Antonio P. Gutiérrez de Blume, Gregory Schraw, Fred Kuch, A. Richmond
{"title":"General Accuracy and General Error Factors in Metacognitive Monitoring and the Role of Time on Task in Predicting Metacognitive Judgments","authors":"Antonio P. Gutiérrez de Blume, Gregory Schraw, Fred Kuch, A. Richmond","doi":"10.21615/cesp.5494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gutierrez et al. (2016) conducted an experiment that provided evidence for the existence of two distinct factors in metacognitive monitoring: general accuracy and general error. They found level-1 domain-specific accuracy and error factors which loaded on second-order domain-general accuracy and error factors, which then loaded on a third-order general monitoring factor. In the present study, that experiment was repeated with 170 different participants from the same population. The present study confirmed the original findings. Both studies suggest that metacognitive monitoring consists of two different types of cognitive processes: one that is associated with accurate monitoring judgments and one that is associated with error in monitoring judgments. In addition, both studies suggest domain-specific accuracy and error factors which load onto second-order domain-general accuracy and error factors. Furthermore, in this study we devised an experiment in which general accuracy and general error are treated as separate latent dimensions and found that subjects employ the same resources they use to develop accurate judgments as a “baseline” for calibrating resources necessary in erroneous judgments, but not vice-versa. This finding supports and extends previous findings which suggests that the processes involved in managing metacognitive accuracy are different from those involved in contending with metacognitive error. Future instructional interventions in metacognitive monitoring will be better focused by concentrating on improving accuracy or reducing error, but not both concurrently.","PeriodicalId":42351,"journal":{"name":"Revista CES Psicologia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista CES Psicologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21615/cesp.5494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Gutierrez et al. (2016) conducted an experiment that provided evidence for the existence of two distinct factors in metacognitive monitoring: general accuracy and general error. They found level-1 domain-specific accuracy and error factors which loaded on second-order domain-general accuracy and error factors, which then loaded on a third-order general monitoring factor. In the present study, that experiment was repeated with 170 different participants from the same population. The present study confirmed the original findings. Both studies suggest that metacognitive monitoring consists of two different types of cognitive processes: one that is associated with accurate monitoring judgments and one that is associated with error in monitoring judgments. In addition, both studies suggest domain-specific accuracy and error factors which load onto second-order domain-general accuracy and error factors. Furthermore, in this study we devised an experiment in which general accuracy and general error are treated as separate latent dimensions and found that subjects employ the same resources they use to develop accurate judgments as a “baseline” for calibrating resources necessary in erroneous judgments, but not vice-versa. This finding supports and extends previous findings which suggests that the processes involved in managing metacognitive accuracy are different from those involved in contending with metacognitive error. Future instructional interventions in metacognitive monitoring will be better focused by concentrating on improving accuracy or reducing error, but not both concurrently.
Gutierrez et al.(2016)进行了一项实验,该实验为元认知监测中存在两个不同的因素提供了证据:一般准确性和一般误差。他们发现,一级特定领域的准确度和误差因素加载到二级领域,一般准确度和误差因素加载到三级一般监测因素。在目前的研究中,来自同一人群的170名不同的参与者重复了这个实验。目前的研究证实了最初的发现。两项研究都表明,元认知监测由两种不同类型的认知过程组成:一种与准确的监测判断有关,另一种与监测判断中的错误有关。此外,两项研究都将特定领域的精度和误差因素加载到二阶领域-一般精度和误差因素。此外,在本研究中,我们设计了一个实验,其中一般准确性和一般误差被视为单独的潜在维度,并发现受试者使用他们用于发展准确判断的相同资源作为校准错误判断所需资源的“基线”,但反之亦然。这一发现支持并扩展了先前的发现,即涉及管理元认知准确性的过程不同于涉及与元认知错误作斗争的过程。未来元认知监测的教学干预将更好地集中在提高准确性或减少错误上,而不是同时进行。