바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.31 No.1

Citation Share

The effect of conscientiousness, cognitive ability, and metacognitive ability on transfer of learning

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2012, v.31 no.1, pp.221-238



& (2012). The effect of conscientiousness, cognitive ability, and metacognitive ability on transfer of learning. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 31(1), 221-238.

Abstract

Metacognition, 'cognition of cognition', is one of the most important factor in learning. In this study, we aim to examine the influence of cognitive ability, conscientiousness of Big5 traits, and metacognition which means how one accurately evaluates oneself on transfer of learning. Participants answered questions regarding their trait and cognitive ability, and performed the visual discrimination task. The task consisted of 8 blocks of training session and 8 blocks of transfer session. In 5th block of training session, the task was designed for participants to experience change of difficulty during training session so that their accuracy of self-assessment becomes inaccurate. The differences between participants' anticipated scores and real performance scores of 6th block were used as indicators of metacognitive error. Results show that cognitive ability and conscientiousness are not significant predictors of transfer learning performance, but only metacognitive ability positively predicts the performance. The authors concluded that the metacognitive ability is the most important variable in predicting the learning and transfer of learning regardless of task difficulties. Such findings imply the vital role of metacognition in learning.

keywords
Conscientiousness, Cognitive ability, Metacognition, Transfer of learning, 성실성, 인지 능력, 메타인지, 학습의 전이

Reference

1.

양애경, 조호제 (2010). 자기주도적 학습과 학업성취도간의 관계. 한국교육논단, 8, 61- 82.

2.

임호찬 (2003). 한국판 레이븐 지능발달검사. 서울: 한국가이던스.

3.

Afflerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. Volume III (pp. 163–179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

4.

Bennett, L. S. (1994). Sources of information in metamemory: judgments of learning and feelings of knowing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 357-375.

5.

Bier, M. E., Campbell, M., & Crook, A. E. (2010). Developing and demonstrating knowledge: Ability and non-ability determinants of learning and performance. Intelligence, 38, 179-186.

6.

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advanced in instructional psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

7.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert and E. H. Kluwe (Ed.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (Hillsdal, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 65-116.

8.

Bruno, L. (2007). Metacognitive learning strategies: differential development patterns in high school. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 111-123.

9.

Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 918-928.

10.

Chance, P. (1999). Learning and Behavior (4th ed.). Brooks: Cole Publishing Company.

11.

Cooper, L. A., & Podgorny, P. (1976). Mental transformations and visual comparison processes: Effects of complexity and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 503-514.

12.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inven-tory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional man-ual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

13.

Doane, S. M., Alderton, D. L., Pellegrino, J. W., & Sohn, Y. W. (1993, November). Acquisition and transfer of skilled performance: Are visual discrimination skills stimulus specific? Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.

14.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

15.

Huws, N., Reddy, P. A., & Talcott, J. B. (2009). The effect of faking on non-cognitive predictors of academic performance in university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 476-480.

16.

Keppe, R., & Flier, H. (2010). Using multiple and specific criteria to assess the predictive validity of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 142-145.

17.

Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 609-622.

18.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178-181.

19.

Pintrich, P. R., & deGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

20.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.

21.

Thomas, G. (2003). Conceptualization, Conceptualisation, development and validation of an instrument for investigating the metacognitive orientations of science classroom learning environments: The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale–Science (MOLES–S). Learning Environment Research, 6, 175–197.

22.

Thomas, A. K., John, B. B., & Stacey, J. D. (2011). Context affects feeling-of-knowing accuracy in younger and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 96-108.

23.

Treena, E. R., & Lee, A. T. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitivw ability. Intelligence, 35, 83-92.

24.

Van Bragt, C. A. C., Bakx, A. W. E. A., Bergen, T. C. M., & Croon, M. A. (2011). Looking for students' personal characteristics predicting study outcome. Studies in Higher Education, 61, 59-75.

25.

Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.

26.

Veenman, M. J. V., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89-109.

27.

White, R. T. (1986). Origins of PEEL. In J. R. Baird and I. J. Mitchell (Eds) Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning: An Australian Case Study - The PEEL Project (Melbourne: Monash University), 1-7.

28.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy