Impact of Supplemental Material Use On Student Metacognitive Monitoring and Calibration.

Objective. To determine if student self-reported use of optional supplemental material impacts the ability to accurately calibrate performance on a low-stakes assessment. Methods. An instructor created an optional supplemental material in the form of an online quiz activity. Students were asked to report if they used the supplemental material as well as 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, but there was no difference based on supplemental material use or non-use in the predictions (-1.2 vs. -1.0) or 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 (87.02% vs. 84.88%). Conclusion. Student self-reported use of optional supplemental material does not appear to affect calibration accuracy.