Teachers' inter-individual judgment accuracy (predicting differences between students) is well above chance (.528) even though their intra-individual accuracy is not (Experiment 1).¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Pearson correlations between each teacher's average T-JOL per student and that student's average test performance yielded a grand mean of .528, with no significant cue-prompt effect. → 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 supplementary analysis (footnote): Pearson correlations between each teacher's average T-JOL for a student and the student's average test performance (condition means .52, .64, .43). The grand mean was ".528, 95% CI [.377 .679]", above chance, with no cue-prompt effect, F(2, 24) = 1.288, p = .294.
"The grand mean of the model was .528, 95% CI [.377 .679], suggesting that overall, teachers' inter-individual judgments were more accurate than chance. The effect of cue-prompt was not significant,F(2, 24) = 1.288, p = .294, suggesting that inter-individual judgment accuracy did not differ between cue-prompt 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).
- Sixth-graders' own monitoring accuracy is low and does not differ between no-cue, keyword, and summary cue-prompt conditions (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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
teacher-inter-individual-accuracy-above-chance |
title |
Teachers' inter-individual judgment accuracy (predicting differences between students) is well above chance (.528) even though their intra-individual accuracy is not (Experiment 1). |
description |
Teachers' inter-individual judgment accuracy (predicting differences between students) is well above chance (.528) even though their intra-individual accuracy is not (Experiment 1). |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
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.