Metacognitive confidence judgments and their link to complex problem solving

Rudolph, Julia; Niepel, Christoph; Greiff, Samuel; Goldhammer, Frank; Kröner, Stephan

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.005

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though I have treated the developments within the four domains as independent, there is a good reason to expect that some cross-fertilization between researchers working in these domains will take place in future. The first signs of this have emerged since Rudoph et al [45] have employed confidence ratings—i.e., typical measures used for assessing overconfidence bias and metacognitive monitoring—in a new study of CPS. Their finding was that confidence in CPS explained more than 50% of variance in performance.…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overemphasized “g”

Stankov

2017

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper I argue that the emphasis on "g" has become a hindrance to the study of broadly defined human cognitive abilities. Abilities captured by the first-and second-stratum factors in the Cattel-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory have been neglected. The focus has been on a narrow range of cognitive processes that excludes those common to some sensory modalities and a host of new tasks and constructs that have become available through recent conceptual analyses and technological developments. These new areas have emerged from psychology itself (complex problem solving tasks and emotional intelligence) and from disciplines related to psychology like education and economics (economic games and cognitive biases in decision-making).

show abstract

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overemphasized “g”

Stankov

2017

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the cognitive flexibility of students to immediately adapt their mental model to this new situation and understand the implications of the changed task demands before interacting with the system, may determine their ability to succeed in the knowledge application phase (Canas, Quesada, Antolí, & Fajardo, 2003;Krems, 1995). As such, metacognitive aspects such as planning, monitoring and reflecting of and on how a complex problem should be/is being tackled should become a hallmark of future CPS training programs (McLoughlin & Hollingworth, 2002;Rudolph, Niepel, Greiff, Goldhammer, & Kröner, 2017), instead of only focusing on teaching students a particular strategy such as VOTAT (e.g., Wüstenberg, Stadler, Hautamäki, & Greiff, 2014).…”

Section: Main Implications With Regard To Learning Analyticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lost in transition – Learning analytics on the transfer from knowledge acquisition to knowledge application in complex problem solving

Nicolay

Krieger

Stadler

et al. 2021

Computers in Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Complex Problem Solving (CPS) skills represent a key competence for educational success, they are of great relevance for learning analytics. More specifically, CPS serves as a pertinent showcase for addressing a crucial existing gap contemporary education is facing, the gap between students' ability to acquire and subsequently apply knowledge in uncertain situations, which are increasingly important in the 21st century. While the CPS process incorporates both the acquisition and application of knowledge, many earlier studies have focused on identifying the factors relevant for success in knowledge acquisition. Given the dearth of existing research on factors influencing a successful transition between both CPS phases, we investigated the rates of successful and unsuccessful knowledge transition over the course of nine CPS items in a sample of N = 1,151 students in 9th grade. Results showed that many participants were unable to transition their knowledge from the acquisition to the application phase, which was presumably due to an inefficient mental model transfer. Furthermore, the likelihood of students being 'lost in transition' was higher in difficult items. Implications are discussed in light of learning analytics, and particularly with regard to the factors to be taken into account by future CPS training programs.

show abstract

“…Additional variables were assessed to control for their potentially confounding influence. They include cognitive abilities (e.g., Jackson, Kleitman, Stankov, & Howie, ; Jackson et al, ; Jackson, Kleitman, Howie, & Stankov, ; Rudolph, Niepela, Greiffa, Goldhammerb, & Kröner, ), Big‐Five personality factors (Intellect, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism; e.g., Jackson & Kleitman, ; Jackson, Kleitman, Stankov, & Howie, ; Lauriola & Irwin, ), gender (e.g., Estes & Hosseini, ; Powell & Ansic, ), age (e.g., Worthy, Gorlick, Pacheco, Schnyer, & Maddox, ), group member familiarity (e.g., Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, & Vanderstoep, ), and English language ability. Controlling for these variables ensures that our results can be linked to trait‐confidence and bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective decision making reduces metacognitive control and increases error rates, particularly for overconfident individuals

Blanchard

Jackson

Kleitman

2020

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aimed to investigate the changes in judgment accuracy, confidence, control thresholds, and decision outcomes when people act in two‐person groups (dyads) compared with acting individually. First, we used interacting dyads to determine the metacognitive and behavioral outcomes of collective decision making and compared them with those of individuals. Second, we examined whether these changes were related to the trait‐confidence and bias of individuals working together. Using a within‐person design, undergraduate psychology students (N = 116) completed a General‐knowledge Test individually, then together as a dyad. Each question was accompanied by a confidence rating and a decision to bet $10 on the answer. Dyads had significantly higher confidence and lower control thresholds than individuals. They were also significantly more decisive (made more bets) and reckless (lost a higher rate of bets) than when working alone. Thus, we observed a higher rate of decision errors for groups than individuals. The results also demonstrated the important role of individual differences: Overconfident individuals became even more confident, decisive, and reckless when working together compared with less confident or underconfident individuals working together. These findings have important theoretical and applied implications for collective decision making; metacognitive bias and potentially control thresholds may be targeted to alleviate the larger error rates and guide the formation of more effective groups.

show abstract

Metacognitive confidence judgments and their link to complex problem solving

Cited by 28 publications

References 33 publications

Overemphasized “g”

Overemphasized “g”

Lost in transition – Learning analytics on the transfer from knowledge acquisition to knowledge application in complex problem solving

Collective decision making reduces metacognitive control and increases error rates, particularly for overconfident individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About