Influence of reasoning on knowledge on metacognitive monitoring of the solution of test tasks



In article the problem of metacognitive monitoring of the solution of educational tasks is condemned. The role of heuristic processes as source of possible distortions in metacognitive judgments is shown. Results of pilot study in which influence of reasonings of pupils on own knowledge on characteristics of monitoring (N = 58 is studied are presented; middle age — 19,5 years; 5 young men, 53 girls). It is revealed: 1) the students formulating the arguments disproving their knowledge were less sure of the solution of test tasks, than the students who were putting forward arguments in support of correctness of the knowledge (p = 0,016); 2) students from group which put forward the disproving arguments showed more positive changes of accuracy of monitoring, in comparison with students from group which put forward the arguments confirming their knowledge (p = 0,032); 3) the procedure of reasonings on own knowledge did not reduce influence of heuristic processes on creation of judgments of metacognitive monitoring; 4) students with lower level of subject knowledge showed big changes in indicators of metacognitive monitoring in comparison with the students having more high standard of knowledge (р = 0,043). The prospects of use of the procedure of reasonings on knowledge as development tools of skills of monitoring are discussed. Some restrictions of results and conclusions of a research are specified.

General Information

Keywords: metacognitive monitoring, metacognitive judgments, reasonings on knowledge, heuristic processes

Journal rubric: Cognitive Psychology

Article type: scientific article


Funding. This work was supported by grant RFBR №16-16-40019 а(р).

For citation: Fomin A.E., Bogomolova E.A. Influence of reasoning on knowledge on metacognitive monitoring of the solution of test tasks. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2019. Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 126–138. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2019120110. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Litvinov A.V., Ivolina T.V. Metakognitsiya: Ponyatie, struktura, svyaz’ s intellektual’nymi i kognitivnymi sposobnostyami (po materialam zarubezhnykh issledovanii). [Elektronnyi resurs] [Metacognition: Concept, structure, association with intellect and cognitive processes]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya [Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology], 2013. no 3. pp. 59—70. Available at: jmfp/2013/n3/63502.shtml (Accessed: 11.08.2017) (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
  2. Fomin A.E. Formirovanie navykov metakognitivnogo monitoringa v protsesse promezhutochnogo i itogovogo kontrolya znanii studentov [Formation of skills of metacognitive monitoring in the course of intermediate and total control of knowledge of students]. Voprosy psikhologii [Voprosy psikhologii], 2016, no. 6, pp. 130—140.
  3. Chamorro-Premuzik T. Uverennost’ v sebe: Kak povysit’ samootsenku, preodolet’ strakhi i somneniya [Confidence. Overcoming low self-esteem, insecurity, and self-doubt]. Moscow: Al’pina Pablisher, 2014. 266 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Baker L. Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader Educational Psychology Review, 1989. Vol. 1 (1), pp. 3—38. doi:10.1007/BF01326548
  5. Barnett J.E., Hixon J.E. Effects of grade level and subject on student test score predictions The Journal of Educational Research, 1997. Vol. 90 (3), pp. 170—174. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1997.10543773
  6. Bol L., Hacker D.J. A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration The Journal of experimental education, 2001. Vol. 69 (2), pp. 133—151. doi: 10.1080/00220970109600653
  7. Bol L., Hacker D.J., O’Shea P., Allen D. The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance The Journal of Experimental Education, 2005. Vol. 73 (4), pp. 269—290. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.73.4.269-290
  8. Bol L., Hacker D.J. Calibration Research: Where Do We Go from Here? [Elektronnyi resurs] Frontiers in Psychology, 2012. Vol. 3. Available at: (Accessed:5.10.2017)doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00229
  9. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A. Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention Learning and Instruction, 2012. Vol. 22 (4), pp. 271—280. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
  10. Grimes P.W. The overconfident principles of economics student: An examination of a metacognitive skill The Journal of Economic Education, 2002. Vol. 33 (1), pp. 15—30. doi: 10.1080/00220480209596121
  11. Hacker D.J., Bol L., Horgan D.D., Rakow E.A. Test prediction and performance in a classroom context Journal of Educational Psychology, 2000. Vol. 92 (1), pp. 160—170. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160
  12. Hacker D.J., Bol L., Keener M.C. Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration Handbook of metamemory and memory, ed. J. Dunlosky, R.A.Bjork. N.Y.: Psychology Press, 2008. pp. 429—455.
  13. Kelley C M., Lindsay D.S. Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions Journal of Memory and Language, 1993. Vol. 32 (1), pp. 1—24. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
  14. Kinnunen R., Vauras M. Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high-and low-achieving primary school children’s reading Learning and Instruction, 1995. Vol. 5 (2), pp. 143—165. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00009-R
  15. Koriat A., Lichtenstein S., Fischhoff B. Reasons for confidence Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and memory, 1980. Vol. 6 (2), pp. 107—118. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107
  16. Koriat A. How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing Psychological review, 1993. Vol. 100 (4), pp. 609—639. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.609
  17. Koriat A. The feeling of knowing: some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control Consciousness and cognition, 2000. Vol. 9 (2), pp. 149—171. doi: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0433
  18. Koriat A. Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition Memory & Cognition, 2008. Vol. 36 (2), pp. 416—428. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.2.416
  19. Nelson T., Narrens L. Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings The psychology of learning and motivation, ed. G.H. Bower. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1990. Vol. 26, pp. 125—169.
  20. Nelson T., Narrens L. Why investigate metacognition? Metacognition : Knowing About Knowing, ed. J. Metcalfe, A.P. Shimamura. Cambridge M.A.: MIT Press, 1996. pp. 1—26.
  21. Nietfeld J.L., Cao L., Osborne J. W. Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom The Journal of Experimental Educational, 2005. Vol. 74 (1), pp. 7—28.
  22. Nietfeld J.L., Schraw G. The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy The Journal of Educational Research, 2002. Vol. 95 (3), pp. 131—142.
  23. Schwartz B.L., Benjamin A.S., Bjork R.A. The inferential and experiential bases of metamemory Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1997. Vol. 6 (5), pp. 132—137. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772899
  24. Tobias S., Everson H.T. Knowing what you know and what you don’t: Further research on metacognitive knowledge monitoring. N.Y.: College Entrance Examination Board, 2002. 25 р.
  25. Veenman M.V., Verheij J. Technical students’ metacognitive skills: Relating general vs. specific metacognitive skills to study success Learning and Individual differences, 2001. Vol. 13 (3), pp. 259—272. doi: 10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00094-8
  26. Westley D.N. Accuracy of Student Calibration on Specific Topics: Very Good Students vs. Others [Elektronnyi resurs] Proceedings of the Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE). Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, 2008. pp. 119—123. Available at: http: // / InSITE2008 / InSITE08p119-123West449.pdf (Accessed: 23.04.2014)
  27. Zhao Q., Linderholm T. Anchoring effects on prospective and retrospective metacomprehension judgments as a function of peer performance information Metacognition and Learning, 2011. Vol. 6 (1), pp. 25—43. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9065-1

Information About the Authors

Andrey E. Fomin, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Chair of Developmental Psychology and Education, Department of Psychology, Kaluga State University named after K.E.Tsiolkovsky, Kaluga, Russia, e-mail:

Elena A. Bogomolova, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Tsiolkovskу Kaluga State University, Kaluga, Russia, e-mail:



Total: 1563
Previous month: 5
Current month: 0


Total: 496
Previous month: 0
Current month: 0