Teachers' monitoring accuracy does not differ significantly between the name-only condition and either diagram condition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Relative and absolute monitoring accuracy did not differ significantly between the name-only and diagram-only conditions. → Janneke van de Pol 2021 q3 i? Relative and absolute monitoring accuracy did not differ significantly between the name-only and name+diagram conditions. → Janneke van de Pol 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Janneke van de Pol 2021¶

Janneke van de Pol, Selia N. van den Boom-Muilenburg, Tamara van Gog. (2021). Exploring the relations between teachers' cue-utilization, monitoring and regulation of students' text learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09268-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the same within-subjects teacher-judgment experiment, hypothesis H1.1 was not supported: the article reports "did not find significant differences" between name-only and diagram-only conditions for either accuracy measure; no effect sizes were printed.

"we did not find significant differences in relative monitoring accuracy (b = -0.20, SE = 0.10, p = 0.048) or for absolute monitoring accuracy (b = 0.16, SE = 0.09, p = 0.053) between the name-only and the diagram-only condition"

Janneke van de Pol 2021 (2)¶

Janneke van de Pol, Selia N. van den Boom-Muilenburg, Tamara van Gog. (2021). Exploring the relations between teachers' cue-utilization, monitoring and regulation of students' text learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09268-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

For the explorative comparison of the name-only and name+diagram conditions (E1.3), the article reports "no significant differences between those conditions" on either monitoring accuracy measure; no effect sizes were printed.

"there were no significant differences between those conditions in either relative (b = 0.04, SE = 0.09, p = 0.67) or absolute monitoring accuracy (b = -0.11, SE = 0.09, p = 0.21)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Monitoring accuracy predicts comprehension-based regulation accuracy, and cue availability also has an indirect effect on regulation accuracy via monitoring accuracy — related
• Relative comprehension-based regulation accuracy is higher in the diagram-only condition than in the name-only condition (direct effect) — related
• Teachers' monitoring accuracy is higher in the name+diagram condition than in the diagram-only condition, opposite to the blinding hypothesis — related
• Adding diagram self-assessment to diagram completion does not increase diagnostic cue utilization or metacomprehension accuracy beyond diagramming alone — related
• Thinking aloud does not affect teachers' monitoring accuracy — related
• Pre-structured diagrams improved metacomprehension accuracy while self-assessment cues showed no differences — related
• Giving teachers access to students' diagrams improves teachers' regulation accuracy but not their monitoring accuracy — related