Pre-monitoring does not significantly improve children's relative monitoring accuracy (discrimination between correct and incorrect answers)¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The condition main effect on the discrimination score did not reach significance, and descriptively the control condition scored better. → Sophie Wacker 2024

Evidence¶

Sophie Wacker 2024¶

Sophie Wacker, Claudia M. Roebers. (2024). Motivating children to (pre)monitor: positive effects on monitoring accuracy? Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09351-0

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ANOVA on the discrimination difference score in the same N = 305 randomized experiment. The condition effect (F (1, 301) = 2.64, p = .105) and interaction were non-significant; no effect size beyond ηp² = .01 is interpretable as magnitude, so impact is null.

"The main effect of condition (F (1, 301) = 2.64, p = .105, ηp 2 = .01) and the interaction (F (1, 301) = 1.40, p = .24, ηp 2 = .01) did not reach significance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children's ability to discriminate between correct and incorrect answers did not change over training regardless of group — related
• Monitoring discrimination and overconfidence improve with age between kindergarten and second grade — related
• Neither monitoring feedback nor performance feedback improved kindergarteners' monitoring accuracy relative to an active control — related
• Teaching cognitive strategies is associated with more accurate self-monitoring, while metacognitive strategy instruction shows no relation — related