Developmental Difference in Metacognitive Accuracy between High School Students and College Students

메타인지 정확성의 발달 차이 연구: 고등학생과 대학생 데이터

  • 배진희 (아주대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 조혜승 (아주대학교 라이프미디어 협동과정) ;
  • 김경일 (아주대학교 심리학과)
  • Received : 2014.12.22
  • Accepted : 2015.03.24
  • Published : 2015.03.31

Abstract

Metacognitive monitoring refers to high dimensional cognitive activities. Understanding one's own cognitive processes accurately can make effective controls for their performance. Brain area related with metacognition is PFC which is completed the order of late and it can be inferred that monitoring abilities is developing during late adolescent. In this study, we explored the developmental difference in monitoring accuracy between high school students and college students using by measuring JOL(Judgment of Learning). Participants was asked that they study Spanish-Korean word pairs and judge their future performance of memory. In the result, people in both groups thought that they could remember word pairs better than their actual performance. Absolute bias scores which mean the degree to predict their performance apart from true scores showed the interaction between subject groups and task difficulty. Specifically, people judged their learning state quite accurately in easy task condition. However, in difficult task condition, both groups showed inaccuracy for predicting their learning and the magnitude of the degree was bigger in the group of high school students.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국연구재단

References

  1. Flavell, John H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, Vol 34(10), Oct, 906-911 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  2. Nelson, T. O. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of learning and motivation, 26, 125-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
  3. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. Sage Publications.
  4. Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2008). Research on the allocation of study time: Key studies from 1890 to the present (and beyond). A handbook of memory and metamemory, 333-351.
  5. Delclos, V. R. & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.35
  6. Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. (1994). Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  7. Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of experimental psychology, 81(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027455
  8. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tverski (Eds.) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
  9. Colvin, C. R., & Block, J. (1994). Do positive illusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation.
  10. Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of personality, 64(4), 873-898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00947.x
  11. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
  12. Hertzog, C., Dunlosky, J., Robinson, A. E., & Kidder, D. P. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.22
  13. Tverskey, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgements of and by representatives. Judgment under uncertainty: Heruistics and biases reasoning, 84-98.
  14. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  15. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 92-107. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211579
  17. Fleming, S. M., Weil, R. S., Nagy, Z., Dolan, R. J., & Rees, G. (2010). Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329(5998), 1541-1543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191883
  18. Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1338-1349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0417
  19. Chua, E. F., Schacter, D. L., Rand-Giovannetti, E., & Sperling, R. A. (2006). Understanding metamemory: neural correlates of the cognitive process and subjective level of confidence in recognition memory. Neuroimage, 29(4), 1150-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.09.058
  20. Chua, E. F., Schacter, D. L., & Sperling, R. A. (2009). Neural correlates of metamemory: a comparison of feeling-of-knowing and retrospective confidence judgments. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(9), 1751-1765. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21123
  21. Kao, Y. C., Davis, E. S., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2005). Neural correlates of actual and predicted memory formation. Nature neuroscience, 8(12), 1776-1783. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1595
  22. 박미자. (2008). 대학생과 초등학생의 단어 연상 비교. 인지과학, 19(1), 17-39.
  23. Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive psychology, 1(4), 324-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(70)90019-8
  24. Shin, H., Bjorklund, D. F., & Beck, E. F. (2007). The adaptive nature of children's overestimation in a strategic memory task. Cognitive Development, 22(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.10.001
  25. Ghetti, S., Lyons, K. E., Lazzarin, F., & Cornoldi, C. (2008). The development of metamemory monitoring during retrieval: The case of memory strength and memory absence. Journal of experimental child psychology, 99(3), 157-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.11.001
  26. Roderer, T., & Roebers, C. M. (2010). Explicit and implicit confidence judgments and developmental differences in metamemory: an eye-tracking approach. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 229-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9059-z
  27. Karably, K., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2009). Children's metamemory: A review of the literature and implications for the classroom. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 32-52.
  28. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1990). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for lowachieving adolescents. Critical voices on special education, 155-166.
  29. Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between individual and psychological conceptions. American Journal of community psychology, 18(1), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00922695
  30. Schneider, W., Vise, M., Lockl, K., & Nelson, T. O. (2000). Developmental trends in children's memory monitoring: Evidence from a judgment-of-learning task. Cognitive Development, 15(2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00024-1
  31. Demetriou, A., & Bakracevic, K. (2009). Reasoning and self-awareness from adolescence to middle age: Organization and development as a function of education. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.007
  32. Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., ... & Blakemore, S. J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Consciousness and cognition, 22(1), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004
  33. Levin, H. S., Culhane, K. A., Hartmann, J., Evankovich, K., Mattson, A. J., Harward, H., & Fletcher, J. M. (1991). Developmental changes in performance on tests of purported frontal lobe functioning. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7(3), 377-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649109540499
  34. Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5(4), 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00502.x
  35. Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.3.349
  36. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174-179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.174
  37. 윤용식, & 손영우. (2011). 메타 인지적 인식과 미래계획기억 인출 과정. 인지과학, 22(2), 145-172.
  38. Bruce, P. R., Coyne, A. C., & Botwinick, J. (1982). Adult age differences in metamemory. Journal of Gerontology, 37(3), 354-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/37.3.354
  39. Connor, L. T., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy. Psychology and aging, 12(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.50
  40. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  41. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
  42. 신종호, & 최효식. (2005). 메타인지검사 방법의 측정학적 특성 연구: 자기보고식 대 과제수행식 검사방법 비교. 교육심리연구, 19(3), 615-631.
  43. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219-224. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194055
  44. Crede, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002