No description available.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the metacognitive functioning of students with learning disabilities (LD), low-achieving (LA) students, and average-achieving (AA) students within the context of math problem solving. Metacognition, that is, the awareness individuals have regarding their own mental processes and ability to self-regulate performance, is an important predictor of learning. Deficits in metacognition have been attributed to an inability to effectively balance the cognitive and metacognitive strategies necessary for successful problem solving. Students with LD have considerable difficulty with self-regulation. This study investigates three components of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience, and metacognitive skills. The differences in these components among students with LD (n = 15), LA students (n = 38), and AA students (n = 29) and their influence on students' math word problem solving was studied. Furthermore, the relationships among the three components of metacognition were investigated in the context of ability group differences. To assess metacognitive functioning, students were administered a structured interview and a survey and they solved three math word problems while thinking aloud. Additionally, to assess math problem-solving ability, students were administered a 10-item math word problem-solving test. Results indicated that students with LD demonstrated a different pattern of metacognitive function than AA students and LA students. Students across ability groups look relatively equivalent in the quantity of metacognitive skills. However, when discriminating between the type and quality of the metacognitive skills employed, ability group differences were evident. Ability group differences in metacognitive functioning emerged with respect to problem difficulty. The directions of the relationships among the components of metacognition were the same across ability groups. However, the magnitude and strength of the relationships differed by ability. Additionally, metacognitive knowledge was a significant predictor of math word problem-solving performance for AA students, but not for the other ability groups. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the relationship between metacognitive experience and math word problem solving for students with LD and AA students. Educational implications are discussed for teaching students to use metacognition during problem solving.

To date, relatively little research has investigated participants’ ability to monitor their memory for faces and names. Four experiments were conducted with aim of developing a comprehensive profile of memory monitoring performance during face identification tasks. In each experiment, memory monitoring judgements were solicited during encoding and/or retrieval of unfamiliar face-name pairs. In general, subjective estimates of future and past memory performance were valid predictors of objective memory performance, regardless of whether a face or name was the item to be retrieved from memory. As a test of the stability of memory monitoring accuracy across different categories of stimuli, memory monitoring for face-name pairs was compared with noun-noun pairs. The predictive validity of estimates of future memory performance was similar across the categories of stimuli, but the predictive validity of estimates of past memory performance was superior for nouns compared with names. A subset of the studies examined the influence of face and name distinctiveness on memory and memory monitoring for face-name associations. This was done in an attempt to identify sources of information that individuals might use to monitor their memory during face-name learning. The beneficial effects of distinctiveness on associative memory were symmetrical between faces and names, such that relative to their typical counterparts, distinct faces enhanced memory for names, and distinct names enhanced memory for faces. These effects were also apparent in memory monitoring. Estimates of future and past memory performance were greater for face-name associations that contained a distinct face or name compared with a typical face or name, regardless of whether the distinct item was a cue or target. Moreover, the predictive validity of prospective monitoring improved with name distinctiveness, whereas the predictive validity of retrospective monitoring improved with facial distinctiveness. Altogether, the results of the dissertation indicate that participants can monitor their memory for faces and names at a level above chance, that retrospective metamemory is more accurate for nouns compared with names, and that distinctiveness not only affects the strength of the association between a face and a name, but also the ability to monitor that association.

To date, relatively little research has investigated participants’ ability to monitor their memory for faces and names. Four experiments were conducted with aim of developing a comprehensive profile of memory monitoring performance during face identification tasks. In each experiment, memory monitoring judgements were solicited during encoding and/or retrieval of unfamiliar face-name pairs. In general, subjective estimates of future and past memory performance were valid predictors of objective memory performance, regardless of whether a face or name was the item to be retrieved from memory. As a test of the stability of memory monitoring accuracy across different categories of stimuli, memory monitoring for face-name pairs was compared with noun-noun pairs. The predictive validity of estimates of future memory performance was similar across the categories of stimuli, but the predictive validity of estimates of past memory performance was superior for nouns compared with names. A subset of the studies examined the influence of face and name distinctiveness on memory and memory monitoring for face-name associations. This was done in an attempt to identify sources of information that individuals might use to monitor their memory during face-name learning. The beneficial effects of distinctiveness on associative memory were symmetrical between faces and names, such that relative to their typical counterparts, distinct faces enhanced memory for names, and distinct names enhanced memory for faces. These effects were also apparent in memory monitoring. Estimates of future and past memory performance were greater for face-name associations that contained a distinct face or name compared with a typical face or name, regardless of whether the distinct item was a cue or target. Moreover, the predictive validity of prospective monitoring improved with name distinctiveness, whereas the predictive validity of retrospective monitoring improved with facial distinctiveness. Altogether, the results of the dissertation indicate that participants can monitor their memory for faces and names at a level above chance, that retrospective metamemory is more accurate for nouns compared with names, and that distinctiveness not only affects the strength of the association between a face and a name, but also the ability to monitor that association.

Thesis (EdD)--Open University.

Thesis (M. S.)--Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008. / Committee Chair: Hertzog, Christopher; Committee Member: Rogers, Wendy; Committee Member: Schumacher, Eric. Part of the SMARTech Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Collection.

The current study proposes an examination of the effects of metacognitive prompting on participants’ self-efficacy when completing a computer-based algebra lesson. Participants will be randomly assigned from the Educational Psychology subject pool. The experimental design contains 4 conditions: before prompts, during prompts, after prompts, or none (control). The data will be analyzed using a one-way ANCOVA with the metacognitive prompt condition as the between subjects factor, the post-test self-efficacy scores serving as the dependent variable, and pre-test self-efficacy scores acting as the covariate. / text

Metacognition is an umbrella term that encompasses many related constructs about the knowledge and regulation of one's own thinking processes. Metacognitive knowledge about memory and attention has been found to correlate with intelligence levels and has been viewed as one component of giftedness. In this paper, definitions of both metacognition and giftedness are explained and situated in context so that the relationship between the two may be explored further. I also describe traditional and nontraditional methods of identifying children as gifted. While previous studies of metacognitive differences between gifted and nongifted children have been based on students traditionally identified as gifted, my study employed a non-traditional identification method, the DISCOVER assessment. In the study, I examine metacognitive knowledge about three elements: memory, attention, and decision making, in gifted and nongifted second-graders through an interview. The two main purposes of the study were to explore metacognitive knowledge about decision making, which had not been studied previously, and to see if varying the method of identification for giftedness would affect the metacognitive advantage for gifted children found in prior studies. No significant differences were found among the types of metacognitive knowledge studied. Statistically significant differences were found between the scores of gifted and nongifted children, with gifted children demonstrating greater ability to articulate their metacognitive knowledge. A qualitative discussion of students' responses illustrates areas in which the two groups of children differed in their understanding of their own thinking.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of cased-based learning, writing and peer discussions on learning about digestive diseases in a computer-based learning environment, BioWorld. This method was called the Grand Rounds method. Thirty-one, ninth grade biology students participated in the study. Two classes were randomly selected as the Rounds group and the No Rounds group. All students worked collaboratively in pairs to solve diagnostic problems on BioWorld. The Rounds group then engaged in the Grand Rounds activities while the No Rounds group conducted a web search and solved a final BioWorld problem. Both treatments demonstrated significant knowledge gains of digestive problems from pretest to posttest but the gains were greater in the Rounds group. There were no significant changes from pre to post questionnaire in students' attitudes towards biology or peer work/discussion. The verbal protocols revealed students used diagnostic heuristics while solving cases, and discourse communities emerged among the students. Overall, this study confirms the benefits of written and oral discourse, and authentic learning activities in classrooms.