Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy.

BACKGROUND Theory suggests that the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring is affected by the cues used to judge learning. Researchers have improved monitoring accuracy by directing attention to more appropriate cues; however, this is the first study to more directly point students to more appropriate cues using instructions regarding tests and practice tests. AIMS The purpose of the present study was to examine whether the accuracy metacognitive monitoring was affected by the nature of the test expected. SAMPLE AND METHOD Students (N= 59) were randomly assigned to one of two test expectancy groups (memory vs. inference). Then after reading texts, judging learning, completed both memory and inference tests. RESULTS Test performance and monitoring accuracy were superior when students received the kind of test they had been led to expect rather than the unexpected test. CONCLUSION Tests influence students' perceptions of what constitutes learning. Our findings suggest that this could affect how students prepare for tests and how they monitoring their own learning.

[1]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Putting the Comprehension in Metacomprehension , 2005 .

[2]  Ian Begg,et al.  Memory predictions are based on ease of processing , 1989 .

[3]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Processing similarity does not improve metamemory: evidence against transfer-appropriate monitoring. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Poor Metacomprehension Accuracy as a Result of Inappropriate Cue Use , 2010 .

[5]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions , 1984 .

[6]  A. Koriat.  Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .

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

[8]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Rating the Importance of Structural Units of Prose Passages: A Problem of Metacognitive Development. , 1977 .

[9]  What makes folk tales unique: content familiarity, causal structure, scripts, or superstructures? , 1994 .

[10]  Similarity between the Cue for Judgments of Learning (JOL) and the Cue for Test Is Not the Primary Determinant of JOL Accuracy , 1997 .

[11]  K. Thiede.  The Relative Importance of Anticipated Test Format and Anticipated Test Difficulty on Performance , 1996 .

[12]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text , 1995, Memory & cognition.

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

[14]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Repeated testing sessions and scholastic aptitude in college students’ metacognitive accuracy , 2007 .

[15]  Mary Lundeberg,et al.  Do Laboratory Findings on Test Expectancy Generalize to Classroom Outcomes? , 1991 .

[16]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Metacognitive Monitoring During and After Reading , 2009 .

[17]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Foundational Studies 1-1-2005 Understanding the Delayed-Keyword Effect on Metacomprehension Accuracy , 2013 .

[18]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Measures of association for cross classifications , 1979 .

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

[20]  Keith W. Thiede,et al.  Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy , 2003 .

[21]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[22]  M. McDaniel,et al.  What makes folk tales unique: content familiarity, causal structure, scripts, or superstructures? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Thomas D. Griffin,et al.  Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[24]  M. Serra,et al.  Role of Practice Tests in the Accuracy of Test Predictions on Text Material. , 1992 .

[25]  M. McDaniel,et al.  The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[26]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Metacomprehension A Brief History and How to Improve Its Accuracy , 2007 .

[27]  Thomas Sanocki,et al.  Enhancing Calibration of Comprehension , 1987 .

[28]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[29]  M. McDaniel,et al.  The Effects of Test Expectancy on Processing and Memory of Prose. , 1994 .