Thinking aloud does not affect teachers' monitoring accuracy¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Teachers' relative and absolute monitoring accuracy did not differ between think-aloud and non-think-aloud judgments. → Janneke van de Pol 2021

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

Within the teacher-judgment experiment, teachers thought aloud for two randomly chosen students per condition; the article reports monitoring accuracy "did not differ when thinking aloud versus not thinking aloud" on both measures, with no effect sizes printed.

"Teachers' monitoring accuracy did not differ when thinking aloud versus not thinking aloud both for relative monitoring accuracy (b = 0.07, SE = 0.08, p = 0.40) and for absolute monitoring accuracy (b = -0.02, SE = 0.06, p = 0.70)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teachers' monitoring accuracy does not differ significantly between the name-only condition and either diagram condition — related
• Expert example standards did not significantly enhance relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
• Drawing after learning, both from scratch and with spatial scaffolds, improves absolute monitoring accuracy (calibration) compared with a time-matched mental reactivation control condition — related
• Teachers' monitoring accuracy is higher in the name+diagram condition than in the diagram-only condition, opposite to the blinding hypothesis — related
• Monitoring accuracy score does not moderate the effort–monitoring correlation — related