scholarly journals Impact of Supplemental Material Use On Student Metacognitive Monitoring and Calibration

2021 ◽  
pp. 8614
Author(s):  
Lindsey Childs-Kean ◽  
Jennifer Rodriguez ◽  
Aaron O. Thomas ◽  
Stacy A. Voils
Keyword(s):  
Metacognitive Monitoring

Time-Based Measures of Monitoring in Association With Executive Functions in Kindergarten Children

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Kälin ◽  
Claudia M. Roebers
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Kindergarten Children ◽  
Metacognitive Monitoring

Abstract. Repeatedly, the notion has been put forward that metacognition (MC) and executive functions (EF) share common grounds, as both describe higher order cognitive processes and involve monitoring. However, only few studies addressed this issue empirically and so far their findings are rather inconsistent. Addressing the question whether measurement differences may in part be responsible for the mixed results, the current study included explicitly reported as well as time-based measures of metacognitive monitoring and related them to EF. A total of 202 children aged 4–6 years were assessed in terms of EF (inhibition, working memory, shifting) and monitoring. While there was no significant link between explicitly reported confidence and EF, latencies of monitoring judgments were significantly related to time- and accuracy-based measures of EF. Our findings support the association between EF and MC and the assumption that better inhibition abilities help children to engage in more thorough monitoring.

Executive Functions and Metacognitive Monitoring Are Not Interchangeable in Educational Settings: Their Shared and Unique Contribution to Academic Outcomes

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rina PY Lai ◽  
Michelle Renee Ellefson ◽  
Claire Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
Academic Outcomes ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Latent Variable ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
Metacognitive Monitoring ◽  
Cognitive Predictors ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Variable Approach ◽  
Latent Variable Approach

Executive functions and metacognition are two cognitive predictors with well-established connections to academic performance. Despite sharing several theoretical characteristics, their overlap or independence concerning multiple academic outcomes remain under-researched. To address this gap, the present study applies a latent-variable approach to test a novel theoretical model that delineates the structural link between executive functions, metacognition, and academic outcomes. In whole-class sessions, 469 children aged 9 to 14 years (M = 11.93; SD = 0.92) completed four computerized executive function tasks (inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning), a self-reported metacognitive monitoring questionnaire, and three standardized tests of academic ability. The results suggest that executive functions and metacognitive monitoring are not interchangeable in the educational context and that they have both shared and unique contributions to diverse academic outcomes. The findings are important for elucidating the role between two domain-general cognitive skills (executive functions and metacognition) and domain-specific academic skills.

scholarly journals Comparing metacognitive monitoring between native and non-native speaking primary school students

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian J. Buehler ◽  
Mariëtte H. van Loon ◽  
Natalie S. Bayard ◽  
Martina Steiner ◽  
Claudia M. Roebers
Keyword(s):  
Academic Performance ◽  
Text Comprehension ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Fourth Graders ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Metacognitive Monitoring ◽  
School Students ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Performance Differences ◽  
Language Competencies

AbstractMetacognitive monitoring is a significant predictor of academic achievement and is assumed to be related to language competencies. Hence, it may explain academic performance differences between native and non-native speaking students. We compared metacognitive monitoring (in terms of resolution) between native and non-native speaking fourth graders (~ 10 year olds) in two studies. In Study 1, we matched 30 native and 30 non-native speakers and assessed their monitoring in the context of a paired-associates task, including a recognition test and confidence judgements. Study 1 revealed that recognition and monitoring did not differ between native and non-native speaking children. In Study 2, we matched 36 native and 36 non-native speakers and assessed their monitoring with the same paired-associates task. Additionally, we included a text comprehension task with open-ended questions and confidence judgments. We replicated the findings of Study 1, suggesting that recognition and monitoring do not necessarily differ between native and non-native speakers. However, native speaking students answered more open-ended questions correctly than non-native speaking students did. Nevertheless, the two groups did not differ in monitoring their answers to open-ended questions. Our results indicate that native and non-native speaking children may monitor their metacognitive resolution equally, independent of task performance and characteristics. In conclusion, metacognitive monitoring deficits may not be the primary source of the academic performance differences between native and non-native speaking students.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document