High achievers are more accurate than low achievers in metacognitive monitoring and controlling during test taking¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? High achievers proved more accurate than low achievers in metacognitive monitoring and controlling. → Krebs 2012

Evidence¶

Krebs 2012¶

Krebs, S.S., Roebers, C.M. (2012). The impact of retrieval processes, age, general achievement level, and test scoring scheme for children's metacognitive monitoring and controlling. Metacognition and Learning 7, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9079-3

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Experimental study of N = 150 children comparing high and low achievers on metacognitive monitoring and control during a cloze test; the article reports that "high compared to low achievers proved to be more accurate in their metacognitive monitoring and controlling." No effect size is printed.

"As to the influence of achievement level, high compared to low achievers proved to be more accurate in their metacognitive monitoring and controlling."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• All children in the study showed adequate metacognitive processes before and during test taking — reports the opposite
• Before self-scoring, high-performing primary students make more accurate monitoring judgments of math problem performance than low-performing students (unskilled-and-unaware effect) — related