臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：最穩定的後設認知監控力指標之探討：指標決定監控力是否具有一致性和一般性
書刊名：中華心理學刊
作者：梁恩萍／李玉惠
作者(外文)：Liang, En-ping／Lee, Ju-whei
出版日期：2003
卷期：45:2
頁次：頁121-138
主題關鍵詞：後設認知監控力；穩定性；領域獨特能力；跨領域能力；信心判斷準確性研究範式；Metacognitive monitoring；Stability；Domain-specific ability；Domain-general ability；Confidence-judgment accuracy paradigm
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:11
  • 點閱點閱:39
本研究以實徵的方式比較六個後設認知監控力指標的穩定性，包括機率分數平均值(PS)、準度指標(CI)、偏誤指標(Bias)、區辨力指標(DI0、調整/常態化區辨力指標ANDI)以及Goodman-Kruskalγ相關係數(G指標)，共採用三個穩定性的檢核準則，其為不隨題目難易度變動的穩定性、單一領域內的穩定性以及跨領域的穩定性。本研究以59位大學生為受試者，受試者重複參與三個分屬不同領域的實驗(文字再認、人臉再認、一般性常譏測驗)，各實驗皆採用受試者間的單因子設計(題目難易度:簡單/適中/困難)，且皆採用信心判斷準確性研究範式來測量受試者的監控力準確性。本研究的三個實驗結果顯示:ANDI和G是不隨題目難易度變動的穩定監控力指標，PS、Bias、CI和DI可以捕捉到單一領域內監控力的穩定性、PS、Bias、CI和DI可顯示出跨領域的監控力穩定性。整合三個準則的結果，筆者所檢視的六個監控力指標中，沒有一個指標是全然穩定的監控力指標，因此發展一個新的且具穩定性的監控力指標有其必要性。本研究結果支持監控力應是一個具有一致性的一般性能力，先前有關後設認知監控力空竟是一個領域獨特的能力或是跨領域能力的爭議至少部分是源於測量指標的不同。
The Goodman-Kruskal gamma correlation coefficient (denoted as G) was evaluated by Nelson (1984) as the best measure for assessing the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. Consequently, it was widely adopted by many researchers in the field of metacognition. Recently, some researchers found that the value of the G measure could not accurately reflect the individual’s metacognition (Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1994), it varied with item difficulty (Weaver &Bryant, 1995), and it was unstable within a single domain (Thompson & Mason, 1996). Meanwhile, some scholars used the mean probability score, bias, the calibration index, the discrimination index, and the adjusted normalized discrimination index (denoted separately as PS, Bias, CI, DI, and ANDI) to evaluate a subject’s accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. (e.g., Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996; Maki, 1998; Schraw, Dunkle, bendixen, & Roedel, 1995). With these vaiours measures, one enigmatic issue concerns which measure best reflects the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. In constructing a test, one needs to establish the validity and the reliability of that test. Same conceptions apply to the measures of metacognitive monitoring. From the viewpoint of definitions and mathematical formulas, it is apparent that each of thest existing measures possesses construct validity. Nevertheless, few studies examined thoroughly the reliability of these measures. The present study, thus, empirically compared the stability of these six measures in terms of three criteria: The stability across item difficulty, the stability within a single domain, and the stability across domains. Three experiments, each with a single factor design (item difficulty: easy/medium/difficult), were conducted to assess the stability of these six measures. Fifty-nine college students repeatedly participated in three experiments. Although these experiments belonged to different domains (the word recognition test, the face recognition test, and the general knowledge test), they all adopted the confidence-judgment accuracy paradigm to measure the subject’s accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. The experiments of word recognition and face recognition were conducted on IBM-compatible PCs. Each of these two experiments began by asking participants to memorize a set of items, then followed by a two-alternative recognition test. As to the general knowledge experiment, it was a one-stage recognition test. For each recognition item, regardless of the experiment, the subject had to choose the correct answer from the two alternatives, then gave a confidence rating (in the range of 50% to 100%) for chosen answer to be regarded as correct. For each experiment, the values of PS, Bias, CI, DI, ANDI, and G were computed. A Kruskal-Wallis test was then conducted to examine the effect of item difficulty on each of those measures. The spearman correlation of each index was computed from split-halves of each test to evaluate the stability of each index in a single domain. Spearman correlations were also computed among experiments to reflect stability across domains. Results from the experiments showed that the values of the ANDI and G did not change with item difficulty. Those of PS, Bias, CI, and DI were stable within a domain. The values of PS, Bias, CI, and DI showed stability across domains. In conclusion, none of the examined measures was an entirely stable measure for the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. Consequently, it is necessary to develop a new stable measure to assess the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring. In addition, results from various measures (PS, Bias, CI, and DI) indicated stability over time and among tasks, implying the existence of a general 0and consistent metacognitive ability. The present study, thus, suggests that previous controversy about the nature of the metacognitive ability is partly due to different measures.
