pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dividing attention impairs metacognitive control more than monitoring - PubMed

Dividing attention impairs metacognitive control more than monitoring

Yaoping Peng et al. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021 Dec.

Abstract

Students consistently report multitasking (e.g., checking social media, texting, watching Netflix) when studying on their own (e.g., Junco & Cotton, Computers & Education, 59[2], 505-514, 2012). Multitasking impairs explicit learning (e.g., Carrier, Rosen, Cheever, & Lim, Developmental Review, 35, 64-78, 2015), but the impact of multitasking on metacognitive monitoring and control is less clear. Metacognition may compete with ongoing cognitive processing for mental resources (e.g., Nelson & Narens, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125-141, 1990) and would be impaired by dividing attention; alternatively, metacognition may require little attention (e.g., Boekaerts & Niemivirta, Handbook of Self-Regulation [pp. 417-450], 2000) and would not be impacted by dividing attention. Across three experiments, we assessed the influence of divided attention on metacognition. Participants made item-by-item judgements of learning (JOLs) after studying word pairs under full or divided attention (Experiment 1) and made restudy choices (Experiments 2 & 3). Dividing attention had little impact on the resolution of learners' metacognitive monitoring, but significantly impaired calibration of monitoring, the relationship between monitoring and control, and the efficacy of metacognitive control. The data suggest that monitoring may require few cognitive resources, but controlling one's learning (e.g., planning what to restudy and implementing a plan) may demand significant mental resources.

Keywords: Divided attention; Metacognition; Metacognitive control; Metacognitive monitoring.

© 2021. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Participants’ cued recall and JOLs in Experiment 1. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean above and below the sample mean

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Violin plots of the within-participant gamma correlations between JOLs and restudy choices in Experiment 2

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Cued recall as a function of attention and honor conditions in Experiment 2. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean above and below the sample mean

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Violin plots of the within-participant gamma correlations between JOLs and restudy choices in Experiment 3

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Cued recall as a function of attention and honor conditions in Experiment 3. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean above and below the sample mean

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ariel R. Learning what to learn: The effects of task experience on strategy shifts in the allocation of study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2013;39(6):1697–1711. doi: 10.1037/a0033091. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ariel R, Al-Harthy IS, Was CA, Dunlosky J. Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2011;18(5):1015–1021. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0128-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ariel R, Dunlosky J. When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition. 2013;41(3):416–428. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0267-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ariel R, Dunlosky J, Bailey H. Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2009;138(3):432–447. doi: 10.1037/a0015928. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barnes KA, Dougherty MR. The effect of divided attention on global judgment of learning accuracy. The American Journal of Psychology. 2007;120(3):347–359. doi: 10.2307/20445409. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources