算术策略运用能力的年龄差异：元认知监测与算术知识的作用

采用选择/无选法,以估算与精确心算为研究任务,考察了元认知监测与算术知识影响个体算术计算策略选择与执行的年龄相关差异。129名不同年龄儿童与成人被试参加实验。结果发现：（1）算术知识对儿童及成人的估算复杂策略有促进作用,并对提升他们心算策略运用的速度和减少错误有作用;（2）元认知监测显著影响儿童的估算策略选择,能够促进使用最佳策略;（3）算术知识在估算及心算策略执行的年龄差异方面起完全中介作用,元认知监测则在估算策略选择的年龄发展中起部分中介作用;（4）算术知识对元认知监测在估算及心算策略执行上的作用起完全中介作用,而对估算的策略选择则不存在中介作用,这表明元认知监测在估算策略选择上具有举足轻重的地位。     

学习不良儿童的元认知偏差：内部线索的影响

通过改变实验材料内部线索,旨在考察内部线索在学习不良儿童元认知偏差形成过程中的影响。实验1发现,学习不良儿童低关联字对的元认知偏差显著高于一般儿童,关联强度对学习判断的影响显著小于对测试成绩的影响;实验2发现,学习不良儿童反向方向字对的元认知偏差显著高于一般儿童,关联方向对学习判断的影响显著小于对测试成绩的影响。综合以上研究发现,相对一般儿童,学习不良儿童存在更大的元认知偏差,内部线索对学习判断和测试成绩的影响不一致模式适用于两组儿童。     

元认知监测与算术知识制约小学儿童心算策略运用能力的发展:一年纵向考察

为探究元认知监测与算术知识对儿童心算策略运用能力的影响如何随个体发展而变化，采用计算机任务与纸笔测量的方法，对85名小学三、五年级儿童进行了历时一年的纵向追踪研究。研究发现：（1）两组儿童的元认知监测和算术知识均呈增长趋势，算术知识的增长速度五年级显著快于三年级，且元认知监测增长速度与算术知识增长速度显著相关；（2）两组儿童中，元认知监测与算术知识增长速度更快的个体策略执行反应时与错误率的减少速度也更快；（3）五年级儿童的算术知识在元认知监测影响策略选择发展中起着完全中介作用。     

重量对元认知监控的无意识影响

采用结构知识归因的方法,以学习判断和项目优先选择作为元认知监测和控制的指标,考察重量对元认知监控的影响是否是无意识的。被试学习粘贴在不同重量纸盒上的词对,进行学习判断(实验1)或项目选择(实验2),并报告其判断或选择的依据。结果:(1)重量影响学习判断和项目优先选择,相对于轻纸盒,被试给予重纸盒上的词对更高的JOL并优先选择重纸盒上的词对进行学习;(2)重量对学习判断的影响只发生在判断依据为猜测的情况下,重量对项目优先选择的影响只发生在判断依据为猜测和直觉的情况下。上述结果支持了元认知的具身性,并提示重量对元认知监控的影响可能是无意识的。     

面孔吸引力对面孔学习程度判断的影响

实验考察面孔吸引力对面孔学习过程中的元认知监测准确性的影响。采用经典面孔再认范式,高、中、低吸引力面孔作为学习材料,学习判断(JOLs)作为元认知监测指标。结果发现:(1)低吸引力面孔的学习判断高于中、高吸引力面孔;(2)低吸引力面孔的元认知监测准确性低于高、中吸引力面孔;(3)个体对不同吸引力面孔的学习程度判断均存在过度自信现象。结论:个体对面孔再认的元认知监测会受到面孔吸引力的影响。     

掌握程度和社会性线索对元认知监控的影响

元认知监控中信心判断和再认答案的调整不仅受到个体学习后掌握程度的影响,还会受到社会性线索的影响。本研究通过两个实验,考察了掌握程度和社会性线索对元认知监测和控制的影响。研究发现：第一,掌握程度和社会性线索独立影响元认知监测。第二,掌握程度和社会性线索显著影响元认知控制,并且掌握程度还起到了调节作用。具体来说,掌握程度高时,个体倾向于坚持自己的最初选择,较少受到社会性线索的影响;掌握程度越低,社会性线索的影响越大,个体倾向于使自己的选择与社会性信息保持一致。最后,研究总结了学习任务中掌握程度和社会性线索对元认知监控的影响机制,并提出了未来的研究思路。     

儿童、青年与老年人在知觉和高阶元认知监控上的年龄差异

元认知是以监测和控制为核心的动态调节活动。本研究以9岁儿童、年轻人和老年人为研究对象，分别采用选点任务和词对学习任务，在知觉元认知和高阶元认知层次考察元认知监测和控制及其关系随年龄变化的特点。结果显示：(1)儿童的知觉元认知和高阶元认知监控能力大都低于年轻人；(2)老年人的知觉元认知能力与年轻人相似，但高阶元认知能力则低于年轻人；(3)老年人和年轻人一样能够在记忆监测中利用控制线索，而9岁儿童尚未表现出这种能力。本研究从发展的角度，支持了知觉元认知与高阶元认知能力具有领域特殊性的理论假设，并对监测和控制的关系发展进行了讨论。     

3～5岁儿童基于能力特质进行信任判断的策略及其发展

研究采用对偶选择的范式考察了3～5岁儿童基于能力特质进行信任判断的策略。让144名3～5岁儿童在面对能力强和不挑食这两类人时做出信任判断。结果发现3～4岁儿童的信任判断受老师评价偏向的影响,他们的信任选择与老师评价偏向一致。5岁儿童的信任判断则不受老师评价偏向的影响。这些结果表明3～4岁儿童信任判断的策略是依据特质效价,5岁儿童的策略是依据特质意义。     

社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响

本研究以词图匹配材料为学习材料,以“大多数人选择的情况”为社会性线索,通过分析行为表现和眼动指标,探讨了社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响。结果显示：（1）第一次信心判断时,外显信心判断显著高估,内隐信心判断较为准确。第二次信心判断时,在线索一致条件下,外显信心判断等级显著高于内隐信心判断。（2）在提供社会性线索阶段和第二次再认阶段,与线索一致条件相比,线索不一致条件下被提示项的注视时间更短,而未提示项的注视时间更长,且个体改变选择的次数显著增多。结果表明：内隐和外显元认知监测存在分离,内隐监测的准确性更高,外显监测受社会性线索的影响更大;而内隐和外显的元认知控制受社会性线索的影响趋同。     

学习困难儿童元记忆能力的实验研究

该研究以有和无意义联系的两种中文词对为材料,采用2×3×2混合实验设计,对小学三到五年级的学习困难儿童与学优儿童的JOL监测判断水平和学习时间分配之间的差异及其发展特点进行研究。结果表明：（1）学习困难儿童的JOL判断等级显著低于学优儿童;（2）在自定步骤学习过程中,随着年级增长,学习困难儿童能够根据学习材料的性质决定其学习时间的分配策略,表现出一定的元记忆控制能力,但其分配策略的有效性不高;（3）学习困难儿童的JOL监测判断水平和学习时间分配策略从小三到小五在缓慢提高;（4）学习困难儿童的JOL监测判断和学习时间分配之间存在交互影响。     

课堂成就目标定向、任务难度、学业水平与元认知监控策略运用

以217名高中生为被试,采用计算机监控的活动操作法,探讨课堂成就目标定向、任务难度对不同学业水平学生元认知监控策略运用的影响。结果表明：（1）课堂掌握目标定向下均比在课堂成绩目标定向下更多地运用元认知监控策略;（2）高学业学生在较难任务上比较易任务上更多地运用元认知监控策略;低学业学生,在课堂掌握目标定向下．在较难任务上比较易任务上更多地使用元认知监控策略;在课堂成绩目标定向下,与课堂掌握目标定向情形相反;（3）临场动机中的自我效能感、目标方向、努力程度在课堂成就目标定向、任务难度对元认知监控策略的影响中具有中介作用。     

Ecological and person‐oriented aspects of metacognitive processes in test‐taking

This study examines critical aspects of both the ecological and the person‐oriented accounts of observed biases in confidence judgements on tests of cognitive abilities. These biases reflect metacognitive processes involved in test‐taking. According to the ecological approach, poor realism of confidence judgements is due to the nature of the items included in general knowledge tests (test‐driven biases). The person‐oriented approach, however, argues that biases in confidence judgements may be due to a general self‐monitoring trait. The present study employed the ‘de‐biasing’ procedure proposed by Juslin ( 1994 ) for the selection of general knowledge test items, and used a newly developed geographical knowledge test suitable for the Australian population. Two other cognitive tests (Raven's Progressive Matrices and Line Length) were administered in order to determine whether there is a consistency in confidence ratings across diverse tasks. Statistical procedures traditional to both approaches‐calibration curves and factor analysis ‐ were employed. The results, with minor qualifications, support both perspectives. The study found a separate confidence factor, indicative of a self‐monitoring trait. Two other potential metacognitive factors (i.e. ‘expectation’ and ‘evaluation’, corresponding to self‐assessment/planning and self‐evaluation) could not be separated from accuracy and speed measures. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

小学三年级数学学优生与学困生解决比较问题的差异

运用实验法和临床访谈法研究了数学学优生与学困生在解决比较问题时的差异及元认知对解题成绩的影响。被试为40名小学三年级学生。比较问题分为一致问题和不一致问题。元认知包括元认知知识和元认知监控技能。结果表明：(1)学优生与学困生解决比较问题的成绩差异显著,学优生在一致问题和不一致问题上的解题成绩均优于学困生。这种差异与其解题时所运用的表征策略有关。(2)学生在解决比较问题中出现的主要错误为转换错误,在不一致问题中出现的错误多于一致问题中出现的错误。(3)学优生与学困生在元认知知识和监控技能上均有显著差异,元认知监控技能对解决比较问题的成绩有显著预测作用。     

学习策略在思维风格与数学学业成就关系中的中介效应研究

以227名大学二年级理科生为被试,采用问卷调查法,探讨了学习策略在思维风格与数学学业成就关系中的作用。结果表明：（1）认知策略、元认知策略在等级制风格与数学学业成就关系中起完全中介的作用,而资源管理策略在等级制风格与数学学业成就间的中介效应不显著。（2）认知策略、元认知策略在整体性风格与数学学业成就关系中起部分中介的作用,而资源管理策略在整体性风格与数学学业成就间的中介效应不显著。（3）认知策略、元认知策略和资源管理策略在开放性风格与数学学业成就关系中起部分中介的作用。（4）元认知策略在等级制风格与数学学业成就间的中介作用以及在开放性风格与数学学业成就间的中介作用都是相对较大的。     

Metacognition for strategy selection during arithmetic problem-solving in young and older adults

We examined participants’ strategy choices and metacognitive judgments during arithmetic problem-solving. Metacognitive judgments were collected either prospectively or retrospectively. We tested whether metacognitive judgments are related to strategy choices on the current problems and on the immediately following problems, and age-related differences in relations between metacognition and strategy choices. Data showed that both young and older adults were able to make accurate retrospective, but not prospective, judgments. Moreover, the accuracy of retrospective judgments was comparable in young and older adults when participants had to select and execute the better strategy. Metacognitive accuracy was even higher in older adults when participants had to only select the better strategy. Finally, low-confidence judgments on current items were more frequently followed by better strategy selection on immediately succeeding items than high-confidence judgments in both young and older adults. Implications of these findings to further our understanding of age-related differences and similarities in adults’ metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive regulation for strategy selection in the context of arithmetic problem solving are discussed.     

Metacognition and memory for nonoccurrence

A familiar hypothesis about the recognition of distractor items as "new" is that it depends heavily on a metacognitive strategy in which the memorability or salience of the distractor is evaluated: if the item was deemed salient or memorable and yet no memory trace for it can be found, then it must not have been studied (e.g. Strack & Bless, 1994). In four experiments, no evidence was found to support this metamemory hypothesis. Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2 demonstrated that the judged salience of the stimuli did not predict participants' recognition judgements for distractors. In Experiments 3a and 3b, instructional manipulations designed to affect the ostensible metacognitive process failed to affect the recognition judgements. Finally, Experiment 4 indicated that confidence judgements do not support the predictions of the metamemory hypothesis.     

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs)

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information-such as memory failure-to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.     

Measuring memory monitoring with judgements of retention (JORs)

Most prior research has examined predictions of future memory performance by eliciting judgements of learning (JOLs). In six experiments, we explored monitoring with an alternative prospective measure. Specifically, participants made judgements of retention (JORs) predicting how long (in min) they would be able to remember information. Results revealed that participants provided relatively short predictions of how long they would remember information. Further, participants' JORs were sensitive to recall performance as well as manipulations that influenced memory performance indicating that they were able to effectively monitor learning using JORs. JORs influenced study decisions as well, with participants selecting more items for restudy following JORs than following JOLs or no monitoring judgement. However, restudy selection did not vary between a JOR and a JOL condition framed in terms of forgetting. Thus, we suggest that, much like forget-framed JOLs, JORs may bring different information—such as memory failure—to mind. In all, the inferential mechanisms underlying metacognitive monitoring with JOLs extends to monitoring when measured with JORs. Assessing monitoring with JORs provides information not available with JOLs (i.e., memory duration estimates) and a different basis for study decisions from remember-framed JOLs.