Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks
- 597 Downloads
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.
KeywordsLearner 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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.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
- 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., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.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
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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., 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
- 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
- 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
- van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: a four-component instructional design model. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.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