Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac

Breakdown in the metacognitive chain: Good intentions arent

enough in high school
Danielle Sussan, Lisa K. Son
Barnard College, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two experiments examined the effects of a metacognitive betting implementation in high school Biology
Received 4 January 2014 students. The results showed that people were generally good at monitoring their own knowledge in
Received in revised form 18 July 2014 that students performed better on items judged with high bets than items judged with low bets. We
Accepted 20 July 2014
also found that those who were required to make bets, as compared to those who did not, had higher
Available online 27 July 2014
intentions of studying for longer periods of time, prior to the test. However, there were no differences
in actual study time. Nor was there a difference in nal performance, as one would expect, between the
Keywords:
betters and the non-betters. In summary, we found indication of (1) good intentions when using the
Metacognition
Metacognitive chain
betting procedure, but (2) breakdown in the metacognitive chain during control. That is, while requiring
Study intentions students to make deliberate judgments improves their intentions to study, they, unfortunately, fail to
Study time carry out those intentions.
Betting 2014 Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights
High school reserved.
Monitoring
Control
Metacognitive applications

1. Introduction
During study, the learner is confronted with two major chal-
lenges: (1) to determine how well learned information is, and (2)
to acquire the knowledge they may still be lacking. Neither of these
is a simple problem. It is not uncommon for students to believe that
they know the information, only to nd out, during the test, that
they dont. Unfortunately, when students have such misconcep-
tions or breakdowns in metacognitionthey are likely to cease
further study, resulting in the surprise poor performance. The goal
of this research was to examine the spontaneous metacognitive
processes of high school students, and to also explore the idea that
deliberate thinking might improve learning.
Metacognition is the ability to assess accurately what one knows
and does not know, and how to best acquire unknown information
(Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009). A common judgment is the judg-
ment of learning (JOL), which is an assessment that is made during
study, about ones future test performance (Dunlosky & Lipko,
2007; Metcalfe, 2009; Metcalfe & Finn, 2008), which can be used
to guide study (e.g. Bargh & Williams, 2006; Son & Kornell, 2008,
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Barnard College, 3009
Broadway, New York, NY, 10027, United States. Tel.: +(917) 826 1738.
E-mail address: lson@barnard.edu (L.K. Son).
2009; Son & Simon, 2012). It is not clear, however, whether people
monitor their study spontaneously. The current research focused
on whether requiring JOLs would instigate a metacognitive chain,
where requiring JOLs would lead to improved study strategies, and
nally, relatively high performance.
There is some evidence that suggests that requiring judgments
would improve performance. Because retrieval is likely to occur
when a judgment is made, the act of making the judgment becomes
a unique learning opportunity (Reder, 1987; Reder & Ritter, 1992;
Reder & Schunn, 1996). However, retrieval need not always occur.
For instance, Son and Metcalfe (2005) demonstrated that partic-
ipants who were asked to make JOLs, but without any retrieval
instructions demonstrated impaired recall performance (see also
Kelemen, 2000). This suggests that while monitoring can be ben-
ecial because it encourages the learner to retrieve the item, the
process of retrieval is hit or miss if the individual is not told
explicitly to monitor their learning, then monitoring, to its fullest
potential, need not occur.
In the laboratory, participants are typically asked to give their
metacognitive judgments via a verbal numeric scale (Benjamin,
Bjork, & Schwartz, 1998; Perfect & Hollins, 1996). A challenge that
we faced was to implement in real-world study such an explicit
metacognitive procedure without being unnecessarily obtrusive.
We decided on a behavioral paradigm borrowed from the animal
literature, where subjects were asked to make condence bets with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.006
2211-3681/ 2014 Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238
tokens that could be traded for food (Kornell, Son, & Terrace, 2007;
Terrace & Son, 2009). Previously, Sussan and Son (2007) explored
the use of the betting paradigm in children, ages 56, and whether
monitoring is more accurate with explicit instruction. The results
showed that while young children can and do monitor their mem-
ories accurately, when given explicit instructions about how to
monitor, appropriate decisions were achieved at a faster rate and
continued to obtain for subsequent and novel tasks. A more recent
study also showed that applying a betting procedure led to bet-
ter monitoring in both younger and older adults (McGillivray &
Castel, 2011). Thus, while metacognitive processes may not require
explicit awareness, explicit instructions seem to give rise to more
accurate monitoring. We here sought whether improved moni-
toring would, in turn, lead to more efcient study strategies, as
described below.
Researchers have found that metacognitive judgments can be
used to control study strategies such as study time allocation, and
that people often follow a discrepancy-reduction rule the rule
that states that time allocation will be related to how far away
the item is from its desired learned state (Dunlosky & Hertzog,
1998). In other situations, for example when time pressure is high
or expertise level changes, however, people may follow a different
rule, such as the region of proximal learning (RPL) strategy, where
items of middle-level difculty are given the most priority (e.g.
Kornell & Metcalfe, 2006). When people are effectively regulating
their study, such systematic strategies seem apparent. However,
very young children, in elementary and middle school, are prone
to making sub-optimal i.e. random study decisions (Metcalfe,
Kornell, & Son, 2007; Schneider & Lockl, 2002; Son, 2005). For exam-
ple, Metcalfe et al. (2007) demonstrated that although children in
grades 35 were aware of what they knew and didnt know, they
studied items randomly. Taken together with the adult data, this
suggests that somewhere between Grade 3 and adulthood, people
appear to develop the ability to control study strategically, sys-
tematically, and consequently, effectively. Our main interest was
to see whether monitoring might lead to a more systematic strat-
egy, for example, an apparent discrepancy-reduction allocation of
study time.
Metacognitive regulation has not been investigated widely in
those younger age groups and the data that exist focus on meta-
comprehension accuracy during reading comprehension tasks.
Bruin, Thiede, Camp, and Redford (2011) conducted a novel study
that examined how monitoring affects self-regulation of study in
elementary and middle school aged children. They found that gen-
erating keywords from the text improved students regulation of
study, but only for 6th and 7th graders. Those that generated
keywords were more likely to ask to restudy texts rated as low
in comprehension rather than high. In another study, Redford,
Thiede, Wiley, and Grifn (2012) demonstrated that having sev-
enth graders create concept maps of texts as opposed to merely
re-reading improved their ability to make accurate predictions of
how they would perform on a test of their comprehension. The cur-
rent study, while also examining the benets of monitoring, went
beyond these previous studies in that it (1) provided students with
the opportunity to make study decisions prior to testing, which
may be more representative of real educational settings, and (2)
employed a (betting) task that might be used for all academic dis-
ciplines, as a way of testing for general monitoring consequences.
There has been little to no focus on the monitoring-control-
performance chain, in the classroom, and particularly at the high
school level. A few ndings have shown that people who are less
accurate about what they do and do not know perform worse
on achievement tests (Romainville, 1994; Schraw, 1997; Tobias
& Everson, 1996). Other studies have shown that improvement
in metacognitive skills may lead to some improvement in aca-
demic achievement (Elawar, 1992; Maki & Berry, 1984; Silver,
231
1987), precisely by regulating study more effectively (Nelson,
Dunlosky, Graf, & Narens, 1994; Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault,
2003). But surprisingly, there have been only a handful of studies
that address the issue of how to implement strategies for improving
self-assessment and thus, combating illusions (Hamman, Berthelot,
Saia, & Crowley, 2000; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006; Tobias,
Everson, & Laitusis, 1999). And largely, unfortunately, evaluations
of the strategies implemented by teachers have been either obser-
vational (Moley et al., 1992) or through self-reports (MSLQ).
One quasi-experiment conducted by Michalsky, Mevarech, and
Haibi (2009) showed that fourth grade science students taught
metacognitive strategies outperformed those who were not taught,
on a nal test (see also Cleary, Platten, & Nelson, 2008; Huff &
Nietfeld, 2009; Zohar & David, 2008). Still, the training of such
strategies within a classroom setting has not been highlighted. And
yet, the Common Core State Standards, developed in 2009, were
established to promote problem solving and higher order thinking
skills for all students in the country. The genesis of such standards
was a response to many who felt that graduating high school stu-
dents were under-prepared for college and career expectations,
mainly due to their deciency in higher-order thinking skills. Our
study, therefore, aimed to examine the potential benets of imple-
menting an explicit metacognitive strategy in early high school
students.
1.1. The current research
The crucial objective of the current study was the following:
Will requiring 9th graders to monitor their study, by placing bets,
lead to better study strategies in this particular case, more appro-
priate time allocation, where items that are judged to be more
difcult allocated greater study? We hypothesized that if students
are required to deliberate about what they know vs. what they dont
know, they will then be better able to make systematic, and ben-
ecial study decisions. As a result, a more effective metacognitive
chain monitoring, control, and eventual performance would
occur.
2. Experiment 1
2.1. Methods
2.1.1. Participants
The participants in this study were 113 ninth grade high school
students ranging from ages 1416, at an inner-city public high
school. The school consists of a 50/50 ratio of boys to girls and is
made up of 47% Hispanic, 29% Caucasian-American, 13% African-
American, 10% Asian-American, and 1% American-Indian. Students
were recruited from their Living Environment (Biology) science
classes. In order to participate, parents read and signed a con-
sent form explaining all of the procedures, risks, and benets of
the study, adhering to the APA guidelines. No sure incentives were
offered to the students, except for being told that whoever received
the highest number of points at the conclusion of the experiment
would be eligible for a prize.
2.1.2. Materials and design
The materials were 26 Biology concepts taken from the
New York State Living Environment curriculum standards for the
immunology and circulatory system units. Twenty-six correspond-
ing multiple-choice questions (13 pertaining to immunology and
13 pertaining to circulatory system) were taken from prior New
York State Living Environment Regent exams (See Appendix A). The
main between-subject variables were Bet, or whether or not stu-
dents made condence bets, and Topic, whether students studied
the immune system or the circulatory system. Intention, or how
232 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238

long students intended to study the item (No more study, a Table 1
Means and standard errors for Accuracy split by Bet and Intention to study.
little more, a lot more), was a within-subjects variable. The crit-
ical dependent measures were Study Time Intention, Actual Study Condition N M SE
Time, and Accuracy at nal test. Condence (High vs. Low Bet) was A. Experiment 1
analyzed in the group that was required to make bets. Bet 29
Not at all 0.82 0.05
A little more 0.81 0.04
2.1.3. Procedure A lot more 0.80 0.07
The experiment was conducted during an after-school review No Bet 15
session in a classroom located within the school building where Not at all 0.84 0.07
the students regularly attend. When students arrived, they were A little more 0.72 0.05
A lot more 0.65 0.09
randomly assigned to either the Bet or No-Bet group.
B. Experiment 2
Study sheets were distributed to the Bet students that consisted Bet 15
of the following two tasks: (1) betting and (2) study time intention. Not at all 0.71 0.08
The No-Bet students received the same sheets with the betting task A little more 0.55 0.09
omitted. Afterwards, all students were given an actual study time A lot more 0.49 0.10
No Bet 15
phase, and a nal test. The study sheet for the immune system and Not at all 0.56 0.08
the circulatory system included 13 concepts each (e.g. Allergy an A little more 0.47 0.09
immune reaction to normally harmless substances). A lot more 0.51 0.10
After reading each concept on the rst handout (covering either
the Immune system or the Circulatory system), students in the Bet
between the blood and body cells (4) carry blood away from the
group were asked to select either high condence or low con-
heart). After completing each question, only students in the No-Bet
dence based on how condent they felt that they would get the
group, were asked to make a retrospective judgment using con-
concept right if they were tested later. If a student chose high con-
dence bets. They were asked to select either high condence or
dence and got the answer right on a later test, then he would gain
low condence based on how condent they were that they pro-
3 points. If he chose high condence and got the answer wrong, he
vided accurate answers. This was done for the purpose of equalizing
would lose 3 points. If a student chose low condence, he would
the total number of points all participating students can potentially
gain one point, regardless of accuracy.1 Students were made aware
earn during the experiment. Students were told that those with the
of the betting contingencies, and were also told that those with
highest score would be eligible for a prize.
the highest score at the end would be eligible for a prize. Students
assigned to the No-Bet group were not given the opportunity to
make metacognitive judgments through betting. 2.2. Results
After making this judgment, students were asked to decide how
much more they felt they needed to study each concept, if they For this experiment and for Experiment 2, analyses of variance
were to be given a test later, by selecting either a lot more, a (ANOVAs) were conducted in order to assess the impact of betting
little more, or not at all. Students in the No-Bet group who did on high school students study time allocation intentions, actual
not make bets received a handout that only asked them to decide study time, and accuracy performance. Unless otherwise noted, all
how much more they felt they needed to study each concept. are repeated measures ANOVAs. A probability level of p < .05 was
Upon completing the prospective betting phase in a regular used as the criterion for statistical signicance. Estimates of effect
classroom, they were escorted into a computer lab to complete size were calculated as partial eta-squared. Low bets were coded
the actual study phase. Each student was assigned to an individ- as 0 and high bets were coded as 1. The main dependent meas-
ual Macintosh computer. The 13 key terms that corresponded to ures were study time Intention, Actual Study Time, and Accuracy at
the thirteen statements on the initial handout (i.e. Arteries) were nal performance. There were 55 students in the Bet group, and 58
presented on the screen in a circular array. When a student clicked students were assigned to the No-Bet group. Since there were no
on a particular term, the denition of the term appeared in the cen- signicant differences in accuracy across the two different Topics,
ter of the screen (Arteries are blood vessels that carry blood away the data were pooled.
from the heart) and the other key terms disappeared, allowing the
student to focus on the chosen concept. When the student wanted 2.2.1. Primary analyses
to return to the original screen, he or she clicked on the center of 2.2.1.1. Accuracy. We begin the analyses with the assumption that
the screen and the array of thirteen terms reappeared. Students requiring students to make bets would successfully instigate a
had three minutes to study whichever terms they selected for any metacognitive chain that would lead to better study and eventu-
duration during those three minutes. Students were able to select ally to nal test performance. Do students who were required to
the same concept more than once, or not choose a concept at all. bet perform better than those who were not required to bet? An
The amount of remaining time was continuously displayed at the ANOVA was conducted in order to see if there was a difference in
bottom right-hand corner of the screen. Accuracy as a function of Bet (bet vs. no-bet) and Intention (not at
For the nal phase of the experiment, students were brought all = 0; a little more = 1; a lot more = 2). Means and standard errors
back to the original classroom. During the test phase, each student for Accuracy are presented in Table 1 2 (Panel A). While there was
received a second handout containing 13 multiple-choice questions no signicant difference in accuracy by Bet, there was a trend by
that corresponded to the 13 key concepts from the initial hand- Intention (F(2, 84) = 2.39, MSE = .11, p = .10,  = .05), suggesting that
out (i.e. Arteries are blood vessels that (1) contain striated muscles
(2) carry blood toward the heart (3) readily exchange materials
2
Note the decrease in the N, because some subjects did not choose all three
intention options. As a way of salvaging more of the data, a gamma correlation
was also conducted between Intention and Accuracy, for the bet (M = .08) and no-
1
Points were not lost when the low condence option was selected because that bet (M = .12) conditions, which resulted in no statistical difference between the
option was intended to act as an I pass, or I dont want to bet type of judgment two. The combined gamma was also not different from zero. We also repeated the
as opposed to a punishment. The same betting contingencies were used in Kornell ANOVA combining a little more and a lot more study, again increasing the N,
et al. (2007). and found similar results for Accuracy, Study Time Intention, and Actual Study Time.
 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238 233

Table 2
Means and standard errors for Actual Study Time (seconds) as a function of Bet and
Intention to Study.

Condition N M SE

A. Experiment 1
Bet 28
Not at all 6.59 0.89
A little more 7.80 0.86
A lot more 12.19 2.36
No Bet 15
Not at all 7.01 1.20
A little more 10.13 1.18
A lot more 10.43 3.23
B. Experiment 2
Bet 15
Not at all 1.00 0.48
A little more 1.89 0.77
A lot more 2.98 1.37
No Bet 15
Not at all 1.85 0.48
A little more 3.73 0.77
A lot more 4.14 1.37

that students had a tendency to spend a greater amount of time

Fig. 1. Percentages of study time intention choices (no more study, little more study,
lot more study) for those in the bet group vs. the no-bet group.
studying items they intended to study a lot more compared to
those they intended to study for a shorter amount of time.
Although a signicant interaction was not found, there appeared
to be a greater numerical increase in Actual Study Time by Intention
for those who bet compared to those who did not bet. This same
basic pattern was seen for those who did not bet, but not as strongly.
To delve further, an ANOVA for Actual Study Time by Intention
was conducted for each Bet group separately. Indeed, this analysis
resulted in a trend for Intention (F(2, 54) = 2.48, MSE = 97.79, p = .09,
 = .08) for those who bet. A trend was not found for those who did
not bet.

