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).¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Teachers' monitoring accuracy (gamma between T-JOLs and test scores) had a grand mean of −.016 and did not differ across no-cue, keyword, and summary conditions. → 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 with 255 sixth-graders and 14 teachers: teachers gave text-by-text JOLs, seeing each student's keywords or summaries when present; monitoring accuracy was the intra-individual gamma correlation. The grand mean was "−.016, 95% CI [ −.113 .082]", and cue prompt had no significant effect, F(2, 26) = 2.586, p = .095.

"The grand mean of the model was −.016, 95% CI [ −.113 .082], suggesting that teachers' monitoring accuracy was not better than chance. The effect of cue prompt was not significant, F(2, 26) = 2.586,p = .095, suggesting that teachers' monitoring 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).
• Sixth-graders' own monitoring accuracy is low and does not differ between no-cue, keyword, and summary cue-prompt conditions (Experiment 1).
• Teachers' inter-individual judgment accuracy (predicting differences between students) is well above chance (.528) even though their intra-individual accuracy is not (Experiment 1).
• 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
• Test performance differs by cue-prompt condition in Experiment 1, with higher scores in the no-cue condition than the summary condition. — related
• The keyword-quality–JOL correlation increases after comparison with expert keywords, indicating learners exploit keyword quality as a cue only when given external standards — related
• Organizational cues during a lecture have a large effect on understanding of lecture structure and memory for details — related