Giving teachers access to students' diagrams improves teachers' regulation accuracy but not their monitoring accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Secondary teachers' relative monitoring accuracy did not differ between name-only and diagram conditions, but their comprehension-based regulation accuracy was more accurate in the diagramming conditions. → Janneke van de Pol 2020

Evidence¶

Janneke van de Pol 2020¶

Janneke van de Pol, et al. (2020). Mapping and Drawing to Improve Students’ and Teachers’ Monitoring and Regulation of Students’ Learning from Text: Current Findings and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09560-y

q3 · i? · review · r2

Generation-paradigm study with secondary education teachers judging student comprehension under name-only, name+completed diagram, and name+drawn diagram conditions. The review reports regulation gammas of −0.38 and −0.21 in diagram conditions versus 0.00 in control, with monitoring accuracy low to moderate in all conditions.

"Thus, the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students ’ understanding was not affected by condition, whereas the accuracy of their regulation decisions was."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Teachers' monitoring accuracy does not differ significantly between the name-only condition and either diagram condition — related
• Relative comprehension-based regulation accuracy is higher in the diagram-only condition than in the name-only condition (direct effect) — related
• Monitoring accuracy predicts comprehension-based regulation accuracy, and cue availability also has an indirect effect on regulation accuracy via monitoring accuracy — related