accuracy was somewhat highest for items that students intended
to study the least.
2.2.1.2. Study time intention. The frequency of intention choices for
those who bet and those who did not bet were calculated, and are
presented in Panel A of Fig. 1. For those who bet, not at all was
chosen 27.7% of the time, a little more was chosen 54.7% of the
time, and a lot more was chosen 17.5% of the time. For those who
did not bet, not at all was chosen 55.2% of the time, a little more
was chosen 36.9% of the time, and a lot more was chosen 8% of the
time. A 2 (bet/no bet) 3 (no more study/little more study/lot more
study intention) chi-square analyses indicated differences in the
two groups patterns (2 = 119.56, df = 2, p < .011), such that those
who bet intended to study more than those students who did not
bet.
While the intention options were categorical, time is a continu-
ous variable. Thus, we analyzed the same data representing study
time intention (between 0 and 2) as a continuous and increasing,
range of time. The average Intention, for 13 items, was calculated for
each student. A univariate ANOVA resulted in a signicant effect of
Bet (F(1, 113) = 24.72, MSE = 3.77, p < .05,  = .18), and indicated, as
did the chi-square analysis, that students who bet had a tendency
to intend to study, on average, for a longer period of time (M = .89,
N = 55, SE = .05) than those who did not bet (M = .53, N = 58, SE = .02).
2.2.1.3. Actual study time. Due to the fact that students who bet
had a tendency to intend to study, on average, for a longer period
of time than those who did not bet, it was then of interest to
see if there was a difference in actual study time. The means and
standard errors for Actual Study Time by Bet and Intention are shown
in Table 2 (Panel A). The ANOVA resulted in a signicant effect of
Intention (F(2, 82) = 2.56, MSE = 198.75, p < .05,  = .06), indicating
2.2.2. Monitoring accuracy: high bets vs. low bets
We also examined how accurate students were at monitoring
in only those that made bets. In order to test this, we looked
at students selection of high-bet and low-bet items in relation to
study and test performance. In general, those students in the Bet
group expressed high condence. That is, they preferred to select
the high-bet option (66.3% of the time) over the low-bet option.
2.2.2.1. Accuracy. Means for each individuals nal performance
scores for the 13 items were calculated. Then, an ANOVA was con-
ducted in order to see if there was a difference in nal Accuracy
as a function of Condence (high or low bet) within the students
who bet, and were compared to those students who did not bet as
well. The ANOVA did not result in any signicant effects. Students
appeared to do well on all items during nal test, regardless of Bet,
and those scores were also not different from the scores of those
who did not bet (low bet: M = .79, SE = .04, N = 50; high bet: M = .84,
SE = .03, N = 50; no bet: M = .83, SE = .02, N = 58).
2.2.2.2. Study time intention. Although there was no difference in
nal accuracy as a function of Bet or Condence, we sought to see if
students differentiated their study time intentions based on their
condence for each item. The means (of means for each participant)
for Intention as a function of Condence were calculated. Means
were as follows: Low-Bet items (M = 1.41, SE = 0.06; N = 47), High-
Bet items (M = .71, SE = 0.04; N = 47).3 The ANOVA looking within
only those who bet resulted in a signicant effect of Condence
3
Note that because some of the data are lost due to lack of variability for hi or
low bets, these means may look slightly different than the collapsed mean reported
above, when calculating the intention means by Condition.
234 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238
(F(1, 46) = 103.00, MSE = 11.44, p < .05,  = .69), indicating that stu-
dents intended to spend a longer amount of time studying items
they selected for low bet than for those items they selected for
high bet.
2.2.2.3. Actual study time. Do students follow through on their
study intentions? The ANOVA resulted in a signicant effect of
Condence (F(1, 48) = 6.09, MSE = 60.18, p < .05,  = .11), indicating
that students indeed spent a longer amount of time on the low-bet
items (M = 10.96, N = 49, SE = 1.33) than the high-bet items (M = 7.09,
N = 49, SE = .56). Nevertheless, their absolute study time was insuf-
cient for improving performance, as the time studied was not much
longer than those who were not required to bet (M = 8.14, SE = .25;
N = 58).
2.3. Conclusion
The data from Experiment 1 indicated that students who made
judgments through betting had intentions of studying the items for
longer amounts of time than those who did not make bets. How-
ever, there was no difference in nal test performance, presumably
because of insufcient actual time studied. We did, though, nd
that students intended to, and actually did study low-bet items
for longer periods of time than high-bet items. But that additional
amount of time simply was not sufcient to improve performance.
3. Experiment 2
Experiment 2 was conducted in an effort to replicate the nd-
ings of Experiment 1. Here, however, the entire experiment was
completed on the computer. Furthermore, to make the task more
educationally realistic, students were given the option to exit,
or opt out, during the actual study time phase. With the addition
of the exit button, we could also examine which students persist
in study, and which did not. Based on the ndings from Experi-
ment 1, we expected that those required to bet would have greater
study time intentions, but unfortunately, may not follow through
on them. Another change in Experiment 2 was an increase in the
number of items studied, as a way of obtaining richer and a wider
range of data. Because we almost doubled the number of items,
but did not want to overwhelm the students, the entire procedure
was conducted in 2 sessions. By doing so, we could also test for
long-term effects.
3.1. Methods
3.1.1. Participants
The participants in this study were 52 ninth grade high school
students ranging from ages 14 to 16, at the same inner-city pub-
lic high school as the Experiment 1. Students were again recruited
from their Living Environment science classes. None of the partici-
pants had participated in the previous experiment.
3.1.2. Materials
In order to get a wider range of performance than Experiment
1, the materials were a mixture of 24 Biology concepts taken from
the New York State Living Environment curriculum standards that
students previously learned for a variety of units. Twenty-four cor-
responding ll-in-the-blank questions were created to correspond
with the concepts. The concepts and questions are presented in
Appendix B.
3.1.3. Design and procedure
The design and procedure were the same as those of Experiment
1, except that students completed 2 sessions (studying 12 concepts
during each), and all methods were on computer. Each session pro-
ceeded as follows: During the betting phase, 12 key concepts were
presented to the students, one at time, at the center of the com-
puter screen for four and a half seconds. Students then completed
the study phase, which was identical to Experiment 1, except that
at the bottom left-hand corner of the screen, there was an exit
button which students were able to select at any time, in order
to end their study phase. After study, students were immediately
presented with a distracter task for one minute. The test phase was
again identical to Experiment 1 in that students were asked to ll in
the term that best described the supplied denition. After comple-
ting the rst session, students repeated the same exact procedure,
with 12 different concepts, immediately following the rst session.
3.2. Results
The same coding and analyses that were completed for Exper-
iment 1 were completed for Experiment 2. The data for the two
sessions were collapsed, to obtain a richer and more meaningful
data set. However, in some of the analyses, particularly for the
intention analyses, we calculated the results separately for the two
sessions, in the case that we might see a change across time. There
were 25 students in the bet group and 27 students in the no-bet
group.
3.2.1. Primary analyses
3.2.1.1. Accuracy. The means and standard errors for Accuracy at
nal test performance are presented in Table 1(Panel B). There was
no signicant difference in Accuracy by Bet. However, the ANOVA
resulted in a signicant effect of Intention (F(2, 56) = 3.23, MSE = .18,
p < .05,  = .10), indicating that accuracy was highest for items that
students intended to study the least.4
3.2.1.2. Study time intention. The frequency of intention choices in
the bet/no-bet groups was calculated and is presented in Panel B
of Fig. 1. Students in the bet condition selected not at all 36.8% of
the time, a little more 39.9% of the time, and a lot more 23.3% of
the time. Those in the no bet condition selected not at all 64.9%
of the time, a little more 27.1% of the time, and a lot more 8.0%
of the time. Again, a 2 (bet/no bet) 3 (no more study/little more
study/lot more study intention) chi-square analyses indicated dif-
ferences in the two groups patterns (2 = 101.99, df = 2, p < .011),
