knowing what you know and what you don't: further ?· research report no. 2002-3 knowing what you...

Download Knowing What You Know and What You Don't: Further ?· Research Report No. 2002-3 Knowing What You Know…

Post on 04-Jun-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents

4 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • www.collegeboard.com

    Research Report No. 2002-3

    Knowing What You Know and What You Dont: Further Research on Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring

    Sigmund Tobias and Howard T. Everson

  • College Entrance Examination Board, New York, 2002

    College Board Research Report No. 2002-3

    Knowing What You Knowand What You Dont:Further Research on

    Metacognitive KnowledgeMonitoring

    Sigmund Tobias and Howard T. Everson

    07-1626.RD.CBRpt02-3Txt 4/11/07 1:38 PM Page i

  • Sigmund Tobias is a distinguished scholar in theDivision of Psychological and Educational Services inthe Graduate School of Education at FordhamUniversity at Lincoln Center.

    Howard Everson is Vice President for AcademicInitiatives and Chief Research Scientist at the CollegeBoard.

    Researchers are encouraged to freely express theirprofessional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opin-ions stated in College Board Reports do not necessarilyrepresent official College Board position or policy.

    The College Board: Expanding College Opportunity

    The College Board is a national nonprofit membershipassociation dedicated to preparing, inspiring, and connect-ing students to college and opportunity. Founded in 1900,the association is composed of more than 4,200 schools,colleges, universities, and other educational organizations.Each year, the College Board serves over three million stu-dents and their parents, 22,000 high schools, and 3,500colleges, through major programs and services in collegeadmissions, guidance, assessment, financial aid, enroll-ment, and teaching and learning. Among its best-knownprograms are the SAT, the PSAT/NMSQT, and theAdvanced Placement Program (AP). The College Boardis committed to the principles of equity and excellence, andthat commitment is embodied in all of its programs, ser-vices, activities, and concerns.

    For further information, contact www.collegeboard.com

    Additional copies of this report (item #993815) may beobtained from College Board Publications, Box 886,New York, NY 10101-0886, 800 323-7155. The priceis $15. Please include $4 for postage and handling.

    Copyright 2002 by College Entrance ExaminationBoard. All rights reserved. College Board, AdvancedPlacement Program, AP, SAT, and the acorn logo areregistered trademarks of the College EntranceExamination Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registeredtrademark jointly owned by both the College EntranceExamination Board and the National Merit ScholarshipCorporation. Visit College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.com.

    Printed in the United States of America.

    AcknowledgmentsThis work was funded by the College Board. Earlierversions of this paper, and the studies reported herein,were presented in April 1999 at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association inMontreal. The findings and opinions expressed in thisarticle are our own and do not reflect the positions orpolicies of the College Board.

    The research reported here was conducted in collabora-tion with our colleagues: Lourdes Fajar and KatherineSantos conducted Study I in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the Seminar in Educational Researchat the City College of New York; Rhonda Romero con-ducted Study II in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the Seminar in Educational Research at the CityCollege of New York; Edgar Feng conducted Study IIIin partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Seminarin Educational Research at the City College of NewYork; Fred Dwamena conducted Study IV in partial ful-fillment of the requirements for the Seminar inEducational Research at the City College of New York;Study V was supported by a contract with the BattelleCorporation relying on resources made available by theNavy Personnel Research and Development Center;Harold Ford conducted Study VII in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the qualifying examination atFordham Universitys Graduate School of Education;Julie Nathan conducted Study X as her doctoral disser-tation research at Fordham Universitys GraduateSchool of Education; Hyacinth Njoku conducted StudyXI in partial fulfillment of the requirements for thequalifying examination at Fordham UniversitysGraduate School of Education.

    We are grateful to both Patrick C. Kyllonen and IrvingKatz of Educational Testing Service for their helpfulcomments in earlier versions of this paper.

    07-1626.RD.CBRpt02-3Txt 4/11/07 1:38 PM Page ii

  • ContentsI. Introduction ................................................1

    The Importance of Knowledge Monitoring..........................1

    II. Assessing Knowledge Monitoring ................1

    Analysis of Monitoring Accuracy.............2

    III. Knowledge Monitoring Accuracy and the Developing Reader .......................3

    Study I: Knowledge Monitoring Accuracy and Reading in BilingualElementary School Students.....................3

    Participants and Procedures ....................3

    Results and Discussion ............................3

    Study II: Reading, Help Seeking, and Knowledge Monitoring .....................3

    Participants and Procedures ....................4

    Results and Discussion ............................4

    Summary: Knowledge Monitoring and Reading.............................................5

    Study III: Strategic Help Seeking inMathematics ............................................5

    Participants and Procedures ....................5

    Results and Discussion ............................5

    IV. Knowledge Monitoring and Ability .............6

    Study IV: Triarchic Intelligence andKnowledge Monitoring ............................6

    Participants and Procedures ....................7

    Results and Discussion ............................7

    Study V: The Impact of KnowledgeMonitoring, Word Difficulty, Dynamic Assessment, and Ability on Training Outcomes.............................7

    Participants and Procedures ....................7

    Materials..................................................8

    Results and Discussion ............................8

    Study VI: Knowledge Monitoring and Scholastic Aptitude .........................10

    Participants and Procedures ..................10

    Results and Discussion ..........................10

    Study VII: Knowledge Monitoring,Scholastic Aptitude, College Grades ......10

    Participants and Procedures ..................10

    Results and Discussion ..........................10

    Summary: Knowledge Monitoring and Academic Ability ............................11

    V. Knowledge Monitoring: Is It a DomainGeneral or Specific Ability?.....................11

    Study VIII: Math and Vocabulary KMAs,SAT Tests, and Grades: Relationships ....11

    Participants and Procedures ..................11

    Results and Discussion ..........................12

    Study IX: Knowledge Monitoring, Reading Ability, and Prior Knowledge ....12

    Participants and Procedures ..................12

    Results and Discussion ..........................12

    Other Relevant Studies ..............................13

    VI. Self-Reports of Metacognition and Objective Measures of KnowledgeMonitoring ..............................................14

    07-1626.RD.CBRpt02-3Txt 4/11/07 1:38 PM Page iii

  • Summary: Relationships of KMA Scores and Self-Report Measuresof Metacognition ...................................17

    Study X: An Investigation of the Impact of Anxiety on KnowledgeMonitoring ............................................17

    Participants and Procedures ..................18

    Results and Discussion ..........................18

    Study XI: Cross-Cultural Perspective on Knowledge Monitoring.....................18

    Participants and Procedures ..................19

    Results and Discussion ..........................19

    VII. Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring and Strategic Studying Among Secondary Students .....................19

    VIII.General Discussion....................................21

    IX. Suggestions for Future Research ................22

    References .........................................................23

    Tables1. Two Prototypical KMA Item

    Score Patterns. ..................................................2

    2. Correlations Among ASVAB Measures and KMA Scores by Word Difficulty. ...............8

    3. Descriptive Statements for KMA Scores and GPA. ...............................................9

    4. Correlations of Math and Verbal KMA Score and GPA......................................12

    5. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Beta Weights with Posttest Score. ............13

    6. Correlations Between KMA and Learning in Training Course...........................14

    7. Correlations of Verbal and Math KMA Scores, Metacognitive Self-Report Scales, Teacher Ratings, and SAT I-V and SAT I-M Scores. ..................16

    8. Correlations of MSLQ, LASSI, KMA Scores, and GPA. ............................................16

    Figures1. A componential model of metacognition. .........1

    2. The interaction between knowledge monitoring ability and help seeking reviews. .................................4

    3. The relationship between knowledge monitoring and help seeking reviews in Study III. .............................5

    4. Relationship of KMA scores with ASVAB performance. ........................................9

    5. Relationship between test anxiety and help seeking. ............................................20

    6. Math KMA means by type of problemreviewed for Nigerian and American male students..................................................21

    07-1626.RD.CBRpt02-3Txt 4/11/07 1:38 PM Page iv

  • I. IntroductionFor more than a decade

Recommended

View more >