期刊論文
1.Kelemen, W. L.、Frost, P. J.、Weaver, C. A. I.(2000)。Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability。Memory and Cognition，28，92-107。  new window
2.Hart, J. T.(1967)。Memory and the memory-monitoring process。Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，6(5)，685-691。  new window
3.Brown, R.、McNeill, D.(1966)。The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon。Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，5，325-337。  new window
4.Gardiner, J. M.、Klee, H.(1976)。Memory for remembered events: An assessment of output monitoring in free recall。Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior，15(2)，227-233。  new window
5.Perkins, D. N.、Salomon, G.(1989)。Are cognitive skills context-bound?。Educational Researcher，18(1)，16-25。  new window
6.Hart, J. T.(1965)。Memory and the Feeling-of-knowing Experience。Journal of Educational Psychology，56(4)，208-216。  new window
7.Flavell, John H.(1979)。Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry。American Psychologist，34(10)，906-911。  new window
8.陳德祐、吳瑞屯(19931200)。中文字頻對形聲字音旁作用的干涉效果。中華心理學刊，35(2)，67-74。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Nelson, T. O.(1984)。A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions。Psychological Bulletin，95，109-133。  new window
10.Nelson, T. O.、Leonesio, R. J.、Landwehr, R. S.、Narens, L.(1986)。A Comparison of Three Predictions of an Individual's Memory Performance: The Individual's Feeling of Knowing versus the Normative Feeling of Knowing versus Base-rate Item Difficulty。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition，12，279-287。  new window
11.Thompson, W. B.、Mason, S. E.(1996)。Instability of Individual Differences in the Association between Confidence Judgments and Memory Performance。Memory & Cognition，24，226-234。  new window
12.Pressley, M.、Ghatala, E. S.(1990)。Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text。Educational Psychologist，25，19-34。  new window
13.Reder, L. M.(1987)。Strategy selection in question answering。Cognitive Psychology，19，90-138。  new window
14.Reder, L. M.、Ritter, F. E.(1992)。What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition，18，435-451。  new window
15.Schraw, G.、Dunkle, M. E.、Bendixen, L. D.、Roedel, T. D.(1995)。Does a general monitoring skill exist?。Journal of Educational Psychology，87，433-444。  new window
16.Schraw, G.、Nietfeld, J.(1998)。A further test of the general monitoring skill hypothesis。Journal of Educational Psychology，90(2)，236-248。  new window
17.Weaver, C. A.、Bryant, D. S.(1995)。Monitoring of Comprehension: The Role of Text Difficulty in Metamemory for Narrative and Expository Text。Memory & Cognition，23(1)，12-22。  new window
18.Yaniv, I.、Yates, J. F.、Smith, J. E. K.(1991)。Measures of discrimination skill in probabilistic judgment。Psychological Bulletin，110，611-617。  new window
19.Yates, J. F.、李玉惠、Shinotsuka, H.、Patalano, A. L.、Sieck, W. R.(1998)。Cross-cultural variations in probability judgment accuracy: Beyond general knowledge overconfidence?。Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes，74(2)，89-117。  new window
20.Carlson, B. W.(1993)。The accuracy of future forecasts and past judgments。Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes，54，245-276。  new window
21.Costermans, J.、Lories, G.、Ansay, C.(1992)。Confidence level and feeling of knowing in question answering: The weight of inferential processes。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition，18(1)，142-150。  new window
22.Glenberg, A. M.、Epstein, W.(1987)。Inexpert Calibration of Comprehension。Memory & Cognition，15(1)，84-93。  new window
23.Hart, J. T.(1966)。Methodological note on feeling-of-knowing experiments。Journal of Educational Psychology，57，347-349。  new window
24.Koriat, A.(1993)。How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing。Psychological Review，100(4)，609-639。  new window
25.Koriat, A.、Goldsmith, M.(1996)。Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy。Psychological Review，103(3)，490-517。  new window
26.Lichtenstein, Sarah、Fischhoff, Baruch(1977)。Do Those Who Know More Also Know More about How Much They Know?。Organizational Behavior and Human Performance，20(2)，159-183。  new window
27.Maki, R. H.(1998)。Metacomprehension of text: Influence of absolute confidence level on bias and accuracy。The Psychology of Learning and Motivation，38，223-248。  new window
28.McDonald-Miszczak, L.、Hertzog, C.、Hultsch, D. F.(1995)。Stability and accuracy of metamemory in adulthood and aging: A longitudinal analysis。Psychology and Aging，10(4)，553-564。  new window
學位論文
1.呂菁菁(1996)。中文語詞認知歷程(博士論文)。國立清華大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Nelson, T. O.、Narens, L.(1990)。Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings。The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 26。San Diego, CA：Academic Bess。  new window
2.Gibbons, Jean Dickinson(1993)。Nonparametric measures of association。Newbury Park, CA：Sage Publications。  new window
3.Stillings, N. A.(1995)。Cognitive Psychology。Cambridge, MA：Allyn ＆ Bacon。  new window
4.Yates, Frank J.(1990)。Judgment and decision making。Judgment and decision making。Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall。  new window
5.Siegel, Sidney、Castellan, N. John Jr.(1988)。Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences。New York, NY：McGraw-Hill。  new window
6.Christensen, Larry B.(2001)。Experimental Methodology。Needham Heights, MA：Allan & Bacon。  new window
7.Murphy, K. R.、Davidshofer, C. O.(1998)。Psychological testing; Principles and applications。Upper Saddle River, NJ：PrenticeHall。  new window
8.Fiske, S.、Taylor, S.(1991)。Social Cognition。New York：McGraw-Hill。  new window
9.Flavell, J. H.、Wellman, H. M.(1977)。Metamemory。Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition。Hillsdale, NJ。  new window
10.Nelson, T. O.、Narens, L.(1994)。Why investigate metacognition?。Metacognition: Knowing about knowing。Cambridge, MA。  new window
11.Reder, L. M.(1988)。Strategic control of retrieval strategies。The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 22。San Diego, CA。  new window
12.(1999)。八十六年常用語詞調查報告書。八十六年常用語詞調查報告書。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Miner, A. C.、Reder, L. M.(1994)。A new look at feeling of knowing: its metacognitive role in regulating question answering。Metacognition: Knowing about knowing。Cambridge：MIT Press。  new window
2.Schwartz, B. L.、Metcalfe, J.(1994)。Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition。Metacognition。Cambridge, MA：MIT。  new window
3.Flavell, J. H.(1981)。Cognitive monitoring。Children's oral communication skills。New York：Academic Press。  new window
4.Chi, M. T. H.、Glaser, R.(1988)。Overview。The nature of expertise。Hillsdale, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：804（臺灣：793，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2219088 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68013140
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上