More isn’t always better: when metacognitive prompts are misleading

No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Vangsness, Lisa
Young, Michael E.
Advisors
Issue Date
2020-09-29
Type
Article
Keywords
Cue utilization , Cues to difficulty , JODs , Metacognition , Metacognitive monitoring , Reactivity
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Citation
Vangsness, L., Young, M.E. More isn’t always better: when metacognitive prompts are misleading. Metacognition Learning (2020)
Abstract

Accurate metacognitive monitoring improves performance in a variety of naturalistic contexts. However, the laboratory contexts used to study metacognition differ from naturalistic environments in important ways. Specifically, laboratory experiments require learners to make repeated, overt judgments that are thought to reflect underlying metacognitive processes. We conducted two research studies to determine how the frequency of overt prompts affects cue use, judgment accuracy, and performance. This was accomplished by manipulating the frequency with which participants made judgements of difficulty (JODs) while completing a primary task. We found that participants who made frequent overt prompts attended more strongly to peripheral cues than to central cues. Frequent overt prompts also had differing effects on performance and judgment accuracy: they reduced metacognitive accuracy in a visual search task (Experiment 1) and performance on a standardized exam (Experiment 2). Although our experiments do not identify a clear, causal agent that drives differences in performance and judgment accuracy, these results illustrate the interesting relationship between cue use and metacognitive monitoring.

Table of Contents
Description
Click on the DOI link to access the article (may not be free).
Publisher
Springer
Journal
Book Title
Series
Metacognition Learning;2020
PubMed ID
DOI
ISSN
1556-1623
EISSN