The current study investigated differences in metacognition between high school gifted (n = 44) and typical (n = 23) students and examined local calibration accuracy as a potential mechanism for partially explaining superior exam performance by gifted students. Metacognition was measured using student self-reports of metacognitive awareness, acquired at the start of a semester-long course on biology, and students’ global (pre- and posttest) and local (item-by-item) confidence judgments to assess monitoring across four biology exams over the course of one semester. Gifted students outperformed typical students on both local and global postdictive measures of calibration. However, there were no statistically significant differences in global predictive judgments or calibration bias. Local, item-by-item calibration accuracy partially mediated the relation between giftedness and exam performance. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.
AlexanderJ. M.CarrM.SchwanenflugelP. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1-37.
2.
AlexanderJ. M.SchwanenflugelP. J. (1996). Development of metacognitive concepts about thinking in gifted and nongifted children: Recent research. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 305-325.
3.
ArthurA. W. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394-403.
4.
BakerL. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6.
BolL.HackerD. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133-151.
7.
Bouffard-BouchardT.ParentS.LarivéeS. (1993). Self-regulation on a concept-formation task among average and gifted students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 115-134.
8.
BrownA. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In WeinertF.KluweR. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
ButlerD. L.WinneP. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
10.
CaleroM. D.García-MartínM. B.JiménezM. I.KazénM.AraqueA. (2007). Self-regulation advantage for high-IQ children: Findings from a research study. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 328-343.
11.
CarpenterP. A.JustM. A.ShellP. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404-431.
12.
CarrM.AlexanderJ.SchwanenflugelP. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks. Roeper Review, 18, 212-217.
13.
CarrM.TaasoobshiraziG. (2008). Metacognition in the gifted: Connections to expertise. In ShaughnessyM. F.VeenmanM. V. J.Kleyn-KennedyC. (Eds.), Metacognition: A recent review of research, theory, and perspectives (pp. 109-125). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA.
14.
DarkV. J.BenbowC. P. (1991). Differential enhancement of working memory with mathematical versus verbal precocity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 48-60.
15.
DreselM.HaugwitzM. (2005). The relationship between cognitive abilities and self-regulated learning: Evidence for interactions with academic self-concept and gender. High Ability Studies, 16, 201-218.
16.
DunloskyJ.MetcalfeJ. (2009). Metacognition: A textbook for cognitive, educational, life span, and applied psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
19.
FlavellJ. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In WeinertF.KluweR. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
GlaserR.ChiM. T. H. (1988). Overview. In ChiM. T. H.GlaserR.FarrM. J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
21.
GreeneJ. A.MoosD. C.AzevedoR.WintersF. I. (2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers in Education, 50, 1069-1083.
22.
HackerD. J.BolL.HorganD. D.RakowE. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160-170.
23.
HannahC. L.ShoreB. M. (1995). Metacognition and high intellectual ability: Insights from the study of learning-disabled gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 95-109.
24.
JaušovecN. (1998). Are gifted individuals less chaotic thinkers?Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 253-267.
25.
KerenG. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217-273.
26.
MartiniR.ShoreB. M. (2008). Pointing to parallels in ability-related differences in the use of metacognition in academic and psychomotor tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 237-247.
27.
NeberH.Schommer-AikinsM. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13, 59-74.
28.
NietfeldJ. L.CaoL.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 7-28.
29.
NietfeldJ. L.CaoL.OsborneJ. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159-179.
30.
NietfeldJ. L.SchrawG. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131-142.
31.
RavenJ. C. (1962). Advanced progressive matrices, set II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
32.
SchrawG. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143-154.
33.
SchrawG. (1995). Measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy: A new look at an old problem. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 321-332.
34.
SchrawG. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
SchrawG.RoedelT. D. (1994). Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory & Cognition, 22, 63-69.
38.
SchwanenflugelP. J.StevensT. P. M.CarrM. (1997). Metacognitive knowledge of gifted children and nonidentified children in early elementary school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 25-35.
39.
SchwartzB. L. (2008). Working memory load differentially affects tip-of-the-tongue states and feeling-of-knowing judgments. Memory & Cognition, 36, 9-19.
40.
ShoreB. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how gifted children think. In FriedmanR. C.ShoreB. M. (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 167-187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
41.
ShoreB. M.KollerM.DoverA. (1994). More from the water jars: A reanalysis of problem-solving performance among gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 179-183.
42.
ShoreB. M.LazarL. (1996). IQ-related differences in time allocation during problem solving. Psychological Reports, 78, 848-850.
43.
SobelM. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In LeinhardtS. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
44.
SteinerH. H. (2003). A microgenetic analysis of strategic variability in gifted and average-ability children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 62-74.
45.
SteinerH. H.CarrM. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215-246.
46.
SternbergR. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12, 159-179.
47.
StoneN. J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 437-475.
48.
TangM.NeberH. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated science learning in high-achieving students: Differences related to nation, gender, and grade-level. High Ability Studies, 19, 103-116.
49.
ThiedeK. W.AndersonM. C. M.TherriaultD. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
50.
WhiteB.FrederiksenJ. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211-223.
51.
YatesJ. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
52.
YoonC. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203-216.
