Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Los juicios metacognitivos como un campo emergente de investigación. Una revisión sistemática (2016-2020)

dc.contributor.authorMontoya Londoño, Diana Marcelaspa
dc.contributor.authorOrrego Cardozo, Maryspa
dc.contributor.authorPuente Ferreras, Aníbalspa
dc.contributor.authorTamayo Alzate, Óscar Eugeniospa
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-01 00:00:00
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-30T10:19:47Z
dc.date.available2021-01-01 00:00:00
dc.date.available2021-05-30T10:19:47Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01
dc.identifier.issn1900-9895
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.17151/rlee.2021.17.1.10
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/handle/ucaldas/16683
dc.description.abstractObjetivo: establecer las tendencias conceptuales en la investigación sobre juicios metacognitivos en estudiantes universitarios. Método: se desarrolló una búsqueda en las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus en el período 2016-2020 para artículos publicados en idioma inglés, atendiendo a la metodología de revisión sistemática. Una vez aplicados los criterios de depuración a la base de datos, se procedió a realizar los análisis descriptivos derivados. Resultados: se analizaron 21 artículos que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. Se encontraron 6 tendencias conceptuales entre las que se evidenció una importante orientación del campo hacia los estudios de monitoreo metacognitivo, además, de algunas nuevas tendencias que empiezan a emerger como los trabajos en medición de juicios, e igualmente el surgimiento de una tipología asociada con la evaluación formativa, que se ha denominado juicio evaluativo. Conclusión: en la parte final se presentan algunas implicaciones sobre el estado del desarrollo de la investigación. spa
dc.description.abstractAim: To establish conceptual trends in research on metacognitive judgments in university students. Method: A search was carried out in the Web of Science and Scopus databases in the period from 2016 to 2020 for articles published in English, according to the systematic review methodology. Once the filtering criteria were applied to the database, the derived descriptive analyzes were carried out. Results: a total of 21 articles that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Six conceptual trends were found, among which an important orientation of the field towards metacognitive monitoring studies was evidenced, in addition to some new trends that are beginning to emerge such as the work on judgment measurement, and also the emergence of a typology associated with formative evaluation, which has been called evaluative judgment. Conclusion: The final part presents some implications on the state of the art of the development of the research.eng
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad de Caldasspa
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/spa
dc.sourcehttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/latinoamericana/article/view/4273spa
dc.subjectmetacognitioneng
dc.subjectmetamemoryeng
dc.subjectlearningeng
dc.subjectcognitive processeseng
dc.subjectselfefficacyeng
dc.subjectmetacogniciónspa
dc.subjectmetamemoriaspa
dc.subjectaprendizajespa
dc.subjectprocesos cognitivosspa
dc.subjectautoeficaciaspa
dc.titleLos juicios metacognitivos como un campo emergente de investigación. Una revisión sistemática (2016-2020)spa
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.typeSección Artículosspa
dc.typeJournal Articleeng
dc.identifier.doi10.17151/rlee.2021.17.1.10
dc.identifier.eissn2500-5324
dc.relation.citationendpage223
dc.relation.citationissue1spa
dc.relation.citationstartpage188
dc.relation.citationvolume17spa
dc.relation.ispartofjournalLatinoamericana de Estudios Educativosspa
dc.relation.referencesAgus, M., Peró-Cebollero, M., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Portoghese, I., Mascia, M. L., & Penna, M. P. (2020). What’s about the calibration between confidence and accuracy? Findings in probabilistic problems from Italy and Spain. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16 (2). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/113111spa
dc.relation.referencesAriel, R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Improving Self-Regulated Learning With a Retrieval Practice Intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24 (1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000133spa
dc.relation.referencesAvhustiuk, M. M., Pasichnyk, I. D., Kalamazh, R. V., Mykolaivna, M., Demydovych, I., & Volodymyrivna, R. (2018). The illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring: Effects of the type of information and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14 (2), 317-341. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418spa
dc.relation.referencesBuratti, S., & Allwood, C. (2015). Regulating metacognitive processes-support for a metametacognitive ability. In Peña-Ayala, A. (Ed.), Metacognition: Fundaments, applications and trends. A prolife of the current state -of-the-art (pp. 17-35). New York: Springer.spa
dc.relation.referencesCallender, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Roberts, A. S. (2016). Improving metacognition in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition and Learning, 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9142-6spa
dc.relation.referencesCamps, D. (2008). Limitaciones de los indicadores bibliométricos en la evaluación de la actividad científica biomédica. Colombia Medica, 39 (1), 74-79. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/3lvlDHDspa
dc.relation.referencesCogliano, M. C., Kardash, C. A. M., & Bernacki, M. L. (2019). The effects of retrieval practice and prior topic knowledge on test performance and confidence judgments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.12.001spa
dc.relation.referencesCromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Measuring strategy use in context with multiple-choice items. Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9070-zspa
