SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 número2Differences in Executive Function between Bilingual and Monolingual Teenagers and Older AdultsA importância da gramática dos afetos na aprendizagem índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


CES Psicología

versão On-line ISSN 2011-3080

Resumo

GUTIERREZ DE BLUME, Antonio P.; SCHRAW, Gregory; KUCH, Fred  e  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 07-Mar-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.

Palavras-chave : metacognition; monitoring; accuracy and error; confidence judgments; time on task.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Inglês     · Inglês ( pdf )