Accurately judging cue manifestations, not merely using diagnostic cues, improves teachers' monitoring accuracy; non-diagnostic student cues hamper it¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mere use of highly diagnostic cues did not make teachers' judgments more accurate; accurately judging the manifestations of those cues did. → Janneke van de Pol 2020 q2 i? Using non-diagnostic student cues (general reading comprehension level, grades in other subjects, nationality, extraversion, IQ) hampered teachers' monitoring accuracy. → Janneke van de Pol 2020

Evidence¶

Janneke van de Pol 2020¶

Janneke van de Pol, et al. (2020). Mapping and Drawing to Improve Students’ and Teachers’ Monitoring and Regulation of Students’ Learning from Text: Current Findings and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09560-y

q2 · i? · review · r2

Study in which secondary teachers judged student comprehension with diagrams, names, and texts available and indicated which of 28 cues they used, also judging cue manifestations. The review reports that accurately judging cue manifestations of highly diagnostic cues improved monitoring accuracy, and that non-diagnostic student cues "was found to hamper teachers’ monitoring accuracy."

"Mere use of diagnostic cues did not promote teachers ’ absolute monitoring accuracy. That is, when teachers used highly diagnostic cues, their judgments were not more accurate."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• When making accurate judgments, teachers used diagnostic cues to a greater extent, but also used non-diagnostic cues (IQ and reading self-concept) — related
• Teachers judge more accurately with only diagnostic cues than with a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues — related
• The cue-diagnosticity intervention steered cue utilization: diagnostic cue use increased and non-diagnostic cue use decreased — related