The Relation Between Perceived Mental Effort, Monitoring Judgments, and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Louise David, Felicitas Biwer, Martine Baars, Lisette Wijnia, Fred Paas, Anique de Bruin
{"title":"The Relation Between Perceived Mental Effort, Monitoring Judgments, and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Louise David, Felicitas Biwer, Martine Baars, Lisette Wijnia, Fred Paas, Anique de Bruin","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09903-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurately monitoring one’s learning processes during self-regulated learning depends on using the right cues, one of which could be perceived mental effort. A meta-analysis by Baars et al. (2020) found a negative association between mental effort and monitoring judgments (<i>r</i> = -.35), suggesting that the amount of mental effort experienced during a learning task is usually negatively correlated with learners’ perception of learning. However, it is unclear how monitoring judgments and perceptions of mental effort relate to learning outcomes. To examine if perceived mental effort is a diagnostic cue for learning outcomes, and whether monitoring judgments mediate this relationship, we employed a meta-analytic structural equation model. Results indicated a negative, moderate association between perceived mental effort and monitoring judgments (β = -.19), a positive, large association between monitoring judgments and learning outcomes <i>(</i>β = .29), and a negative, moderate indirect association between perceived mental effort and learning outcomes (β = -.05), which was mediated by monitoring judgments. Our subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant differences across moderators potentially due to the limited number of studies included per moderator category. Findings suggest that when learners perceive higher levels of mental effort, they exhibit lower learning (confidence) judgments, which relates to lower actual learning outcomes. Thus, learners seem to use perceived mental effort as a cue to judge their learning while perceived mental effort only indirectly relates to actual learning outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09903-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurately monitoring one’s learning processes during self-regulated learning depends on using the right cues, one of which could be perceived mental effort. A meta-analysis by Baars et al. (2020) found a negative association between mental effort and monitoring judgments (r = -.35), suggesting that the amount of mental effort experienced during a learning task is usually negatively correlated with learners’ perception of learning. However, it is unclear how monitoring judgments and perceptions of mental effort relate to learning outcomes. To examine if perceived mental effort is a diagnostic cue for learning outcomes, and whether monitoring judgments mediate this relationship, we employed a meta-analytic structural equation model. Results indicated a negative, moderate association between perceived mental effort and monitoring judgments (β = -.19), a positive, large association between monitoring judgments and learning outcomes (β = .29), and a negative, moderate indirect association between perceived mental effort and learning outcomes (β = -.05), which was mediated by monitoring judgments. Our subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant differences across moderators potentially due to the limited number of studies included per moderator category. Findings suggest that when learners perceive higher levels of mental effort, they exhibit lower learning (confidence) judgments, which relates to lower actual learning outcomes. Thus, learners seem to use perceived mental effort as a cue to judge their learning while perceived mental effort only indirectly relates to actual learning outcomes.

Abstract Image

感知心理努力、监测判断和学习结果之间的关系:元分析
在自我调节学习过程中,准确监控自己的学习过程取决于使用正确的线索,其中之一可能是感知到的脑力劳动。Baars 等人(2020 年)的一项荟萃分析发现,脑力劳动与监控判断之间存在负相关(r = -.35),这表明学习任务中的脑力劳动量通常与学习者的学习感知呈负相关。然而,目前还不清楚监控判断和脑力劳动感知与学习结果之间的关系。为了研究感知到的脑力劳动是否是学习结果的诊断线索,以及监控判断是否会调解这种关系,我们采用了元分析结构方程模型。结果表明,感知脑力劳动与监测判断之间存在中度负相关(β = -.19),监测判断与学习结果之间存在中度正相关(β = .29),感知脑力劳动与学习结果之间存在中度间接负相关(β = -.05),而监测判断在其中起中介作用。我们的分组分析没有发现不同调节因子之间的显著差异,这可能是由于每个调节因子类别所包含的研究数量有限。研究结果表明,当学习者感知到较高的脑力劳动水平时,他们会表现出较低的学习(信心)判断,这与较低的实际学习效果有关。因此,学习者似乎将感知到的脑力劳动作为判断其学习效果的线索,而感知到的脑力劳动只是间接地与实际学习效果相关。
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
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
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