Dataset Information

Metacognition across domains: Is the association between arithmetic and metacognitive monitoring domain-specific?

ABSTRACT: Metacognitive monitoring is a critical predictor of arithmetic in primary school. One outstanding question is whether this metacognitive monitoring is domain-specific or whether it reflects a more general performance monitoring process. To answer this conundrum, we investigated metacognitive monitoring in two related, yet distinct academic domains: arithmetic and spelling. This allowed us to investigate whether monitoring in one domain correlated with monitoring in the other domain, and whether monitoring in one domain was predictive of performance in the other, and vice versa. Participants were 147 typically developing 8-9-year-old children (Study 1) and 77 typically developing 7-8-year-old children (Study 2), who were in the middle of an important developmental period for both metacognitive monitoring and academic skills. Pre-registered analyses revealed that within-domain metacognitive monitoring was an important predictor of arithmetic and spelling at both ages. In 8-9-year-olds the metacognitive monitoring measures in different academic domains were predictive of each other, even after taking into account academic performance in these domains. Monitoring in arithmetic was an important predictor of spelling performance, even when arithmetic performance was controlled for. Likewise, monitoring in spelling was an important predictor of arithmetic performance, even when spelling performance was controlled for. In 7-8-year-olds metacognitive monitoring was domain-specific, with neither correlations between the monitoring measures, nor correlations between monitoring in one domain and performance in the other. Taken together, these findings indicate that more domain-general metacognitive monitoring processes emerge over the ages from 7 to 9.

SUBMITTER: Bellon E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7067420 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Metacognition across domains: Is the association between arithmetic and metacognitive monitoring domain-specific?

Bellon Elien E Fias Wim W De Smedt Bert B

PloS one 20200312 3

Metacognitive monitoring is a critical predictor of arithmetic in primary school. One outstanding question is whether this metacognitive monitoring is domain-specific or whether it reflects a more general performance monitoring process. To answer this conundrum, we investigated metacognitive monitoring in two related, yet distinct academic domains: arithmetic and spelling. This allowed us to investigate whether monitoring in one domain correlated with monitoring in the other domain, and whether ...[more]

PMID: 32163453

Similar Datasets

Project description:Providing eyewitness testimony involves monitoring one's memory to provide a detailed and accurate account: reporting details likely to be accurate and withholding potentially inaccurate details. Autistic individuals reportedly experience difficulties in both retrieving episodic memories and monitoring their accuracy, which has important implications for eyewitness testimony. Thirty autistic and 33 IQ-matched typically developing (TD) participants viewed a video of a mock bank robbery followed by three phases of questions (with judgments of confidence). In Phase 1, participants freely generated the granularity of their responses (i.e., fine- or coarse-grained). In Phase 2, participants answered the same questions but provided both a fine- and a coarse-grained answer. In Phase 3, participants were instructed to maximize accuracy over informativeness by selecting one of their Phase 2 answers as their final answer. They either received the questions socially (from the experimenter) or answered them online. There were no group differences in accuracy or metacognitive monitoring, with both autistic and TD witnesses demonstrating: (a) a strong preference for reporting fine-grained details at the expense of accuracy; (b) improved though still suboptimal grain size reporting when instructed to maximize accuracy over informativeness; (c) effective accuracy monitoring; and (d) higher overall accuracy when questions were delivered socially. There was, however, a subtle difference in metacognitive control, with autistic witnesses performing more poorly than TD witnesses when questions were delivered socially, but not when they were delivered online. These findings contrast with evidence suggesting that autism is marked by impairments in episodic memory and metacognitive monitoring and control. Autism Res 2020, 13: 2017-2029. © 2020 The Authors. Autism Research published by International Society for Autism Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. LAY SUMMARY: Autistic people have been reported to experience subtle difficulties in monitoring and regulating their information reporting, which has important implications for providing eyewitness testimony. We found that autistic witnesses' testimony comprised a similar level of detail and accuracy as non-autistic witnesses' accounts. However, autistic people found it difficult to optimize their testimony when the questions were delivered socially-but not when they answered the questions online. © 2020 The Authors. Autism Research published by International Society for Autism Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Dataset Information

Metacognition across domains: Is the association between arithmetic and metacognitive monitoring domain-specific?

Publications

Metacognition across domains: Is the association between arithmetic and metacognitive monitoring domain-specific?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets