Abstract
Cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning depend on accurate monitoring, this investigation examines the influence of immediate item-level knowledge of correct response feedback on cognition monitoring accuracy. In an optional end-of-course computer-based review lesson, participants (n = 68) were randomly assigned to groups to receive either immediate item-by-item feedback (IF) or no immediate feedback (NF). Item-by-item monitoring consisted of confidence self-reports. Two days later, participants completed a retention test (IF = NF, no significant difference). Monitoring accuracy during the review lesson was low, and contrary to expectations was significantly less with immediate feedback (IF < NF, Cohen’s d = .62). Descriptive data shows that (1) monitoring accuracy can be attributed to cues beyond actual item difficulty, (2) a hard-easy effect was observed where item difficulty was related to confidence judgements as a non-monotonic function, (3) response confidence was predicted by the Coh-Metrix dimension Word Concreteness in both the IF and NF treatments, and (4) significant autocorrelations (hysteresis) for confidence measures were observed for NF but not for IF. It seems likely that monitoring is based on multiple and sometimes competing cues, the salience of each relates in some degree to content difficulty, but that the stability of individual response styles plays a substantive role in monitoring. This investigation shows the need for new applications of technology for monitoring multiple measures on the fly to better understand SRL processes to support all learners.
Highlights
Cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning depend on accurate monitoring, this investigation examines the influence of immediate item-level knowledge of correct response feedback on cognition monitoring accuracy
Descriptive data shows that (1) monitoring accuracy can be attributed to cues beyond actual item difficulty, (2) a hard-easy effect was observed where item difficulty was related to confidence judgements as a non-monotonic function, (3) response confidence was predicted by the Coh-Metrix dimension Word Concreteness in both the item feedback (IF) and no immediate feedback (NF) treatments, and (4) significant autocorrelations for confidence measures were observed for NF but not for IF
Students under IF completed the end-ofcourse review lesson with immediate item-by-item feedback (n = 31), while students under NF received the same items in the same order but with no immediate feedback (n = 37)
Summary
Cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning depend on accurate monitoring, this investigation examines the influence of immediate item-level knowledge of correct response feedback on cognition monitoring accuracy. It seems likely that monitoring is based on multiple and sometimes competing cues, the salience of each relates in some degree to content difficulty, but that the stability of individual response styles plays a substantive role in monitoring This investigation shows the need for new applications of technology for monitoring multiple measures on the fly to better understand SRL processes to support all learners. Panadero (2017) reviewed six actively researched models of SRL including those of Boekaerts; Efklides; Hadwin, Järvelä and Miller; Winne and Hadwin; Pintrich; and Zimmerman These models differ in various ways, all rely on learners’ ability to gauge their understanding, for example as judgements of learning (JOLs), in order to select and use appropriate cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Reid, Morrison, & Bol, 2017). They report that feedback during review lessons improves memory and final course performance for that specific course content, transfers to comprehension and application outcomes, and influences decision choices in the lesson (Merriman, Clariana, & Bernardi, 2012)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.