Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks

Abstract

A possible explanation for why students do not benefit from learner-controlled instruction is that they are not able to accurately monitor their own performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether and how the accuracy of metacognitive judgments made during training moderates the effect of learner control on performance when solving genetics tasks. Eighty-six undergraduate students solved self-selected genetics tasks using either a full learner control or a restricted learner control. Results indicated that learner control effectiveness was moderated by the absolute accuracy (i.e., absolute bias) of metacognitive judgments, and this accuracy was a better predictor of learning performance for full learner control than for restricted learner control. Furthermore, students’ prior knowledge predicted absolute accuracy of both ease-of-learning judgments (EOLs) and retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) during training, with higher prior knowledge resulting in a better absolute accuracy. Overall, monitoring guided control, that is, EOLs predicted time-on-task and invested mental effort regardless of the degree of learner control, whereas RCJs predicted the total training time, but not the number of tasks selected during training. These results suggest that monitoring accuracy plays an important role in effective regulation of learning from problem-solving tasks, and provide further evidence that metacognitive judgments affect study time allocation in problem solving context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (2013). Calibration: what is it and why it matters? An introduction to the special issue on calibrating calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 1–3.

  2. Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 432–447.

  3. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400.

  4. Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014a). Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92–107.

  5. Baars, M., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014b). Effects of problem solving after worked example study on primary school chidren’s monitoring accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 382–391.

  6. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632.

  7. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.

  8. de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation of learning: from cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22, 245–252.

  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

  11. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  12. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34(5), 399–422.

  13. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Selecting learning tasks: effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 733–756.

  14. Dinsmore, D. L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence judgments made of? Students' explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4–14.

  15. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249–275). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  16. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232.

  17. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  18. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280.

  19. Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M. R. T., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Cognitive Technology, 10, 4–11.

  20. Gall, J. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22(3), 207–232.

  21. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: the influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 360–370.

  22. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 84–93.

  23. van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 584–587.

  24. Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 37(7), 1001–1013.

  25. Hadwin, A. F., & Webster, E. A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37–47.

  26. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

  27. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.

  28. Karich, A. C., Burns, M. K., & Maki, K. E. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 392–410.

  29. Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469–486.

  30. Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2008). Scaffolding advice on task selection: a safe path toward self-directed learning in on-demand education. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 60(3), 223–239.

  31. Kimball, D. R., Smith, T. A., & Muntean, W. J. (2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 923–954.

  32. Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 56(3), 265–286.

  33. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: a cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.

  34. Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298.

  35. Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69.

  36. Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Judgments of learning depend on how learners interpret study effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1624–1637.

  37. Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 609–622.

  38. Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Self-assessment and task selection in learner-controlled instruction: differences between effective and ineffective learners. Computers & Education, 54(4), 932–940.

  39. Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121–132.

  40. Kraiger, K., & Jerden, E. (2007). A meta-analytic investigation of learner control: old findings and new directions. In S. M. Fiore & E. Salas (Eds.), Toward a science of distributed learning (pp. 65–90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  41. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25(2), 117–131.

  42. Lee, S. S., & Lee, Y. H. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: for acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 491–498.

  43. Leonesio, R. J., & Nelson, T. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 464–470.

  44. Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(2), 159–183.

  45. Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427.

  46. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and. Development, 50(3), 43–59.

  47. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174–179.

  48. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463–477.

  49. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(4), 851–861.

  50. Mihalca, L., Salden, R., Corbalan, G., Paas, F., & Miclea, M. (2011). Effectiveness of cognitive-load based adaptive instruction in genetics education. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 82–88.

  51. Mihalca, L., Mengelkamp, C., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2015). Completion problems can reduce the illusions of understanding in a computer-based learning environment on genetics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 157–171.

  52. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116.

  53. Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 676–686.

  54. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). New York: Academic Press.

  55. Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5(4), 207–213.

  56. Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. J. (1996). Learner-control effects: a review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(2), 157–174.

  57. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131–142.

  58. Nugteren, M. L., Jarodzka, H., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2015, August). How can tutoring support task selection? In S. Moser (chair), Tutoring and E-Tutoring in Educational Settings. Symposium conducted at the 16th biennial conference of the European Association for Research on learning and instruction (EARLI), Limassol, Cyprus.

  59. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.

  60. Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & van Gog, T. (2011). Designing instruction for the contemporary learning landscape. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: vol. 3. Application to learning and teaching. Washington: American Psychological Association.

  61. Pieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2016). Metacognitive judgments and disfluency- does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance? Learning and Instruction, 44, 31–40.

  62. Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144–161.

  63. Rey, G. D., & Buchwald, F. (2011). The expertise reversal effect: Cognitive load and motivational explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 33–48.

  64. Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38(3), 315–323.

  65. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45.

  66. Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2008). Research on the allocation of study time: key studies from 1890 to the present (and beyond). In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 333–351). Hillsdale: Psychology Press.

  67. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221.

  68. Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2006). Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 759–774.

  69. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: an analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024–1037.

  70. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.

  71. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85–106). New York: Routledge.

  72. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109–118.

  73. van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 584–587.

  74. van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154.

  75. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: a four-component instructional design model. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

  76. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2009). Toward a synthesis of cognitive load theory, four-component instructional design, and self-directed learning. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 55–66.

  77. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  78. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). The authors would like to thank Sebastian Cena for the development of the electronic learning environment used in this study. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Dr. Ros Thomas and Dr. Emily Thompson, Webster University, for their comments on a previous draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to Loredana Mihalca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Loredana Mihalca declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Christoph Mengelkamp declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Wolfgang Schnotz declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Funding

The work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - DFG) and DFG Graduate School “Teaching and Learning Processes”, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants are in accordance with the ethical standards established by the Ethics Commission of Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Psychologie (German Psychological Society).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

Examples of Genetics Problems from Prior Knowledge Test and Post-test

  1. 1.

    The diastema (the space between the upper incisors) is a dominant trait (D), while the lack of it is a recessive trait (d). What phenotype (and what percentage) will the offspring of a heterozygous couple for the distema trait have?

    • 100% with diastema;

    • 50% with diastema and 50% without diastema;

    • 100% without diastema;

    • 25% without distema and 75% with diastema.

  2. 2.

    In humans, brown eyes (C) are dominant over blue eyes. What is the genotype of the father (who has brown eyes) of a blue-eyed child, if the child’s mother has blue eyes?

    • CC;

    • cc;

    • Cc;

    • cC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mihalca, L., Mengelkamp, C. & Schnotz, W. Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks. Metacognition Learning 12, 357–379 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Learner control
  • Monitoring
  • Metacognitive judgments
  • Absolute accuracy
  • Problem solving