Timing interventions significantly decrease monitoring accuracy in problem-solving tasks and differ from all other intervention types¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q4
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? Interventions targeting the timing of metacognitive judgment significantly decreased students' monitoring accuracy (g = −0.40) and had a significantly lower effect size than all other intervention types. → Noortje Janssen · Ard W. Lazonder 2024

Evidence¶

Noortje Janssen · Ard W. Lazonder 2024¶

Noortje Janssen · Ard W. Lazonder. (2024). Meta-analysis of Interventions for Monitoring Accuracy in Problem Solving. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Moderator analysis in the 35-study meta-analysis; Table 3 reports timing k = 2, g = −0.40, 95% CI [−0.52, −0.29]. Pairwise comparisons showed "timing had a significantly lower effect size than all the other intervention types" (z from −4.56 to −2.76).

"On the other hand, the timing interventions significantly decreased students’ monitoring accuracy. The other interventions did not significantly impact monitoring accuracy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Interventions to improve monitoring accuracy in problem-solving tasks have a small positive overall effect (g = 0.25) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Whole-task, metacognitive knowledge, and external standard interventions significantly improve monitoring accuracy in problem solving — reports the opposite
• Monitoring accuracy interventions are more effective for retrospective confidence judgments than for judgments of learning — related