Basis of metamemory judgments for text with multiple‐choice, essay and recall tests

Maki, Ruth H.; Willmon, Cynthia; Pietan, Amy

doi:10.1002/acp.1440

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants often went on in the text although the answer was incorrect, and this tendency was slightly greater after answering multiple choice questions than after giving short answers. This result is more in line with De Carvalho Filho's (2009) results rather than with the results obtained by O'Neil and Brown (1998) and Maki et al (2009).…”

supporting

confidence: 89%

“…The correctness of the short-answers was judged more accurately than the correctness of the answers to the multiple-choice questions. This result was inconsistent with the findings by O'Neil and Brown (1998) and Maki et al (2009). Furthermore, De Carvalho Filho's main effect of the type of test was qualified by an interaction of test type and individual differences in metacognitive self report.…”

contrasting

confidence: 81%

“…A specific aspect of the learning task that has received less attention is related to whether or not the learner knows the type of test that is used to assess the learning outcome (cf. Maki and McGuire 2002;Maki et al 2009). Knowing the type of test before engaging oneself in a learning activity may affect not only the way how learners learn but also how they monitor their learning process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Obviously, any expectation about how the newly acquired knowledge will be tested affects the quality of metacognitive monitoring during learning and test preparation. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why most test format comparisons yielded differences in metacognitive monitoring (De Carvalho Filho 2009;Kelliann 2000;Maki et al 2009;O'Neil and Brown 1998;Pressley et al 1990). Which test format produces the more adequate monitoring, however, might depend on the specific configuration of the test formats compared, the learning task, the materials, and the learner's capacity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These results indicated that expecting a specific test format affected at least the frequency of metacognitive activity during learning. Maki et al (2009) focused on the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring rather than on the frequency of metacognitions. Their participants read expository texts, predicted their performance on three types of test (multiple choice, essay, and recall test), and indicated their post-test confidence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Learning from text: knowing the test format enhanced metacognitive monitoring

Dutke

Barenberg

Leopold

2010

Metacognition Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an experiment with 56 young adults, the hypothesis was tested that information about the format of an anticipated test improves metacognitive monitoring. Half of the participants were informed about the format of the test before they started studying a text about human genetics. The other half of the sample received the same information after studying the text. All participants then answered 15 true-false inference items about the contents of the text and judged their confidence in the correctness of each answer. Whereas experimental and control group did not differ in the number of correct answers, the confidence judgments in the experimental group were more accurate and discriminated better between correct and incorrect answers than the control participants' judgments. Furthermore, the informed participants' discrimination performance correlated positively with their domain-related prior knowledge. The results extend earlier findings concerning the role of the test format for monitoring processes.Monitoring one's own learning process is generally viewed as a key condition for selfregulated learning (e.g., Winne and Hadwin 1998). Valid information about the learning progress is necessary, for example, to adapt learning strategies (e.g., Winne and JamiesonNoel 2002), to allocate learning time (e.g., Ghatala et al. 1989), or to process feedback efficiently (e.g., Butler et al. 2008).The quality of metacognitive monitoring is often conceptualized as the relationship between learning behavior or learning performance as subjectively perceived by the learner on the one hand and the actual learning behavior or performance on the other hand. For example, learners' self-reports on their study strategies were compared with the actually Metacognition Learning (2010) 5:195-206

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 89%

contrasting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations