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

Metacognitive judgments as an emerging research field. A systematic review (2016-2020)

dc.creatorMontoya Londoño, Diana Marcela
dc.creatorOrrego Cardozo, Mary
dc.creatorPuente Ferreras, Aníbal
dc.creatorTamayo Alzate, Óscar Eugenio
dc.date2021-01-01 00:00:00
dc.date2021-05-30T10:19:47Z
dc.date2021-01-01 00:00:00
dc.date2021-05-30T10:19:47Z
dc.date2020-01-01
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-06T18:32:48Z
dc.date.available2023-09-06T18:32:48Z
dc.identifier1900-9895
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.17151/rlee.2021.17.1.10
dc.identifierhttps://repositorio.ucaldas.edu.co/handle/ucaldas/16683
dc.identifier10.17151/rlee.2021.17.1.10
dc.identifier2500-5324
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/8699021
dc.descriptionObjetivo: 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. 
dc.descriptionAim: 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.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad de Caldas
dc.relation223
dc.relation1
dc.relation188
dc.relation17
dc.relationLatinoamericana de Estudios Educativos
dc.relationAgus, 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/113111
dc.relationAriel, 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/xap0000133
dc.relationAvhustiuk, 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.v14i2.1418
dc.relationBuratti, 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.
dc.relationCallender, 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/s11409-015-9142-6
dc.relationCamps, 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/3lvlDHD
dc.relationCogliano, 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.2018.12.001
dc.relationCromley, 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-z
dc.relationDe 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.1109
dc.relationDe 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/10.1186/1742-5581
dc.relationDe Granda-Orive, J. I. (2003). Algunas reflexiones y consideraciones sobre el factor de impacto. Archivos de Bronconeumología, 39 (9), 409-417. https://doi.org/10.1157/13050631
dc.relationDentakos, 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/s11409-019-09198-4
dc.relationDouble, 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/10.1080/09658211.2017.1404111
dc.relationDunlosky, 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.x
dc.relationDunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition, A Texbook for cognitive, educational, life span, & applied psychology. United States of America: Sage publication, Inc.
dc.relationDunlosky, 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.
dc.relationDunlosky, 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.
dc.relationDunlosky, 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.
dc.relationDunlosky, 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.2012.05.002
dc.relationEflkides, 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/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
dc.relationEscalona-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/10.6018/107121
dc.relationEstany, A. (2013). La filosofía en el marco de las neurociencias. Revista de Neurología, 56 (6), 344-348.
dc.relationFlavell, 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.
dc.relationFleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443
dc.relationFollmer, 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/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409184
dc.relationFrumos, F., & Grecu, S. (2019). Inaccuracy and overconfidence in metacognitive monitoring of university students. Revista de Cercerate Si Interventie Sociala, 66, 298-314.
dc.relationGlenberg, A., & Epstein, W. (1987). Calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15 (1), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197714
dc.relationGonzález, 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/jp907259e
dc.relationGutierrez, 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/10.1080/00220973.2016.1180278
dc.relationGutierrez, 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.2016.02.006
dc.relationHacker, 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.
dc.relationHacker, 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.
dc.relationHacker, 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/10.4324/9780203876428
dc.relationHändel, 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/s11409-020-09220-0
dc.relationHändel, 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/s13421-015-0552-0
dc.relationHändel, 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.2019.101245
dc.relationHart, J. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of educational psychology, 56, 208-216.
dc.relationHawker, 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.5b00705
dc.relationHiggins, J., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for sytematic reviews of interventions. United States of America.: Wiley-Blackwell.
dc.relationKollmer, 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/s11251-020-09521-6
dc.relationKoriat, 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.
dc.relationKoriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6 (2), 107-118.
dc.relationKruger, 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/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
dc.relationKuhn, 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.752
dc.relationMazancieux, 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/xge0000746
dc.relationMcCutcheon, 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.
dc.relationMcNamara, 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/s11409-011-9082-8
dc.relationMetcalfe, 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.2004.12.001
dc.relationMorphew, J. (2020). Changes in metacognitive monitoring accuracy in an introductory physics course. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09239-3
dc.relationMorphew, J. W. (2020). Changes in metacognitive monitoring accuracy in an introductory physics course. Metacognition and Learning, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09239-3
dc.relationMoshman, 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.
dc.relationNelson, T. O. (1992). Metacognition: Core readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
dc.relationNelson, 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;2-9
dc.relationNelson, T. O., & Leonesio, J. (1988). Allocation of Self-Paced Study Time and the “Laborin-Vain Effect”, 14 (4), 676-686.
dc.relationNelson, 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)60053-5
dc.relationNelson, 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,.
dc.relationNelson, T. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling of knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95 (1), 109-133.
dc.relationPanadero, 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/s10212-018-0407-8
dc.relationParis, 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.
dc.relationPetticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the social sciences. New York: John Wiley y Sons, Ltd.
dc.relationPieger, 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.3326
dc.relationPieger, 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.2016.01.012
dc.relationProust, J. (2010). Metacognition. Philosophy Compass, 11, 989-998.
dc.relationQuiles, 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/S1355617714000290
dc.relationRhodes, 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/a0021705
dc.relationRivers, 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.2019.101806
dc.relationSanta-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/s11192-018-2651-8
dc.relationSawyer, K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
dc.relationSchraw, 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.ch11
dc.relationSchraw, 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.
dc.relationSchraw, 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.
dc.relationSchraw, 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.
dc.relationSchraw, G. (2009a). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4 (1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3
dc.relationSchraw, 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.
dc.relationSchraw, 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.2012.08.007
dc.relationSchraw, 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/a0036653
dc.relationSchraw, G., & Sperling-Dennison, R. (1994). Assesing metacognitive awareness. Contemporany Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
dc.relationSegado-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/
dc.relationTai, 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/s10734-017-0220-3
dc.relationTemelman-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/s11409-020-09245-5
dc.relationWagner-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/s10459-015-9642-9
dc.relationWiley, 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.132.4.408-428
dc.relationWiley, 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/xap0000096
dc.relationWinne, P., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 63-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
dc.relationWinne, 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/s11409-011-9074-8
dc.relationŽauhar, V., Bajšanski, I., & Domijan, D. (2017). The influence of rule availability and item similarity on metacognitive monitoring during categorisation, 5911(November). https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1396991
dc.relationZimmerman, 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.
dc.relationNúm. 1 , Año 2021 : Enero-Junio
dc.relationhttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/latinoamericana/article/download/4273/3930
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.sourcehttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/latinoamericana/article/view/4273
dc.subjectmetacognition
dc.subjectmetamemory
dc.subjectlearning
dc.subjectcognitive processes
dc.subjectselfefficacy
dc.subjectmetacognición
dc.subjectmetamemoria
dc.subjectaprendizaje
dc.subjectprocesos cognitivos
dc.subjectautoeficacia
dc.titleLos juicios metacognitivos como un campo emergente de investigación. Una revisión sistemática (2016-2020)
dc.titleMetacognitive judgments as an emerging research field. A systematic review (2016-2020)
dc.typeArtículo de revista
dc.typeSección Artículos
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.typeText
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.typehttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución