Rereading raises judgements of learning after each reading while multiple text reading raises them only after the second reading (significant interaction, ηp2 = 0.07)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 A significant interaction between time-point of JOL measurement and reading approach (F(2, 244) = 9.54, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.07), with significant main effects of time-point (η2 = 0.22) and approach (ηp2 = 0.04). → Peter Seban 2025 q3 i? For the RR group, JOLs rose significantly after both the second and the third reading; for the MTR group, JOLs rose only after the second reading and did not change after the third. → Peter Seban 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Peter Seban 2025¶

Peter Seban, Kamila Urban, Radovan Sikl. (2025). Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy. Instructional Science, 53, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4

q3 · i2 · causal · r3

Two-way mixed ANOVA on JOLs collected after each of three readings (experimental groups only), reported in the Results section: the time-point × approach interaction was significant with the article's printed "F(2, 244) = 9.54, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.07"; main effects were time-point η2 = 0.22 and approach ηp2 = 0.04.

"there was a significant interaction between the time-points of measurement of JOLs and the reading approach that was utilized: F(2, 244) = 9.54, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.07."

Peter Seban 2025 (2)¶

Peter Seban, Kamila Urban, Radovan Sikl. (2025). Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy. Instructional Science, 53, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Tukey HSD post-hoc tests of the mixed ANOVA: the RR group showed significant JOL increases between the first and second (p < 0.001) and second and third readings (p < 0.001), while the MTR group showed a significant increase only between the first and second reading (p = 0.034).

"In short, rereading led to anticipation of higher scores after each reading, while multiple text reading resulted in higher JOLs only after the second reading – the third reading did not make leaners any more certain about their performance."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Delayed JOL bias: multiple text readers are underconfident, rereaders overconfident at one day, and single readers overconfident at one week — related
• On a one-week delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading both outperform single reading, but on a one-day delayed test the differences are non-significant — related
• Reading approach and test delay each significantly affect knowledge-test performance, with no significant interaction (ηp2 = 0.02) — related
• Multiple text reading shows more stable retention than rereading: non-significantly higher one-week scores and a smaller decline from one day to one week — related