1982
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1982.tb01290.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metamemory: A Critical Examination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
73
0
4

Year Published

1982
1982
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
1
73
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the proper interpretation of predictions of task performance is open to debate, it is one widely used means of studying metamemo-ry (Cavanaugh & Perlmutter, 1982;Hasselhorn & Hager, 1989). One major factor influencing the pattern of age differences in prediction accuracy is whether the predictions are global estimates of subsequent task performance (e.g., the total number of words to be correctly recalled in a free recall task) or item-by-item judgments of likelihood of subsequent recall (e.g., ratings of likelihood of remembering a target word given the cue it was paired with during study).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the proper interpretation of predictions of task performance is open to debate, it is one widely used means of studying metamemo-ry (Cavanaugh & Perlmutter, 1982;Hasselhorn & Hager, 1989). One major factor influencing the pattern of age differences in prediction accuracy is whether the predictions are global estimates of subsequent task performance (e.g., the total number of words to be correctly recalled in a free recall task) or item-by-item judgments of likelihood of subsequent recall (e.g., ratings of likelihood of remembering a target word given the cue it was paired with during study).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also knew more about the memory demands of particular tasks. These trends were confirmed in a later study by Cavanaugh and Borkowski, 1980. Past debate about the necessity of metamemorial knowledge for effective memory performance (Cavanaugh & Borkowski, 1980;Cavanaugh & Perlmutter, 1982;Flavell, 1978;Flavell & Wellman, 1977;Paris, Newman & McVey, 1982) has been superceded as more recent research has mostly confirmed the validity of the metamemory/memory performance relationship (Borkowski, Milstead & Hale, 1988;Schneider, 1985;Wellman, 1983). A basic rationale for the present study was the assumption that metamemorial knowledge is necessary for controlled use of appropriate memory strategies in complex memory tasks (Pressley, Borkowski & O'Sullivan, 1985).…”
mentioning
confidence: 59%
“…The simultaneous presence of mathematical items and metacognitive items offered the advantage of making the meaning of the metacognitive items clear to the children and of offering an estimate of the metacognitive process in a concrete situation. It is also true, however, that this procedure does not guarantee the independence of the estimates related to mathematical success and the metacognitive process (see Cavanaugh & Perlmutter, 1982); therefore, we cannot know to what extent the two processes influenced each other, even less with what relation. In particular, high metacognitive scores can be partially a result of higher mathematical competence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%