An Exploratory Study of the Relation between Cognitive Style and Metacognitive Monitoring in a Sample of Colombian University Students

Diana Marcela Montoya Londoño, Christian Hederich Martinez, Antonio P. Gutiérrez de Blume
{"title":"An Exploratory Study of the Relation between Cognitive Style and Metacognitive Monitoring in a Sample of Colombian University Students","authors":"Diana Marcela Montoya Londoño, Christian Hederich Martinez, Antonio P. Gutiérrez de Blume","doi":"10.14482/psdc.39.2.153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While research on metacognition and cognitive styles is robust for either field alone, few studies have broached the two together. In addition, no studies to date have examined finer-grained objectives related to specific aspects of metacognition such as monitoring skill and its relation to cognitive style. Thus, the present study investigated confidence, performance, and accuracy measures for three types of metacognitive judgments (prediction, concurrent and postdiction) and three different types of metacognitive questions—questions about the task, questions about the self, and questions at different moments (before, during, and after)—and how these are related to cognitive style (field dependent, intermediate, field independent) in a sample of 57 Colombian university students. Results revealed that there were differences in metacognitive monitoring accuracy and bias as a function of cognitive style, and that these findings were similar both between different moments and across metacognitive judgments. Regarding cognitive style, those with an intermediate or field independent cognitive style reported greater monitoring accuracy and less bias than individuals with a field dependent style. Implications for research, theory, and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":102203,"journal":{"name":"Psicología desde el Caribe","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psicología desde el Caribe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14482/psdc.39.2.153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

While research on metacognition and cognitive styles is robust for either field alone, few studies have broached the two together. In addition, no studies to date have examined finer-grained objectives related to specific aspects of metacognition such as monitoring skill and its relation to cognitive style. Thus, the present study investigated confidence, performance, and accuracy measures for three types of metacognitive judgments (prediction, concurrent and postdiction) and three different types of metacognitive questions—questions about the task, questions about the self, and questions at different moments (before, during, and after)—and how these are related to cognitive style (field dependent, intermediate, field independent) in a sample of 57 Colombian university students. Results revealed that there were differences in metacognitive monitoring accuracy and bias as a function of cognitive style, and that these findings were similar both between different moments and across metacognitive judgments. Regarding cognitive style, those with an intermediate or field independent cognitive style reported greater monitoring accuracy and less bias than individuals with a field dependent style. Implications for research, theory, and practice are discussed.
哥伦比亚大学生认知风格与元认知监控关系的探索性研究
虽然元认知和认知风格的研究在任何一个领域都很活跃,但很少有研究将两者结合起来。此外,迄今为止还没有研究考察与元认知的特定方面(如监控技能及其与认知风格的关系)相关的细粒度目标。因此,本研究调查了三种类型的元认知判断(预测、并发和后置)和三种不同类型的元认知问题(关于任务的问题、关于自我的问题和不同时刻的问题(之前、期间和之后)的信心、表现和准确性,以及这些与认知风格(场依赖、中间、场独立)的关系。结果表明,元认知监测的准确性和偏差作为认知风格的函数存在差异,并且这些发现在不同时刻和跨元认知判断之间是相似的。在认知风格方面,那些具有中间或领域独立认知风格的人比具有领域依赖风格的人报告了更高的监测准确性和更少的偏差。讨论了对研究、理论和实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信