such that those who bet indicated that they wanted to study for
a longer amount of time than those who did not bet. We also re-
analyzed the data with intention as a continuous-like variable, by
Bet and Session. The ANOVA resulted in a signicant interaction
(F(1, 41) = 18.07, MSE = .65, p < .05,  = .31). That is, those who bet
intended to study more than those who didnt bet, and particularly
so in the second session.5 (Session 1: no-bet intention M = .46; bet
intention M = .79; Session 2: no-bet intention M = .33; bet intention
M = 1.01).
3.2.1.3. Actual study time. The means and standard errors for Actual
Study Time by Bet and Intention were also calculated, collapsed
across session. These values are shown in Table 2 (Panel B). The
ANOVA resulted in a signicant effect of Intention (F(2, 56) = 3.77,
MSE = 35.21, p < .05,  = .12), indicating that students had a tendency
4
A gamma correlation was also conducted between Intention and Accuracy, for
the bet (M = .26) and no-bet (M = .35) conditions, which resulted in no statistical
difference between the two. The combined result, however, did show a signicant
negative result, such that items intended for the most study, received the poorest
performance.
5
We again repeated all analyses for Accuracy, Study Time Intention, Actual Study
Time, as well as separately for each Session combining a lot more study and a
little more study, and found similar results.
 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238
to spend a greater amount of time studying items they intended to
study a lot more (bet M = 2.98; no-bet M = 4.14) compared to those
they intended to study for a little more time (bet M = 1.89; no-
bet M = 3.73) and no more time (bet M = 1.00; no-bet M = 1.85).
Although a signicant interaction was not found, there appeared
to be a greater numerical increase in Actual Study Time by Inten-
tion for those who bet compared to those who did not bet. This
same basic pattern was seen for those who did not bet, but not as
strongly. Again, as in Experiment 1, to delve further, an ANOVA for
Actual Study Time by Intention was then conducted for each Bet/No-
Bet group separately. This analysis resulted in a trend for Intention
(F(2, 28) = 2.62, MSE = 5.64, p = .09,  = .16) for those who bet. Results
were not signicant for those who did not bet. As in Experiment 1,
while students did spend more time studying the harder items that
they intended to study for longer, their absolute study time was still
insufcient for enhancing nal test performance.
3.2.2. Monitoring accuracy: high bets vs. low bets
Similar to Experiment 1, students in the Bet group ini-
tially expressed a bias toward high condence (Session 1 high
bet = 56.9%). However, in Session 2, condence went down.6 Low
bets were selected 53% of the times. For a richer data pool for cer-
tain analyses, we combined the data from both sessions. However,
particularly for the intention data, we report differences across
session.
3.2.2.1. Accuracy. We again compared performance for items given
low bets and items given high bets. The ANOVA resulted in a signif-
icant effect of Condence (F(1, 16) = 23.07, MSE = .96, p < .05,  = .59),
indicating that students remembered the high bet items (M = .70,
SE = .06; N = 23) better than the low bet items (M = .36, SE = .06;
N = 23). For comparison purposes, the mean for those in the no-bet
condition was in between (M = .58, SE = .05; N = 25).
3.2.2.2. Study time intention. The means (of means for each par-
ticipant) for Intention as a function of Condence and Session
were calculated. The means were as follows: Session 1: low-bet
items, M = 1.38, SE = 0.09, N = 14; high-bet items, M = 0.35, SE = 0.09,
N = 14; Session 2: low-bet items, M = 1.33, SE = 0.13, N = 14; high-bet
items, M = 0.54, SE = 0.09, N = 14).7 The ANOVA for only those who
bet, resulted in a signicant effect of Condence (F(1, 13) = 45.87,
MSE = 11.60, p < .05,  = .78), indicating that students wanted to
spend a longer amount of time studying the low bet items than
the high bet items, as well as a trend for interaction by Session (F(1,
13) = 3.82, MSE = .21, p = .07,  = .23), indicating a slight increase in
intention to study the high bet items at session 2.
3.2.2.3. Actual study time. The means and errors for Actual Study
Time as a function of Condence were again calculated. The ANOVA,
for only those who bet, resulted in a signicant effect of Con-
dence (F(1, 16) = 4.97, MSE = 14.20, p < .05,  = .24), indicating that
students spent a longer amount of time studying the low bet items
(M = 2.86, SE = .75; N = 23) rather than high bet items (M = 1.59,
SE = .42; N = 23). However, their absolute study time was not
enough, and virtually the same as that in the no-bet group (M = 2.16,
SE = .49; N = 25). Note also that the actual study times are signi-
cantly shorter than those of Experiment 1. Given the option to exit,
6
This nding is consistent with previous research that has found that peoples
judgments of learning were inated compared to their performance upon rst expo-
sure (Koriat, Sheffer, & Maayan, 2002). (Finn and Metcalfe, 2007) proposed that the
source of this undercondence with practice effect (Koriat et al., 2002) may be due to
individuals memory for past test.
7
Note that because some of the data are lost due to lack of variability for hi or
low bets, these means may look slightly different than the collapsed mean reported
above, when calculating the intention means by Condition.
235
a lack of motivation may, unfortunately, inuence otherwise good
metacognitive skills.
3.3. Conclusion
The data from Experiment 2 replicated many of the ndings
from Experiment 1. Students who were obligated to make bets had
intentions of studying longer than students who were not. Regard-
less of intentions, however, students who bet did not actually study
longer; thus, no difference at nal test. Students did spend a longer
time studying low-bet items as opposed to high-bet items. Never-
theless, performance improvements did not obtain in the direction
one would have hoped. That is, even with a greater amount of study
of the low-bet items, performance was signicantly lower than the
performance of the high-bet items, suggesting that with an exit
option, which mirrors real-world study more closely unfortunately,
learners are too likely to opt out prematurely.
4. General discussion
The primary question in the current research was: Do students
who are required to bet perform better than those who were not
required to bet? For both experiments, we found that making
explicit bets improves the intention to study, but the chain stopped
there. Actual study time did not improve, nor did nal performance.
In one sense, the ndings are positive they complement the
original ideas of Schneider (1985) who proposed that children have
difculty monitoring their own memories because they rarely think
about their own memories. Thus, it seems important to rst encour-
age students to, in the least, deliberate about their own learning.
However, we are left with the question of why there is a breakdown
in the metacognitive chain when it comes to actual study.
The breakdown during actual study does not appear to be an
issue of relative knowing, as students differentiated their study
time effectively, spending more time studying items rated with low
condence compared to items rated with high condence. Instead,
it appears as though there is a breakdown in their perception of
absolute study time. Even for items in which students expressed the
least knowledge, study lasted only a few seconds. Begg, Anas, and
Farinacci (1992) showed that monitoring has no effect on learning
when participants are not allowed to use the information to regu-
late their study such as when the experimenter controls re-study.
In the current study, during the actual study phase, students were
not given reminders of the study intention choices they had previ-
ously made. It is possible that students forgot the judgments they
made and were unable to make effective actual study choices. Per-
haps if they had been reminded of their choices, they would have
been able to use this information effectively.
Another interesting nding that emerged was that students
studied for longer on paper (Experiment 1) than on the computer
(Experiment 2). Perhaps familiarity with studying on paper helps
foster a metacognitive framework or a setting that is more true
to real-world study where motivation is high. Furthermore, for
Experiment 1, students were able to read the concepts and make
the judgments at their own pace during the initial presentation
of concepts. For Experiment 2, however, students were presented
with the concept for four-and-a-half seconds before having to make
a decision.
To test the paper-familiarity hypothesis, we conducted an infor-
mal survey with a different group of ninth grade Biology students
in which they were presented with a handout that contained the
twenty-four concepts used in Experiment 2. Students had previ-
ously learned about half of the concepts on the handout. Concepts
they had previously learned were designated easy while concepts
they have yet to learn were designated hard. Students were asked
236 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238

