Cargando…

Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?

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 c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Engelen, Jan A. A., Camp, Gino, van de Pol, Janneke, de Bruin, Anique B. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30881262
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4
_version_ 1783398892211011584
author Engelen, Jan A. A.
Camp, Gino
van de Pol, Janneke
de Bruin, Anique B. H.
author_facet Engelen, Jan A. A.
Camp, Gino
van de Pol, Janneke
de Bruin, Anique B. H.
author_sort Engelen, Jan A. A.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6394429
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63944292019-03-15 Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy? Engelen, Jan A. A. Camp, Gino van de Pol, Janneke de Bruin, Anique B. H. Metacogn Learn Article 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. Springer US 2018-12-10 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6394429/ /pubmed/30881262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Engelen, Jan A. A.
Camp, Gino
van de Pol, Janneke
de Bruin, Anique B. H.
Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
title Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
title_full Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
title_fullStr Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
title_full_unstemmed Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
title_short Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
title_sort teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30881262
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4
work_keys_str_mv AT engelenjanaa teachersmonitoringofstudentstextcomprehensioncanstudentskeywordsandsummariesimproveteachersjudgmentaccuracy
AT campgino teachersmonitoringofstudentstextcomprehensioncanstudentskeywordsandsummariesimproveteachersjudgmentaccuracy
AT vandepoljanneke teachersmonitoringofstudentstextcomprehensioncanstudentskeywordsandsummariesimproveteachersjudgmentaccuracy
AT debruinaniquebh teachersmonitoringofstudentstextcomprehensioncanstudentskeywordsandsummariesimproveteachersjudgmentaccuracy