dc.relation.referencesDe Bruin, A. B. H., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2005). Monitoring accuracy and self-regulation when learning to play a chess endgame. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19 (2), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1109spa
dc.relation.referencesDe Granda- Orive, J., Alonso- Arroyo, A., & Roig-Vásquez, F. (2011). ¿Qué base de datos debemos emplear para nuestros análisis bibliográficos? Web of Science versus SCOPUS. Arch Bronconeumol, 47 (4), 213-217. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581spa
dc.relation.referencesDe Granda-Orive, J. I. (2003). Algunas reflexiones y consideraciones sobre el factor de impacto. Archivos de Bronconeumología, 39 (9), 409-417. https://doi.org/10.1157/13050631spa
dc.relation.referencesDentakos, 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/s11409-019-09198-4spa
dc.relation.referencesDouble, K. S., Birney, D. P., & Walker, S. A. (2018). A meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgements of learning. Memory, 26 (6), 741-750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1404111spa
dc.relation.referencesDunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (4), 228-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.xspa
dc.relation.referencesDunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition, A Texbook for cognitive, educational, life span, & applied psychology. United States of America: Sage publication, Inc.spa
dc.relation.referencesDunlosky, J., Bottiroli, S., & Hartwing, M. (2009). A call for representative desing in education science. In Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 430-440). New York: Routledge.spa
dc.relation.referencesDunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect, 20 (4), 374-380.spa
dc.relation.referencesDunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2012). Understanding people’s metacognitive judgments: an isomechanism framework and its implications for applied and theoretical research. In Perfect, T.& Lindsay, S. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of applied memory (pp. 1-10). London: Sage Publications inc.spa
dc.relation.referencesDunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four cornerstones of calibration research: Why understanding students’ judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58-61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.002spa
dc.relation.referencesEflkides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self- regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13 (4), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277spa
dc.relation.referencesEscalona-Fernández, M. I., Lagar-Barbosa, P., & Pulgarín, A. (2010). Web of Science vs. SCOPUS: un estudio cuantitativo en Ingeniería Química. Anales de Documentación, 13, 159-175. https://doi.org/10.6018/107121spa
dc.relation.referencesEstany, A. (2013). La filosofía en el marco de las neurociencias. Revista de Neurología, 56 (6), 344-348.spa
dc.relation.referencesFlavell, J. H. (Stanford U.) (1992). Perspectives on perspective taking. In H. Beilin & P. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget’s Theory: Prospects and possibilities. United States of America.: Erlbaum: Hillsdale.spa
dc.relation.referencesFleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443spa
dc.relation.referencesFollmer, D. J., & Sperling, R. A. (2019). Examining the Role of Self-Regulated Learning Microanalysis in the Assessment of Learners’ Regulation. Journal of Experimental Education, 87 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409184spa
dc.relation.referencesFrumos, F., & Grecu, S. (2019). Inaccuracy and overconfidence in metacognitive monitoring of university students. Revista de Cercerate Si Interventie Sociala, 66, 298-314.spa
dc.relation.referencesGlenberg, A., & Epstein, W. (1987). Calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15 (1), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197714spa
dc.relation.referencesGonzález, M. J. P., Guzmán, M. F., & Chaviano, O. G. (2015). Criterios, clasificaciones y tendencias de los indicadores bibliométricos en la evaluación de la ciencia. Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud, 26 (3), 290-309. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp907259espa
dc.relation.referencesGutierrez, A. P., & Price, A. F. (2017). Calibration Between Undergraduate Students’ Prediction of and Actual Performance: The Role of Gender and Performance Attributions. Journal of Experimental Education, 85 (3), 486-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1180278spa
dc.relation.referencesGutierrez, A. P., Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Richmond, A. S. (2016). A two-process model of metacognitive monitoring : Evidence for general accuracy and error factors. Learning and Instruction, 44, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.006spa
dc.relation.referencesHacker, D., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 101-121.spa
dc.relation.referencesHacker, D., Bol, L., & Keener, M. (2008). Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In Dunlosky, J.& Bjork, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 429-455). New York: Psychology press.spa
dc.relation.referencesHacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (2009). Handbook of Metacognition in Education. (D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser, Eds.). New York: Routledge journals, Taylor & Francis ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428spa
dc.relation.referencesHändel, M., de Bruin, A. B. H., & Dresel, M. (2020). Individual differences in local and global metacognitive judgments. Metacognition and Learning, 15 (1), 51-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09220-0spa
dc.relation.referencesHändel, M., & Fritzsche, E. S. (2016). Unskilled but subjectively aware: Metacognitive monitoring ability and respective awareness in low-performing students. Memory and Cognition, 44 (2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0552-0spa
