Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42787179›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Self-regulated monitoring in undergraduate translation: a think-aloud study of SRL processes.

Dan Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Dan XuSchool of Advanced Translation and Interpretation, Dalian University of Foreign Languages, Dalian, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This exploratory qualitative study examines patterns of articulated monitoring depth in concurrent think-aloud protocols from undergraduate translation students, focusing on qualitative variation between surface monitoring (SM) and evaluative monitoring (EM). Methods: Twelve third-year undergraduate translation majors completed an English-Chinese literary translation task while verbalizing their thoughts concurrently. Participants were purposively selected from higher- and lower-scoring bands on a recent programme-wide translation assessment. Monitoring episodes were analyzed according to whether checking remained at local lexical or formal confirmation (SM) or involved testing candidate solutions against meaning, discourse relations, rhetorical purpose, or target-language fit (EM). Results: The central contrast concerned the regulatory endpoint of focal episodes rather than a uniform group difference. Several higher-scoring cases articulated sustained EM, whereas several lower-scoring cases included checks that ended once immediate lexical or structural uncertainty had been reduced. The distinction was neither categorical nor person-fixed: both forms occurred within the same participant, and P12 moved from dictionary-driven SM to discourse-based EM during the task. Within-case sequences further revealed narrowing, recovery, and maintenance of monitoring depth. Prolonged lexical search, repeated re-parsing, and unresolved uncertainty co-occurred with narrowing in some episodes. Discussion: Because cognitive load was not directly measured and concurrent verbalization may become less complete as task demands rise, these patterns are interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than as evidence of a causal mechanism. Pedagogically, the findings support instruction that makes evaluation criteria, deliberate deferral, global rereading, and diagnosis-led revision explicit.

Indexed as

metacognitive monitoringprocessing pressureself-regulated learningthink-aloud protocolstranslation process research

Identifiers

PMID42787179
PMCPMC13600902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.