LEVEL STRUCTURE OF METACOGNITIVE MONITORING: MAIN ASPECTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/psych.studies/2024.4.11Keywords:
metacognition, metacognitive monitoring, metacognitive control, self-regulated learning/cognition, system-level structure.Abstract
The paper outlines the main aspects of the system-level organization of metacognitive monitoring as a regulatory basis of metacognition. Theoretical and comparative methods of analysis, however, allow us to assert the absence of a clear distinction between the objective side of metacognitive monitoring, which complicates the construction of its structural-level basis. The process of effective metacognitive monitoring takes the form of identifying special educational/cognitive goals, (self)observing the level of such effectiveness, monitoring the achievement of goals, prospective monitoring of responses, and monitoring the effectiveness of information assimilation. The two-phase component of metacognitive monitoring judgments involves taking into account the phases of preparation (monitoring the procedure and understanding) and evaluation (monitoring the effectiveness of information assimilation). Psychological mechanisms of metacognitive judgments take into account the nature of cognitive acts, the availability of the answer, and the familiarity of information/tasks. The intermediate link between these two phases is selfreflection, which includes the features of self-judgment. Metacognitive strategies take the form of orientation components, planning, evaluation and development of necessary control procedures. At the level of generalization, the metacognitive aspect of the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring judgments involves the use of structural-level processes of situation identification, understanding of situational/problematic aspects, awareness of the causes and consequences of educational/cognitive activity, and activity management. Promising directions for further exploration are to focus on a more detailed analysis of the main approaches to studying the system- level organization of metacognitive monitoring as a regulatory basis for metacognition. In particular, we see the need for a theoretical and empirical study of psychological endurance in the discourse of metacognitive monitoring.
References
Broadbent J., Panadero E., Lodge J. M., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. The self-regulation for learning online (SRL-O) questionnaire. Metacognition and Learning, 2022. Vol. 18. P. 135–163.
Craig K., Hale D., Grainger C., Stewart M.E. Evaluating metacognitive self-reports: Systematic reviews of the value of self-report in metacognitive research. Metacognition and Learning, 2020. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 155–213.
Händel M., Naujoks-Schober N., Dresel M. Metacognitive monitoring via strategies and judgments. Different phases, different objects. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 2023. Vol. 55. No. 2–3. P. 67–76.
Sobocinski M., Järvelä S., Malmberg J., Dindar M., Isosalo A., Noponen K. How does monitoring set the stage for adaptive regulation or maladaptive behavior in collaborative learning? Metacognition and Learning, 2020. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 99–127.
Августюк М.М. Емоційний інтелект у дискурсі точності метакогнітивного моніторингу : монографія. Острог : Видавництво Національного університету «Острозька академія», 2023. 374 с.
Avhustiuk M., Kalamazh R., Voloshyna-Narozhna V. Embedding metacognitive monitoring strategies in psychosocial rehabilitation field: Background aspects from university students’ learning activities. Youth Voice Journal, 2024. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 16–25.
Avhustiuk M., Pasichnyk I., Kalamazh R. The illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring: Effects of the type of information and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2018. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 317–341.
Law M.K.H., Stankov L., Kleitman S. I choose to opt-out of answering: Individual differences in giving up behaviour on cognitive tests. Journal of Intelligence, 2022. Vol. 10. No. 4. Article 86.
Papanastasiou E.C., Stylianou-Georgiou A. Should they change their answers or not? Modelling achievement through a metacognitive lens. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2022. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 77–94.
Händel M., Dresel M. Structure, relationship, and determinants of monitoring strategies and judgment accuracy. An integrated model and evidence from two studies. Learning and Individual Differences, 2022. Vol. 100.
Pintrich P.R. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 2002. Vol. 41. No. 4. P. 219–225.
Koriat A. Confidence judgments: The monitoring of object level and same-level performance. Metacognition and Learning, 2019. Vol. 14. P. 463–478.
Sáiz-Manzanares M.C., Martin C., González-Díez I., Jiménez Eguizábal A., Calvo Rodríguez A., Vázquez C.V., Almeida L.S., Velasco Saiz R. Monitoring metacognitive strategies use during interaction collaborative groups. Education Sciences, 2024. Vol. 14. No. 1205. P. 1–15.
Koriat A. Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1997. Vol. 126. P. 349–370.
