scholarly journals ILLUSION OF KNOWING IN METACOGNITIVE MONITORING: REVIEW OF POSSIBLE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 109-122
Author(s):  
Ruslana Kalamazh ◽  
◽  
Maria Avhustiuk ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-88
Author(s):  
Марія Августюк

Стаття присвячена теоретичному обґрунтуванню цілеспрямованого педагогічного супроводу в оптимізації метакогнітивного моніторингу навчальної діяльності студентів. Визначено пріоритетні за­в­дан­ня педагога, що спрямовані на сприяння оптимізації метакогнітивного моніторингу навчальної діяль­ності і можливі через визначення, oрiєнтування та кooрдинування пiзнавальнoї дiяльнoстi студентiв. Так, ви­кладач пoвинен звертати увагу на рiвень рoзвитку oсoбистiсних, кoгнiтивних та метакoгнiтивних харак­теристик студентiв; зважати на викoристoвуванi для перевiрки пoтoчнoгo та пiдсумкoвoгo кoнт­рoлю знань студентiв характеристики iнфoрмацiї та завдань (з метoю запoбiгання виникненню iлюзiї знання); враховувати особливості прояву ілюзії знання в метакогнітивних судженнях; враховувати ефекти склад­ності/легкості запам’ятовування, впливу емоційного забарвлення та цікавості інформації, впливу поперед­ніх навчальних успіхів; враховувати специфіку психологічних механізмів, що лежать в основі різних видів метакогнтивного моніторингу; сприяти метакогнітивному моніторингу студентів через зворотний зв’язок, самозвіт щодо розвитку відчуття істинності власного знання тощо. Крім того, завданнями педа­гoга виступають надання мoжливoстi студентам самoстiйнo ствoрювати iндивiдуальну прoграму на­вчання з урахуванням oсoбливoстей свoєї пiдгoтoвки та здiбнoстей; навчання студентiв рiзних кoгнiтивних стратегiй навчальнoї дiяльнoстi з oвoлoдiння прoфесiйними знаннями, з яких вoни мoжуть вiдiбрати найбiльш ефективнi для себе; пoстiйне залучення студентiв дo рефлексивнoї дiяльнoстi. Також здійснено аналіз важливості врахування психологічних характеристик студентів у ході здійснення ними метаког­нітивного моніторингу. Зокрема, підкреслено важливість стимулювання навчальної мотивації студентів, формування у них адекватної самооцінки, розвитку високих показників рефлексивності, метакогнітивних обізнаності, знань та активності, здатності до самостійного оцінювання своєї діяльності та її резуль­татів. Окреслені перспективи подальших розвідок з цієї проблеми The article is dedicated to the theoretical description of the goal-oriented pedagogical assistance in optimization of metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity of university students. In particular, we highlighted priority tasks of university teachers that are oriented to provide assistance with optimization of metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity and are possible through definition, orientation, and coordination of the cognitive activity of university students. Thus, the pedagogical tasks are to provide students with the opportunity to create a self-study program taking into account their own learning backgrounds and interests; training students for different cognitive strategies of the learning activity in the sphere of professional knowledge, from which they are able to choose the most effective ones for themselves; constant involvement of students in reflexive activities. Thus, the teacher is obliged to pay attention to the level of development of personal, cognitive and metacognitive cha­racteristics of students; take into account the use of tools for checking the precise and subjective control of students’ knowledge of the features of information and tasks (with the aim of preventing the occurrence of illusion of knowing); take into account the peculiarities of manifestation of the illusion of knowing in metacognitive judgments; take into account the effects of hard/easy effect of retention, the influence of emotional side and curiosity of infor­mation, the impact of previous learning successes; take into account the specificity of the psychological mechanisms that underlie various types of metacognitive monitoring; promote metacognitive monitoring of students through feedback, self-report on the development of a sense of truth of own knowledge, etc. In addition, an analysis of the importance of psychological characteristics in students’ judgments of metacognitive monitoring was carried out. Among the most important characteristics, student motivation, academic achievements, feedback, and self-regu­lation are the characteristics aimed to provide better understanding of the nature of metacognitive monitoring effectiveness and can help in the annihilation of the negative impact of the illusion of knowing. In particular, the importance of stimulating students’ learning motivation, forming of their adequate self-esteem, development of high indicators of reflectivity, metacognitive awareness, knowledge and activity, ability to independently evaluate their activity and its results is emphasized. The prospects for further researches on this problem are outlined