dc.relation.referencesHändel, M., Harder, B., & Dresel, M. (2020). Enhanced monitoring accuracy and test performance: Incremental effects of judgment training over and above repeated testing. Learning and Instruction, 65 (November 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101245spa
dc.relation.referencesHart, J. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of educational psychology, 56, 208-216.spa
dc.relation.referencesHawker, M. J., Dysleski, L., & Rickey, D. (2016). Investigating General Chemistry Students Metacognitive Monitoring of Their Exam Performance by Measuring Postdiction Accuracies over Time. Journal of Chemical Education, 93 (5), 832-840. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00705spa
dc.relation.referencesHiggins, J., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for sytematic reviews of interventions. United States of America.: Wiley-Blackwell.spa
dc.relation.referencesKollmer, J., Schleinschok, K., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2020). Is drawing after learning effective for metacognitive monitoring only when supported by spatial scaffolds? Instructional Science, 48 (5), 569-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09521-6spa
dc.relation.referencesKoriat, A. (1997). Monitoring One’s Own Knowledge During Study : A Cue-Utilization Approach to Judgments of Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126 (4), 349-370.spa
dc.relation.referencesKoriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6 (2), 107-118.spa
dc.relation.referencesKruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Personality and Social Psychology Unskilled and Unaware of It : How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6), 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121spa
dc.relation.referencesKuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientist. Psychol. Rev, 96, 674-689. Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., Stein, L. M., & Pardo, S. T. (2012). Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment. Journal of behavioral decision making, 25 (4, SI), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752spa
dc.relation.referencesMazancieux, A., Fleming, S., Souchay, C., & Moulin, C. (2020). Is there a G factor for metacognition? Correlations in retrospective metacognitive sensitivity across tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149 (9), 1788-1799. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000746spa
dc.relation.referencesMcCutcheon, G. (1982). Facilitating teacher personal theorizing. In Ross, E., Cornett, & McCutcheon, G. (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: connecting curriculum practice, theory and research. New York: Albany, NY.spa
dc.relation.referencesMcNamara, D. S. (2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and successes. Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9082-8spa
dc.relation.referencesMetcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A Region of Proximal Learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (4), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001spa
dc.relation.referencesMorphew, J. (2020). Changes in metacognitive monitoring accuracy in an introductory physics course. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09239-3spa
dc.relation.referencesMorphew, J. W. (2020). Changes in metacognitive monitoring accuracy in an introductory physics course. Metacognition and Learning, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09239-3spa
dc.relation.referencesMoshman, D. (1979). To really get ahead, get a metatheory. In Kuhn, D. (Ed.), Intellectual development beyond childhood (pp. 59-68). United States of America: Jossey - Bass.spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, T. O. (1992). Metacognition: Core readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, T. O. (1996). Gamma is a measure of the accuracy of predicting performance on one item relative to another item, not of the absolute performance on an individual item: Comments on schraw (1995). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10 (3), 257-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199606)10:3<257::AID-ACP400>3.0.CO;2-9spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, T. O., & Leonesio, J. (1988). Allocation of Self-Paced Study Time and the “Laborin-Vain Effect”, 14 (4), 676-686.spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (2000). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079- 7421(08)60053-5spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, T., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognitive? In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1-25). United States of America.: The MIT Press Cambridge,.spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, T. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling of knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95 (1), 109-133.spa
dc.relation.referencesPanadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Using formative assessment to influence self- and co-regulated learning: the role of evaluative judgement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34 (3), 535-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0407-8spa
dc.relation.referencesParis, S., & Byrnes, J. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In Zimmerman, B.& Schunk, D. (Eds.), Self -regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 169-200). New York: Springer- Verlag.spa
dc.relation.referencesPetticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the social sciences. New York: John Wiley y Sons, Ltd.spa
dc.relation.referencesPieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2017). Fostering Analytic Metacognitive Processes and Reducing Overconfidence by Disfluency: The Role of Contrast Effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31 (3), 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3326spa
dc.relation.referencesPieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2016). Metacognitive judgments and dis fluency e Does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance? Learning and Instruction, 44, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012spa
dc.relation.referencesProust, J. (2010). Metacognition. Philosophy Compass, 11, 989-998.spa
