Metacognitive judgments and disfluency - Does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance?

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 44, Issue , 2016, Pages 31-40

  Pieger, Elisabeth ^a   Mengelkamp, Christoph ^b   Bannert, Maria ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Disfluency; Metacognitive control; Metacognitive judgments; Metacognitive monitoring; Metacomprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960103361     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alexander P.A. Calibration: What is it and why it matters? An introduction to the special issue on calibrating calibration. Learning and Instruction 2013, 24:1-3. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.003.
2. Alter A.L., Oppenheimer D.M. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2009, 13(3):219-235. 10.1177/1088868309341564.
3. Alter A.L., Oppenheimer D.M., Epley N., Eyre R.N. Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General 2007, 136(4):569-576. 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569.
4. Benjamin A.S., Diaz M. Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy. Handbook of metamemory and memory 2008, 73-94. Psychology Press, New York. J. Dunlosky, R.A. Bjork (Eds.).
5. Boekaerts M. Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction 1997, 7(2):161-186. 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1.
6. De Bruin A.B., van Gog T. Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(4):245-252. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003.
7. Diemand-Yauman C., Oppenheimer D.M., Vaughan E.B. Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition 2011, 118(1):114-118. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012.
8. Dinsmore D.L., Parkinson M.M. What are confidence judgments made of? Students' explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction 2013, 24:4-14. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.06.001.
9. Dreisbach G., Fischer R. If it's hard to read. . . try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research 2011, 75(5):376-383. 10.1007/s00426-010-0319-y.
10. Dunlosky J., Hartwig M.K., Rawson K.A., Lipko A.R. Improving college students' evaluation of text learning using idea-unit standards. The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology 2011, 64(3):467-484. 10.1080/17470218.2010.502239.
11. Dunlosky J., Lipko A.R. Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions In Psychological Science 2007, 16(4):228-232. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x.
12. Dunlosky J., Metcalfe J. Metacognition 2009, SAGE, Los Angeles.
13. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A. Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students' learning and retention. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(4):271-280. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.
14. Dunlosky J., Thiede K.W. Metamemory. Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology 2013, 283-298. Oxford University Press, New York. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0019. D. Reisberg (Ed.).
15. Efklides A. The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema 2009, 21(1):76-82.
16. Efklides A. Commentary: How readily can findings from basic cognitive psychology research be applied in the classroom?. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(4):290-295. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.001.
17. Eitel A., Kühl T., Scheiter K., Gerjets P. Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: Does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand?. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2014, 28(4):488-501. 10.1002/acp.3004.
18. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 2007, 39:175-191.
19. Glenberg A.M., Epstein W. Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition 1987, 15(1):84-93.
20. Glenberg A.M., Wilkinson A.C., Epstein W. The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition 1982, 10(6):597-602. 10.3758/BF03202442.
21. Hadwin A.F., Webster E.A. Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction 2013, 24:37-47. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.001.
22. Hertzog C., Hines J.C., Touron D.R. Judgments of learning are influenced by multiple cues in addition to memory for past test accuracy. Archives Of Scientific Psychology 2013, 1(1):23-32. 10.1037/arc0000003.
23. Jönsson F.U., Lindström B.R. Using a multidimensional scaling approach to investigate the underlying basis of ease of learning judgments. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology 2010, 51(2):103-108. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00762.x.
24. Kauffeld S. Arbeits-, Organisations- und Personalpsychologie für Bachelor. Lesen, Hören, Lernen im Web 2011, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
25. Koriat A. Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1997, 126(4):349-370. 10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349.
26. Koriat A. The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(4):296-298. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002.
27. Koriat A., Ma'ayan H., Nussinson R. The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2006, 135(1):36-69. 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36.
28. Kornell N., Bjork R.A. A stability bias in human memory: Overestimating remembering and underestimating learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2009, 138:449-468.
29. Kornell N., Rhodes M.G., Castel A.D., Tauber S.K. The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments. Psychological Science 2011, 22(6):787-794. 10.1177/0956797611407929.
