed learning, improve the ability to learn new material, and increase academic success. Gregory P. Thomas’s 77-page bibliography (which unfortunately has not been updated since 2020) represents the mountain of evidence that demonstrates the positive impact metacognitive thinking can have on learning. Despite this abundant evidence, instructors often find the integration of metacognitive activities to be fraught with challenges. Metacognitive reflections are often perceived as marginally important, something “nice to have,” but ultimately secondary to the content. Often, these are the activities that are abandoned or cut from a course.
My goal in developing the following activity is to infuse a metacognitive reflection that is friendly to all course modalities with discipline-specific skills in STEM fields. Through it, I hope that students will reap the various benefits of metacognitive reflection without faculty (or students) feeling that the activity distracts from course content. In essence, this is an attempt to create a metacognitive activity that harmonizes with STEM assignments, particularly those that involve scientific writing. I envisioned it as a graded assignment that could be averaged with the first exam in a course in lieu of a reassessment. Alternatively, the activity can be integrated into any grading schema, including those which allow for students to revise or retake assessments for credit.
The activity prompts students to produce a lab report in a sequence. Learners are expected to draft the Introduction and the Methods and Materials sections as they prepare for their exam, which asks them to document specific study methods and approaches. The instructor may share examples students may adopt and adapt based on the format and content of the exam. This section can be collected right before the exam and returned with the marked exams. After receiving their graded exams, they write the Results and Discussion sections by comparing their exam performance with the methods that seem the most effective. To complete these sections, learners will have to identify relevant data points that they will then analyze to determine the methods and approaches that were most effective. In the Conclusion, learners extrapolate on what they noticed in the Discussion section and determine how they might change their study methods as they prepare for their next exam. These sections act as an exam wrapper; however, the insights develop naturally by conducting this experiment on their own study habits. Learners are encouraged to share any study materials in a References section at the end, which can help the instructor provide direct support or suggest other methods that the student may not have considered. As a final concise summation of their review strategy, learners write an Abstract that articulates their hypotheses, the major trends in their findings, and summarizes their next steps. By following this sequence of pre- and post-exam reflection, learners apply scientific methods to identify practices that help them learn.
To make this assignment manageable for learners, I include a suggested drafting schedule in the instructions, which segments the writing process over the course of three weeks. By completing this assignment, learners will—in theory—explore their study habits and reflect on how they might adjust their methods before the next exam. They also get practice writing a lab report. Through this process, learners connect their personal experiences to each section of a lab report and then determine what evidence demonstrates the efficacy of their study practices.
Now I need your help to refine the report. I sent the instructor a draft when things were hectic and, unfortunately, it got lost. My hope is that you—yes, you!—will take it and run with it. Modify the instructions to suit your style and your students. Change anything and everything in the assignment. Most importantly, please share your refinements with me! Let me know how you have rephrased the instructions, how you have changed the sections, if this was a complete dud of an assignment, etc. Let’s develop a tool that helps our students grow and improve, and let’s do it together.
The Report
Please feel free to copy and/or download the Metacognitive Lab Report. Adapt it as you see fit! Below, I’ll share a bit more about the assignment and how it is designed.
I have separated the assignment instructions into five sections.
An overview shares the aims of the assignment and a general framework to approaching it.
The Report Sections specifies what should be included in each part of the lab report. I imagine instructors will want to further clarify the ideal length of each section and how students should communicate this information (e.g., tone of the text, permissible submissions in different media, etc.).
Next, the suggested drafting timeline is included to give structure to the assignment. This would be especially helpful for learners who are just embarking upon their STEM studies.
I have included a grading rubric that is flexible and growth-oriented. However, I can imagine adapting this to a different grading schema that isn’t points-driven.
Lastly, there is a note about the use of Generative AI, which should be adapted to reflect the instructor’s policies. I wanted to highlight that students will need to draw on their own methods and experiences to successfully complete this assignment. They can’t find the answers elsewhere.
If you assign a version of the report, modify it, or spot gaps that I should be aware of, please let me know. I would prefer to keep the document clean (which is why it is set to View Only). Please direct any comments you have for me to joseph.woldman@gmail.com or comment on this post. I thank you in advance.
Joey Woldman is a Senior Instructional Designer. He runs a multi-week training on designing asynchronous online courses in Canvas and consults with faculty members on the intentional integration of technology in their courses. Joey holds a Ph.D. in Art History and Archaeology with a focus on the Etruscan civilization.