Abstract
Research has demonstrated that compared to mastery-approach goals (i.e., trying to develop a mental ability), performance-approach goals (i.e., trying to outperform others) elicit higher metacognitive judgments, such as judgments of learning (JOLs). However, the underlying mechanism of the effects of achievement goals on JOLs remains unclear. Therefore, the present study conducted three experiments to examine the underlying mechanism of the effects of these goals on JOLs, based on the preexisting beliefs about achievement goals. The results of Experiment 1 showed that pre-study JOL in the performance-approach goal condition was higher than that in the mastery-approach goal condition, and Experiment 2 demonstrated that the difference of JOLs during learning (i.e., item-by-item JOLs) between the mastery-approach and performance-approach goal conditions remained constant from the beginning to end, suggesting that the beliefs about achievement goals affect item-by-item JOLs. In Experiment 3, participants read a description of a hypothetical experiment and estimated the performance of the group with mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. The results revealed that more participants believed that performance-approach goals have greater benefits than mastery-approach goals. Thus, the beliefs regarding achievement goals are one of the crucial factors affecting JOLs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Regarding the retrospective confidence judgments for previous tests, different results were obtained. Muis et al. (2016) showed that performance-approach goals were related negatively to bias between actual performance and confidence judgments (i.e., overestimate or underestimate), whereas mastery-approach goals were not. Additionally, Nietfeld et al. (2014) showed that both mastery-approach and performance-approach goals were not associated with bias.
About 35-48% of participants were excluded in Experiment 1b, 2a and b, whereas about 15% of participants were excluded in Experiment 1a. This exclusion rates were due to include the worker participating in the previous experiments. After removing the worker participating in previous experiments, exclusion rates were approximately 12-15% in Experiment 1b, 2a and b.
For exploratory purpose, Experiment 1 also conducted additional analysis for item-by-item JOLs in terms of serial position, as Experiment 2. The results showed that achievement goals and serial position had significant effects on item-by-item JOLs, whereas the interaction between goals and serial position was not significant (more details, see Appendix).
The preset study calculated within-participant correlations between study times and JOLs to examine the effect of achievement goals on the utilization of the cues concerning study effort. The average of correlations were similar values in the mastery-approach goal condition (M = -.04, SD = 0.23, 95% CI [-.11, .02] in Experiment 2a and M = -.002, SD = 0.24, 95% CI [-.078, .002] in Experiment 2b) and in the performance-approach goal condition (M = -.04, SD = 0.27, 95% CI [-.12, .05] in Experiment 2a and M = -.07, SD = 0.26, 95% CI [-.150, .002] in Experiment 2b), and all of correlations were near 0, even considering 95% CIs. Therefore, participants might make item-by-item JOLs not based on study effort.
The exluded participants did not sufficiently read the description. In fact, the present study also measured the reading time for the description about the hypothetical experiment, and the reading time for excluded participants (M = 30.30 sec, SD = 34.45, 95% CI [20.07, 40.53] in Experiment 3a and M = 28.05 sec, SD = 31.47, 95% CI [18.60, 37.51] in Experiment 3b) were shorter than those who were not excluded (M = 53.60 sec, SD = 32.73, 95% CI [44.67, 62.54] in Experiment 3a and M = 56.01 sec, SD = 83.31, 95% CI [30.05, 81.97] in Experiment 3b), ts > 2.09, ps < .05, ds > 0.44. Furthermore, given that the meta-analytic research concerning reading rate showed that the average reading rate for adults was 238 words per minute (Brysbaert, 2019) and the description included 167 words, reading times for the excluded participants were very fast compared to the average reading rate.
References
Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of mastery-avoidance achievement goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 23, 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.488463
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, 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–338). Erlbaum.
Bernacki, M. L., Byrnes, J. P., & Cromley, J. G. (2012). The effects of achievement goals and self-regulated learning behaviors on reading comprehension in technology-enhanced learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.12.001
Blake, A. B., & Castel, A. D. (2018). On belief and fluency in the construction of judgments of learning: Assessing and altering the direct effect of belief. Acta Psychologica, 186, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.04.004
Brooks, B. M. (1999). Primacy and recency in primed free association and associative cued recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 479–485. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210838
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Rewiew of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
Castel, A. D. (2008). Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: The utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 36, 429–437. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.429
Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194036
Crouzevialle, M., & Butera, F. (2013). Performance-approach goals deplete working memory and impair cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 666–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029632
Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge.
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966
Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1180
Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1026
Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32, 779–788. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195868
Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. L., & Tauber, S. K. (2015). The contribution of processing fluency (and beliefs) to people’s judgments of learning. In D. S. Lindsay, A. P. Yonelinas, H. I. Roediger, D. S. Lindsay, A. P. Yonelinas, & H. I. Roediger (Eds.), Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory: Essays in honor of Larry Jacoby (pp. 46–64). Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational process affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549
Elliot, A. J., & Moller, A. C. (2003). Performance-approach goals: Good or bad forms of regulation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.003
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009057102306
Fernández-Castilla, B., Jamshidi, L., Declercq, L., Beretvas, S. N., Onghena, P., & Van Den Noortgate, W. (2020). The application of meta-analytic models with multiple random effects: A systematic review. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2031–2052. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01373-9
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.218
Frank, D. J., & Kuhlmann, B. G. (2017). More than just beliefs: Experience and beliefs jointly contribute to, Vol. effects on metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000332
Geitz, G., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Goal orientation, deep learning, and sustainable feedback in higher business education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 26, 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2015.1128375
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. A. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018947
Ikeda, K., Castel, A. D., & Murayama, K. (2015). Mastery-approach goals eliminate retrieval-induced forgetting: The role of achievement goals in memory inhibition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 687–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215575730
Ikeda, K., Kakinuma, K., Jiang, J., & Tanaka, A. (2021). Achievement goals and memory encoding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65, 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101945
Ikeda, K., Yue, C. L., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2016). Achievement goals affect metacognitive judgments. Motivation Science, 2, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000047
Jia, X., Li, P., Li, X., Zhang, Y., Cao, W., Cao, L., & Li, W. (2016). The effect of word frequency on judgments of learning: Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01995
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Kassam, K. S., Gilbert, D. T., Swencionis, J. K., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Misconceptions of memory: The Scooter Libby effect. Psychological Science, 20, 551–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02334.x
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s knowledge during study: A cue utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Koriat, A., & Ma’ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.001
Koriat, A., & Nussinson, R. (2009). Attributing study effort to data-driven and goal-driven effects: Implications for metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1338–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016374
Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma’ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.147
Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/00963445.133.4.643
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, 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
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, 1624–1637. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000009
Kroll, M. D., & Ford, M. L. (1992). The illusion of knowing, error detection, and motivational orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(92)90075-A
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Middleton, M. J., Ciani, K. D., Easter, M. A., O’Keefe, P. A., & Zusho, A. (2012). The strength of the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations: Theoretical, methodological, and instructional implications. Educational Psychologist, 47, 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722515
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The Dynamics of Learning and Allocation of Study Time to a Region of Proximal Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (2002). Beyond motivation: Middle school students’ perceptions of press for understanding math. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1101
Miele, D. B., & Molden, D. C. (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019745
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0028
Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research. In A. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on Educational Psychology, 307–326. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2016). The effect of identical word pairs on people’s metamemory judgments: What are the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1058404
Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007
Mueller, M. L., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 378–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6
Muis, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Ranellucci, J. (2016). The role of calibration bias and performance feedback in achievement goal regulation. International Education Research, 4, 14–36. https://doi.org/10.12735/ier.v4i1p14
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2011). Achievement motivation and memory: Achievement goals differentially influence immediate and delayed remember-know recognition memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1339–1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211410575
Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Friedman, R. (2012). Achievement goals and approach-avoidance motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 191–207). Oxford University Press.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffmann, K. F. (2014). Self-regulation and gender within a game-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 961–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037116
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0504_2
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Price, J., & Harrison, A. (2017). Examining what prestudy and immediate judgments of learning reveal about the bases of metamemory judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.12.003
Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.416
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Achievement goals, task performance, and interest: Why perceived goal difficulty matters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1739–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205281128
Senko, C., & Hulleman, C. S. (2013). The role of goal attainment expectancies in achievement goal pursuit. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 504–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031136
Senko, C., & Miles, K. M. (2008). Pursuing their own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 561–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.12.001.
