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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |