Prompting and visualising monitoring outcomes: Guiding self-regulatory processes with confidence judgments

Abstract Sensible self-regulated study decisions are largely based on monitoring learning and using this information to control learning processes, but research has found that such processes may not be initiated automatically. To support learners, we adopted prompting and visualisation methods by asking learners to assign confidence ratings to learning tasks and visualising them during re-study, and tested the effects on metacognitive and cognitive measures in an experimental study ( N  = 95). Results show that prompting monitoring increased study efforts while visualising monitoring outcomes during learning focussed these efforts on uncertain answers. Due to low monitoring accuracy, metacognitively sensible regulation did not lead to cognitive learning gains. While the results support the idea of using visualisation techniques to implicitly guide self-regulated learning, more needs to be done to increase monitoring accuracy. Further, our study suggests that researchers should be aware of the effect that assessing confidence judgments has on subsequent learning behaviour.

[1]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Metacognitive Judgments and Control of Study , 2022 .

[2]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention , 2012 .

[3]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  A METACOGNITIVE VIEW OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING , 1996 .

[4]  Darwin P. Hunt,et al.  The concept of knowledge and how to measure it , 2003 .

[5]  Li Cao,et al.  The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy , 2006 .

[6]  Nate Kornell,et al.  Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Dieudonné Leclercq,et al.  Confidence marking: Its use in testing , 1982 .

[8]  A. Efklides Metacognition Defining : Its Facets and Levels of Functioning in Relation to Self-Regulation and Co-regulation , 2008 .

[9]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Jürgen Buder,et al.  Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors , 2007 .

[12]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Measure for Measure: Calibrating Ten Commonly Used Calibration Scores. , 2013 .

[13]  M. Veenman,et al.  Test anxiety and metacognitive skillfulness: Availability versus production deficiencies , 2000 .

[14]  M. Bannert Promoting Self-Regulated Learning Through Prompts , 2009 .

[15]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[16]  Elizabeth Ligon Bjork,et al.  Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Friedrich W. Hesse,et al.  Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[18]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[19]  David J. Therriault,et al.  Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. , 2003 .

[20]  Guy Lories,et al.  Confidence Level and Feeling of Knowing in Question Answering - the Weight of Inferential Processes , 1992 .

[21]  Daniel Bodemer,et al.  Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  J. Janssen,et al.  Coordinated Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Awareness and Awareness Tools , 2013 .

[23]  John Dunlosky,et al.  What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses , 2005 .

[24]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Instructional designs for the development of transferable knowledge and skills: A cognitive load perspective , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  A Region of Proximal Learning Model of Study Time Allocation Journal of Memory and Language , 2005 .

[26]  Maria Bannert,et al.  Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts , 2011, Instructional Science.

[27]  Sharon K Tindall-Ford,et al.  When two sensory modes are better than one , 1997 .

[28]  Mariel Miller,et al.  Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  S. Järvelä,et al.  New Frontiers: Regulating Learning in CSCL , 2013 .

[30]  F. Paas,et al.  Measurement of Cognitive Load in Instructional Research , 1994, Perceptual and motor skills.

[31]  J. Dempsey,et al.  Error and Feedback: Relation between Content Analysis and Confidence of Response , 1996 .

[32]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: when agendas override item-based monitoring. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  Joachim Wirth Promoting Self-Regulated Learning Through Prompts , 2009 .

[34]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Test predictions over text material. , 1998 .

[35]  T. O. Nelson Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings , 1990 .

[36]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning , 1994 .

[37]  How Socio-Cognitive Information Affects Individual Study Decisions , 2016, ICLS.

[38]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Improving Measurements of Self-Regulated Learning , 2010 .

[39]  Mark C. Fox,et al.  When asking the question changes the ultimate answer: Metamemory judgments change memory. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect". , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

[42]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[44]  Rajiv Sethi,et al.  Metacognitive Control and Optimal Learning , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. , 2011 .

[46]  M. Miller,et al.  Leveraging CSCL technology to support and research shared task perceptions in socially shared regulation of learning , 2015 .

[47]  Daniel Bodemer,et al.  Group awareness in CSCL environments , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[48]  K. Thiede The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[49]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Studying as self-regulated learning. , 1998 .