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
Soderstrom, N. C., & McCabe, D. P. (2011). The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: Evidence for agenda-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1236–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023548
Thiede, K. W. (1999). The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 662–667. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212976
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66
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, 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024
Undorf, M., & Zimdahl, M. F. (2019). Metamemory and memory for a wide range of font sizes: What is the contribution of perceptual fluency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000571
Van Yperen, N. W., Blaga, M., & Postmes, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of the impact of situationally induced achievement goals on task performance. Human Performance, 28, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1006772
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9022-4
Winne, P. H., Muis, K. R., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2003). The stability of goal orientation as a function of feedback and calibration of achievement in a multiassignment undergraduate course. American Psychological Association.
Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2017). The concreteness effect on judgments of learning: Evaluating the contributions of fluency and beliefs. Memory & Cognition, 45, 639–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0681-0
Yang, C., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring. Memory & Cognition, 46, 384–397. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0772-6
Yu, Y., Jiang, Y., & Li, F. (2020). The effect of value on judgment of learning in tradeoff learning condition: The mediating role of study time. Metacognition and Learning, 14, 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09234-8
Zhou, M. (2013). University student’s goal profiles and metacomprehension accuracy. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.730325
Acknowledgements
I thank Alan Castel for providing helpful comments on revision. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number 19K14384 (to Kenji Ikeda).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
APA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of this study, and the present study was approved by Tokai Gakuin University ethics committee (approval ID: 2020–21).
Consent to participate
Before participation, all participants received informed consent and consented to participate the experiment.
Conflicts of interest
The author does not have any conflicts of interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Serial position effect on item-by-item JOLs in Experiment 1
For exploratory purpose, in Experiment 1, the present study conducted additional analysis to examine the effect of achievement goals and serial position on item-by-item JOLs, as Experiment 2 (see Table 8). The coding of the achievement goal condition was mastery-approach goals = -0.5 and performance-approach goals = 0.5, and serial positions were coded as 1–3 = 11, 4–6 = 9, 7–9 = 7, 10–12 = 5, 13–15 = 3, 16–18 = 1, 19–21 = -1, 21–24 = -3, 25–27 = -5, 28–30 = -7, 31–33 = -9, 34–36 = -11. Regarding random effects, the differences between participants as random intercept and slope for serial position were included, and the difference between the experiments as random intercept and slopes for achievement goals, serial position, and interaction were also included. The results showed that the effect of achievement goals was statistically significant (estimate = 6.51, 95% CI [2.33, 10.70], p = .002), demonstrating item-by-item JOLs in the performance-approach goal condition were higher than those in the mastery-approach goal condition. Additionally, the effect of serial position was also statistically significant (estimate = 0.30, 95% CI [0.21, 0.39], p < .001), and thus, JOLs decreased with later serial positions. In contrast, the interaction showed no statistical significance (estimate = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.31], p = .22). Although it should be noted that this is additional analysis and did not include relatedness term because of the complexity of statistical model, item-by-item JOLs in the performance-approach goal condition were higher than those in the mastery-approach goals, regardless of serial position, as Experiment 2.
Serial position effect on metacognitive accuracy in Experiment 2
The present study also conducted additional analysis to examine the serial position effect on metacognitive accuracy (see Table 8). Calibration was computed as the subtraction of recall performance from item-by-item JOLs for each serial bins, and thus positive value indicates overestimate. The coding of the achievement goal condition and serial position was same as previous analyses. In Experiment 1, serial position effect, achievement goal effect, and interaction did not reach statistical significance (estimate = 0.72, 95% CI [-4.84, 6.27], p = .25, estimate = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.08], p = .33, and estimate = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57], p = .12, respectively). Unlike Experiment 1, the results of Experiment 2 showed that serial position effect was statistically significant (estimate = 0.47, 95% CI [0.14, 0.81], p = .01), whereas the effect of achievement goals and interaction did not reach statistical significance (estimate = 2.72, 95% CI [-5.60, 10.70], p = .52 and estimate = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.80], p = .92, respectively), suggesting that participants underestimate their performance as learning progress, regardless of achievement goals.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ikeda, K. How beliefs explain the effect of achievement goals on judgments of learning. Metacognition Learning 17, 499–530 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09294-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09294-y