Author(s):  
Maria Avhustiuk

Purpose. The paper is aimed to analyze some key features of the illusion of not knowing in metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity of university students. Among the main conceptions of the influence of the illusion of not knowing on metacognitive monitoring accuracy of the learning activity of university students we tend to study and to analyse different types of the learned information, as well as personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics of students. Moreover, the study may allow to clarifying the phenomenon of the illusion of not knowing and its influence on metacognitive monitoring accuracy measures. Methods. The theoretical and comparative practical methods of studying the illusion of not knowing in metacognitive monitoring of university students have been used in the study. The participants learned texts, statements and pairs of words in Ukrainian. They performed JOLs, aJOLs, RCJs, and aRCJs. Calibration procedure helped to define average indicators of both the illusion of knowing and the illusion of not knowing. Results. The findings indicate that the illusion of not knowing as an error of metacognitive monitoring accuracy (alongside the illusion of knowing) can occur in all types of metacognitive judgments, especially in the prospective judgments of learning. The highest levels of the illusion of not knowing are shown in learning pairs of words, smaller texts of all styles, and in ‘Yes’/‘No’/‘Do not know’ questions. Moreover, the effects of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics are also allocated. Conclusions. The paper provides an account of the effects of different types of information chosen for the experiment, and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics of university students. The findings indicate the illusion of not knowing as an error of metacognitive monitoring accuracy alongside the illusion of knowing. These findings might help to solve the problem of metacognitive monitoring accuracy in the learning activity of university students.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Mykolaivna Avhustiuk ◽  
Ihor Demydovych Pasichnyk ◽  
Ruslana Volodymyrivna Kalamazh

The aim of the paper is to analyse the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity of university students (n = 262). The analysis focuses on the effects of the different types of information proposed and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics of the participants. The research has shown that the illusion of knowing can occur in all types of metacognitive judgments, but is more evident in prospective judgments and depends on the type of information, its length and style, task type, etc. There are empirically established correlations between the selected personal, cognitive, and metacognitive characteristics. Gender and age differences in the manifestation of the illusion of knowing are not observed, although it is found that women tend towards overconfidence. The results also showed that the illusion of knowing is more typical for younger students, especially for those with lower levels of academic achievements.


2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Kälin ◽  
Claudia M. Roebers

Abstract. Repeatedly, the notion has been put forward that metacognition (MC) and executive functions (EF) share common grounds, as both describe higher order cognitive processes and involve monitoring. However, only few studies addressed this issue empirically and so far their findings are rather inconsistent. Addressing the question whether measurement differences may in part be responsible for the mixed results, the current study included explicitly reported as well as time-based measures of metacognitive monitoring and related them to EF. A total of 202 children aged 4–6 years were assessed in terms of EF (inhibition, working memory, shifting) and monitoring. While there was no significant link between explicitly reported confidence and EF, latencies of monitoring judgments were significantly related to time- and accuracy-based measures of EF. Our findings support the association between EF and MC and the assumption that better inhibition abilities help children to engage in more thorough monitoring.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rina PY Lai ◽  
Michelle Renee Ellefson ◽  
Claire Hughes

Executive functions and metacognition are two cognitive predictors with well-established connections to academic performance. Despite sharing several theoretical characteristics, their overlap or independence concerning multiple academic outcomes remain under-researched. To address this gap, the present study applies a latent-variable approach to test a novel theoretical model that delineates the structural link between executive functions, metacognition, and academic outcomes. In whole-class sessions, 469 children aged 9 to 14 years (M = 11.93; SD = 0.92) completed four computerized executive function tasks (inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning), a self-reported metacognitive monitoring questionnaire, and three standardized tests of academic ability. The results suggest that executive functions and metacognitive monitoring are not interchangeable in the educational context and that they have both shared and unique contributions to diverse academic outcomes. The findings are important for elucidating the role between two domain-general cognitive skills (executive functions and metacognition) and domain-specific academic skills.


Author(s):  
Florian J. Buehler ◽  
Mariëtte H. van Loon ◽  
Natalie S. Bayard ◽  
Martina Steiner ◽  
Claudia M. Roebers

AbstractMetacognitive monitoring is a significant predictor of academic achievement and is assumed to be related to language competencies. Hence, it may explain academic performance differences between native and non-native speaking students. We compared metacognitive monitoring (in terms of resolution) between native and non-native speaking fourth graders (~ 10 year olds) in two studies. In Study 1, we matched 30 native and 30 non-native speakers and assessed their monitoring in the context of a paired-associates task, including a recognition test and confidence judgements. Study 1 revealed that recognition and monitoring did not differ between native and non-native speaking children. In Study 2, we matched 36 native and 36 non-native speakers and assessed their monitoring with the same paired-associates task. Additionally, we included a text comprehension task with open-ended questions and confidence judgments. We replicated the findings of Study 1, suggesting that recognition and monitoring do not necessarily differ between native and non-native speakers. However, native speaking students answered more open-ended questions correctly than non-native speaking students did. Nevertheless, the two groups did not differ in monitoring their answers to open-ended questions. Our results indicate that native and non-native speaking children may monitor their metacognitive resolution equally, independent of task performance and characteristics. In conclusion, metacognitive monitoring deficits may not be the primary source of the academic performance differences between native and non-native speaking students.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document