30. Maki R.H., Berry S.L. Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1984, 10(4):663-679. 10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.663.
31. Maki R.H., Foley J.M., Kajer W.K., Thompson R.C., Willert M.G. Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1990, 16(4):609-616. 10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.609.
32. Maki R.H., McGuire M.J. Metacognition for text: Findings and implications for education. Applied metacognition 2002, 68-92. University Press, Cambridge, UK. 10.1017/CBO9780511489976.004. T.J. Perfect, B.L. Schwartz (Eds.).
33. McDaniel M.A., Butler A.C. A contextual framework for understanding when difficulties are desirable. Successful remembering and successful forgetting: Essays in honor of Robert A. Bjork 2010, 175-199. Psychology Press, New York. A.S. Benjamin (Ed.).
34. Mengelkamp C., Bannert M. Accuracy of confidence judgments: Stability and generality in the learning process and predictive validity for Learning Outcome. Memory and Cognition 2010, 38:441-451. 10.3758/MC.38.4.441.
35. Michalke M. koRpus: A R package for text analysis (version 0.04-36) 2012, Available from. http://reaktanz.de/?c=hacking&s=koRpus.
36. Miele D.B., Finn B., Molden D.C. Does easily learned mean easily remembered?: It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science 2011, 22(3):320-324. 10.1177/0956797610397954.
37. Miele D.B., Molden D.C. Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General 2010, 139(3):535-557. 10.1037/a0019745.
38. Miesner M.T., Maki R.H. The role to test anxiety in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. European Journal Of Cognitive Psychology 2007, 19(4-5):650-670. 10.1080/09541440701326196.
39. Mueller M.L., Tauber S.K., Dunlosky J. Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2013, 20(2):378-384. 10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6.
40. Nelson T.O. A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin 1984, 95:109-133. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109.
41. Nelson T.O., Narens L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The psychology of learning and motivation 1990, 125-173. Academic Press, New York. G.H. Bower (Ed.).
42. Pieschl S. Metacognitive calibration - an extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition and Learning 2009, 4(1):3-31. 10.1007/s11409-008-9030-4.
43. Rawson K.A., Dunlosky J. Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28(1):69-80. 10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69.
44. Redford J.S., Thiede K.W., Wiley J., Griffin T.D. Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(4):262-270. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007.
45. Schwartz B.L., Efklides A. Metamemory and memory efficiency: Implications for student learning. Journal Of Applied Research In Memory And Cognition 2012, 1(3):145-151. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.002.
46. Schwarz N. Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. The mind in context 2010, 105-125. Guilford, New York. B. Mesquita, L.F. Barrett, E.R. Smith (Eds.).
47. Soleimani H., Mohammadi E. The effect of text typographical features on legibility, comprehension, and retrieval of EFL learners. English Language Teaching 2012, 5(8):207-216. 10.5539/elt.v5n8p207.
48. Son L.K., Kornell N. Research on the allocation of study time: Key studies from 1890 to the present (and beyond). Handbook of metamemory and memory 2008, 333-351. Psychology Press, New York, NY, US. J. Dunlosky, R.A. Bjork (Eds.).
49. Song H., Schwarz N. If it's hard to read, it's hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science 2008, 19(10):986-988. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x.
50. Thiede K.W., Anderson M.C.M., Therriault D. Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal Of Educational Psychology 2003, 95(1):66-73. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66.
51. Thiede K.W., Dunlosky J. Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1999, 25(4):1024-1037. 10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024.
52. Ulich E., Marc W. Gesundheitsmanagement in Unternehmen. 4. Auflage 2010, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden.
53. Winne P.H., Hadwin A.F. Studying as self-regulated learning. Metacognition in educational theory and practice 1998, 277-304. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ. D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).
54. Yue C.L., Castel A.D., Bjork R.A. When disfluency is - and is not - a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition 2013, 41(2):229-241. 10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8.
55. Zimmerman B.J. Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review 1990, 2(2):173-201. 10.1007/BF01322178.