The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring: Effects of the Type of Information and of Personal, Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Individual Psychological Characteristics

The aim of the paper is to analyse the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity of university students (n = 262). The analysis focuses on the effects of the different types of information proposed and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics of the participants. The research has shown that the illusion of knowing can occur in all types of metacognitive judgments, but is more evident in prospective judgments and depends on the type of information, its length and style, task type, etc. There are empirically established correlations between the selected personal, cognitive, and metacognitive characteristics. Gender and age differences in the manifestation of the illusion of knowing are not observed, although it is found that women tend towards overconfidence. The results also showed that the illusion of knowing is more typical for younger students, especially for those with lower levels of academic achievements.

learning (Kolers & Palef, 1976;Nelson & Narens, 1980;Smith & Clark, 1993). The level of task complexity significantly influences metacognitive monitoring judgements of the learning accuracy. These results are due to Brown (1987), Pulford (1996), Kruger and Dunning (1999), and others. Information context, its informativity, interesting representation, and value also play important roles in metacognitive monitoring reliability (Koriat et al., 2014). Pallier et al. (2002) found slight relations between task content and overconfidence. Hacker, Bol, and Bahbahani (2008) demonstrated that higher levels of calibration are possible only in accordance with higher levels of knowing of the context of information.
It is necessary to conduct an investigation of the illusion of knowing in the sphere of information style as scientific provements of these correlations are not sufficient. Information length, ease of access, and additional general information also influence metacognitive judgements of learning (Commander & Stanwyck, 1997;Koriat, 1993;Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980;Pulford, 1996). Thus, Commander and Stanwyck (1997) have shown that the illusion of knowing is more dependent on smaller texts, while larger texts, on contrary, can provide metacognitive monitoring reliability.
It is rather difficult to study factors of metacognitive reliability without taking into account task type. According to Koriat, Lichtenstein, and Fischhoff (1980), the reason of systematic errors in metacognitive judgements is a tendency to choose positive answers, and to ignore the answers that do not coincide with personal beliefs. Pallier et al. (2002) and de Carvalho Filho (2009) showed that open-answer questions provide higher levels of metacognitive monitoring reliability in the process of knowledge self-esteem as compared with multiple-choice questions. Dutke, Europe's Journal of Psychology 2018, Vol. 14(2), 317-341 doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418 The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring Barenberg, and Leopold (2010) are convinced that knowing the task type before doing tests can improve metacognitive monitoring reliability. According to Savin and Fomin (2013), systematic performing of tasks of the same type can lead to inadequate metacognitive monitoring. Some scientists study metacognitive monitoring reliability in the context of such factors as rereading (Dunlosky & Rawson, 2012;King, Zechmeister, & Shaughnessy, 1980;Koriat & Bjork, 2006) and generalization (Begg et al., 1996;Koriat, 1997). Some attempts have been made (Ward & Clark, 1989) to study such factors of metacognitive monitoring reliability as internal and external feedback. According to the scientists, when people systematically analyse assessments of their confidence in the correctness of doing tasks, they can achieve greater objective success of task performance.
The psychological literature data demonstrate that metacognitive monitoring processes have tight connections with personal characteristics such as intellectual level, self-monitoring capacity, necessity to understand task performance, persistence, activity, and positive emotions. (Pallier et al., 2002). There are also personal factors that influence overconfidence such as motivation and self-esteem, and individual psychological differences (e.g., age, gender, character) (Pulford, 1996). Ilyina (2003) has studied the structure of motivation in the learning activity of university students and highlighted its three main goals: to receive knowledge, to have an occupation, and to get a diploma. Romek (1998) provides diagnosis of confidence evaluation. This approach is seen as a generalized method of positive self-assessment of human skills and abilities. Karpov and Skitiaeva (2005) study reflexivity and highlight its three main types: situational (active), retrospective, and prospective reflexivity.
An important role in metacognitive monitoring reliability is also played by cognitive characteristics. Academic achievements should be taken into account. According to Pallier et al. (2002), Jee, Wiley, and Griffin (2006), and Savin and Fomin (2013), people with higher levels of knowledge tend towards lesser overconfidence. Unsuccessful students, in their turn, learn material quickly and not thoughtfully, do not stop on problematic aspects, and do not take into account misunderstood parts (Winne, 2010).
Diagnostic methods of recent years also allow for consideration of the role of metacognitive characteristics such as metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activity (Kashapov, 2012), as well as metacognitive awareness (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). A method of diagnosis of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activity is used to study metacognitive characteristics. According to this method, metacognitive knowledge is understood as human knowledge about means of receiving and processing information, knowledge about types and content of tasks, and knowledge about metacognitive strategies in problem solving. Metacognitive activity is a process of obtaining and selecting information, its control, change, and metacognition planning (Kashapov, 2012).
Metacognitive awareness, or so called metacognitive involvement in the learning activity, acts as a specific degree It is difficult to establish metacognitive monitoring reliability factors without studying individual psychological characteristics. Gender differences and age peculiarities were among the primarily concerns taken into account in our group study. Analysis of psychological and educational literature has also shown that metacognitive monitoring reliability cannot be studied apart from appropriate psychological and pedagogical conditions.

