Secondary students tend to overestimate their text comprehension, though monitoring is relatively accurate in this sample¶

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? On average, judgments of learning exceeded test performance at time 1, t(257) = 5.10, p < 0.001, despite 71% of judgments being highly accurate (deviation of 0 or 1). → Hepner 2024

Evidence¶

Hepner 2024¶

Hepner, S. L., Oudman, S., Carlson, T. E., van de Pol, J., & van Gog, T. (2024). Improving (meta)comprehension: Feedback and self-assessment. Learning and Instruction, 92, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101922

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory preliminary analysis of time-1 monitoring in the 258-student sample: 30% of judgments were perfectly accurate and 71% highly accurate (0 or 1 deviation), yet the mean judgment-minus-performance difference showed significant overestimation, "t(257) = 5.10, p < 0.001".

"a mixed-effects model with the calculated difference between judgments of learning and performance as fixed effects at time 1 showed that on average, participants tended to over-estimate their understanding, meaning that their judgment of learning scores exceeded their test performance scores, t(257) = 5.10, p < 0.001."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Generating keywords after a delay increases relative judgment accuracy compared with no keyword generation, replicating the keyword effect with a new sample and new materials — related
• A theoretical article, citing two simulation studies, reports that novice clinical learners overestimated their performance and that their confidence exceeded their accuracy — related
• Comprehension-test expectancy tended to be more effective than delayed-keywords listing and rereading, though interventions did not substantially differ overall — related