THE ILLUSION OF NOT KNOWING IN METACOGNITIVE MONITORING: A BRIEF REVIEW

Maria  Avhustiuk

doi:10.29038/2227-1376-2021-37-10-22

Authors

Maria Avhustiuk The National University of Оstroh Academy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/2227-1376-2021-37-10-22

Keywords:

illusion of knowing, illusion of not knowing, metacognitive monitoring, learning activity, judgments, overconfidence, underconfidence.

Abstract

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.

References

Avhustiuk, M. (2020). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and learning achievement success of university students. Psychological Prospects Journal, 36, 10–21. DOI:10.29038/2227-1376-2020-36-10-21

Avhustiuk, M., Pasichnyk, I., & Kalamazh, R. (2018). The illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring: Effects of the type of information and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 317–341. DOI:10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418

Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280. DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc. 2011.08.003

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551–565. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011

Fajfar, P., & Gurman, N. (2009). When underconfidence behavior is norm: Some experimental evidences from the calibration analysis. Paper presented at the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and Society for Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE) Joint Conference, Halifax, Canada.

Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98(4), 506–528. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506

Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435. DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90013-R

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 101–121. DOI:10.1007/s11409-008-9021-5

Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 216–247. DOI:10.1006/obhd.1999.2847

Kroll, M. D., & Ford, M. L. (1992). The illusion of knowing, error detection, and motivational orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 371–378. DOI:10.1016/0361-476X(92)90075-A

Metcalfe, J. (1998). Cognitive optimism: Self-deception or memory-based processing heuristics? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 100–110. DOI:10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_3

Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502–517. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502

Pasichnyk, I., Kalamazh, R., & Avgustiuk, M. (2017). The illusion of knowing from perspective of metacognitive monitoring accuracy of educational activity of university students. Psychologiczne Zeszyty Naukowe: Polrocznik Instytutu Psychologii Uniwersytetu Zielonogorskiego, 1, 89–102.

Pulford, B. D. (1996). Overconfidence in Human Judgment (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Ranalli, j. (2018). Inaccurate metacognitive monitoring and its effects of metacognitive control and task outcomes in self-regulated L2 learning. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 21(4), 1–20.

Serra, M. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education, 278–298. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Valdez, A. (2013). Student metacognitive monitoring: Predicting test achievement from judgment accuracy. International Journal of Higher Education, 2, 141–146. DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p141