Metacognition and Learning | 2021

Exploring the relations between teachers’ cue-utilization, monitoring and regulation of students’ text learning

 
 
 

Abstract


This study investigated teachers’ monitoring and regulation of students’ learning from texts. According to the cue-utilization framework (Koriat,\xa0in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 126, 349–370, 1997), monitoring accuracy depends on how predictive the information (or cues) that teachers use to make monitoring judgments actually is for students’ performance. Accurate monitoring of students’ comprehension is considered a precondition for adaptive regulation of students’ learning. However, these assumptions have not yet been directly investigated. We therefore examined teachers’ cue-utilization and how it affects their monitoring and regulation accuracy. In a within-subjects design, 21 secondary education teachers made monitoring judgments and regulation decisions for fifteen students under three cue-availability conditions: 1) only student cues (i.e., student’s name), 2) only performance cues (i.e., diagrams students completed about texts they had read), and 3) both student and performance cues (i.e., student’s name and completed diagram). Teachers’ absolute and relative monitoring accuracy was higher when having student cues available in addition to diagram cues. Teachers’ relative regulation accuracy was higher when having only performance cues available instead of only student cues (as indicated by a direct effect). Monitoring accuracy predicted regulation accuracy and in addition to a direct effect, we also found and indirect effect of cue-availability on regulation accuracy (via monitoring accuracy). These results suggest that accurate regulation can be brought about both indirectly by having accurate monitoring judgments and directly by cue-utilization. The findings of this study can help to refine models of teacher monitoring and regulation and can be useful in designing effective interventions to promote teachers’ monitoring and regulation.

Volume None
Pages 1-31
DOI 10.1007/S11409-021-09268-6
Language English
Journal Metacognition and Learning

Full Text