Abstract
Two studies addressed student metacognition in math, measuring confidence accuracy about math performance. Underconfidence would be expected in light of pervasive math anxiety. However, one might alternatively expect overconfidence based on previous results showing overconfidence in other subject domains. Metacognitive judgments and performance were assessed for biology, literature, and mathematics tests. In Study 1, high school students took three different tests and provided estimates of their performance both before and after taking each test. In Study 2, undergraduates similarly took three shortened SAT II Subject Tests. Students were overconfident in predicting math performance, indeed showing greater overconfidence compared to other academic subjects. It appears that both overconfidence and anxiety can adversely affect metacognitive ability and can lead to math avoidance. The results have implications for educational practice and other environments that require extensive use of math.
Highlights
Two components of metacognition are relevant for successful learning: selfmonitoring, e.g., assessing performance, and self-regulation, e.g., choosing what and how to study (Nelson and Dunlosky, 1991; Thiede et al, 2003; Metcalfe, 2009)
There was a significant predicted versus actual score × academic subject interaction, F(2,152) = 10.31, MSE = 4.11, η2 = 0.11, p < 0.0001, implying that overconfidence differed by academic subject
There was a significant interaction between these two variables, F(2,176) = 29.58, MSE = 4.18, η2 = 0.22, p < 0.0001, indicating that degree of overconfidence depended on academic subject
Summary
Two components of metacognition are relevant for successful learning: selfmonitoring, e.g., assessing performance, and self-regulation, e.g., choosing what and how to study (Nelson and Dunlosky, 1991; Thiede et al, 2003; Metcalfe, 2009). Any improvements in metacognition would allow learners to better judge what they know and how well they will be able to learn information and recall it later. In addressing the topic of metacognition and math, it is important to consider whether metacognition is domain-general or domain-specific. To what extent are there general points to be made about people’s metacognitive abilities, potential for error, and underlying mechanisms across subject domains, and to what extent are there distinctive points to be made for particular domains? To what extent are there general points to be made about people’s metacognitive abilities, potential for error, and underlying mechanisms across subject domains, and to what extent are there distinctive points to be made for particular domains? Do the difficulties that learners face with math reflect general issues with metacognition, or something special about math?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
