信心评级是否会反应性地改变儿童的学业评估成绩?一项为期三年的纵向研究给出的否定答案。

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Intelligence Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.3390/jintelligence12090091
Jun Zheng, Ningxin Su, Tian Fan, Baike Li, Wenbo Zhao, Xiao Hu, Chunliang Yang, Liang Luo
{"title":"信心评级是否会反应性地改变儿童的学业评估成绩?一项为期三年的纵向研究给出的否定答案。","authors":"Jun Zheng, Ningxin Su, Tian Fan, Baike Li, Wenbo Zhao, Xiao Hu, Chunliang Yang, Liang Luo","doi":"10.3390/jintelligence12090091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The reactivity effect of metacognitive judgments on first-order task performance has received increased research attention. Previous studies showed that soliciting retrospective confidence ratings (CRs) reactively enhances task performance itself, such as performance in decision making and reasoning tasks, especially for those with high self-confidence. It remains unknown whether CRs can improve students' academic assessment performance in real educational settings. The current study recruited 795 fourth-grade elementary school children to explore if making CRs reactively affects students' academic assessment performance in two main subjects (i.e., Chinese Language and Mathematics). The data were collected across six waves with half-year intervals. From Wave 2, children either provided (CR group) or did not provide CRs (no-CR group) when completing standardized academic assessments. The results showed Bayesian evidence supporting the claim that making CRs does not influence children's academic assessment performance (both the average performance across waves 2-6 and the performance in each wave) in both subjects. Furthermore, children's self-confidence did not moderate the reactive influence of CRs. The results from multilevel regression analyses re-confirmed the above conclusions. Possible explanations for the absence of the reactivity effect of CRs on children's academic assessment performance are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":52279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intelligence","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11432981/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Confidence Ratings Reactively Modify Children's Academic Assessment Performance? Negative Answer from a Three-Year Longitudinal Study.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Zheng, Ningxin Su, Tian Fan, Baike Li, Wenbo Zhao, Xiao Hu, Chunliang Yang, Liang Luo\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jintelligence12090091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The reactivity effect of metacognitive judgments on first-order task performance has received increased research attention. Previous studies showed that soliciting retrospective confidence ratings (CRs) reactively enhances task performance itself, such as performance in decision making and reasoning tasks, especially for those with high self-confidence. It remains unknown whether CRs can improve students' academic assessment performance in real educational settings. The current study recruited 795 fourth-grade elementary school children to explore if making CRs reactively affects students' academic assessment performance in two main subjects (i.e., Chinese Language and Mathematics). The data were collected across six waves with half-year intervals. From Wave 2, children either provided (CR group) or did not provide CRs (no-CR group) when completing standardized academic assessments. The results showed Bayesian evidence supporting the claim that making CRs does not influence children's academic assessment performance (both the average performance across waves 2-6 and the performance in each wave) in both subjects. Furthermore, children's self-confidence did not moderate the reactive influence of CRs. The results from multilevel regression analyses re-confirmed the above conclusions. Possible explanations for the absence of the reactivity effect of CRs on children's academic assessment performance are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intelligence\",\"volume\":\"12 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11432981/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intelligence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12090091\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12090091","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

元认知判断对一阶任务表现的反应性效应受到了越来越多的研究关注。以往的研究表明,征求回溯性自信评级(CRs)能反应性地提高任务表现本身,如决策和推理任务中的表现,尤其是对那些自信心较强的人而言。在真实的教育环境中,信心评级是否能提高学生的学业评估成绩,目前仍是个未知数。本研究共招募了 795 名四年级小学生,以探讨反应性 CR 是否会影响学生在两个主要科目(即中文和数学)的学业评估中的表现。数据共收集了六次,每次间隔半年。从第二波开始,孩子们在完成标准化学业评估时要么提供(有反应组),要么不提供(无反应组)。结果表明,贝叶斯证据支持这样的说法:在两个科目中,提供 CR 不会影响儿童的学业评估成绩(包括第 2-6 波的平均成绩和每波的成绩)。此外,儿童的自信心也没有调节 CR 的反应性影响。多层次回归分析的结果再次证实了上述结论。本文讨论了 CR 对儿童学业测评成绩不产生反应性影响的可能原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Confidence Ratings Reactively Modify Children's Academic Assessment Performance? Negative Answer from a Three-Year Longitudinal Study.

The reactivity effect of metacognitive judgments on first-order task performance has received increased research attention. Previous studies showed that soliciting retrospective confidence ratings (CRs) reactively enhances task performance itself, such as performance in decision making and reasoning tasks, especially for those with high self-confidence. It remains unknown whether CRs can improve students' academic assessment performance in real educational settings. The current study recruited 795 fourth-grade elementary school children to explore if making CRs reactively affects students' academic assessment performance in two main subjects (i.e., Chinese Language and Mathematics). The data were collected across six waves with half-year intervals. From Wave 2, children either provided (CR group) or did not provide CRs (no-CR group) when completing standardized academic assessments. The results showed Bayesian evidence supporting the claim that making CRs does not influence children's academic assessment performance (both the average performance across waves 2-6 and the performance in each wave) in both subjects. Furthermore, children's self-confidence did not moderate the reactive influence of CRs. The results from multilevel regression analyses re-confirmed the above conclusions. Possible explanations for the absence of the reactivity effect of CRs on children's academic assessment performance are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intelligence
Journal of Intelligence Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
17.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
An Embedding-Based Semantic Analysis Approach: A Preliminary Study on Redundancy Detection in Psychological Concepts Operationalized by Scales. Development and Validation of a Game-Based Assessment for Complex Problem Solving. Teachers' and Parents' Assessments of Primary School Children's Intellectual Investment as Predictors of Change in Need for Cognition. Teachers' Growth Mindset, Perceived School Climate, and Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Moderate the Relationship Between Students' Growth Mindset and Academic Achievement. Differences in Personality Between High-Ability and Average-Ability University Students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1