Submit to J. Intell. Review for J. Intell. Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Special Issue "Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity"

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Published Papers

A special issue of Journal of Intelligence (ISSN 2079-3200).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 April 2023) | Viewed by 10095

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Chunliang Yang

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Institute of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Interests: test-enhanced learning; spacing and interleaving; metamemory monitoring and control; development of meta-awareness; translating principles from cognitive sciences into educational practice

Prof. Dr. Liang Luo
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Institute of Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Interests: factors influencing children’s learning ability and mental health; metacognition; family socioeconomic status; learning strategies

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Confucius said, “To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge.” Accurate monitoring of what we know and what we do not know plays a fundamental role in effective learning, because individuals typically regulate their study activities according to their metacognitive monitoring (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013; Finn, 2008). Previous studies demonstrated that human metacognitive monitoring is far from perfect, and susceptible to a variety of illusions and biases (Undorf, Navarro-Báez, & Zimdahl, 2022). For instance, although practice testing and interleaved learning have been established as powerful study strategies, learners tend to metacognitively underappreciate the merits of these strategies, leading to their under-employment during self-regulated learning (Kornell & Bjork, 2008; Rivers, 2021). Hence, it is of critical importance to understand what mechanisms underlie metacognitive monitoring, what factors constrain monitoring accuracy, and how to improve monitoring accuracy.

In previous metacognition studies, researchers typically instructed participants to make a metacognitive judgment (e.g., judgment of learning, confidence rating) while or after participants studied each item or answered each question (Rhodes & Tauber, 2011). These studies implicitly assume that these item-by-item judgments are passive measures of metacognition and have no impact on the underlying cognitive process being monitored. However, an emerging body of recent studies demonstrate that these metacognitive judgments can (at least in some situations) reactively temper the very things being judged—a phenomenon known as the reactivity effect (Double, Birney, & Walker, 2018; Shi et al., 2022; Soderstrom, Clark, Halamish, & Bjork, 2015; Zhao et al., 2022). These reactive findings suggest that trial-by-trial judgments may not be an unbiased measure of metacognition, and highlight the urgent need to uncover the cognitive underpinnings of reactivity, which is helpful for developing effective methods to eliminate (or reduce) reactivity in future metacognition research.

This Special Issue has two main aims. The first is to further explore the mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring, factors constraining monitoring accuracy, and interventions to promote monitoring accuracy (e.g., mitigating metacognitive bias and promoting the self-employment of effective learning strategies). The second is to examine why memory is reactive to metacognitive judgments. Studies that explore the practical use of reactivity in learning settings are also welcomed.

The Editors of this Special Issue from Journal of Intelligence invite contributions that present experimental findings, neuroscientific results, computational models, innovative theoretical perspectives, and systematic reviews (e.g., meta-analyses) that contribute to advancing our understanding of the aforementioned research questions.

In particular, the Editors invite contributions regarding the following topics:

Mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring;
Factors affecting metacognitive judgments (e.g., judgments of learning and confidence ratings);
Interventions to calibrate monitoring accuracy;
Links among metacognition, study habits, and learning outcomes;
Interventions to promote self-use of effective study strategies (e.g., testing, interleaving) during self-regulated learning;
Mechanisms underlying the reactivity effect of metacognitive judgments;
Methods to eliminate (or reduce) reactivity in metacognition research;
Practical use of reactivity in learning settings.

References

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.
Double, K. S., Birney, D. P., & Walker, S. (2018). A meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgements of learning. Memory, 26(6), 741–750. doi:10.1080/09658211.2017.1404111.
Finn, B. (2008). Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 813–821. doi:10.3758/mc.36.4.813.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19, 585–592. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x.
Rhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 131–148. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021705.
Rivers, M. L. (2021). Metacognition about practice testing: A review of learners’ beliefs, monitoring, and control of test-enhanced learning. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 823–862. doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09578-2.
Shi, A., Xu, C., Zhao, W., Shanks, D. R., Hu, X., Luo, L., & Yang, C. (2022). Judgments of learning reactively facilitate visual memory by enhancing learning engagement. Psychon Bull Rev. doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02174-1.
Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 553–558. doi:10.1037/a0038388.
Undorf, M., Navarro-Báez, S., & Zimdahl, M. F. (2022). 19 Metacognitive illusions. Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Thinking, Judgment, and Memory, 307.
Zhao, W. L., Li, B., Shanks, D. R., Zhao, W., Zheng, J., Hu, X., Yang, C. (2022). When judging what you know changes what you really know: Soliciting metamemory judgments reactively enhances children’s learning. Child Development, 93, 405–417. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13689.

