Model answers improve both monitoring-based and comprehension-based regulation accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Model answers had a small significant main effect on monitoring-based regulation accuracy (partial η2 = .04) and on comprehension-based regulation accuracy (partial η2 = .02). → Hepner 2024

Evidence¶

Hepner 2024¶

Hepner, S. L., Oudman, S., Carlson, T. E., van de Pol, J., & van Gog, T. (2024). Improving (meta)comprehension: Feedback and self-assessment. Learning and Instruction, 92, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101922

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

In the 258-student randomized experiment, mixed models on regulation accuracy (correlations between restudy decisions and, respectively, judgments of learning and actual test performance) showed "partial η2 = .04" for monitoring-based and "partial η2 = .02" for comprehension-based effects of model answers.

"There was a small, significant main effect of model answers on monitoring-based regulation accuracy, F (2,252) = 5.14, p = .007, partial η2 = .04, and on comprehension-based regulation accuracy, F (2,252) = 3.04, p = .05, partial η2 = .02."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Model answers combined with self-assessment instructions interactively improve monitoring-based regulation accuracy, with two model answers most effective — related
• Intervention effects on comprehension and regulation accuracy do not differ by home language (English vs other) — related