The Relationship between Metacognitive Ability and Metacognitive Accuracy

Abstract

Judgments of learning (JOLs), as one type of metacognitive judgments, are assessments that people make about how well they have learned material. The effective use of JOLs depends on various factors, including task-specific variables and the learner’s own metacognitive resources. Little has been known about the relationship between JOL accuracy for memory predictions and metacognitive ability, which is an emerging theory-practice gap in the field of metacognition. The present study investigated the relationship between the absolute accuracy of JOLs and the metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI), using concrete and abstract word pairs through three study-test cycles. We found that participants who scored high on the MAI, also produced a high level of absolute accuracy on each study-test cycle. The results from mediation analyses yielded that the impact of the MAI on absolute accuracy on cycle 3 was completely mediated by absolute accuracy on the first two cycles for both concrete and abstract word pairs. In addition, the same pattern of results was obtained even when a subset of the MAI (either knowledge or regulation of cognition) was used. These indicate that trait-based metacognitive abilities can well explain the correspondence between JOLs and recall performance on the first test. However, their impact is reduced after study-test practice, suggesting that experience-based factors become critical to improving metacognitive accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    We are deeply indebted to an anonymous reviewer for bringing this to our attention.

  2. 2.

    Before conducting the experiment, we performed a series of pilot studies, choosing the semantic relatedness between the members of a pair, as used in Koriat et al. (2002). We found ceiling effects already in the second study-test cycle for related word pairs even when a shorter presentation duration was used. These results were consistent with those of Koriat et al. in which Hebrew word pairs were used.

References

  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on easy of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). The role of memory for past test in underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanczakowski, M., Zawadzka, K., Pasek, T., & Higham, P. A. (2013). Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harrison, G. M., & Vallin, L. M. (2018). Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jang, Y., & Lee, H. (2019). Item repetition and retrieval processes in cued recall: Analysis of recall-latency distributions. Memory & Cognition, 47, 792–815. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00902-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jang, Y., Lee, H., & Huber, D. E. (2019). How many dimensions underlie judgments of learning and recall redux: Consideration of recall latency reveals a previously hidden nonmonotonicity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 90, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2018.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jang, Y., Wallsten, T. S., & Huber, D. E. (2012). A stochastic detection and retrieval model for the study of metacognition. Psychological Review, 119, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619 http://dx.doi.org.weblib.lib.umt.edu:8080/10.1177/0193841X8100500502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 92–107. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma’ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, H., Jang, Y., Kim, Y., & Min, K. (2020). Validating a comprehensive measure of metacognition. Manuscript under review.

  18. Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: Monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  20. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McFatter, R. M. (1979). The use of structural equation models in interpreting regression equations including suppressor and enhancer variables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167900300113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125–173). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Park, T. (2004). Investigation of association frequency and imagery value of Korean words. The Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.10.2.117.27905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yi, K., Koo, M.-M., Nam, K., Park, K., Park, T., Bae, S., et al. (2017). The Korean lexicon project: A lexical decision study on 30,930 Korean words and nonwords. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 29, 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was partially supported by a Yamaguchi Opportunity Fund Award (Y. Jang).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoonhee Jang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This research involves human subjects. All participants provided informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Table 4 Mean Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Correlations and Results from Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs)

Appendix

Table 5 Mean Latencies (seconds) of Correct Responses, Intrusions, and Failures to Respond (No Response); and Results from ANOVAs

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, Y., Lee, H., Kim, Y. et al. The Relationship between Metacognitive Ability and Metacognitive Accuracy. Metacognition Learning (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09232-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Judgments of learning
  • Metacognitive awareness inventory
  • Absolute accuracy