فراشناخت بکدام نقطه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34693||2014||3 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 29, January 2014, Pages 120–122
We invited several people to make a contribution to the Special Section of LEAID on metacognition and learning. Our aim was to publish empirical papers that examine the role of metacognitive abilities and skills in a variety of decision-making and learning environments. Studies reporting creative uses and assessments of metacognitive constructs were particularly encouraged and the focus was supposed to be on: • New methods for measuring metacognition; • Validation studies (within a variety of learning and decision-making environments); • Investigations of individual differences in metacognitive constructs and their role in learning. The papers selected for this section address the three issues listed above. For example, a new method for assessing metacognition is described by Veenman, Bavelaar, and De Wolf (2014-this issue) who employed logfiles collected during students' work on a computerized task, the Otter task, that has better face validity than typical tests of cognitive abilities. The Otter task asks students to figure out how to manage an environment in a way suitable for a colony of animals to survive. It taps an element of scientific reasoning since the effective strategy requires figuring out the outcome of each intervention without the confounding effects of other variables. To the extent that decision making can be seen as metacognitive processing, Welsh, Delfabbro, Burns, and Begg (2014-this issue) also describe a new metacognitive measure. In an anchoring task, they assess the extent to which participants are affected by the presence of an anchor as they estimate the likelihood of a particular outcome of a poker-like card game. The other two studies use well-known confidence ratings procedure in a relatively new way. Kleitman and Costa (2014-this issue) describe a new statistics learning series of exercises that provide extensive feedback on both accuracy and confidence. Roebers, Krebs, and Roderer (2014-this issue) employ confidence ratings to assess metacognitive monitoring using discrimination scores – i.e., the difference in confidence ratings between correctly solved and incorrect answers – as a dependent measure. All papers also deal with validity issues in the sense that they attempt to chart a nomological net of metacognitive constructs under study and approach this task from an individual differences perspective. To what place then will this work take us?
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
A sample of four studies of metacognition cannot provide a comprehensive coverage of the field. Nevertheless, these studies do address the three issues we wanted to cover and they do illustrate the important role of metacognition in learning, but not necessarily in intelligence. There are outstanding challenges in the area of measurement and it appears that the time is ripe for linking metacognition, the studies of decision making, and probabilistic and scientific thinking.