to write down the amount of time they thought they would need to
study each concept in order to be certain that they would get a ques-
tion related to that concept correct on a test the next day. Students
were not timed and were permitted to answer at their own pace.
Results showed that students wanted to study, on average, three
minutes for easy items and close to eight minutes for hard items.
Not only were students able to differentiate between hard and easy
items, but some evidence that paper learning may encourage stu-
dents to want to study more and perhaps they might actually do.
4.1. Practical applications
Department of Education. We also thank several members of
the faculty at Teachers College, Department of Human Develop-
ment, for comments on earlier drafts and data analyses. Much of
the data presented here were collected during the doctoral thesis
work by the rst author. The authors are entirely responsible for
the results and their interpretation presented herein.
Appendix A.
Immune system concepts

The method used in the current study may benet students
in any classroom setting. Using this behavioral betting paradigm,
students are forced to engage in metacognitive processes without
having to take part in an invasive intervention. Instead, students
in these experiments enjoyed making condence judgments as it
is set up in a game-like fashion. This paradigm would be easy for
teachers to incorporate into their classrooms as it can be incorpo-
rated into class work, homework, or even tests and assessments.
By asking students to make condence bets, students are able to
engage in metacognitive processing they would not have done
spontaneously. The betting paradigm may also be included in a
study guide where students are asked to provide condence bets
for each concept. Then, after they take the test, the teacher may
include extra points on the test based on the bets they made dur-
ing study. Students would be motivated to engage in metacognitive
processes, which should then inuence their study strategies.
Even the most motivated students may feel uncertain as to how
to optimize their studying in order to maximize their nal perfor-
mance. Students are often overwhelmed by the copious amount of
information they must study and do not know how to organize
their study. If provided the opportunity to engage in metacog-
nitive processing, particularly through betting, students may be
given the chance to learn how to organize their study on their own.
Once students have made condence bets, they should be able to
adjust their studying accordingly. Ideally, after repeated exposure
to such a paradigm, students may, hopefully, begin to engage in
metacognitive processing on their own. Thinking about such long-
term motivational outcomes is an interesting and crucial topic, and
we believe that this may be the primary focus of future research.
In the least, in the current ndings, encouraging deliberate
monitoring improved the intention to learn. Considering that the
1. The immune system is the bodys major defense against foreign
substances that can harm the body.
2. Pathogens are microbes, such as bacteria or viruses that enter
the body and cause an infectious disease.
3. Antigens are molecules found on the outer surface of cell mem-
branes that trigger an immune response.
4. Macrophages are white blood cells that are specialized to sur-
round and engulf invading pathogens.
5. B cells are white blood cells that are specialized to secrete anti-
bodies in response to an antigen or foreign substance.
6. Antibodies are proteins that either attack the invader or mark
them for destruction.
7. Antibodies are specic since they match the shape of certain
antigens on pathogens.
8. Immunity is resistance of the body to a pathogen.
9. Vaccines stimulate the immune system by exposing it to weak-
ened microbes.
10. Vaccines cause the production of antibodies that will react with
and destroy certain microbes.
11. An allergy is an immune reaction to normally harmless sub-
stances.
12. An auto-immune disease is a disorder in which the body
mounts an immune response against its own cells.
13. HIV is a virus that destroys the bodys white blood cells, leaving
it vulnerable to infection.
Corresponding immune system questions
1. The body system that is responsible for defending the body
from harmful substances is
(1) digestive system (3) endocrine system
(2) respiratory system (4) immune system

