‹
Back
16:30 - 18:00
Parallel sessions 3
›
16:30 - 18:00
Room: HSZ - N4
Chair/s:
Luisa Schulz, Franziska Ingendahl
Research on metacognition investigates how people understand and regulate their own cognitive processes. This symposium addresses how metacognitive monitoring judgments are formed and how they influence effective learning. The first two talks focus on the underlying basis and accuracy of metacognitive judgments: Schulz, Bröder, and Undorf show that people integrate multiple cues when making metacognitive control decisions. Leipold and Berthold find that Judgments of Remembering and Knowing (JORKs) differ from traditional Judgments of Learning (JOLs) in memory processes, although the previously reported accuracy advantage of JORKs was not replicated. In the third talk, Schaper and Ingendahl present evidence on how metacognitive judgments shape item and source memory. The last two talks provide insights into more applied aspects of metacognition: Zawadzka and Hanczakowski show how feedback motivates learners to solve general knowledge facts themselves. Finally, Undorf, Ingendahl, Janson, Wissel, and Münzer demonstrate that JOLs predict learning behavior and success in a higher education learning setting. Together, the talks provide new insights into the mechanisms and consequences of metacognitive monitoring for learning and memory.
Submission 399
Cue Integration in Metacognitive Control Decisions
SymposiumTalk-01
Presented by: Luisa Schulz
Luisa Schulz 1, Arndt Bröder 1, Monika Undorf 2
1 University of Mannheim, Germany
2 Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany
Like judgments about the external world, metacognitive judgments involve uncertainty and rely on probabilistic cues. While previous work shows that people combine multiple cues when making judgments of learning (JOLs), much less is known about whether metacognitive control decisions depend on multiple cues as well. In two experiments, participants studied 60 words that varied on two cues (Experiment 1: concreteness, emotionality; Experiment 2: font format, word frequency). In Experiment 1, all participants made restudy choices to maximize later recall. In Experiment 2, half made restudy choices and the other half provided JOLs. Participants who made restudy choices restudied their selected items before all participants completed a final recall test. In Experiment 1, both cues influenced restudy choices at the group level. In Experiment 2, only one cue influenced aggregate behavior. However, per-participant effect sizes revealed that most individuals used both cues, but in opposite directions: some preferentially restudied items with cue values associated with lower JOLs (as predicted), whereas others preferentially selected items with cue values associated with higher JOLs. These results suggest that multiple cues guide metacognitive control, but cue use differs across individuals. We conclude that motivational influences could contribute to a reduced alignment between monitoring and control.