Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40863196›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025

Beyond the Prompt: Investigating Retrieval-Based Monitoring in Self-Regulated Learning.

Mengjiao Wu, Christopher A Was

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mengjiao WuCollege of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 201306, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7829-792X
Christopher A WasDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA.

Funding

The 2023 Project of Ministry of Education Foundation of China on Humanities and Social Sciences 23YJC880113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metacognitive monitoring plays a crucial role in self-regulated learning, as accurate monitoring enables effective control, which in turn impacts learning outcomes. Most studies on metacognitive monitoring have focused on learners' monitoring abilities when they are explicitly prompted to monitor. However, in real-world educational settings, learners are more often prompted to control their learning, such as deciding whether to allocate additional time to a learning target. The primary goal of this study was to investigate whether retrieval is engaged when learners are explicitly prompted to control their learning processes by making study decisions. To address this, three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 39) studied 70 Swahili-English word pairs in a learning task. Each trial displayed a word pair for 8 s, followed by a distractor task (a two-digit mental addition) and a study decision intervention (choose "Study Again" or "Next"). After learning, participants provided a global judgment of learning (JOL), estimating their overall recall accuracy. Finally, they completed a cued recall test (Swahili cue). Responses were scored for accuracy and analyzed alongside study decisions, study decision reaction time (RT), and metacognitive judgments. Reaction times (RTs) for study decisions correlated positively with test accuracy, global judgments of learning (JOLs), and judgments of confidence (JOCs), suggesting retrieval likely underlies these decisions. Experiment 2 (N = 74, between-subjects) compared memory performance and intervention response time between single-study, restudy, retrieval (explicit recall prompt), and study decision (study decision prompt) groups to have better control over study time and cognitive processes. Although no significant group differences in test accuracy emerged, the retrieval group took longer to respond than the study decision group. Within-subject analyses revealed similar recall accuracy patterns: participants recalled successfully retrieved or "no restudy" items better than failed-retrieval or "restudy" items, implying shared cognitive processes underlying retrieval and study decision interventions. Experiment 3 (N = 74, within-subject, three learning conditions: single-study, retrieval, and study decision) replicated these findings, with no condition effects on test accuracy but longer RT for retrieval than study decisions. The similar recall accuracy patterns between retrieval and study decision interventions further supported shared cognitive processes underlying both tasks. Self-reports across experiments confirmed retrieval engagement in both retrieval and study decision interventions. Collectively, the results suggest that retrieval likely supports study decisions but may occur less frequently or less deeply than under explicit monitoring prompts. Additionally, this study explored objective, online measures to detect retrieval-based metacognitive monitoring.

Indexed as

controlmetacognitive monitoringretrievalself-regulated learning

Identifiers

PMID40863196
PMCPMC12387543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.