ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Self-regulated monitoring in undergraduate translation: a think-aloud study of SRL processes.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.