Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks

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 ef...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Metacognition and learning 2017-12, Vol.12 (3), p.357-379
Hauptverfasser: Mihalca, Loredana, Mengelkamp, Christoph, Schnotz, Wolfgang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 379
container_issue 3
container_start_page 357
container_title Metacognition and learning
container_volume 12
creator Mihalca, Loredana
Mengelkamp, Christoph
Schnotz, Wolfgang
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1962127596</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1160468</ericid><sourcerecordid>1962127596</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-10e3826d9592891a1dd69cb7d8b02c86485fa89c1a71619c955bc70ecbbcb7553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9LxDAQxYsouK5-AA9CwHM1kzZpc1yW9R8LXvQc0nS6dG2TNWkX9tubpbJ4EQZm4P3ezPCS5BboA1BaPAaAnMqUQpFKKLKUnSUz4FykIDI4P80su0yuQthSmue5YLOkWxgzem0OxDWkx0Ebt7Ht0O6RbMd606MdAtGxSO9q9Hpw_kh2qL1FT4yzg3cdwaZBc3RZDIG0luy8qzrs0-C6fWs3ZNDhK1wnF43uAt789nny-bT6WL6k6_fn1-VinZosK4cUKGYlE7XkkpUSNNS1kKYq6rKizJQiL3mjS2lAFyBAGsl5ZQqKpqoixXk2T-6nvfGL7xHDoLZu9DaeVCAFA1ZwKSIFE2W8C8Fjo3a-7bU_KKDqGKqaQlUxVHUMVbHouZs86Ftz4ldvAILmoow6m_QQNbtB_-fyv0t_APELhNU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1962127596</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Mihalca, Loredana ; Mengelkamp, Christoph ; Schnotz, Wolfgang</creator><creatorcontrib>Mihalca, Loredana ; Mengelkamp, Christoph ; Schnotz, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1556-1623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-1631</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Difficulty Level ; Education ; Genetics ; Judgments ; Learner Controlled Instruction ; Learning ; Learning and Instruction ; Metacognition ; Predictor Variables ; Prior Learning ; Problem Solving ; Self Evaluation (Individuals) ; Study Habits ; Task Analysis ; Teaching and Teacher Education ; Time on Task ; Undergraduate Students</subject><ispartof>Metacognition and learning, 2017-12, Vol.12 (3), p.357-379</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017</rights><rights>Metacognition and Learning is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-10e3826d9592891a1dd69cb7d8b02c86485fa89c1a71619c955bc70ecbbcb7553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-10e3826d9592891a1dd69cb7d8b02c86485fa89c1a71619c955bc70ecbbcb7553</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8395-0180</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1160468$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mihalca, Loredana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mengelkamp, Christoph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schnotz, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks</title><title>Metacognition and learning</title><addtitle>Metacognition Learning</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Difficulty Level</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Genetics</subject><subject>Judgments</subject><subject>Learner Controlled Instruction</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Metacognition</subject><subject>Predictor Variables</subject><subject>Prior Learning</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Self Evaluation (Individuals)</subject><subject>Study Habits</subject><subject>Task Analysis</subject><subject>Teaching and Teacher Education</subject><subject>Time on Task</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><issn>1556-1623</issn><issn>1556-1631</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9LxDAQxYsouK5-AA9CwHM1kzZpc1yW9R8LXvQc0nS6dG2TNWkX9tubpbJ4EQZm4P3ezPCS5BboA1BaPAaAnMqUQpFKKLKUnSUz4FykIDI4P80su0yuQthSmue5YLOkWxgzem0OxDWkx0Ebt7Ht0O6RbMd606MdAtGxSO9q9Hpw_kh2qL1FT4yzg3cdwaZBc3RZDIG0luy8qzrs0-C6fWs3ZNDhK1wnF43uAt789nny-bT6WL6k6_fn1-VinZosK4cUKGYlE7XkkpUSNNS1kKYq6rKizJQiL3mjS2lAFyBAGsl5ZQqKpqoixXk2T-6nvfGL7xHDoLZu9DaeVCAFA1ZwKSIFE2W8C8Fjo3a-7bU_KKDqGKqaQlUxVHUMVbHouZs86Ftz4ldvAILmoow6m_QQNbtB_-fyv0t_APELhNU</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Mihalca, Loredana</creator><creator>Mengelkamp, Christoph</creator><creator>Schnotz, Wolfgang</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8395-0180</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks</title><author>Mihalca, Loredana ; Mengelkamp, Christoph ; Schnotz, Wolfgang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-10e3826d9592891a1dd69cb7d8b02c86485fa89c1a71619c955bc70ecbbcb7553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Difficulty Level</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Genetics</topic><topic>Judgments</topic><topic>Learner Controlled Instruction</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Metacognition</topic><topic>Predictor Variables</topic><topic>Prior Learning</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Self Evaluation (Individuals)</topic><topic>Study Habits</topic><topic>Task Analysis</topic><topic>Teaching and Teacher Education</topic><topic>Time on Task</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mihalca, Loredana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mengelkamp, Christoph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schnotz, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Metacognition and learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mihalca, Loredana</au><au>Mengelkamp, Christoph</au><au>Schnotz, Wolfgang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1160468</ericid><atitle>Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks</atitle><jtitle>Metacognition and learning</jtitle><stitle>Metacognition Learning</stitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>357</spage><epage>379</epage><pages>357-379</pages><issn>1556-1623</issn><eissn>1556-1631</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2</doi><tpages>23</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8395-0180</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1556-1623
ispartof Metacognition and learning, 2017-12, Vol.12 (3), p.357-379
issn 1556-1623
1556-1631
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1962127596
source SpringerNature Journals; EBSCOhost Education Source
subjects Accuracy
Difficulty Level
Education
Genetics
Judgments
Learner Controlled Instruction
Learning
Learning and Instruction
Metacognition
Predictor Variables
Prior Learning
Problem Solving
Self Evaluation (Individuals)
Study Habits
Task Analysis
Teaching and Teacher Education
Time on Task
Undergraduate Students
title Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A49%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20metacognitive%20judgments%20as%20a%20moderator%20of%20learner%20control%20effectiveness%20in%20problem-solving%20tasks&rft.jtitle=Metacognition%20and%20learning&rft.au=Mihalca,%20Loredana&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=357&rft.epage=379&rft.pages=357-379&rft.issn=1556-1623&rft.eissn=1556-1631&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1962127596%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1962127596&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1160468&rfr_iscdi=true