learner may ignore this critical step of making deliberate judg- 2. Microbes that enter the body, causing disease, are known as:
(1) pathogens (2) antibodies (3) enzymes (4) hosts
ments of their knowledge, it would be benecial for educators
to implement similar strategies that would encourage students to 3. Certain microbes can cause an immune response in the human
engage in metacognitive processing. And given that people, espe- body because they contain
(1) antigens (3) fats
cially students, often exhibit overcondence, providing them with (2) enzymes (4) cytoplasm
an opportunity to assess their knowledge may mitigate their illu- 4. Which function is associated with macrophages/phagocytes
sions of knowing. Once these illusions have been eliminated, only in the blood?
then can students make more strategic study decisions on their (1) initiating blood clots (2) transporting dissolved nutrients
own. In the current studies, we found that explicitly requiring stu- (3) producing hormones (4) engulng bacteria
dents to make bets resulted in a more appropriate discrimination 5. One specic way in which B cells help to protect the human
of how much time was needed to study a list of denitions. Unfor- body from microbes is by
(1) engulng the microbe (3) secreting antibodies
tunately, those good intentions were not carried out when actually
(2) releasing antibiotics (4) releasing red blood cells
studying the items. Continuing to explore the reasons for this and
6. Which statement does not identify a characteristic of antibod-
other potential breakdowns in the metacognitive chain of learning
ies?
is timely and crucial. (1) They are produced by the body in response to the presence of foreign
substances.
Conict of interest statement (2) They may be produced in response to an antigen.
(3) They are specic and match the shape of certain antigens.
The authors declare that they have no conict of interest. (4) They engulf microbes.
7. The resistance of the body to a pathogen is called
Acknowledgements (1) immunity (3) cancer
(2) antigen (4) infection

A portion of this research was supported by CASL Grant 8. An injection containing weakened forms of a disease-causing
R305H060161 from the Institute of Educational Sciences, organism will usually trigger
 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238 237

