SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 issue2Differences in Executive Function between Bilingual and Monolingual Teenagers and Older AdultsImportance of Affections Grammar on Pedagogical Practice author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


CES Psicología

On-line version ISSN 2011-3080

Abstract

GUTIERREZ DE BLUME, Antonio P.; SCHRAW, Gregory; KUCH, Fred  and  RICHMOND, Aaron S.. General Accuracy and General Error Factors in Metacognitive Monitoring and the Role of Time on Task in Predicting Metacognitive Judgments. CES Psicol [online]. 2021, vol.14, n.2, pp.179-208.  Epub Mar 07, 2022. ISSN 2011-3080.  https://doi.org/10.21615/cesp.5494.

(Gutierrez et al., 2016) conducted an experiment that provided evidence for the existence of two distinct factors in metacognitive monitoring: general accuracy and general error. They found level-1 domain-specific accuracy and error factors which loaded on second-order domain-general accuracy and error factors, which then loaded on a third-order general monitoring factor. In the present study, that experiment was repeated with 170 different participants from the same population. The present study confirmed the original findings. Both studies suggest that metacognitive monitoring consists of two different types of cognitive processes: one that is associated with accurate monitoring judgments and one that is associated with error in monitoring judgments. In addition, both studies suggest domain-specific accuracy and error factors which load onto second-order domain-general accuracy and error factors. Furthermore, in this study we devised an experiment in which general accuracy and general error are treated as separate latent dimensions and found that subjects employ the same resources they use to develop accurate judgments as a “baseline” for calibrating resources necessary in erroneous judgments, but not vice-versa. This finding supports and extends previous findings which suggests that the processes involved in managing metacognitive accuracy are different from those involved in contending with metacognitive error. Future instructional interventions in metacognitive monitoring will be better focused by concentrating on improving accuracy or reducing error, but not both concurrently.

Keywords : metacognition; monitoring; accuracy and error; confidence judgments; time on task.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English     · English ( pdf )