Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Calibration in multiple text use

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on calibration suggests that students consider a multitude of factors when they self-evaluate task performance. Nevertheless, few studies have focused on calibration within a complex task enviornment, such as when students are asked to compose written responses based on multiple texts. In this study, we examined the criteria that undergraduate students considered when they were asked to self-evaluate their written responses, composed based on multiple texts. Moreover, we considered the extent to which these criteria had an effect on students' objective response quality, calibration, and confidence bias. Findings revealed that students indeed cited a variety of criteria in justifying their self-evaluations including task-, context-, and person-related factors, consistent with prior research. Further, our study indicated that high quality written responses were associated with accurate calibration and with students' relative under-confidence. We further found that low-performing students demonstrated less accurate calibration and greater over-confidence. Implications for improving students’ metacognitive awareness during complex task completion are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allwood, C. M., Granhag, P. A., & Jonsson, A. C. (2006). Child witnesses’ metamemory realism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multile conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1(1), 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970109600653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., Walck, C. C., & Nunnery, J. A. (2012). The effects of individual or group guidelines on the calibration accuracy and achievement of high school biology students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. (2013). Does students engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 941–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing task. Reading Psychology, 25, 313–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R. L., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaleri, M., & Dianati, S. (2016). You want me to check your grammar again? The usefulness of an online grammar checker as perceived by students. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), A22–A236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2010). Relations of mathematics self-concept and its calibration with mathematics achievement: Cultural differences among fifteen-year-olds in 34 countries. Learning and Instruction, 20, 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, B. -Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S.E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). New York, NY: Guilford.

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence judgements made of? Students’ explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, H. & List, A. (under review). Writing based on multiple texts.

  • 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 

  • Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallahi, C. R., Wood, R. M., Austad, C. S., & Fallahi, H. (2006). A program for improving undergraduate psychology students’ basic writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 33(3), 171–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firetto, C. M. (forthcoming). Learning from multiple complementary perspectives: a systematic review. In: Van Meter, P., List, A., Kendeou, P., & Lombardi, D. (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and multiple perspectives. New York: Routledge.

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 702–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Sanoki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001.

    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. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.7.1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. R. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2008). Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 429–456). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., & Webster, E. A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgements of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higham, P. A. (2013). Regulating accuracy on university tests with plurality option. Learning and Instruction, 24, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, J. D., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgements to improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9042-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgements: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100(4), 609–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Bigot, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470.

    Article  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, 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L. M., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implication for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(4), 345–391. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L. M., Moore, D., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2001). An assessment of students’ calibration of comprehension and calibration of performance using multiple measures. Reading Psychology, 22, 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. (2015). Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 407–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9138-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. (2017a). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017b). Text navigation in multiple source use. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 364–375.

  • List, A., Alexander, P. A., & Stephens, L. A. (2017). Trust but verify: Examining the association between students' sourcing behaviors and ratings of text trustworthiness. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1174654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A. (2019). Six questions regarding strategy use when learning from multiple texts. In: D.L. Dinsmore, L.K. Fryer, & M.M. Parkinson (Eds.). Handbook of strategies and strategic processing: conceptualization, intervention, measurement, and analysis. New York: Routledge (In Press).

  • List, A., & Alexander, P.A. (2019) Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use, Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List A., Du, H., & Wang, Y. (2019a). Understanding students' conceptions of task assignments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019b). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 502–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosenthal, P. B. (1998). Defining prose task characteristics for use in computer-adaptive testing and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 269–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006a). The effects of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Enders, C. K., & Schraw, G. (2006b). A Monte Carlo comparison of measures of relative and absolute monitoring accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 258–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, B. H., & Smith, S. M. (2001). The postdiction superiority effect in metacomprehension of text. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 62–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S. (2009). Metacognitive calibration–an extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9030-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Effects of self-correction strategy training on middle school students' self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics division learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 18–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What’s behind the numbers? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McGrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Nietfeld, J. (1998). A further test of the general monitoring skill hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 236–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2013). Measure for measure: Calibration ten commonly used calibration scores. Learning and Instruction, 24, 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, K. E., Nietfeld, J. L., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Giftedness and metacognition: A short-term longitudinal investigation of metacognitive monitoring in the classroom. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(3), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211412769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). Task complexity, epistemological beliefs and metacognitive calibration: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, N. J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 437–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, E. R., & Opel, R. B. (2000). Training to improve calibration and discrimination: The effects of performance of environmental feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 282–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994.

    Article  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 

  • Wallace, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1996). The effects of ‘playing historian’ on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning internet science inquire tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153–189). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    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. 279–306). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00006-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgement and decision making. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabrucky, K. M., Agler, L. L., & Moore, D. (2009). Metacognition in Taiwan: Students’ calibration of comprehension and performance. International Journal of Psychology, 44(4), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590802315409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA

    Ying Wang & Alexandra List

Authors
  1. Ying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra List
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra List.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and that there is no funding to declare in association with this project.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Prior Knowledge Measure

The study will ask you to research and write an argument/research report about overpopulation. To start off, please define each term related to overpopulation. If you don’t know the definition of a term, please write N/A.

  1. 1.

    Population bomb

  2. 2.

    Earth’s carrying capacity

  3. 3.

    Overconsumption

  4. 4.

    Peak population

  5. 5.

    High-yield crops

  6. 6.

    Overpopulation

  7. 7.

    Fertility rate

Note. Responses to the prior knowledge measure were scored as correct or incorrect, with students’ total prior knowledge scores ranging from zero to seven. Specifically, students received a point for any response that uniquely (i.e., differentiated from similar terms) and accurately described a term using non-synonymous language (e.g., defining ‘population bomb’ as ‘a type of bomb’ was scored incorrectly)

Appendix 2

Fig. 4
figure 4

The digital library of the six texts presented to students

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., List, A. Calibration in multiple text use. Metacognition Learning 14, 131–166 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09201-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09201-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation