Juicios de confianza sobre la capacidad de rotación mental en estudiantes de sexto curso
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.21.1-2.40238Palabras clave:
Metacognición, Capacidad espacial, Rotación mental, Juicios de confianza, Niños de educación primariaResumen
La monitorización del propio rendimiento es un proceso metacognitivo significativo en el aprendizaje de los alumnos, que les ayuda a ajustar su rendimiento en las tareas que están realizando. Sin embargo, hasta la fecha son escasos los estudios que evalúan estos procesos en niños/as de primaria, más concretamente en tareas espaciales. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar los juicios de confianza y el índice de calibración en dos tareas de rotación mental considerando el nivel de dificultad. Un total de 40 alumnos/as de sexto curso con edades comprendidas entre 11 y 12 años evaluaron la confianza de sus respuestas ítem por ítem aplicando una escala de 5 puntos en dos tareas de rotación mental diferentes (con dificultad alta y baja). Se calculó también un índice de calibración (Brier Score) para cada tarea. Los resultados indicaron niveles similares de juicios de confianza en tareas espaciales de dificultad variable donde la calibración fue diferente, teniendo los/as estudiantes más precisión en la prueba fácil en comparación con la difícil. Estas evidencias se discuten resaltando la importancia de la monitorización del propio rendimiento espacial fortaleciendo el desarrollo de estrategias que puedan regular el rendimiento en esta etapa en este tipo de tareas espaciales
Descargas
Citas
Ackerman, R. & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 21, 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
Ariel, R., Lembeck, N. A., Moffat, S., & Hertzog, C. (2018). Are there Sex Differences in Confidence and Metacognitive Monitoring Accuracy for Everyday, Academic, and Psychometrically Measured Spatial Ability? Intelligence, 70, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.08.001
Ariel, R. & Moffat, S. D. (2018). Age-related Similarities and Differences in Monitoring Spatial Cognition. Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 25(3), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2017.1305086
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
Chevalier, N. & Blaye, A. (2016). Metacognitive Monitoring of Executive Control Engagement during Childhood. Child Development, 87(4), 1264–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12537
Contreras, M. J., Meneghetti, C., Uttal, D. H., Fernández-Méndez, L. M., Rodán, A., & Montoro, P. R. (2020). Monitoring the own Spatial Thinking in Second Grade of Primary Education in a Spanish School: Preliminary Study Analyzing Gender Differences. Education Sciences, 10(9), Article 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090237
Cooke-Simpson, A. & Voyer, D. (2007). Confidence and Gender Differences on the Mental Rotations Test. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.009
Dentakos, S., Saoud, W., Ackerman, R., & Toplak, M. E. (2019). Does Domain Matter? Monitoring Accuracy across Domains. Metacognition and Learning, 14(3), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09198-4
Desender, K. & Sasanguie, D. (2022). Math Anxiety Relates Positively to Metacognitive Insight into Mathematical Decision Making. Psychological Research, 86, 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01511-8
Desoete, A. & Roeyers, H. (2003). Can off-line Metacognition Enhance Mathematical Problem Solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.188
Dignath, C., Büttner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How Can Primary School Students Learn Self-Regulated Learning Strategies most Effectively? A Meta-analysis on self-Regulation Training Programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.02.003
Double, K. S. & Birney, D. P. (2019). Reactivity to Measures of Metacognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02755
Dunlosky, J. & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four Corner- Stones of Calibration Research: Why Understanding Students’ Judgments Can Improve their Achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58–61. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.002
Erickson, S. & Heit, E. (2015). Metacognition and Confidence: Comparing Math to other Academic Subjects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 742. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00742
Fleming, S. M. & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The Neural Basis of Metacognitive Ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 367(1594), 1338–1349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0417
Fleming, S. M. & Lau, H. C. (2014). How to Measure Metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443
Gimeno, P. (2014). Intervención en las aptitudes visoespaciales y su relación con las matemáticas y la memoria operativa en estudiantes de 2º curso de Educación Primaria Obligatoria (EPO) [Intervention in Visuospatial Skills and their Relationship with Mathematics and Working Memory in 2nd-grade Compulsory Primary Education Students (EPO)]. [Master's thesis, National University of Distance Education]. UNED Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14468/24628
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Metacognition in Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428
IBM Corporation. (2011). SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Author.
Jacobse, A. E. & Harskamp, E. G. (2012). Towards Efficient Measurement of Metacognition in Mathematical Problem Solving. Metacognition Learning, 7, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9088-x
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2000). Naive Empiricism and Dogmatism in Confidence Research: A Critical Examination of the Hard–Easy Effect. Psychological Review, 107(2), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.384
Kleitman, S. & Moscrop, T. (2010). Self-confidence and Academic Achievements in Primary-School Children: Their Relationships and Links to Parental Bonds, Intelligence, Age, and Gender. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research (pp. 293–326). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6546-2_14
Krebs, S. S. & Roebers, C. M. (2012). The Impact of Retrieval Processes, Age, General Achievement Level, and Test Scoring Scheme for Children’s Metacognitive Monitoring and Controlling. Metacognition and Learning, 7(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9079-3
Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing one's Own Incompetence Lead to inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Koriat, A. (1995). Dissociating Knowing and the Feeling of Knowing: Further Evidence for the Accessibility Model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(3), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.3.311
Lichtenstein, S. & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who Know more also Know more about how much they Know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0
Linn, M. C. & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56 (6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00213.x
Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial Ability and G. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human Abilities: Their Nature and Measurement (pp. 97–116). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774007
McIntosh R. D., Fowler E. A., Lyu T., & Della Sala S. (2019). Wise up: Clarifying the Role of Metacognition in the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(11), 1882–1897. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000579
Montoya, D., Orrego, M., Puente, A., & Tamayo, O. (2021). Metacognitive Judgments as an Emerging Research Field. A Systematic Review (2016-2020). Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 17(1), 188–223. https://doi.org/17151/rlee.2021.17.1.10
Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & vom Hofe, R. (2013). Predicting Long-Term Growth in Students’ Mathematics Achievement: The Unique Contributions of Motivation and Cognitive Strategies. Child Development, 84, 1475–1490. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12036
Murphy, A. H. (1973). A New Vector Partition of the Probability Score. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 12, 595–600. http://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1973)012<0595:ANVPOT>2.0.CO;2
Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 General-Information Questions: Accuracy of Recall, Latency of Recall, and Feeling-of-Knowing Ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 338–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90266-2
Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (pp. 125–173). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
Neys, W. D. & Fereman, V. (2013). Development of Heuristic Bias Detection in Elementary School. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028320
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The Effect of Distributed Monitoring Exercises and Feed-back on Performance, Monitoring Accuracy, and Self-Efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-006-9595-6
Ohtani, K. & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond Intelligence: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship among Metacognition, Intelligence, and Academic Performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 179–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9183-8
Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments. The Journal of General Psychology, 129(3), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300209602099
Rinne, L. F. & Mazzocco, M. M. (2014). Knowing Right from Wrong in Mental Arithmetic Judgments: Calibration of Confidence Predicts the Development of Accuracy. PLoS One, 9(7), Article e98663. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098663
Rodán, A., Contreras, M. J., Elosúa, M. R., & Gimeno, P. (2016). Experimental but not Sex Differences of a Mental Rotation Training Program on Adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1050. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01050
Rodán, A., Gimeno, P., Elosúa, M. R., Montoro, P. R., & Contreras, M. J. (2019). Boys and Girls Gain in Spatial, but not in Mathematical Ability after Mental Rotation Training in Primary Education. Learning and Individual Differences, 70, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.01.001
Roebers, C. M., Mayer, B., Steiner, M., Bayard, N. S., & van Loon, M. H. (2019). The Role of Children's Metacognitive Experiences for Cue Utilization and Monitoring Accuracy: A Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology, 55(10), 2077–2089. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000776
Schneider, W. & Löffler, E. (2016). The Development of Metacognitive Knowledge in Children and Adolescents. In J. Dunlosky & S.K. Tauber (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory (pp. 491–518). Oxford University Press.
Schraw, G. (2009). A Conceptual Analysis of Five Measures of Metacognitive Monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3
Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
Shin, H., Bjorklund, D. F., & Beck, E. F. (2007). The Adaptive Nature of Children's Overestimation in a Strategic Memory Task. Cognitive Development, 22(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.10.001
Soderstrom, N. C., Yue, C. L., & Bjork, E. L. (2016). Metamemory and Education. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Metamemory (pp. 197–215). Oxford University Press.
Song, J. H., Loyal, S., & Lond, B. (2021). Metacognitive Awareness Scale, Domain Specific (MCAS-DS): Assessing Metacognitive Awareness During Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 3683. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607577
Van der Stel, M. & Veenman, M. V. J. (2008). Relation between Intellectual Ability and Metacognitive Skill Fulness as Predictors of Learning Performance of Young Students Performing Tasks in Different Domains. Learning Individual Different 18, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.003
Van Loon, M. H. & Roebers, C. M. (2017). Effects of Feedback on Self‐Evaluations and Self‐Regulation in Elementary School. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(5), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3347
Wall, J. L., Thompson, C. A., Dunlosky, J., & Merriman, W. E. (2016). Children Can Accurately Monitor and Control their Number-Line Estimation Performance. Developmental Psychology, 52(10), Article 1493. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000180
Zelazo, P. D. (2004). The Development of Conscious Control in Childhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.001
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Facultad de Psicología
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
La revista Acción Psicológica se publica bajo licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento – NoComercial (CC BY-NC). Las opiniones y contenidos de los artículos publicados en Acción Psicológica son de responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y no comprometen la opinión y política científica de la revista. También serán responsables de proporcionar copias de los datos en bruto, puntuaciones, y, en general, material experimental relevante a los lectores interesados.
Copyright Note
Acción Psicológica is published under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial (CC BY-NC). The opinions and contents of the articles published in Acción Psicológica are responsibility of the authors and do not compromise the scientific and political opinion of the journal. Authors are also responsible for providing copies of the raw data, ratings, and, in general, relevant experimental material to interested readers.