Dr. Chunliang Yang
Prof. Dr. Liang Luo
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Intelligence is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

metacognitive monitoring
judgments of learning
confidence rating
learning efficiency
self-use of effective study strategies
reactivity

Published Papers (13 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Open AccessArticle

Cue Sources and Cue Utilization Patterns of Social Mentalizing during Two-Person Interactions

Wenwu Dai

Zhaolan Li

and

Ning Jia

J. Intell. 2023, 11(9), 173; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11090173 - 28 Aug 2023

Viewed by 290

Abstract

Social mentalizing plays a crucial role in two-person interactions. Depending on the target of inference and the content being inferred, social mentalizing primarily exists in two forms: first-order mentalizing and second-order mentalizing. Our research aims to investigate the cue sources and cue utilization patterns of social mentalizing during two-person interactions. Our study created an experimental situation of a two-person interaction and used the “Spot the difference” game to reveal our research question with multi-stage tasks. Our study was divided into two experiments, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, which examined the cue sources and cue utilization patterns of first- and second-order mentalizing, respectively. The results of the experiments showed that (1) self-performance and other performance are significant cues utilized by individuals during social mentalizing. (2) Individuals employ discrepancies to modulate the relationship between self-performance and first-order mentalizing as well as to adjust the relationship between otherperformance and second-order mentalizing. The results of this study further complement the dual-processing model of mindreading and the anchoring and adjustment hypothesis during social inference. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

and

J. Intell. 2023, 11(8), 164; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080164 - 15 Aug 2023

Viewed by 451

Abstract

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy–cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible “reorienting” effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Individuals with High Metacognitive Ability Are Better at Divergent and Convergent Thinking

and

J. Intell. 2023, 11(8), 162; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080162 - 12 Aug 2023

Viewed by 631

Abstract

Is metacognitive ability a predictor of creative performance? Previous studies have produced conflicting findings. To clarify whether this relationship exists, the current study used eye tracking techniques and vocal thinking reports to explore creativity differences in individuals with different levels of metacognitive ability. One hundred and twelve participants completed the Metacognitive Ability scale, and were divided into two groups (with thirty participants in each group) based on their metacognition scores (the highest and lowest 27% of metacognitive ability scores). Then, participants in both groups completed two creative thinking tasks (AUT and CCRAT) while their eye behaviors were recorded by eye tracking. The results showed that participants with high metacognitive ability were better at divergent thinking, as evidenced by greater fixation and saccade counts, as well as smaller saccade amplitudes in the AUT task. In addition, Bayesian analyses provide anecdotal evidence that participants with high metacognitive ability tended to be better at convergent thinking. Furthermore, eye tracking results demonstrated that they exhibited longer fixation duration and more fixation count on the materials in the CCRAT task. These findings reflect an important role of metacognition in creative thinking, especially in divergent thinking. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Delayed Metacomprehension Judgments Do Not Directly Improve Learning from Texts

Hannah Hausman

and

Veit Kubik

J. Intell. 2023, 11(7), 150; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070150 - 24 Jul 2023

Viewed by 515

Abstract

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) after studying can directly improve learning. This JOL reactivity has been shown for simple materials but has scarcely been investigated with educationally relevant materials such as expository texts. The few existing studies have not yet reported any consistent gains in text comprehension due to providing JOLs. In the present study, we hypothesized that increasing the chances of covert retrieval attempts when making JOLs after each of five to-be-studied text passages would produce comprehension benefits at 1 week compared to restudy. In a between-subjects design, we manipulated both whether participants (N = 210) were instructed to covertly retrieve the texts, and whether they made delayed target-absent JOLs. The results indicated that delayed, target-absent JOLs did not improve text comprehension after 1 week, regardless of whether prior instructions to engage in covert retrieval were provided. Based on the two-stage model of JOLs, we reasoned that participants’ retrieval attempts during metacomprehension judgments were either insufficient (i.e., due to a quick familiarity assessment) or were ineffective (e.g., due to low retrieval success). Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Test Experience, Direct Instruction, and Their Combination Promote Accurate Beliefs about the Testing Effect

Michelle L. Rivers

J. Intell. 2023, 11(7), 147; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070147 - 21 Jul 2023

Viewed by 634

Abstract

Practice testing is a highly robust learning strategy that promotes long-term retention, especially in comparison to more passive strategies such as restudying—a finding referred to as the testing effect. However, learners do not always appreciate the memorial benefits of practice testing over restudying, which could limit their use of practice testing during self-regulated learning. The current investigation explored the extent to which learners’ metacognitive judgments about the testing effect can be improved via test experience, direct instruction, or a combination of both techniques. Prolific participants underwent two learning cycles. In the first cycle, participants were randomly assigned to either (a) experience a testing effect in their own memory performance (i.e., study unrelated word pairs, practice half the pairs through restudying and half through testing with correct-answer feedback, complete a critical test on the pairs, and receive feedback regarding their performance after using each strategy); (b) imagine they had to learn word pairs and read a passage on the purported benefits of practice testing; or (c) undergo both procedures. In the second cycle, all participants learned a novel set of word pairs. Across both learning cycles, participants estimated memory performance for material learned through testing versus restudying. Both test experience and direct instruction—independently and in combination—led to more accurate memory estimates across learning cycles, but no technique was more effective than the other. In summary, people can learn about the memorial benefits of practice testing when they experience a testing effect on their own memory performance and/or when they receive instruction about its benefits. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Does Interactive Imagery Influence the Reactive Effect of Judgments of Learning on Memory?

Amber E. Witherby

Addison L. Babineau

and

Sarah K. Tauber

J. Intell. 2023, 11(7), 139; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070139 - 13 Jul 2023

Viewed by 435

Abstract

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying is a useful tool for students to evaluate the status of their learning. Additionally, in associative learning contexts, JOLs can directly benefit learning when the to-be-learned information is related. One explanation for this reactive effect is that making JOLs strengthens the associative relationship, leading to enhanced memory performance when a test relies on that relationship (e.g., cued-recall tests). In the present research, we evaluated whether having students make interactive mental images—another strategy that can increase the strength of a cue–target relationship—impacts the reactive effect of JOLs on learning. Students studied word pairs that were related and unrelated. Half of the students were instructed to form a mental image of the words interacting, whereas the other half were not. Additionally, in each group half of the students made a JOL for each pair, whereas half did not. Following a short delay, students completed a cued-recall test. Consistent with prior research, students who made JOLs remembered more related word pairs than did students who did not. By contrast, students who made JOLs recalled fewer unrelated word pairs than did students who did not. Moreover, although students who formed interactive images demonstrated enhanced memory relative to students who did not, interactive imagery did not impact the reactive effect of JOLs. These outcomes are informative for existing theory of JOL reactivity. Specifically, JOLs may only benefit learning of associative information when it has a pre-existing semantic relationship (e.g., related word pairs) and not when that that relationship is created by the learner (e.g., by forming interactive images). Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

The Relationship between Dispositional Mindfulness and Relative Accuracy of Judgments of Learning: The Moderating Role of Test Anxiety

and

J. Intell. 2023, 11(7), 132; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070132 - 04 Jul 2023

Viewed by 600

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that metacognition accuracy is far from perfect. The accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs) is of critical importance in self-regulated learning. To explore what factors constrain JOL accuracy, the current study focused on mindfulness, which is intimately related to metacognition and anxiety. A total of 203 undergraduates (198 valid samples) were recruited to determine the relationships among five dimensions of dispositional mindfulness, test anxiety, and relative accuracy of JOLs. Results revealed that the interaction term for acting with awareness and test anxiety significantly predicted JOL accuracy. Further analyses indicated that for individuals with high test anxiety, but not for those with low test anxiety, acting with awareness positively predicted JOL accuracy. Considering that dispositional mindfulness is modifiable, these results help to inspire researchers to further explore whether mindfulness training can be used as a remedy to improve JOL accuracy. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

The Impact of Prompts and Feedback on the Performance during Multi-Session Self-Regulated Learning in the Hypermedia Environment

and

J. Intell. 2023, 11(7), 131; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070131 - 04 Jul 2023

Viewed by 678

Abstract

The hypermedia environment is among the most prevalent contemporary self-regulated learning (SRL) environments; however, methods for improving the effectiveness of students’ multi-session SRL in such environments remain under discussion. In this study, two experiments were conducted to explore whether and how prompts and feedback benefit performance during multi-session SRL in a hypermedia learning environment. A total of 76 senior students participated in Experiment 1, which used a mixed 2 (prompting condition: prompt, no prompt) × 2 (feedback condition: feedback, no feedback) × 2 (learning session: Session 1 and Session 2) design to explore the effects of prompting and feedback on the multi-session learning process in a hypermedia environment. The results indicated that, in learning Session 1, performance in the prompt condition was significantly better than in the unprompted condition, with or without feedback; in learning Session 2, participants in the prompt condition with feedback performed significantly better than those in the other three conditions. Students in the group with a prompt and feedback had the most accurate meta-comprehension absolute accuracy in both learning sessions. Experiment 2 recruited 94 secondary school students to further explore whether the combination of prompts and different types of feedback led to different learning outcomes according to the division of feedback timing. A mixed 2 (prompt condition: prompt, no prompt) × 3 (feedback condition: delayed feedback, immediate feedback, no feedback) × 2 (learning session: Session 1 and Session 2) design was used. The results indicated that, in learning Session 1, the prompt condition outperformed the unprompted condition with or without feedback; in learning Session 2, students with prompted delayed feedback outperformed the other five conditions. We also found that although there was no significant difference in meta-comprehension monitoring accuracy between delayed and immediate feedback, both groups performed significantly better than those in the no feedback condition. These results suggest that the combination of prompts and feedback in hypermedia environments facilitates student performance better than prompts or feedback alone; this improvement may be related to the correction of poor internal student feedback. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Does Expecting Matter? The Impact of Experimentally Established Expectations on Subsequent Memory Retrieval of Emotional Words

Yueyue Xiao

and

Aiqing Nie

J. Intell. 2023, 11(7), 130; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070130 - 01 Jul 2023

Viewed by 741

Abstract

Previous studies have confirmed that different degrees of expectation, including the bipolarity of the expected and unexpected, as well as an intermediate level (no expectation), can affect memory. However, only a few investigations have manipulated expectation through experimentally established schema, with no consideration of how expectation impacts both item and source memory. Furthermore, stimulus emotionality may also impact memory. Therefore, we conducted a study to investigate the effects of three levels of expectation on item and source memory while considering the impact of stimulus emotionality. The experiment began with a phase dedicated to learning the rules. In the subsequent study phase, negative and neutral words were manipulated as expected, no expectation, and unexpected, based on these rules. This was followed by tasks focused on item and source memory. The study found that there was a “U-shape” relationship between expectation and item memory. Additionally, the study revealed the distinct impacts of expectation on item and source memory. When it came to item memory, both expected and unexpected words were better remembered than those with no expectations. In source memory, expected words showed memory inferiority for expectation-irrelevant source information, but an advantage for expectation-relevant source information. Stimulus emotionality modulated the effect of expectation on both item and source memory. Our findings provide behavioral evidence for the schema-linked interactions between medial prefrontal and medial temporal regions (SLIMM) theory, which proposes that congruent and incongruent events enhance memory through different brain regions. The different patterns between item and source memory also support dual-process models. Moreover, we speculate that processing events with varying levels of emotionality may undermine the impact of expectation, as implied by other neural investigations. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

The Impact of Item Difficulty on Judgment of Confidence—A Cross-Level Moderated Mediation Model

Yuke Zhou

and

Ning Jia

J. Intell. 2023, 11(6), 113; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060113 - 07 Jun 2023

Viewed by 713

Abstract

The factors that influence metacognitive judgments often appear in combination, rather than in isolation. The multi-cue utilization model proposes that individuals often make use of multiple cues when making judgments. Previous studies have focused on the integration of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, while the current investigation examines the integration and influence of intrinsic cues and mnemonic cues. Judgment of confidence is a common form of metacognitive judgment. In this study, 37 college students completed Raven’s Progressive Matrices and made judgments of confidence. We used the cross-level moderated mediation model to explore the impact of item difficulty on confidence judgments. Our results indicated that item difficulty negatively predicts the level of confidence. Item difficulty has an impact on the confidence evaluation by altering the processing fluency of intermediate variables. The joint effect of intrinsic cue item difficulty and mnemonic cue processing fluency influences confidence judgments. Additionally, we found that intelligence moderates the effect of difficulty on processing fluency across levels. Specifically, individuals with higher intelligence exhibited lower fluency on difficult tasks and higher fluency on simple tasks than individuals with lower intelligence. These findings expand on the multi-cue utilization model and integrate the influence mechanism of intrinsic and mnemonic cues on confidence judgments. Finally, we propose and verify a cross-level moderated mediation model that explains how item difficulty affects confidence judgments. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

The Forward Effect of Delayed Judgments of Learning Is Influenced by Difficulty in Memory and Category Learning

and

J. Intell. 2023, 11(6), 101; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060101 - 25 May 2023

Viewed by 804

Abstract

Delayed judgment of learning (JOL) is a widely used metacognitive monitoring strategy that can also enhance learning outcomes. However, the potential benefits of delayed JOL on subsequent learning of new material, known as the forward effect of delayed JOL, and its stability and underlying mechanisms have yet to be fully explored. In this study, we investigated the forward effect of delayed JOL using previously unexamined word pair materials and explored the boundary conditions of this effect by manipulating the difficulty of the materials. We also examined this effect within the context of category learning. Our findings demonstrate that delayed JOL significantly enhanced the retention of new information (Experiment 1A), while the forward effect of the delayed JOL occurred only for material with a certain degree of difficulty rather than for easy material (Experiment 1B). These findings were extended and replicated using category learning (Experiment 2). These results suggest that delayed JOL can be used as a preparation strategy for subsequent learning, particularly when faced with challenging materials. Our study provides novel insights into the potential benefits and limitations of delayed JOL and contributes to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that govern metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Research on the Influence Path of Metacognitive Reading Strategies on Scientific Literacy

and

J. Intell. 2023, 11(5), 78; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050078 - 23 Apr 2023

Viewed by 1327

Abstract

This study aims to examine influence paths of three metacognitive reading strategies (metacognitive understanding and remembering strategies, metacognitive summarizing strategies and metacognitive assessing credibility strategies) on scientific literacy, mediated by reading self-efficacy and reading literacy. The dataset included 11,420 15-year-old students from four Chinese provinces (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang) who took part in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018. The results of structural equation model showed that metacognitive assessing credibility strategies had the greatest effect on the scientific literacy, and reading literacy played an important mediating role in the relationship between the three metacognitive reading strategies and scientific literacy. The results of the multi-group structural equation model indicated that there were significant differences in influence pathways between boys and girls, and that the reading self-efficacy of boys and girls played a different role in the impact of metacognitive summarizing strategies on scientific literacy. This study reveals the mechanism and gender difference of metacognitive reading strategies on the scientific literacy. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle

Metacognitive Illusions: A Positivity Effect in Judgments of Learning for Older but Not Younger Adults

Xiaojun Sun

and

Yingjie Jiang

J. Intell. 2023, 11(3), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030040 - 21 Feb 2023

Viewed by 1077

Abstract

The positivity effect for metacognitive judgments (judgments of learning, JOLs) of emotional words in recognition memory was shown in older adults, in contrast to younger adults, who typically displayed the emotional salience effect. This is compatible with the socioemotional selection theory, which suggests the presence of a positive stimulus bias in older adults’ cognitive processes. This study examined whether the positivity effect and age-related differences could be extended to a picture study to determine whether the positivity effect in older adults is robust in the metacognitive domain. Younger and older adults studied negative, positive, and neutral pictures, followed by JOLs and then a recognition test that asked participants to judge whether the picture was shown in the studying stage or not. Age-related differences were found not only in recognition memory performance for emotional pictures but also in JOLs and their accuracy. Younger adults showed an emotional salience effect for both memory performance and JOLs. Older adults’ JOLs showed a positivity effect, but their actual memory performance was influenced by emotion, and this inconsistency between metacognitive judgments and memory performance is a metacognitive illusion. These findings support the cross-material replicability of a positivity bias in older adults in the metacognitive domain and suggest that we should be cautioned about the detrimental effects of this metacognitive illusion in older adults. It illustrates an age difference in the effect of emotion on individual metacognitive monitoring ability. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Special Issue "Advances in Metacognition, Learning, and Reactivity"

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Published Papers (13 papers)

Research

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI