Feedback training did not change children's cue utilization despite repeated metacognitive experiences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither monitoring feedback nor performance feedback affected the degree to which children relied on choice latency when making confidence judgments. → Kristin Kolloff 2025

Evidence¶

Kristin Kolloff 2025¶

Kristin Kolloff, Ebru Ger, Claudia M. Roebers. (2025). The role of metacognitive experience: Can feedback training affect kindergarteners' monitoring accuracy? Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09422-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The same conditional LMM on cue utilization showed no main effects for either feedback condition or measurement point. The cross-level interaction model also did not improve fit (χ2(7) = 0.00, p = 1), so training did not moderate cue use.

"We found no main effect for MC Monitoring (γ = 0.02, SE = 0.22, t(214) = 0.10, p = 0.92) and MC Performance Feedback (γ = −0.28, SE = 0.22, t(214) = −1.29, p = 0.20) and measurement point (γ = −0.15, SE = 0.13, t(215) = −1.09, p = 0.28)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Kindergarteners spontaneously use choice latency as a cue for confidence judgments, with shorter latencies linked to higher confidence — related
• Choice latency is a valid cue for kindergarteners: faster recognition responses are associated with correct answers — related
• Neither monitoring feedback nor performance feedback improved kindergarteners' monitoring accuracy relative to an active control — related
• Children's ability to discriminate between correct and incorrect answers did not change over training regardless of group — related
• Teachers' self-reported cue utilization attributes are not significantly correlated with their monitoring accuracy (Experiment 2). — related