The effect of writing script on efficiency and metacognitive monitoring in inferential word learning
-
Published:2024-03-16
Issue:2
Volume:19
Page:593-607
-
ISSN:1556-1623
-
Container-title:Metacognition and Learning
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Metacognition Learning
Author:
Polyanskaya Leona, El-Dakhs Dina Abdel Salam, Tao Ming, Chu Fengfeng, Ordin MikhailORCID
Abstract
AbstractThe writing system – the transparency of orthography in alphabet-based systems and differences between logographic and phonetic-based systems – can affect the efficiency of inferential word learning when words are introduced visually. It can also shape how people self-evaluate their learning success (we refer to such type of self-evaluation as metacognitive monitoring of word learning). By contrast, differences in metacognition and learning performance do not emerge when words are presented auditorily. To measure metacognition, we assessed retrospective confidence by asking participants to rate their certainty about the correctness of their responses. As this direct question raises a person’s conscious awareness of how well they have learned a particular lexical unit, it allowed us to measure those aspects of metacognition that are modulated by consciousness. Such consciousness comes into play when a word is associated with an object. Differences in conscious awareness of the word learning success when words are represented visually make differential demands on word learning across languages and modalities. The observed differences between populations using different writing systems and between perceptual modalities may potentially modulate the effectiveness of vocabulary acquisition activities during foreign language learning.
Funder
HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council Prince Sultan University National Key R&D Program of China Universidade de Coimbra
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference51 articles.
1. Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329(5995), 1081–1085. 2. Bolger, D., et al. (2005). Cross-cultural effect on the brain revisited: Universal structures plus writing system variation. Human Brain Mapping, 25(1), 92–104. 3. Carpenter, J., Sherman, M. T., Kievit, R. A., Seth, A. K., Lau, H., & Fleming, S. M. (2019). Domain-general enhancements of metacognitive ability through adaptive training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1), 51–64. 4. Cleeremans, A., Achoui, D., Beauny, A., Keuninckx, L., Martin, J.-R., Muñoz-Moldes, S., Vuillaume, L., & de Heering, A. (2020). Learning to be conscious. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 112–123. 5. Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 24–39.
|
|