(1) absorption of histamines (3) secretion of antigens 6. Arteries are blood vessels that
throughout the body (1) contain striated muscles
(2) production of antibodies (4) a change in the DNA sequence (2) carry blood toward the heart
9. Which substance may form in the human body due to invaders (3) readily exchange materials between the blood and body cells
(4) carry blood away from the heart
entering the blood?
7. Veins are blood vessels that
(1) nutrients (2) vaccines (3) antibodies (4) red blood cells (1) contain striated muscles
10. In some individuals, the immune system attacks substances (2) carry blood toward the heart
such as grass pollen that usually harmless, resulting in (3) readily exchange materials between the blood and body cells
(1) an allergic (2) an insulin (3) a mutation (4) a form of cancer (4) carry blood away from the heart.
reaction imbalance 8. A pulse can be detected most easily in
11. Allergic reactions are most closely associated with (1) an artery (2) a vein (3) a capillary (4) a lacteal
(1) the action of circulating (3) the shape of red blood cells 9. Which statement best describes arteries?
hormones (1) They have thicker walls than veins since they have to withstand less pressure.
(2) a low blood sugar level (4) immune system responses to (2) They have thinner walls than veins since they have to withstand more pressure.
usually harmless substances (3) They have thicker walls than veins since they have to withstand more pressure.
12. Many vaccinations stimulate the immune system by expos- (4) They have walls of the same width as veins since blood travels through both.
ing it to 10. Which type of structure prevents the blood from owing
(1) antibodies (3) mutated genes backwards during circulation?
(2) enzymes (4) weakened microbes (1) valves (2) veins (3) arteries (4) capillaries
13. A disorder in which the body mounts an immune response 11. The exchange of materials between blood and cells occurs
against itself is known as through the walls of
(1) HIV (3) autoimmune (1) vein (3) arteries
(2) diabetes (4) allergies (2) capillaries (4) lymph
Circulatory system concepts 12. Which of the following structures is the largest blood
vessel in the body that sends blood from the heart to all cells?
1. The circulatory system is the system responsible for transport- (1) capillary (2) artery (3) aorta (4) vein
ing and delivering materials all over the body. 13. Anemia is
(1) a genetic tendency toward a disorder such as diabetes
2. Gases, nutrients, and hormone are important materials that are (2) a blood condition in which a person does not have enough healthy red blood
found in the blood. cells
3. Red blood cells transport oxygen throughout the body. (3) a blood condition in which a person does not have enough healthy white blood
4. Platelets are involved in blood clotting. cells
(4) a blood condition in which a person does not have enough platelets
5. There are many more red blood cells than white blood cells in
a smear of blood.
6. Arteries are blood vessels that carry blood away from the heart.
Appendix B.
7. Veins are blood vessels that carry blood toward the heart.
8. The walls of an artery are much thicker than the walls of a vein,
Topic A
since arteries have to withstand more pressure.
Term Denition
9. A pulse is a measure of blood traveling through an artery.
10. Valves are structures that prevent the blood from owing back- Heterotrophs organisms that cannot produce their own food.
Glycogen molecule that functions as long term storage of glucose
wards.
in animals.
11. Capillaries are very thin blood vessels where the exchange of Starch molecule that functions as long term storage of glucose
materials between blood and cells occur. in plants.
12. The aorta is the largest artery in the body. Carbon dioxide Gas needed for photosynthesis to occur.
13. Anemia is a blood condition in which a person does not have Ribosome organelle in a cell where protein synthesis occurs.
Oviduct site of internal fertilization.
enough healthy red blood cells which interrupts the transport Meiosis process that produces gametes.
of oxygen. Mitosis process that produces body cells.
Mutation any change in the DNA sequence.
Receptors protein molecules on cell membranes involved in
Circulatory system corresponding questions cellular communication.
1. The circulatory system is responsible for: Insulin hormone that decreases blood sugar level.
(1) digesting food into nutrients small enough to pass through the cell membrane Glucagon hormone that increases blood sugar level.
(2) removing metabolic wastes from the body Topic B
(3) transporting and delivering materials all over the body
(4) sending and receiving messages throughout the body Term Denition
2. Which organ does the heart pump blood to for an exchange Macrophages white blood cells that engulf and digest pathogens.
of carbon dioxide for oxygen? B cells white blood cells that secrete antibodies.
(1) kidneys (2) stomach (3) lungs (4) right atrium Amino acids subunits of a protein.
Independent the variable in an experiment that is manipulated by
3. The lack of which blood component interferes most with variable the experimenter.
the transport of oxygen in humans? Dependent the variable in the experiment that is measured.
(1) white blood cells (2) red blood cells variable
(3) platelets (4) antibodies Guard cells structures that regulate gas exchange and water loss in
4. Bleeding from a small cut soon stops due to the presence a leaf.
of Pancreas organ that secretes insulin.
(1) platelets (2) activated antibodies Paper chro- lab technique that separates pigments.
(3) hemoglobin (4) white blood cells matography
5. A photograph of a slide of human blood taken from a Gel lab technique that separates DNA fragments.
healthy individual would typically show electrophoresis
(1) a greater amount of white blood cells than red blood cells Diffusion a process by which molecules move from a high
(2) red blood cells that are larger in size than white blood cells concentration to a low concentration.
(3) a greater amount of red blood cells than white blood cells Active a process by which molecules move from a low
(4) platelets that are larger than white blood cells transport concentration to a high concentration.
238 D. Sussan, L.K. Son / Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 3 (2014) 230238
References
Bargh, J. A., & Williams, E. L. (2006). The automaticity of social life. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15, 14.
Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source
recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 121, 446458.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of mem-
ory: When retrieval uency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 5568.
Bruin, A., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. R. (2011). Generating keywords
improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle
school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294310.
Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation
empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 20, 70107.
Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later
adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Duniosky,
& A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp.
249276). Mahwah, NJ: Edbaum.
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to
improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228232.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions, Inc.
Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of
learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory and Cognition, 20, 374380.
Elawar, M. C. (1992). Effects of teaching metacognitive skills to students with low
mathematics ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 109121.
Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). The role of memory for past test in the undercondence
with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 33, 238244.
Hamman, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E. (2000). Teachers coaching of learning
and its relation to students strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92, 342348.
Huff, J. D., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and condence judg-
ments to improve metacognitive monitoring skills. Metacognition and Learning,
4, 161176.
Kelemen, W. L. (2000). Metamemory cues and monitoring accuracy: Judging what
you know what you will know. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 800810.
Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Maayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective
learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased undercondence with
practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 147162.
Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efcacy and the region of proximal learning
framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
32, 609622.
Kornell, N., Son, L. K., & Terrace, H. (2007). Transfer of metacognitive skills and hint
seeking in monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 6471.
Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663679.
McGillivray, S., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Betting on memory leads to metacognitive
improvement in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 26, 137142.
Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 18, 159163.
Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally
related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 174179.
Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based program
to enhance study efcacy in a high- and low-risk setting. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 19, 743768.
Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children read-
ing scientic texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. Journal of Educational
Research, 102, 363376.
Moley, B. E., Hart, S. S., Leal, L., Santulli, K. A., Rao, N., Johnson, T., et al. (1992). The
teachers role in facilitating memory and study strategy development in the
elementary school classroom. Child Development, 63, 653672.
Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive
judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological
Science, 5, 207213.
Perfect, T. J., & Hollins, T. S. (1996). Predictive feeling of knowing judgments and post-
dictive condence judgments in eyewitness memory and general knowledge.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(5), 371382.
Reder, L. M. (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. Cognitive Psychology,
19, 90138.
Reder, L. M., & Ritter, F. E. (1992). What determines initial feeling of knowing?
Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 435451.
Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strat-
egy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.),
Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 4577). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Redford, J., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Grifn, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping
improves metacognitive accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction,
22, 262270.
Romainville, M. (1994). Awareness of cognitive strategies: The relationship between
university students metacognition and their performance. Studies in Higher Edu-
cation, 19, 359366.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemorymemory behavior
relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon, &
T. G. Waller (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and human performance (vol. I) (pp.
57109). New York: Academic Press.
Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2002). Developmental trends in childrens feeling-of-
knowing judgements. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4),
327333.
Schraw, G. (1997). The effect of generalized metacognitive knowledge on test
performance and condence judgments. Journal of Experimental Education, 65,
135146.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science
education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Journal
of Experimental Education, 74, 293310.
Silver, E. A. (1987). Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathemat-
ics problem solving instruction. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and
mathematics education (pp. 314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Son, L. K. (2005). Metacognitive control: Childrens short-term versus long-term
study strategies. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 347363.
Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2008). Research on the allocation of study time: Key studies
from 1890 to the present (and beyond). In J. Dunlosky, & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), A
handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 333351). Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology
Press.
Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2009). Simultaneous decisions at study: Time allocation,
ordering, and spacing. Metacognition and Learning, 237, 237248.
Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage
model. Memory and Cognition, 33, 11161129.
Son, L. K., & Simon, D. (2012). Distributed learning: Data, metacognition, and edu-
cational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 379399.
Sussan, D., & Son, L. K. (2007). The training of metacognitive monitoring in children.
Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal, 2, 98112.
Terrace, H. S., & Son, L. K. (2009). Comparative metacognition. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 19, 6774.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacogni-
tive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
6673.
Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (1996). Assessing Metacognitive Knowledge Monitor-
ing. College Board. Published by the College Entrance Examination Board in
New York.
Tobias, S., Everson, H. T., & Laitusis, V. (1999). Towards a performance based measure of
metacognitive knowledge monitoring: Relationships with self-reports and behavior
ratings Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 1923, 1999,. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in
authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 5982.