Abstract
Koriat, Ackerman, and Adiv show that metacognitive monitoring during learning depends on whether regulation is goal-driven or data-driven — judgments of learning track study time differently under each mode, and integrating both requires developmental sophistication.
Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., & Adiv, S. (2014). The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 386–403. DOI
Key findings
- Dual regulation modes — Goal-driven self-regulation links more study time to higher confidence; data-driven regulation can invert that link when ease-of-encoding heuristics dominate.
- Monitoring–control loop — Metacognitive judgments both inform and receive feedback from control during learning — not passive post-hoc ratings.
- Ease heuristic trap — Under data-driven regulation, more study can lower judgments of learning when encoding feels hard — the opposite sign from goal-driven regulation.
- Developmental gap — Grade 5–6 children show each mode separately; 9th graders and adults can factor both goal-driven and data-driven variation within one task.
Limits
Laboratory paired-associate learning — not coaching journals or real-world pattern logs. Developmental comparisons use school-grade cohorts, not adult executive-function training. Cosensitivity to both modes in one task is a skill threshold, not a personality type.
Application
When you log a recurring flight or sabotage pattern, ask whether your read is goal-driven (chosen measure) or data-driven (comfort heuristic) — the detective stance needs both. Pair Pattern detective · Interoception.