METACOGNITIVE MONITORING ACCURACY AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT SUCCESS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Maria  Avhustiuk

doi:10.29038/2227-1376-2020-36-10-21

Authors

Maria Avhustiuk The National University of Оstroh Academy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/2227-1376-2020-36-10-21

Keywords:

metacognitive monitoring, accuracy, learning achievement success, confidence, students

Abstract

Purpose. The paper is focused on the theoretical analysis of some theoretical and methodological aspects of the relationship between metacognitive monitoring accuracy and learning achievement success of university students. In particular, we highlight some approaches to the relation between metacognitive monitoring accuracy and learning achievement success that is a quite common problem in the university learning activity.

Methods. The theoretical and comparative methods of studying metacognitive monitoring accuracy and learning achievement success of university students have been used in the study. The necessity in studying some theoretical and methodological aspects of the notion has been caused by the impact of metacognitive monitoring accuracy on students’ learning activities.

Results. The study aimed at revealing the role of metacognitive monitoring in the university learning activity, studying the extent to which changes in monitoring cause changes in the nature of the students’ control over their own cognitive activities, specifying the nature of relationship between levels of confidence and students successes in learning, etc. A noteworthy finding is that students are generally overconfident in their self-assessments and this overconfidence effect is greatest for students of poorer abilities as they are doubly cursed: they lack knowledge of the material, and lack the awareness of the knowledge that they do and do not possess. The erroneous belief that information is understood when it is not is regarded as the illusion of knowing or overconfidence in knowing; the notion can be a significant obstacle to the effectiveness of the learning activities.

Conclusions. The results of the analysis found in the study can play an important role in the process of understanding the relationship between metacognitive monitoring accuracy and learning achievement success of university students.

References

• Balashov, E. M. (2019). Psykholohichni osoblyvosti metakohnityvnoho monitorynhu v navchalnii dialnosti studentiv [Psychological pecoliarities of metacognitive monitoring in learning activities of students]. Naukovyi Visnyk Khersonskoho Derzhavnoho Universytetu. Seria: Psykholohichni Nauky, 4, 64–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2312-3206/2019-4-8 [in Ukrainian].

• Savin, E. Yu. & Fomin, A. Ye. (2013). Kognitivnaia psikhologiia obrazovaniia: auditoria kak laboratoriia [Cognitive psychology of education: A classroom as a laboratory]. Psikhologiia v Vuze, 3, 67–83. [in Russian].

• Tkachuk, O. V. (2019). Uspishnist navchalnoi dialnosti ta tochnist metakohnityvnoho monitorynhu: Teoretychnyi ohliad problemy [Learning success and accuracy of metacognitive monitoring: A theoretical overview of the problem]. Zbirnyk Materialiv International scientific and practical conference “Prospects for the development of psychology as a science in EU countries and Ukraine”, Warsaw, 95–97. [in Ukrainian].

• Avhustiuk, M. M. (2020). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and learning achievement success: Some theoretical and methodological aspects. Psycholohiia ta Pedahohika: Suchasni metodyky ta innovatsii, dosvid praktychnoho zastosuvanniia. Materialy Mazhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii, Lviv, 23-24 October, 2020. (in press).

• 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: https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418

• Bol, L. & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970109600653

• Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. Cermak & Craik, 331–354.

• de Carvalho Filho, M. K. (2009). Confidence judgments in real classroom settings: Monitoring performance in different types of tests. International Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 93–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701436744

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

• Fritzsche, E. S., Kröner, S., Dresel, M., Kopp, B, & Martschinke, S. (2012). Confidence scores as measures of metacognitive monitoring in primary students? (Limited) Validity in Predicting Academic Achievement and the Mediating Role of Self-Concept. Journal of Educational Research Online, 4(2), 120–142.

• Isaacson, R. M. & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39–55.

• Miller, T. M. & Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Online First Publication, 1-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021802

• Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7–28.

• Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence judgments. The Journal of General Psychology, 129(3), 257–299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300209602099

• Schraw, G. (1997). The effect of generalised metacognitive knowledge on test performance and confidence judgments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(2), 135–146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943788

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

• Stankov, L. & Lee, J. (2008). Confidence and cognitive test performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 961–976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012546

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

• Winne P. H., Hadwin A. F. Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, 1998, 277–304.