dc.relation.referencesQuiles, C., Verdoux, H., & Prouteau, A. (2014). Assessing Metacognition during a Cognitive Task: Impact of “On-line” Metacognitive Questions on Neuropsychological Performances in a Non-clinical Sample (March 2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617714000290spa
dc.relation.referencesRhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The Influence of Delaying Judgments of Learning on Metacognitive Accuracy: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (1), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021705spa
dc.relation.referencesRivers, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Joynes, R. (2019). The contribution of classroom exams to formative evaluation of concept-level knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101806spa
dc.relation.referencesSanta-Soriano, A., Lorenzo-Álvarez, C., & Torres-Valdés, R. (2018). Bibliometric analysis to identify an emerging research area: Public relations intelligence- a challenge to strengthen technological observatories in the network society. Scientometrics, 1591-1614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2651-8spa
dc.relation.referencesSawyer, K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and Processes. In Alexander, P. & Winne, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 245-263). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874790.ch11spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G, & Gutiérrez De Blume, A. (2015). Metacognitive strategy instruction that highlinghts the role of monitoring and control processes. In Peña-Ayala, A. (Ed.), Metacognition: Fundaments, applications and trends. A prolife of the current state -ofthe-art (pp. 3-15). New York: Springer.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G, Olafson, L., Weibel, M., & Sewing, D. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program. In Zohar, A. & Dori, Y. (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, contemporary trends and issues in science education (pp. 57-77). United States of America: Springer, Heidelberg.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G. (2002). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In Hartman, H. (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3-16). London: Kluwer Academic.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G. (2009a). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4 (1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G. (2009b). Measuring metacognitive judgments. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 415-429). New York: Routledge.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G., Kuch, F., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2013). Measure for measure : Calibrating ten commonly used calibration scores. Learning and Instruction, 24, 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.007spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G., Kuch, F., Gutierrez, A. P., & Richmond, A. S. (2014). Exploring a three-level model of calibration accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (4). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036653spa
dc.relation.referencesSchraw, G., & Sperling-Dennison, R. (1994). Assesing metacognitive awareness. Contemporany Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.spa
dc.relation.referencesSegado-Boj, F. (2019). Búsqueda de información bibliográfica para la tesis doctoral Cómo y dónde buscar información para una tesis. Complutense de Madrid. Recuperado de https://eprints.ucm.es/58704/spa
dc.relation.referencesTai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76 (3), 467-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3spa
dc.relation.referencesTemelman-Yogev, L., Katzir, T., & Prior, A. (2020). Monitoring comprehension in a foreign language: Trait or skill? Metacognition and Learning, 15 (3), 343-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09245-5spa
dc.relation.referencesWagner-Menghin, M., de Bruin, A., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2016). Monitoring communication with patients: analyzing judgments of satisfaction (JOS). Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21 (3), 523-540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9642-9spa
dc.relation.referencesWiley, J, Griffin, T., & Thiede, K. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132 (4), 408-428. https://doi.org/10.3200/ GENP.132.4.408-428spa
dc.relation.referencesWiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Jaeger, A. J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22 (4), 393-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000096spa
dc.relation.referencesWinne, P., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 63-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesWinne, P., & Muis, K. (2011). Statistical estimates of learners’ judgments about knowledge in calibration of achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9074-8spa
dc.relation.referencesŽauhar, V., Bajšanski, I., & Domijan, D. (2017). The influence of rule availability and item similarity on metacognitive monitoring during categorisation, 5911(November). https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1396991spa
dc.relation.referencesZimmerman, B., & Moylan, A. (2009). Self -regulation: where metacognition and motivation intersect. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J. & Grasser, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 239-315). New York: Routledge.spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.title.translatedMetacognitive judgments as an emerging research field. A systematic review (2016-2020)eng
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionspa
dc.relation.citationeditionNúm. 1 , Año 2021 : Enero-Juniospa
dc.relation.bitstreamhttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/latinoamericana/article/download/4273/3930
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85spa
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer
-4273.pdf918.5Kbapplication/pdfVer/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/