BACKGROUND IN MEASURES OF METACOGNITIVE MONITORING
Abstract
Purpose. Of special importance of the current study is the observation of some theoretical and methodological aspects of the peculiarities of measures of metacognitive monitoring. In particular, we highlight some common in the psychological research approaches to the measures and discrepancies of metacognitive monitoring. We provide the description of the factors that can moderate metacognitive monitoring judgments accuracy, the reasons of its importance, the summary of three general classes of cues, and some significant studies about the measures of metacognitive monitoring. The types of outcome measures of metacognitive monitoring (such as absolute accuracy, relative accuracy, bias, scatter, and discrimination) are also analyzed. Moreover, we describe some major impacts of effective calibration on the assessment of subjective confidence.
Methods. The theoretical and comparative methods of studying metacognitive monitoring accuracy and peculiar nature of different measures of metacognitive monitoring have been taken into account. The necessity in studying such aspects of metacognitive monitoring accuracy measures has been caused by its impact on students’ learning activity.
Results. Metacognitive monitoring is an important component of metacognition, as well as of self-regulated learning. The research provides hindsight into the background of metacognitive monitoring measures. The current intention was to describe some theoretical and methodological aspects of the accuracy and discrepancies of metacognitive judgments. The learners’ ability to discriminate what is known and how it is possible to get to accurate knowledge judgments is an inevitable part of the learning process and is worthy further investigation in both psychological and educational studies.
Conclusions. The results of the theoretical analysis found in the study play a significant role in the studying of metacognitive monitoring of university students’ learning activity. The peculiarities of measures of metacognitive monitoring are an important issue for future research.
References
2. Bol L., Hacker D. J. Calibration research: Where do we go from here? Frontiers in Psychology, 2012. Рр. 1–6.
3. Dunlosky J., Metcalfe J. Metacognition: A textbook for cognitive, educational, life span and applied psychology. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009. 344 p.
4. Hattie J. Calibration and confidence. Learning and Instruction, 2013. №. 24. Рр. 62–66.
5. Hӓndel M., de Bruin A. B. H., Dresel M. Individual differences in local and global metacognitive judgments. Metacognition and Learning, 2020. № 15. Pр. 51–75.
6. Koriat A. Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1997. Vol. 126, № 4. Pр. 349–370.
7. Nietfeld J. L., Cao L., Osborne J. W. Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 2005. Vol. 74, № 1. Pp. 7–28.
8. Ranalli J. Inaccurate metacognitive monitoring and its effects on metacognitive control and task outcomes in selfregulated L2 learning. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 2018. Vol. 21, № 4. Pp. 1–20.
9. Schraw G. The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1994. Vol. 19, № 2. Pp. 143–154.
10. Schraw G. A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 2009. № 4. Pp. 33–45.
11. Schraw G., Kuch F., Gutierrez A., Richmond A. Exploring a three-level model of calibration accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2014. Pp. 1–11.
12. Serra M. J., Metcalfe J. Effective implementation of metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition and Education. New York, NY : Routledge, 2009. Pp. 278–298.
13. Thiede K. W., Anderson M. C. M., Therriault D. Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2003. Vol. 95, № 1. Pp. 66–73.
14. Tobias S., Everson H. T. The importance of knowing what you know: A knowledge monitoring framework for studying metacognition in education. The Educational Psychology Series. Handbook of Metacognition in Education, 2009. Pp. 107–127.
15. Was C. A. Discrimination in measures of knowledge monitoring accuracy. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2014. Vol. 10, № 3. Pp. 104–112.
