Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 357–379 | Cite as

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

  • Loredana MihalcaEmail author
  • Christoph Mengelkamp
  • Wolfgang Schnotz


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.


Learner control Monitoring Metacognitive judgments Absolute accuracy Problem solving 



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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.


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.


  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  20. Gall, J. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22(3), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 37(7), 1001–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25(2), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and. Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  64. Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38(3), 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  68. Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2006). Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 759–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  72. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  75. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: a four-component instructional design model. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology and Counseling DepartmentWebster University GenevaBellevueSwitzerland
  2. 2.Educational Media DepartmentUniversity of WuerzburgWuerzburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of General and Educational PsychologyUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany

Personalised recommendations