Predicting, using contextual analysis, and rereading were the most frequently used metacognitive behaviors; deciding when to stop, independent reading time, and testing were least frequent¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2001 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across all 1,570 students, predicting (721), using contextual analysis (618), rereading (532), and modeling and discussing one's own reading process (316) were the most frequently manifested behaviors. → Gil 2001 q2 i? The least frequently reported behaviors were deciding when to stop the activity if a difficulty arises (2), time for independent reading (3), and testing (30). → Gil 2001 (2)

Evidence¶

Gil 2001¶

Gil, A., Osiecki, N., & Juarez, A. (2001). Students Reflecting on What They Know. Paper presented at the XIX International Council for Innovation in Higher Education, Rome. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457222

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Results section, Table 10: overall frequencies of coded metacognitive behaviors for the 1,570 2nd-12th grade students (no 4th grade data). The study reports "predicting (721), using contextual analysis (618), rereading (532)" as most frequent. No effect size printed.

"The metacognitive behaviors most frequently manifested were: predicting (721), using contextual analysis (618), rereading (532), and modeling and discussing his/her own reading process (316)."

Gil 2001 (2)¶

Gil, A., Osiecki, N., & Juarez, A. (2001). Students Reflecting on What They Know. Paper presented at the XIX International Council for Innovation in Higher Education, Rome. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457222

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Results section, Table 10 discussion: least frequent behaviors across the sample were "deciding when to stop the activity if a difficulty arises (2), time for independent reading (3), and summarizing (30)." Table 10 itself gives testing 30 and summarizing 235, so the prose names the wrong behavior; the subclaim follows the table. No effect size printed.

"The opposite, the least frequently metacognitive behaviors reported were: deciding when to stop the activity if a difficulty arises (2), time for independent reading (3), and summarizing (30)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Upper-level students most often reported contextual analysis, setting the purpose for reading, monitoring comprehension, and rereading — related
• Students in grades 2-12 whose teachers received STRP training used 19 of 35 framework metacognitive behaviors in reading — related
• Learners Misjudge Retrieval Benefit — related
• Metacognitive strategies and products of metacognitive processes were more diverse and frequent in reading strategy instruction groups than in the no-instruction group — related
• In both interaction-log and think-aloud records from a GenAI-assisted instructional-design task, regulation was the most frequent operational label and monitoring the least frequent — related