ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024
Exploring the use of metacognitive monitoring cues following a diagram completion intervention.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Comprehension Strategies of Modular Process Models: A Combined Eye-Tracking and Concurrent Think-Aloud Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Augmented Reality for extremity hemorrhage training: a usability study.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studying texts constitutes a significant part of student learning in health professions education. Key to learning from text is the ability to effectively monitor one's own cognitive performance and take appropriate regulatory steps for improvement. Inferential cues generated during a learning experience typically guide this monitoring process. It has been shown that interventions to assist learners in using comprehension cues improve their monitoring accuracy. One such intervention is having learners to complete a diagram. Little is known, however, about how learners use cues to shape their monitoring judgments. In addition, previous research has not examined the difference in cue use between categories of learners, such as good and poor monitors. This study explored the types and patterns of cues used by participants after being subjected to a diagram completion task prior to their prediction of performance (PoP). Participants' thought processes were studied by means of a think-aloud method during diagram completion and the subsequent PoP. Results suggest that relying on comprehension-specific cues may lead to a better PoP. Poor monitors relied on multiple cue types and failed to use available cues appropriately. They gave more incorrect responses and made commission errors in the diagram, which likely led to their overconfidence. Good monitors, on the other hand, utilized cues that are predictive of learning from the diagram completion task and seemed to have relied on comprehension cues for their PoP. However, they tended to be cautious in their judgement, which probably made them underestimate themselves. These observations contribute to the current understanding of the use and effectiveness of diagram completion as a cue-prompt intervention and provide direction for future research in enhancing monitoring accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.