Advertisement

Introduction to the special Issue “applied metacognition: real-world applications beyond learning”

  • Sabina KleitmanEmail author
  • Susanne Narciss
Article

Abstract

Research in the area of metacognition is on the rise. Translating and applying the fruits of basic scientific results to various end-users and real-world scenarios is an increasingly important challenge for science. The field of metacognition has been a key component for the model of self-regulated learning. It has provided an important platform for translating this branch of research to educators, policymakers and learners. Nevertheless, theories and measurement models used in metacognitive research largely overlap with other fields, such as decision-making. This issue, titled ‘Applied Metacognition: Real-word applications beyond learning’, aims to inform and inspire the metacognitive research community to (occasionally) look beyond the role of metacognitive factors in self-regulated learning, to the multitude of other applied areas that can benefit end-users and real-world situations. Focusing on on-task confidence judgments, self-monitoring and evaluation, this issue includes seven empirical papers applying metacognitive models to the gamification of metacognitive assessment, decision-making and problem-solving, with implications for cybersecurity, eyewitness testimony, education and business.

Keywords

Applied metacognition Self-monitoring Confidence Calibration Decision-making Serious games 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Lisa Zhang, a talented and devoted Research Assistant, for her help working on this Special Issue. We also would like to thank authors for their excellent contributions, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

References

  1. Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 607–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ais, J., Zylberberg, A., Barttfeld, P., & Sigman, M. (2016). Individual consistency in the accuracy and distribution of confidence judgments. Cognition, 146, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allwood, C. M., & Granhag, P. A. (1999). Feelings of confidence and the realism of confidence judgments in everyday life. In P. Juslin & H. Montgomery (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: Neo-Brunswikian and process-tracing approaches (pp. 123–146). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, K. M., Burns, N. R., & Ward, K. (2016). Confidence—More a personality or ability trait? It depends on how it is measured: A comparison of young and older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 18, 518.Google Scholar
  7. Canfield, C. I., Fischhoff, B. & Davis, A. (2019). Better beware: Comparing metacognition for phishing and legitimate emails. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09197-5
  8. de Bruin, A. B., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dentakos, S., Saouli, W., Ackerman, R., & Toplakm, M. E. (2019). Does domain matter? Monitoring accuracy across domains. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09198-4
  10. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc..Google Scholar
  11. Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. (2016). The Oxford handbook of Metamemory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive--developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harvey, N. (1997). Confidence in judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson, S. A., & Kleitman, S. (2014). Individual differences in decision-making and confidence: Capturing decision tendencies in a fictitious medical test. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson, S. A., Kleitman, S., Howie, P. & Stankov, L. (2016). Cognitive abilities, monitoring, and control explain individual differences in heuristics and biases. Frontiers-Psychology. Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, S. A., Kleitman, S., Stankov, L., & Howie, P. (2017). Individual differences in decision making depend on cognitive abilities, monitoring and control. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kantner, J., & Dobbins, I. G. (2019). Partitioning the sources of recognition confidence: The role of individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1317–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kapp, F., Spangenberger, P., Kruse, L. & Narciss, S. (2019). Investigating changes in self-evaluation of technical competences in the serious game Serena Supergreen: Findings, challenges and lessons learned. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09209-4
  20. Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kleitman, S. (2008). Metacognition in the rationality debate. Self-confidence and its calibration. Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller E.K. Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Kleitman, S., Hui, J. S.-W., & Jiang, S.-W. (2019). Confidence to spare: Individual differences in cognitive and metacognitive arrogance and competence. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09210-x
  23. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koriat, A. (2019). Confidence judgments: The monitoring of object-level and same-level performance. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09195-7
  25. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 107–118.Google Scholar
  26. Lauterman, T. & Ackerman, R. (2019). Initial judgment of solvability in non-verbal problems – a predictor of solving processes. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09194-8
  27. Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes, 20, 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2013). Measure for measure: Calibrating ten commonly used calibration scores. Learning and Instruction, 24, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shapira, A. & Pansky, A. (2019). Cognitive and metacognitive determinants of eyewitness memory accuracy over time. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09206-7
  31. Stankov, L., & Crawford, J. D. (1996). Confidence judgments in studies of individual differences. Personality & Individual Differences, 21(6), 971–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stankov, L., & Kleitman, S. (2014). Whither metacognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 120–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2014). Measures of the trait of confidence. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 158–189). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stankov, L. (2019). Applied metacognition and separation of confidence and accuracy in correlational studies. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09212-9
  35. Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Jaeger, A. J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 393–405.Google Scholar
  36. Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Crown 2019 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Science, Faculty of Psychology, Psychology of Learning and InstructionTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations