Journal Alert - METACOGNITION AND LEARNING

> Title:
> Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy
>
> Authors:
> Fukaya, T
>
> Source:
> *METACOGNITION AND LEARNING*, 8 (1):1-18; APR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> The ability to monitor the status of one's own understanding is
> important to accomplish academic tasks proficiently. Previous studies
> have shown that comprehension monitoring (metacomprehension accuracy) is
> generally poor, but improves when readers engage in activities that
> access valid cues reflecting their situation model (activities such as
> concept mapping or self-explaining). However, the question still remains
> as to which process, encoding or retrieving, causes the improvement of
> metacomprehension accuracy, and the findings of previous research on
> this matter have been inconsistent. This study examined whether college
> students' metacomprehension accuracy improves when they expect, at the
> time of reading, that they will explain the content later (active
> encoding) or when they actually generate an explanation (encoding plus
> active retrieving). In the experiments, college students read five
> texts. During reading, some students expected that they would generate
> explanations but did not actually generate them. In contrast, some
> students actually generated an explanation of the text after reading.
> All students then rated their comprehension of each text. Finally, they
> completed tests on the materials. Results of both studies revealed that
> metacomprehension accuracy, operationalized as the association between
> comprehension ratings and test performance, was greater for the group
> that actually generated explanations than for the expectancy or control
> groups.
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> *Pages: 19-46 (Article)
> *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=CCC&DestLinkType=FullRecord;KeyUT=CCC:000316084000002
> *Order Full Text [ ]
>
> Title:
> Metacognition and control of study choice in children
>
> Authors:
> Metcalfe, J; Finn, B
>
> Source:
> *METACOGNITION AND LEARNING*, 8 (1):19-46; APR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> Middle childhood may be crucial for the development of metacognitive
> monitoring and study control processes. The first three experiments,
> using different materials, showed that Grade 3 and Grade 5 children
> exhibited excellent metacognitive resolution when asked to make delayed
> judgments of learning (JOLs, using an analogue scale) or binary
> judgments of knowing (JOKs, 'know' or 'don't know') without the target
> being present. (The delayed method used here also results in excellent
> metacognitive resolution in adults). In three subsequent experiments
> after making JOLs the children were asked to choose which items they
> would like to restudy to optimize learning. We then either honored or
> dishonored the children's restudy choices, and tested their memory
> performance. In Experiment 4, honoring the children's choices made no
> difference to final recall performance. Experiments 5 and 6 showed that
> when the computer, rather than the children, chose the items for restudy
> based on theoretical constraints proposed by the Region of Proximal
> Learning model of study time allocation, the children's recall
> performance improved. In all three experiments, Grade 3 children's
> choices were random. Whereas the Grade 5 children showed some indication
> of a metacognitively guided strategy of choosing the lowest JOL items
> for study, it did not, consistently, improve performance. Apparently,
> accurate metacognitive monitoring is largely in place in middle
> childhood, but is not yet converted into effective implementation
> strategies. This dissociation between metaknowledge and its
> implementation in choice behavior needs to be taken into account by
> educators aiming to design interventions to enhance learning in children
> at this age.
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> *Pages: 47-77 (Article)
> *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=CCC&DestLinkType=FullRecord;KeyUT=CCC:000316084000003
> *Order Full Text [ ]
>
> Title:
> The relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to studying: a two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school
>
> Authors:
> Rosario, P; Nunez, JC; Ferrando, PJ; Paiva, MO; Lourenco, A; Cerezo, R;
> Valle, A
>
> Source:
> *METACOGNITION AND LEARNING*, 8 (1):47-77; APR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> Since the 1970s, a large body of research has reported on the
> differences between deep and surface approaches to student learning.
> More recently, however, this metaphor for students' approaches to
> learning has been applied to the practice of teaching. Studies at the
> university level have identified two approaches to teaching: the
> information transmission/teacher-focused approach and the conceptual
> change/student-focused approach. The present study analyzes the
> relationship between teachers' approaches to teaching and high school
> students' approaches to learning. The data were analyzed by fitting a
> two-level structural equation model based on the hypothesis that student
> academic achievement is significantly determined by the way they study
> and that the way they study is partially determined by the way teachers
> teach. The participants were high school students (778 twelfth graders)
> enrolled in biology courses and their teachers (40 total). The same
> model was proposed at both levels (i.e., within and between levels) and
> fit the data quite well. As expected, within level, the effects of the
> 'approaches to learning' on 'biology achievement' regression were far
> larger than the corresponding effects at between level. The central
> findings suggest worthy directions for future research.
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> *Pages: 79-102 (Article)
> *View Full Record: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=Alerting&SrcApp=Alerting&DestApp=CCC&DestLinkType=FullRecord;KeyUT=CCC:000316084000004
> *Order Full Text [ ]
>
> Title:
> First- and second-order metacognitive judgments of semantic memory reports: The influence of personality traits and cognitive styles
>
> Authors:
> Buratti, S; Allwood, CM; Kleitman, S
>
> Source:
> *METACOGNITION AND LEARNING*, 8 (1):79-102; APR 2013
>
> Abstract:
> In learning contexts, people need to make realistic confidence judgments
> about their memory performance. The present study investigated whether
> second-order judgments of first-order confidence judgments could help
> people improve their confidence judgments of semantic memory
> information. Furthermore, we assessed whether different personality and
> cognitive style constructs help explain differences in this ability.
> Participants answered 40 general knowledge questions and rated how
> confident they were that they had answered each question correctly. They
> were then asked to adjust the confidence judgments they believed to be
> most unrealistic, thus making second-order judgments of their
> first-order judgments. As a group, the participants did not increase the
> realism of their confidence judgments, but they did significantly
> increase their confidence for correct items. Furthermore, participants
> scoring high on an openness composite were more likely to display higher
> confidence after both the first- and second-order judgments. Moreover,
> participants scoring high on the openness and the extraversion
> composites were more likely to display higher levels of overconfidence
> after both the first- and second-order judgments. In general, however,
> personality and cognitive style factors showed only a weak relationship
> with the ability to modify the most unrealistic confidence judgments.
> Finally, the results showed no evidence that personality and cognitive
> style supported first- and second-order judgments differently.
>
> =============================