Brianna Scott

Metacognition: A Closed-Loop Model of Biased Competition–Evidence from Neuroscience, Cognition, and Instructional Research

In this chapter, we take the position that self-regulation and metacognition reveal an undeniable conceptual core that assumes individuals make efforts to monitor their thoughts and actions, and try to gain some control over them. In the neurosciences, the higher-order processes of monitoring and control are referred to as “executive control processes”—processes that should be evident as neurological activity within known neuroanatomical locations. From this vantage point, we closely examine two predominant cognitive models of working memory—Cowan’s embedded processing model and Baddeley’s model containing a central executive component. We conclude that the former is the best fit with research from neuroscience and explains most efficiently the findings of metacognition in instruction. Thus, we offer a model of monitoring and control as a reciprocal function of the same neurologic processes that excite and inhibit, in a recursive fashion, the regions of the brain responsible for two types of activities involved in learning—the activities involved in processing the information itself relative to the goals of a task and the activities involved in processing (evaluating and correcting) the original activities deployed to seek goal attainment, activities that are metacognitive.

Validation and Use of the Multidimensional Wellness Inventory in Collegiate Student-Athletes and First-Generation Students

ABSTRACT Background: In some professions, wellness has become shorthand for physical fitness and nutrition but dimensions outside the physical are equally important. As wellness models continue to materialize, a validated instrument is needed to substantiate the characteristics of a multidimensional wellness model. Purpose: This 2-pronged study focused on the testing of the factor structure of the Multidimensional Wellness Inventory (MDWI) and comparisons between student-athletes (SAs) and nonathletes (NAs) as well as first-generation (FGs) and non-first-generation students (NFGs). Methods: Part I tested the construct validity of the instrument using confirmatory factor analysis (N = 1699). Part II compared wellness scores among SAs, NAs, FGs, and NFGs using independent sample t tests (N = 990). Results: Part I revealed that a revised factor structure for the MDWI was preferred. Part II showed statistically significant differences in 5 of 9 wellness constructs. FGs did not have statistically significant different scores than NFGs. Discussion: Outcomes demonstrate that a multidimensional approach and a valid instrument are imperative within the college population regardless of their involvement in athletics and their FG/NFG designation. Translation to Health Education Practice: The study is significant to college Health Educators for planning and evaluation purposes to gauge students’ multidimensional wellness status.