Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension

can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?

J.A.A. Engelen, G. Camp, J. van de Pol, Anique De Bruin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

We investigated intra-individual monitoring and regulation in learning from text in sixth-grade students and their teachers. In Experiment 1, students provided judgments of learning (JOLs) for six texts in one of three cue-prompt conditions (after writing delayed keywords or summaries or without a cue prompt) and then selected texts for restudy. Teachers also judged their students’ learning for each text, while seeing - if present - the keywords or summaries each student had written for each text, and also selected texts for restudy. Overall, monitoring accuracy was low (.10 for students, −.02 for teachers) and did not differ between cue-prompt conditions. Regulation, indexed by the correlation between JOLs and restudy selections, was significant (−.38 for students, −.60 for teachers), but was also not affected by cue-prompt condition. In Experiment 2, teachers judged students’ comprehension of six texts without knowing the students’ names, so that only the keywords and summaries, not prior impressions, could inform judgments. Again, monitoring accuracy was generally low (.06), but higher for keywords (.23) than for summaries (−.10). These results suggest that monitoring intra-individual differences in students’ learning is challenging for teachers. Analyses of the diagnosticity and utilization of keywords suggest that these may contain insufficient cues for improving teacher judgments at this level of specificity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)287-307
Number of pages21
JournalMetacognition and Learning
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Dec 2018

Fingerprint

comprehension
monitoring
teacher
student
learning
regulation
experiment
student teacher
utilization
present

Keywords

  • ACADEMIC-ACHIEVEMENT
  • ALLOCATION
  • CONFIDENCE
  • CUE
  • Cue diagnosticity
  • ELEMENTARY
  • KNOWLEDGE
  • Keyword generation
  • MEMORY
  • METACOMPREHENSION ACCURACY
  • Metacognitive monitoring
  • RECALL
  • Reading comprehension
  • Self-regulated learning
  • TIME
  • Teacher judgments

Cite this

@article{51bc961f346c4e66a8f528a34eb73685,
title = "Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?",
abstract = "We investigated intra-individual monitoring and regulation in learning from text in sixth-grade students and their teachers. In Experiment 1, students provided judgments of learning (JOLs) for six texts in one of three cue-prompt conditions (after writing delayed keywords or summaries or without a cue prompt) and then selected texts for restudy. Teachers also judged their students’ learning for each text, while seeing - if present - the keywords or summaries each student had written for each text, and also selected texts for restudy. Overall, monitoring accuracy was low (.10 for students, −.02 for teachers) and did not differ between cue-prompt conditions. Regulation, indexed by the correlation between JOLs and restudy selections, was significant (−.38 for students, −.60 for teachers), but was also not affected by cue-prompt condition. In Experiment 2, teachers judged students’ comprehension of six texts without knowing the students’ names, so that only the keywords and summaries, not prior impressions, could inform judgments. Again, monitoring accuracy was generally low (.06), but higher for keywords (.23) than for summaries (−.10). These results suggest that monitoring intra-individual differences in students’ learning is challenging for teachers. Analyses of the diagnosticity and utilization of keywords suggest that these may contain insufficient cues for improving teacher judgments at this level of specificity.",
keywords = "ACADEMIC-ACHIEVEMENT, ALLOCATION, CONFIDENCE, CUE, Cue diagnosticity, ELEMENTARY, KNOWLEDGE, Keyword generation, MEMORY, METACOMPREHENSION ACCURACY, Metacognitive monitoring, RECALL, Reading comprehension, Self-regulated learning, TIME, Teacher judgments",
author = "J.A.A. Engelen and G. Camp and {van de Pol}, J. and {De Bruin}, Anique",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "287--307",
journal = "Metacognition and Learning",
issn = "1556-1623",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension : can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy? / Engelen, J.A.A.; Camp, G.; van de Pol, J.; De Bruin, Anique.

In: Metacognition and Learning, Vol. 13, No. 3, 10.12.2018, p. 287-307.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension

T2 - can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?

AU - Engelen, J.A.A.

AU - Camp, G.

AU - van de Pol, J.

AU - De Bruin, Anique

PY - 2018/12/10

Y1 - 2018/12/10

N2 - We investigated intra-individual monitoring and regulation in learning from text in sixth-grade students and their teachers. In Experiment 1, students provided judgments of learning (JOLs) for six texts in one of three cue-prompt conditions (after writing delayed keywords or summaries or without a cue prompt) and then selected texts for restudy. Teachers also judged their students’ learning for each text, while seeing - if present - the keywords or summaries each student had written for each text, and also selected texts for restudy. Overall, monitoring accuracy was low (.10 for students, −.02 for teachers) and did not differ between cue-prompt conditions. Regulation, indexed by the correlation between JOLs and restudy selections, was significant (−.38 for students, −.60 for teachers), but was also not affected by cue-prompt condition. In Experiment 2, teachers judged students’ comprehension of six texts without knowing the students’ names, so that only the keywords and summaries, not prior impressions, could inform judgments. Again, monitoring accuracy was generally low (.06), but higher for keywords (.23) than for summaries (−.10). These results suggest that monitoring intra-individual differences in students’ learning is challenging for teachers. Analyses of the diagnosticity and utilization of keywords suggest that these may contain insufficient cues for improving teacher judgments at this level of specificity.

AB - We investigated intra-individual monitoring and regulation in learning from text in sixth-grade students and their teachers. In Experiment 1, students provided judgments of learning (JOLs) for six texts in one of three cue-prompt conditions (after writing delayed keywords or summaries or without a cue prompt) and then selected texts for restudy. Teachers also judged their students’ learning for each text, while seeing - if present - the keywords or summaries each student had written for each text, and also selected texts for restudy. Overall, monitoring accuracy was low (.10 for students, −.02 for teachers) and did not differ between cue-prompt conditions. Regulation, indexed by the correlation between JOLs and restudy selections, was significant (−.38 for students, −.60 for teachers), but was also not affected by cue-prompt condition. In Experiment 2, teachers judged students’ comprehension of six texts without knowing the students’ names, so that only the keywords and summaries, not prior impressions, could inform judgments. Again, monitoring accuracy was generally low (.06), but higher for keywords (.23) than for summaries (−.10). These results suggest that monitoring intra-individual differences in students’ learning is challenging for teachers. Analyses of the diagnosticity and utilization of keywords suggest that these may contain insufficient cues for improving teacher judgments at this level of specificity.

KW - ACADEMIC-ACHIEVEMENT

KW - ALLOCATION

KW - CONFIDENCE

KW - CUE

KW - Cue diagnosticity

KW - ELEMENTARY

KW - KNOWLEDGE

KW - Keyword generation

KW - MEMORY

KW - METACOMPREHENSION ACCURACY

KW - Metacognitive monitoring

KW - RECALL

KW - Reading comprehension

KW - Self-regulated learning

KW - TIME

KW - Teacher judgments

U2 - 10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4

DO - 10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 287

EP - 307

JO - Metacognition and Learning

JF - Metacognition and Learning

SN - 1556-1623

IS - 3

ER -