Sixth-graders' own monitoring accuracy is low and does not differ between no-cue, keyword, and summary cue-prompt conditions (Experiment 1).¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Students' monitoring accuracy grand mean was .103 (better than chance), but the effect of cue prompt was not significant. → Jan A. A. Engelen 2018
Evidence¶
Jan A. A. Engelen 2018¶
Jan A. A. Engelen, Gino Camp, Janneke van de Pol, Anique B. H. de Bruin. (2018). Teachers' monitoring of students' text comprehension: can students' keywords and summaries improve teachers' judgment accuracy? Metacognition and Learning 13:287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Experiment 1: 255 sixth-graders read six texts, gave delayed JOLs after no cue prompt, delayed keywords, or summaries, then took multiple-choice tests. Student monitoring accuracy was "better than chance" (grand mean .103) but cue prompt showed no significant effect, F(2, 213) = .685, p = .505.
"The grand mean of the model was .103, 95% CI [.020 .186], suggesting that students' monitoring accuracy was better than chance. The effect of cue prompt was not significant, F(2, 213) = .685, p = .505, suggesting that monitoring accuracy did not differ across conditions."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The quality of sixth-graders' keywords is not diagnostic of intra-individual variation in test performance (Experiment 1).
- Teachers' intra-individual monitoring accuracy of students' text-by-text learning is not better than chance and is not improved by students' keywords or summaries (Experiment 1).
- Test performance differs by cue-prompt condition in Experiment 1, with higher scores in the no-cue condition than the summary condition.
- Teachers' inter-individual judgment accuracy (predicting differences between students) is well above chance (.528) even though their intra-individual accuracy is not (Experiment 1). — related
- Teachers show stronger regulation than students: both select lower-JOL texts for restudy, but the JOL–restudy correlation is significantly stronger for teachers (Experiment 1). — related
- Generative activities improve students' monitoring accuracy but not their actual learning after restudy — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
student-monitoring-accuracy-low-no-cue-prompt-effect-exp1 |
title |
Sixth-graders' own monitoring accuracy is low and does not differ between no-cue, keyword, and summary cue-prompt conditions (Experiment 1). |
description |
Sixth-graders' own monitoring accuracy is low and does not differ between no-cue, keyword, and summary cue-prompt conditions (Experiment 1). |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jan-a-a-engelen-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.