Heuristic Cues for Meta-Reasoning Judgments: Review and Methodology

Metacognitive research aims to explain how people regulate their effort when performing cognitive tasks, to expose conditions that support reliable monitoring of chance for success, and to provide a basis for developing improvement guidelines. The essence of the domain is that monitoring drives control: people continually self-assess their chance for success before, during, and after performing a cognitive task, and use these judgments to guide their effort-allocation decisions (e.g., whether to reconsider an answer option, change strategy, seek help, or give up). Thus, factors that underlie metacognitive judgments affect the efficiency with which people perform cognitive tasks. This paper focuses on meta-reasoning – the monitoring and control processes that apply to reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making tasks. So far, relatively little is known about heuristic cues used for inferring meta-reasoning judgments. This paper reviews the known heuristic cues and offers methodological guidelines for a critical reading of existing research and for designing high-quality studies that will advance this important domain

Heuristic Cues for Meta-Reasoning Judgments: Review and Methodology

Metacognitive research aims to explain how people regulate their effort when performing cognitive tasks, to expose conditions that support reliable monitoring of chance for success, and to provide a basis for developing improvement guidelines. The essence of the domain is that monitoring drives control: people continually self-assess their chance for success before, during, and after performing a cognitive task, and use these judgments to guide their effort-allocation decisions (e.g., whether to reconsider an answer option, change strategy, seek help, or give up). Thus, factors that underlie metacognitive judgments affect the efficiency with which people perform cognitive tasks. This paper focuses on meta-reasoning – the monitoring and control processes that apply to reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making tasks. So far, relatively little is known about heuristic cues used for inferring meta-reasoning judgments. This paper reviews the known heuristic cues and offers methodological guidelines for a critical reading of existing research and for designing high-quality studies that will advance this important domain

The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency in the monitoring and control of reasoning: Reply to Alter, Oppenheimer, and Epley

In this reply, we provide an analysis of Alter et al. (2013) response to our earlier paper (Thompson et al., 2013). In that paper, we reported difficulty in replicating Alter, Oppenheimer, Epley, and Eyre’s (2007) main finding, namely that a sense of disfluency produced by making stimuli difficult to perceive, increased accuracy on a variety of reasoning tasks. Alter, Oppenheimer, and Epley (2013) argue that we misunderstood the meaning of accuracy on these tasks, a claim that we reject. We argue and provide evidence that the tasks were not too difficult for our populations (such that no amount of “metacognitive unease” would promote correct responding) and point out that in many cases performance on our tasks was well above chance or on a par with Alter et al.’s (2007) participants. Finally, we reiterate our claim that the distinction between answer fluency (the ease with which an answer comes to mind) and perceptual fluency (the ease with which a problem can be read) is genuine, and argue that Thompson et al. (2013) provided evidence that these are distinct factors that have different downstream effects on cognitive processe

Mathematics Anxiety and Metacognitive Processes: Proposal for a New Line of Inquiry

This paper presents a proposal for a new area of investigation that connects the metacognition literature, and especially the recently developed meta-reasoning framework, with research into mathematical reasoning, mathematics learning, and mathematics anxiety. Whereas the literature on mathematics anxiety focusses on the end result of learning and problem-solving, the metacognitive approach can offer further insight by a fine-grained analysis of the stages of these processes. In particular, it provides tools for exposing students' initial assessment of tasks and test situations, the targets they set for themselves, the process of monitoring progress, and decisions to stick with or abandon a particular solution. The paper outlines various ways in which the metacognitive approach could be used to investigate the effects of mathematics anxiety on mathematics learning and problem solving. This approach could help in answering questions like: Do anxious and non-anxious learners differ in how they prepare for an exam? Are anxious students more or less prone to overconfidence than non-anxious students? What metacognitive decisions mediate maths anxious participants' tendency to give up on problems too early? Additionally, this line of work has the potential to significantly expand the scope of metacognitive investigations and provide novel insights into individual differences in the metacognitive regulation of learning and problem solving. It could also offer some practical benefits by focusing the attention of educational designers on particular components within the learning process of anxious students.<br /

Comparing Mental Effort, Difficulty, and Confidence Appraisals in Problem-Solving: A Metacognitive Perspective

It is well established in educational research that metacognitive monitoring of performance assessed by self-reports, for instance, asking students to report their confidence in provided answers, is based on heuristic cues rather than on actual success in the task. Subjective self-reports are also used in educational research on cognitive load, where they refer to the perceived amount of mental effort invested in or difficulty of each task item. In the present study, we examined the potential underlying bases and the predictive value of mental effort and difficulty appraisals compared to confidence appraisals by applying metacognitive concepts and paradigms. In three experiments, participants faced verbal logic problems or one of two non-verbal reasoning tasks. In a between-participants design, each task item was followed by either mental effort, difficulty, or confidence appraisals. We examined the associations between the various appraisals, response time, and success rates. Consistently across all experiments, we found that mental effort and difficulty appraisals were associated more strongly than confidence with response time. Further, while all appraisals were highly predictive of solving success, the strength of this association was stronger for difficulty and confidence appraisals (which were similar) than for mental effort appraisals. We conclude that mental effort and difficulty appraisals are prone to misleading cues like other metacognitive judgments and are based on unique underlying processes. These findings challenge the accepted notion that mental effort appraisals can serve as reliable reflections of cognitive load