Metacognitive monitoring of attention performance and its influencing factors

Abstract

Metacognitive monitoring is a central element of metacognitive processing exerting widespread influences on information processing. Albeit being subject to numerous empirical investigations referring to memory performance, there is little research investigating metacognitive monitoring in other cognitive domains. The present study investigated in 45 healthy students whether factors that are known to influence monitoring of memory performance, i.e., task difficulty, time of assessment, and practice, also exhibit a significant impact on monitoring of attention performance. A multivariate analysis of variance with three within-subject repeated measures factors on two dependent variables (monitoring of (a) time, and (b) errors in an attention task) was conducted. Results showed that monitoring ability significantly decreased with increasing task difficulty, was significantly better for post than for pre-assessment, and significantly increased with practice. Therefore, results suggest that the examined factors influenced monitoring of attention performance equivalent to the influence of these factors found in metamemory research.

For they know not what they do? Target memory and metacognitive monitoring of self-disclosures on social networking sites

“…Top-down preconceived beliefs about one's own competencies and tasks can influence confidence judgments directly and also constrain the perception of bottom-up experiences during task solution (Dunning, 2012). For example, people are generally biased towards overconfidence, especially people with limited competencies (Kruger & Dunning, 1999), and especially regarding difficult tasks (Kessel et al, 2014). From a bottom-up perceptive, metacognitive judgments can be based on information or experiences (Koriat & Levy-Sadot, 1999).…”

“…Thus, they need to metacognitively monitor (Nelson & Narens, 1994) their own target memory. Up to now, metacognitive monitoring has mostly been studied in contexts such as memory, learning, or decision-making (Dunning, 2012;Kessel et al, 2014). In a typical paradigm metacognitive judgments are collected as indicators of metacognitive monitoring, for example retrospective confidence judgments about the correctness of a retrieved answer (Nelson & Narens, 1994).…”

Avaliação de monitoramento metacognitivo a partir do julgamento de desempenho em adultos em processo de alfabetização

“…Em muitos julgamentos de aprendizagem (JoLs), indivíduos tipicamente se mostram muito confiantes na nova aprendizagem, sendo o julgamento mais alto que a performance real do teste subsequente (Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz, 1998;Finn, 2008;Koriat, 1997;Koriat, Sheffer, & Ma'yan, 2002;Metcalfe, 1998;Zechmeister & Shaughnessy, 1980). A acurácia de julgamento parece variar de acordo com diferentes fatores, que exercem influência sobre o processo de monitoramento metacognitivo (Kessel et al, 2014). Alguns desses fatores são específicos de memória, como, por exemplo, a familiaridade e a facilidade de processamento dos itens.…”

“…Resultados indicam que palavras de alta frequência, que são assumidas como mais fluentemente processadas, intensificam os JoLs (Kessel et al, 2014;Koriat, 2007). Além disso, outros fatores relacionados à memória também influenciam, como a dificuldade da tarefa e o tempo de avaliação do julgamento metacognitivo.…”

“…Estudos que investigaram esses fatores observaram que indivíduos monitoram melhor sua performance depois da realização das tarefas, quando comparadas com a avaliação realizada antes. Ainda, descobriram melhor acurácia de tarefas simples em relação às tarefas mais complexas (Kessel et al, 2014;Schraw, Dunkle, Bendixen, & Roedel, 1995;Siedlecka, Paylewicz, & Wierzchoń, 2016). (Schelini et al, 2016).…”