Individual Differences in Absolute and Relative Metacomprehension Accuracy.

By R. Maki, M. Shields, Armanda Wheeler, Tammy L. Zacchilli. 2005

230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/039e85e898c993ec9335e20ff4af20704209188d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions (2007, background): “However, many students find error detection and comprehension monitoring very challenging (Glenburg et al., 1982; Hacker, 1998; Maki et al., 2005), overestimating how well they know or remember information.”
Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions (2008, background): “Tutors may need to utilize metacognitive processes such as comprehension-monitoring and metamemory, which involve evaluation of the quality of one’s own knowledge and understanding (e.g. Flavell, 1979; Hacker, 1998; Maki et al. 2005).”
Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. (2008, methodology): “Students who are strongly underconfident may fail to disengage from studying for a test and misallocate precious study time because they assume that they have not mastered the material (Maki et al., 2005).”
Metacognitive calibration—an extended conceptualization and potential applications (2009, background): “This indicates that other factors might also be influential: Empirical studies show the impact of more state-like variables such as explanatory style (Bol et al. 2005), self-perceptions of ability (Hacker et al. 2000), a confidence factor (Pallier et al. 2002), age (Howie and Roebers 2007), or exper”
Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to improve metacognitive monitoring (2009, methodology): “In this investigation we were concerned with students’ ability to provide confidence estimates that matched their actual performance and changes in the accuracy of such judgments over time, thus we chose to measure changes in absolute accuracy (Nietfeld et al. 2006; Maki et al. 2005; Dunlosky and ”
The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy (2006, background): “Moreover, research has shown measures of absolute accuracy to be more sensitive to individual differences in ability and task variations (Maki et al., 2005).”
A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring (2009, methodology): “Studies that have used multiple measures typically report and interpret each measure individually, while also attempting to synthesize all measures into a holistic interpretation (Allwood et al. 2005; Maki et al. 2005 ).”