Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 26, Issue 1–2, pp 65–79 | Cite as

The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in college: A metacognitive analysis

  • Howard T. Everson
  • Sigmund Tobias
Article

Abstract

While in college students learn a great deal of new knowledge, and over time successful students learn to update their knowledge as new concepts, facts, and procedures are acquired. The metacognitive ability to accurately estimate one's knowledge was hypothesized to be related to academic achievement in college. The two studies reported in this paper examined the relationship between a measure of metacognitive word knowledge (the KMA) and performance in college. Using undergraduate gpa in a number of academic domains as criterion measures, this research provides support for the validity of the KMA as a predictor of success in college. Suggestions for further research relating performance on the KMA to learning in complex domains are offered.

Keywords

College Student Academic Achievement Criterion Measure Complex Domain Successful Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, L. (1989).Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review3‐38.Google Scholar
  2. Bjork, R.A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe and A.P. Shimamura, eds., Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185‐206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Borkowski, J.G., Chan, L.K.S. & Muthukrishna, N. (in press). A process-oriented model of metacognition and executive functioning. In G. Schraw, ed., Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute / The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  4. Breland, H., Jones, R.J. & Jenkins, L. (1994). The College Board vocabulary study. College Board Report No. 94-4. NY: The College Board.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R.J. Spiro, B.B. Bruce & W.F. Brewer, eds., Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453‐481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinart & R. Kluwe, eds., Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65‐116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist 14: 1059‐1068.Google Scholar
  8. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika: 297‐334.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, J.E., Deuser, R. & Sternberg, R.J. (1994). The role of metacognition in problem solving. In J. Metcalfe & A.P. Shimamura, eds., Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 207‐226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Descriptive Test of Language Skills. (1979). Princeton, NJ: The College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  12. Everson, H.T., Hartman, H., Tobias, S. & Gourgey, A. (1991, June). A metacognitive reading strategies scale: Preliminary validation evidence. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Everson, H.T., Smodlaka, I. & Tobias, S. (1994). Exploring the relationship of test anxiety and metacognition on reading test performance: A cognitive analysis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 85‐96.Google Scholar
  14. Flavell, H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 906‐911.Google Scholar
  15. Garner, R. & Alexander, P. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist 24: 143‐158.Google Scholar
  16. Glenberg, A.M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W. & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2): 119‐136.Google Scholar
  17. Green, D.M. & Swets, J.A., (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, J.E. & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist: 255‐278.Google Scholar
  19. Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy, J.J. (1970). The eta coefficient in complex ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement: 885‐889.Google Scholar
  21. Meichenbaum, D., Burland, S., Gruson, L. & Cameron, R. (1985). Metacognitive assessment. In S.R. Yussen, ed., The growth of reflection in children (pp. 3‐27). NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, T.O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower, ed., The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26) NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. O’Neil, H.F. (1991, August). Metacognition: Teaching and Measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  25. Pressley, M. & Ghatala, E.S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist 25: 19‐33.Google Scholar
  26. Schraw, G. (in press). Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute/The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology: 460‐475.Google Scholar
  28. Schwartz, B.L. & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In J. Metcalfe & A.P. Shimamura, eds., Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93‐114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sternberg, R.J. (1991). Toward better intelligence tests. In M.C. Wittrock & E.L. Baker, eds., Testing and cognition (pp. 31‐39). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Tobias, S. & Everson, H.T. (in press). Assessing metacognitive word knowledge. In G. Schraw, ed., Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute/University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tobias, S. & Everson, H.T. (1996). Assessing metacognitive knowledge monitoring. College Board Report No. 96-01. NY: The College Board.Google Scholar
  32. Tobias, S., Hartman, H., Everson, H.T. & Gourgey, A. (1991, August). The development of a group administered, objectively scored metacognitive evaluation procedure. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Werts, C., Linn, R.L. & Jöreskög, K.G. (1978). Reliability of college grades from longitudinal data. Educational and Psychological Measurement89‐95.Google Scholar
  35. Willingham, W.W., Lewis, C., Morgan, R. & Ramist, L. (1990). Predicting college grades: An analysis of institutional trends over two decades. NY: The College Board.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard T. Everson
    • 1
  • Sigmund Tobias
    • 2
  1. 1.The College BoardNew York
  2. 2.City College of New YorkNew YorkU.S.A

Personalised recommendations