An Exploratory Study of the Relation between Cognitive Style and Metacognitive Monitoring in a Sample of Colombian University Students
Palabras clave:
Cognitive Styles, Calibration Accuracy and Bias, Intellectual Style, Metacognitive MonitoringResumen
While research on metacognition and cognitive styles is robust for either field alone, few studies have broached the two together. In addition, no studies to date have examined finer-grained objectives related to specific aspects of metacognition such as monitoring skill and its relation to cognitive style. Thus, the present study investigated confidence, performance, and accuracy measures for three types of metacognitive judgments (prediction, concurrent and postdiction) and three different types of metacognitive questions—questions about the task, questions about the self, and questions at different moments (before, during, and after)—and how these are related to cognitive style (field dependent, intermediate, field independent) in a sample of 57 Colombian university students. Results revealed that there were differences in metacognitive monitoring accuracy and bias as a function of cognitive style, and that these findings were similar both between different moments and across metacognitive judgments. Regarding cognitive style, those with an intermediate or field independent cognitive style reported greater monitoring accuracy and less bias than individuals with a field dependent style. Implications for research, theory, and practice are discussed.Citas
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266-279. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x
Boldt, A., Gardelle, V., & Yeung, N (2017). The Impact of evidence reliability on sensi-tivity and bias in decision confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performan, 43(8), 1520-1531. doi:10.1037/xhp0000404
Blais, A., Thompson, M., & Baranski, J. (2005). Individual differences in decision pro-cessing and confidence judgments in comparative judgment tasks: The role of cognitive styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1701-1713. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.004 Buratti, S., Allwood, C., & Kleitman, S. (2013). First- and second-order metacognitive judgments of semantic memory reports: The influence of personality traits and cognitive styles. Metacognition & Learning, 8(1), 79-102. doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9096-5
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. ERIC Doc. 235: 185. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED235185
Díaz-Granados, F., Cantillo, K., & Polo, A. (2000). Relación entre el nivel de pensamiento y el estilo cognitivo dependencia-independencia de campo en estudiantes universitarios. Psicología desde el Caribe, 5, 176-196. http://rcientificas.uninorte.edu.co/index.php/psicologia/article/view/761/5262
Díaz, M., Cuevasanta, D., Grau, L., & Curione, K. (2014). Estudio del estilo cognitivo de estudiantes de psicología e ingeniería. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comporta-meinto, 6(2), 35-43. doi:10.32348/1852.4206.v6.n2.7444
Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of teaching and learning: An integrated outline of education-al psychology for students, teachers, and lecturers. Taylor & Francis Group. doi: 10.4324/9781315067506
Fleming, S., Massoni, S., Gajdos, T., & Vergnaud, J. (2016). Metacognition about the past and future: Quantifying common and distinct influences on prospective and retrospective judgments of self-performance.Neuroscience of Consciousness, 1, 1-12. doi: 10.1093/nc/niw018
Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Education-al Leadership,36, 234-236. https://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197901_gregorc.pdf
Gutierrez, A. P. & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of strategy training and incentives on stu-dents’ performance, confidence, and calibration. Journal of Experimental Educa-tion, 83(3), 386-404. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.907230
Gutiérrez, A. P., Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Richmond, A. S. (2016). A two-process model of metacognitive monitoring: Evidence for general accuracy and error factors. Learning and Instruction, 44, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.006
Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P. & Montoya Londoño, D. M. (2020). Relationship between per-sonality factors and metacognition in a sample of students in the last semester of training in baccalaureate degree programs in education in Colombia. Edu-cación y Humanismo, 22(39), 1-20. doi:10.17081/eduhum.22.39.4048
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and perfor-mance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160-170. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160
Hadwin, A. F. & Webster, E. A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37-47. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.001
Hederich, C. (2007). Estilo cognitivo en la dimensión de dependencia-independencia de campo: influencias culturales e implicaciones para la educación. Bogotá: Fondo Editorial Uni-versidad Pedagógica Nacional. https://ddd.uab.cat/record/37852
Hederich-Martínez, C. & Camargo-Uribe, A. (2016). Cognitive style and educational performance: The case of public schools in Bogotá, Colombia. Educational Psy-chology, 36(4), 719-737. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2015.1091916
Honey, P. & Munford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Psychology Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Manual_of_Learning_Styles.htm-l?id=CkiTQgAACAAJ
Kagan, J. (1966). Developmental studies in reflection and analysis. In A. H. Kidd & J. L. Rivoire (Eds.), Perceptual development in children (pp. 487-522). International Uni-versity Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-11745-001
Jia, S., Zhang, Q., & Li, S. (2014). Field dependence–independence modulates the effi-ciency of filtering out irrelevant information in a visual working memory task. Neuroscience, 278, 136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.07.075
Kleitman, S. & Stankov, L. (2001). Ecological and Person-Oriented Aspects of Metacog-nitive Processes in Test-Taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(3), 321-341. doi: 10.1002/acp.705
Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodologi-cal issues. Acta Psychologica, 77(2), 217-273. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(91)90036-Y
López, O., Hederich, C., & Camargo, A (2012). Logro de aprendizaje en ambientes hiper-mediales: andamiaje autorregulador y estilo cognitivo. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(2), 13-26. doi:10.14349/rlp.v44i2.1028
López-Vargas, O., Ibáñez-Ibáñez, J., & Racines-Prada, O. (2017). Students’ metacog-nition and cognitive style and their effect on cognitive load and learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 145-157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26196126
López-Vargas, O., Ibáñez-Ibáñez, J., & Chiguasuque-Bello, E. (2014). El estilo cognitivo y la fijación de metas de aprendizaje en ambientes computacionales. Pensamien-to Psicológico, 12(1), 133-148. doi:10.11144/Javerianacali.PPSI12-1.ecfm
Maki, R. (1998). Metacomprehension of text: influence of absolute confidence level on bias and accuracy. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 38, 223-248. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60188-7.
Marchand, G. & Gutierrez, A. (2012). The role of emotion in the learning process: Com-parisons between online and face-to-face learning settings. The Internet and Higher Education 15(3), 150-160. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.001
Marchand, G. C. & Gutiérrez, A. P.(2017). Processes involving perceived instructional support, task values, and engagement in graduate education. The Journal of Ex-perimental Education, 85, 87-106. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2015.1107522
Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications on an alternative view of learning. In N. J. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for research and development in higher education (pp. 200-222). Swets and Zeitlenger. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359206.pdf
Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: An integrated model. Educational Psychology, 7(4): 251-268. doi: 10.1080/0144341870070401
Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Rettinger, D., Shah, P., & Hegerty, M. (2001). How are visuo-spatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 621-640. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621.
Miyake, A., Witzki, A. H., & Emerson, M. J. (2001). Field dependence–independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the hidden figures test. Memory, 9(4-6), 445-457. doi:10.1080/09658210143000029
McKeachie, W. & Svinicki, M. (2013). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theo-ry for College and University Teachers. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. https://www.cengage.com/c/mckeachie-s-teaching-tips-14e-mckeachie/9781133936794/
Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are ex-tremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the “Delayed-JOL Effect”. Psy-chological Science, 2, 267-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14679280.1991.tb00147.x.
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring ex-ercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 159-179. doi: 10.1007/s10409-006-9595-6
Quiles, C., Verdoux, H., & Prouteau, A. (2014). Assessing metacognition during a cogni-tive task: Impact of “on-line” metacognitive questions on neuropsychological performances in a non-clinical sample. Journal of the International Neuropsycho-logical Society, 20(5), 547-554. doi:10.1017/S1355617714000290
Rittschof, K. (2008). Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems de-sign and research. Education Tech Research Dev, 58(1), 99-114. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6
Rhodes, M. & Castel, A. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual infor-mation: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615-625. doi: 10.1037/a0013684
Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Metacognition and Styles. In L.-F. Zhang, R. Sternberg, & S. Rayner (Eds.), Handbook of intellectual styles. Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking (pp.153-172). Springer Publishing. https://www.springerpub.com/handbook-of-intellectual-styles-9780826106674.html
Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning style of college students. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (pp. 233-279). Academic. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2118-5_12
Schraw, G. (2009). Measuring metacognitive judgments. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 415-429). Rout-ledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203876428
Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2013). Measure for measure: Calibrating ten commonly used calibration scores. Learning and Instruction, 24, 48-57. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.007
Schraw, G. & Roedel, T. D. (1994). Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory & Cognition, 22, 63-69. doi: 10.3758/BF03202762Slavin, R.E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Slavin-Educational-Psychology-Theory-and-Practice-plus-My-Lab-Education-with-Pearson-e-Text-Access-Card-Package-12th-Edition/PGM2005318.html
Sternberg, R. J. & Williams, W. M. (2002). Educational psychology. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Sternberg-Educational-Psychol-ogy-2nd-Edition/PGM28179.html
Swe, M. & Saleh, I. (2010). New Science of learning: Exploring the future of education. In M. Khine, S. Swe, & M. Issa (Eds.), New Science of learning: cognition, computers, and collaboration in education (pp. 593-604). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781441957153
Tinajero, C., Castelo, A., Guisande, A., & Páramo, F. (2011). Adaptive teaching and field dependence-independence: Instructional implications. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 43(3), 497-510. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-30513-008
Weber, N., Woodard, L. & Williamson, P. (2013). Decision strategies and the confi-dence-accuracy relationship in face recognition. Journal Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 152-163. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1750
Wissman, K., Rawson, K., & Pyc, M. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20(6), 568-579. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2012.687052
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psycho-logical differentiation. John Wiley & Sons Inc. doi: 10.1037/13128-000
Witkin, H., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi: 10.3102/00346543047001001
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Embedded Figures Test, Chil-dren’s Embedded Figures Test Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20manual%20for%20the%20embedded%20figures%20test&author=H.%20A..%20Witkin&author=P.%20K..%20Oltman&author=E..%20Raskin&author=S.%20A..%20Karp&publica-tion_year=1971
Yates, J. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Prentice-Hall. https://psycnet.apa.org/re-cord/1989-98745-000
Zhang, L. F. & Sternberg, R. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1-53. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-1635-4
Zhang, L. F. & Sternberg, R. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03602-000
Zhang, L. F. & Sternberg, R. (2009). Preface. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspec -tives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. xi–xvi). Springer. https://www.springer-pub.com/perspectives-on-the-nature-of-intellectual-styles-9780826104601.html
Zohar, A. & Ben-David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition & Learning, 4(3), 177-195. doi: 10.1007/s11409-009-9044-6
Descargas
Publicado
Versiones
- 2023-05-24 (3)
- 2022-12-21 (2)
- 2022-01-20 (1)
Número
Sección
Licencia
El usuario que realiza el envío del presente artículo certifica que todos los autores del artículo enviado participaron en la elaboración del mismo, igualmente conocen que han sido incluidos como autores del mismo, aprueban su aparición como autores del artículo y se acogen a todas las condiciones incluidas en esta cesión de derechos. El grupo de coautores del documento serán considerados CEDENTES en este documento. Los cedentes manifiestan que ceden a título gratuito la totalidad de los derechos patrimoniales de autor derivados de dicho artículo, a favor de la Revista Psicología desde el Caribe, del programa de Psicología de la Universidad del Norte, ISSN: 2011-7485.Igualmente, los cedentes declaran que el artículo es original, que es de su creación exclusiva y que no ha sido ni será presentado con anterioridad, posterioridad o simultáneamente a otra publicación distinta a Psicología desde el Caribe sin que medie respuesta previa y por escrito del Editor de Psicología desde el Caribe sobre la evaluación del artículo mencionado anteriormente, por lo que los cedentes declaran que no existe impedimento de ninguna naturaleza para la presente cesión de derechos. Los cedentes además se declaran como únicos responsables por cualquier acción de reivindicación, plagio u otra clase de reclamación que al respecto pudiera sobrevenir.
En virtud de la presente cesión, el CESIONARIO queda autorizado para copiar, reproducir, distribuir, publicar, comercializar el artículo objeto de la cesión, por cualquier medio digital, electrónico o reprográfico, conservando la obligación de respetar en todo caso los derechos morales del autor, contenidos en el artículo 30 de la Ley 23 de 1982.
Los artículos publicados en Psicología Desde el Caribe y todo su contenido se encuentran bajo licencia Creative Commons CC BY. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
