Monitoring accuracy predicts comprehension-based regulation accuracy, and cue availability also has an indirect effect on regulation accuracy via monitoring accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The hypothesized relation between monitoring accuracy and regulation accuracy (H3.1) was supported for both relative and absolute accuracy, with an indirect effect of condition via monitoring accuracy. → Janneke van de Pol 2021

Evidence¶

Janneke van de Pol 2021¶

Janneke van de Pol, Selia N. van den Boom-Muilenburg, Tamara van Gog. (2021). Exploring the relations between teachers' cue-utilization, monitoring and regulation of students' text learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09268-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The article's findings table records hypothesis H3.1 (monitoring accuracy predicting regulation accuracy) as supported "for relative and absolute accuracy", and records an indirect effect of diagram-only versus name+diagram on absolute accuracy; multilevel mediation models in Mplus with bootstrap confidence intervals tested these paths.

"H3.1 Monitoring accuracy—> r egulation accuracy Yes, for relative and absolute accuracy Indirect effects H3.2a Diagram-only > name-only No H3.2b Diagram-only > name + diagram Yes, for absolute accuracy"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Self-Regulation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Relative comprehension-based regulation accuracy is higher in the diagram-only condition than in the name-only condition (direct effect) — related
• Teachers' monitoring accuracy is higher in the name+diagram condition than in the diagram-only condition, opposite to the blinding hypothesis — related
• Teachers' monitoring accuracy does not differ significantly between the name-only condition and either diagram condition — related
• Pre-structured diagrams improved metacomprehension accuracy while self-assessment cues showed no differences — related
• Adding diagram self-assessment to diagram completion does not increase diagnostic cue utilization or metacomprehension accuracy beyond diagramming alone — related
• Drawing after learning, both from scratch and with spatial scaffolds, improves absolute monitoring accuracy (calibration) compared with a time-matched mental reactivation control condition — related
• Regulating GA proceeds via metacognitive monitoring of adequacy and accuracy plus control through outward- and inward-oriented strategies — related
• Diagramming conditions show no significant differences from control in regulation measures or reading comprehension test scores for causal relations — related
• Little or no relation between absolute and relative accuracy in metacomprehension research — related
• Giving teachers access to students' diagrams improves teachers' regulation accuracy but not their monitoring accuracy — related
• Monitoring activities and metacomprehension accuracy serially mediated the effect of in-between versus after-study explaining on conceptual learning (Experiment 1) — related