Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

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

Check for updates. 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

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2

Keywords

Navigation