Objectives
The research is centred in a precise theoretical framework of the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring.
In particular, we aim to study this phenomenon in terms of investigating its influence on metacognitive monitoring reliability of the learning activity of university students. In our previous work (Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017) we introductorily aimed to clarify the illusion of knowing in the educational activity in terms of reliability of metacognitive monitoring accuracy factors and to find out some correlations between specified psychological characteristics providing brief analysis of their impact on the occurrence of the illusion of knowing. In the current paper we thoroughly study the effects of such factors as different types of the learned information and also personal, cognitive, metacognitive and individual psychological characteristics of the participants. Moreover, we set a goal to provide the detailed analysis of the impact of the highlighted characteristics on the illusion of knowing.
So, specifically, the main aims of the present study are: to investigate the grouped characteristics of metacognitive monitoring reliability and to thoroughly analyze their impact on the learning activity of university students; to provide the study of the empirical results of the peculiarities of the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring; to analyze the peculiarities of the illusion of knowing according to the theoretical analysis and empirical investigation of the phenomenon.

Method Participants
A total of 262 university students of different faculties of the National University of Ostroh Academy (Ukraine) (192 female and 70 male students, M = 19.5; SD = 1.87) voluntarily participated in this study for free. All participants were students in their 1 st to 5 th year of university. The sample consisted of Ukrainian students only.

Materials
In general, the study was conducted in two stages: a diagnostic stage and a laboratory experiment stage. At the diagnostic stage the participants were asked to answer questions from a questionnaire aiming to ascertain psychological characteristics of students that according to the results of theoretical analysis were related to metacognitive monitoring reliability (see Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017). Empirical reference of the level of students' knowledge was studied with the help of the generalization of their academic achievements during semester.
To study metacognitive characteristics we used a diagnosis method of metacognitive involvement in the learning activity (Schraw & Dennison, 1994); a method of diagnosis of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activity (Kashapov, 2012). Also at this stage a sample test was carried out to study normal distribution of equivalence and the highlighted characteristics.
Europe's Journal of Psychology 2018, Vol. 14(2), 317-341 doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418 The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring 322 At the stage of the laboratory experiment 6 texts, 18 statements, and 18 pairs of words in Ukrainian were chosen as a stimuli material needed to be learned. The texts were of different styles (the scientific prose, the newspaper and the belletristic styles) and of different length (larger text volume accounted 25-30 sentences and smaller text volume accounted 10-15 sentences). The participants read two texts of the same style according to different length. All quantitative data were divided into nine groups depending on such factor as task type: open-answer questions for texts, statements, and word pairs; 'Yes'/'No'/'Do not know' questions for texts, statements, and word pairs; multiple-choice questions for texts, statements, and word pairs. The aim of the pilot study was to standardize the stimulus material according to such criteria as the hard-easy effect, familiarity/unfamiliarity of information, and emotional impact.

Procedure and Design
The participants had to learn 6 texts, 18 statements and 18 pairs of words in Ukrainian. They performed prospective metacognitive judgements of learning about confidence (JOLs) and prospective judgements about the number of correct answers (aJOLs), as well as similar retrospective metacognitive judgements of both types (RCJs and aRCJs). With the help of proper calibration procedure we defined average indicators of the illusion of knowing (overconfidence) and average indicators of the illusion of not knowing (underconfidence).
In general, the experiment consisted of the following phases: an Information Learning Phase, a Phase of Evaluation of the Learning Information Effectiveness, a Distractor Phase (served as a possibility for the participants to rest doing non-evaluated activity), a Task Performance Phase, and a Phase of Evaluation of the Task Performance Effectiveness. Experimental scheme is presented in Figure 1.  The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring 324 served as the possibility to evaluate the level of correctness of information learning and task performing. Again, with the help of the scale from 1 to 6 students performed retrospective metacognitive judgements of learning about confidence (RCJs) and retrospective judgements about the number of correct answers (aRCJs).

Analysis
All the received data were processed by a computer program IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and calculations were done by Excel program. Data were processed by means of mathematical and statistical methods such as ANOVA analysis, T-test, correlation coefficient of Goodman-Kruskal, Spearman rank of correlation, Pearson linear correlation, O/U index, and calibration index (see Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017).
Metacognitive monitoring errors we aimed to find (overconfidence as the illusion of knowing and underconfidence as the illusion of not knowing) were determined as the difference between subjective evaluation of the accuracy of retrieval (metacognitive judgements rating) and the observed reproduction (relative share of results according to total number of tasks). The larger the difference is, the greater is the manifestation of the illusion of knowing, and vice versa (Gigerenzer et al., 1991;Ward & Clark, 1989). To do this we used a three-level scale from -1 to +1 (for more detailed description see Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017).

Results
The results of the received data are described according to the divided groups of metacognitive monitoring reliability factors. These are different types of information and also personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics of the participants.

The Illusion of Knowing Levels
The results from the diagnostic stage showed predominance of learning motivation to gain knowledge (48.7%) and skills development (39.2%), middle (49%) and high (29.5%) levels of general self-confidence, self-efficacy (middle level -44.3%, high level -32.6%), and metacognitive awareness (middle level -43.5%, high level -35.5%), as well as middle levels of metacognitive knowledge (62.8%) and metacognitive activity (58.7%). The research data also showed a great amount of students with middle levels of reflexivity (56.7%), and significant number of them showed low-reflection (30.9%). In general, the results of the study showed that 59.4% of the participants committed errors in JOLs, and the majority of them (31.3%) showed overconfidence in task performance correctness. Moreover, 50% of the students committed metacognitive monitoring errors in the course of aJOLs, while 35.9% of the students were overconfident in task performance correctness. At the same time, the average results of the illusion of knowing were slightly different in JOLs (M JOL = .27, SD = .61) and in aJOLs (M aJOL = .25, SD = .69) (p ≤ .05). The number of students who showed the illusion of knowing was not significantly different. It can mean that before task performance overconfidence is not significantly dependent on task type. However, in RCJs there was a decrease (6.3%) of students' overconfidence in task accuracy, and in aRCJs the decrease reached 11.7%. Average value of overestimation remained unchanged.
aRCJs were the most accurate as 61% of the students who took part in the study showed adequate accuracy levels of metacognitive monitoring (M aRCJ = .01, SD = .18, p = .05). In aJOLs and aRCJs the proportion of those who overestimated the number of correctly performed tasks was significantly higher in comparison with those students who showed underestimation. However, among those students who underestimated the number of cor- The illusion of knowing mostly occured in aJOLs (35.9%). Before tasks performance among those students who underestimated possible number of correctly performed tasks the degree of the illusion of not knowing was the highest (M aJOL = -.37, SD = .41, p = .05) as after task performance the accuracy of judgements significantly increased. T-test for pair samples showed significant differences in the rates of errors in metacognitive judgements between JOLs and aJOLs (t(56) = 2.09, p ≤ .05), between aRCJs and RCJs (t(56) = 2.23, p ≤ .05), and between JOLs and RCJs (t(56) = 2.09, p ≤ .05). In retrospective judgements of both types metacognitive monitoring accuracy was higher. According to the results, those students who made mistakes in monitoring reduced the proportion of those who showed the illusion of knowing. The results relate to the research data of Busey et al. (2000), Mc-Cormick (2003), Nelson (1999), Thiede and Dunlosky (1994), and others, that found that overconfidence leads to the illusory feeling of knowing in retrospective monitoring judgements.

Correlations Between Personal, Cognitive, and Metacognitive Characteristics
According to the empirical results, there were found correlations between the studied personal, cognitive, and metacognitive characteristics of students. Learning motivation positively correlated with self-confidence (r = .17, .23, p = .01) judgements of learning were also found. Before task performance there were found close correlations between the indicators of the illusion of knowing and metacognitive activity (r aJOL = -.18, p = .05), as well as metacognitive awareness (r JOL = -.21, p = .05). In particular, significant correlations were found between the illusion of knowing and metacognitive activity, metacognitive awareness, and general self-confidence (also see Avhustiuk, 2016;Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017).

Effects of the Type of Information
According to ANOVA analysis, statistically significant differences were found

Effects of the Task Type
The participants were more confident in the judgements of learning while answering multiple-choice questions (M   Table 1.

Effects of Personal Characteristics
The The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring showed the correlations (Pearson criterion) between the indicators of self-confidence and the illusion of knowing in aRCJs (r = .32, p = .01) and RCJs (r = .24, p = .05).

The Illusion of Knowing From the Spectrum of Self-Confidence -
The data for the scale of Romek's methodology 'self-confidence' -'self-unconfidence' showed that university students in the context of its various levels tend towards overconfidence as well as towards underestimation of the accuracy of tasks performance.
Correlation analysis (Spearman criterion) showed the correlations between confidence indicators and the illusion of knowing in aRCJs (r = .32) and RCJs (r = .24) (p = .05). The Illusion of Knowing From the Spectrum of Self-Efficacy -We found that the participants with middle and high levels of self-efficacy were more accurate in prospective and retrospective metacognitive judgements of learning rather than the participants with lower self-efficacy. The last demonstrated such error of metacognitive monitoring as the illusion of not knowing. The proportion of overconfident students in aJOLs and aRCJs (37% and 37,6% respectively) was much higher than the same proportion of underconfident students (10% and 14.3% respectively). Among the participants with lower levels of self-efficacy the proportion of underconfidence in JOLs was very high (55%), and the levels of the illusion of not knowing were also very high (M = .53, SD = .12, p = .01).

The Illusion of Knowing From the Spectrum of Academic Achievements -To determine the relations between
the level of the illusion of knowing and academic achievements, semester overall results were analyzed. For more adequate results, average marks of each student were converted from a 100-scale to standard values of a 5-point scale (5 is the highest result). Results showed that the illusion of knowing was common for the participants with lower results of academic achievements.

The Illusion of Knowing From the Spectrum of Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Activity -
The results showed differences in terms of metacognitive knowledge between the indicators of the illusion of and retrospective (r RCJ = -.23, p = .01) judgements of learning about confidence and performance indicators of metacognitive awareness. Before task performance there were found close correlations with the indicators of the illusion of knowing and metacognitive activity (r aJOL = -.18, p = .05) and metacognitive awareness (r JOL = -.21, p = .05). It was also found that among the participants with high and middle levels of metacognitive awareness a significant proportion of those students who almost did not commit errors in metacognitive monitoring notably increased (from 46.6% to 58% and from 56% to 74.8% respectively). The same trend was observed in the judgements of high and mid-reflexive students. The analysis data showed correlations between the levels of the illusion of knowing in all prospective (r = .21, p = .05) and retrospective metacognitive judgements (r = -.23, p = .01).

Effects of Individual Psychological Characteristics
Gender Differences -In terms of individual psychological characteristics of the participants statistically significant differences between the illusion of knowing and gender peculiarities [F(2, 56) = .013, p = .99] were not found. It was fixed that women tended towards overconfidence in prospective and retrospective judgements of learning, although these levels were not high.

The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring
Age Peculiarities -Analysis of variance ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in terms of age peculiarities between the indicators of the illusion of knowing (F aJOL (2, 56) = 9.43, F aRCJ (2, 56) = 13.03, F JOL (2, 56) = 4.44, F RCJ (2, 56) = 6.95, p < .001). It can mean that the illusion of knowing in all kinds of prospective and retrospective judgements depends on age peculiarities. Moreover, we found that the participants of the age group of 17-19 were more overconfident (M = .06, SD = .19, p < .001), while the students of the age group of 20-22 tended towards underconfidence (M = -.41, SD = .47, p < .001).

Discussion
The paper is devoted to the study of the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity of university students. It allocates such factors of metacognitive monitoring reliability as different types of information, and also personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics.
The findings presented here and in some other previous works (Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017) demonstrate that the illusion of knowing, regarded as overconfidence and an error of metacognitive monitoring, can occur in all types of metacognitive judgements. Nevertheless, it is more evident in prospective judgements.
According to our results, subjective self-confidence in knowing is influenced by the way information is presented -in the form of texts, statements, or word pairs. The highest levels of overconfidence were shown in the proposed statements; significantly lesser degrees of confidence were observed in texts learning; the lowest levels of confidence appeared in word pairs. These results may be due to the influence of logical context of the learned information (Hacker, Bol, & Bahbahani, 2008), and also due to the hard-easy effect.
The illusion of knowing depends on information length and style and is higher in larger texts. The results state that significantly higher confidence was shown while learning larger passages of information. These may be due to the influence of task performance experience on metacognitive judgements as the participants showed more efforts needed to learn larger texts. Students were also overconfident while working with the texts of the belletristic style. The reason of the higher ratings of metacognitive monitoring judgements in such texts may be because of influence of curiosity, emotional effect of information, and also the hard-easy effect.
A noteworthy finding in this study is that the illusion of knowing also depends on task type. In our study overconfidence occurred in multiple-choice questions. Thus, we can assume that subjective confidence is affected by task type.
In prospective judgements of learning the illusion of knowing had the strongest correlations with metacognitive characteristics such as metacognitive activity and metacognitive awareness. In retrospective judgements we found correlations between the indicators of the illusion of knowing and metacognitive activity, metacognitive awareness and self-confidence. Reflexivity, learning motivation, self-efficacy, and students' introspection of fixed or changeable intellect were connected with the illusion of knowing from across the spectrum of the system of relations with metacognitive characteristics and general self-confidence.
As study of motivation is determined by a number of specific factors such as educational system, organization of the learning process, subjective characteristics of a student (e.g., age, gender, intellectual development and abilities, level of aspiration, self-esteem, and cooperation with other members of the learning process), learning motivation is significant in the increasing reliability of metacognitive monitoring (Nietfeld et al., 2005). The causes of the learning successes and failures are accounted by external and internal reasons. It is proved that those Europe's Journal of Psychology 2018, Vol. 14(2), 317-341 doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418 students who are governed mainly by external motivation (orientation on diploma) are characterized by overconfidence, whereas those who are guided by internal motives such as self-orientation and skills development, show underconfidence (Hacker, Bol, & Bahbahani, 2008;Kroll & Ford, 1992).
In the context of various levels of self-confidence students tend not only to overconfidence, but also to underestimation of the accuracy of tasks performance. These levels can be regarded as the indicators of ineffective metacognitive monitoring. The results that middle and low reflexive students show overconfidence may be because they do not take into account their experience of involvement in task performance situations contrary to highly and mid-reflexive students. The results are supported by the established correlations between reflexivity and metacognitive awareness.
Statistically insignificant differences of the average values of the illusion of knowing according to the notions of intellect can mean that the level of the illusion of knowing is independent of the notions of changeable intellect.
In other words, the implicit theories of intellect do not significantly affect subjective confidence in the accuracy of metacognitive judgments. However, analysis of the inner-group differences in the average values makes it possible to argue that in terms of changeable intellect there occurs noticeable trend towards higher performance levels of the illusion of knowing in aJOLs and aRCJs.
According to the results, students with lower levels of self-efficacy tend to demonstrate such error of metacognitive monitoring as the illusion of not knowing.
The results show that students with lower academic achievements tend towards the illusion of knowing. These results correlate with the scientific data that show the more successful people are, the less confident they are in their knowledge, and vice versa. In particular, many scientists (Dunning et al., 2003;Hacker, Bol, & Bahbahani, 2008;Jee et al., 2006;Kruger & Dunning, 1999;Miller & Geraci, 2011;Pallier et al., 2002, Wiley et al., 2005 prove that people with higher levels of knowledge tend towards lesser overconfidence (see Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017). According to Winne and Hadwin (1998), students with lower levels of academic achievements learn the information of any kind quickly, do not stop on problematic aspects, do not notice when something is unclear, and do not reread difficult for understanding passages. Savin and Fomin (2013) pay attention to direct connections between metacognitive judgements reliability and higher academic achievements in performance of different tasks. Thus, those students who demonstrate higher skills of metacognitive monitoring, receive higher marks, and, consequently, higher levels of academic achievements; students with low academic achievements tend towards overestimation of their knowledge.
However, we did not record the effects of gender and age differences on the illusion of knowing. Nevertheless, it was found that women tend towards overconfidence in their judgements. In the scientific literature there are no empirical data which state dependence of metacognitive monitoring accuracy from gender differences. In several researches attention is mainly paid to the correlations between intellect, academic achievements, motivation, and gender differences. According to McCarty and Siber (Pulford, 1996), women less tend towards overconfidence than men. Our results partly suggest the opposite (also see Pasichnyk, Kalamazh, & Avgustiuk, 2017).
The illusion of knowing is more typical for younger students, especially for those who have lower levels of academic achievements. Students with lower levels of knowledge have more difficulties with the accuracy of metacognitive judgements (overoptimistic confidence takes place here), and cannot distinguish between questions answered correctly and incorrectly. Perhaps this may be due to the fact that 17-19-year-old students, although characterized Europe's Journal of Psychology 2018, Vol. 14(2), 317-341 doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418 The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring 332 by certain maturity in mental, moral, and social terms and by conscious motives in behaviour (Shevchenko & Shevchenko, 2009), are under influence of inherent prevalence of maximalist inclinations and categorical assessments in all kinds of the learning activities. Complex and new challenges that students face from the first year of study require accurate organization of the learning process, skills of independent work with educational and scientific literature, and independent allocation of time. All these factors, apart from the development of thinking, memory capacity, and attention, also provoke generation of such processes as delaying, breaking, greater uncertainty, which, in our opinion, can cause declination of confidence in tasks performance by 20-22-year-old students.
This study had limitations that need to be mentioned. Firstly, the cross-sectional data adopted here were made in the form of the laboratory experiment, so the analyses performed represent only the results gained in this context.
Thus, further research might consider the role of the illusion of knowing in metacognitive reliability in the context of real learning process. Secondly, individual psychological differences in the study of the illusion of knowing were examined only pertaining to students. That is why, further research is needed to study other social groups.
Moreover, one more scope for future studies has to be taken with an aim to broaden age limitations. Qualitative methods could also enrich this type of research, permitting us to better understanding of the impact of the factors of the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring reliability found in this study.
Overall, the results can imply the importance of metacognitive monitoring judgements as significant sources of how students regulate their own knowledge in the process of the learning activity. Despite some methodological limitations, the current study allows to better clarify the phenomenon of the illusion of knowing, its influence on metacognitive monitoring reliability.
A promising area of research is to provide more detailed study of the influence of the illusion of knowing not only on metacognitive monitoring, but also on metacognitive control, more thorough study of metacognitive monitoring reliability factors, and study of the illusory knowledge.

Conclusions and Final Remarks
This research studies the illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring of the learning activity of university students. The analysis focuses on the effects of the different types of information proposed to learn and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics of university students. These current results expand an investigation of metacognitive monitoring reliability factors. These results also have important implications for metacognitive monitoring optimization of the learning activity of university students.

Funding
The authors have no funding to report.