反馈对学生绘制图表的作用:对监控准确性和文本理解的影响

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Contemporary Educational Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-14 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102251
Sophia Braumann , Janneke van de Pol , Ellen Kok , Héctor J. Pijeira-Díaz , Margot van Wermeskerken , Anique B.H. de Bruin , Tamara van Gog
{"title":"反馈对学生绘制图表的作用:对监控准确性和文本理解的影响","authors":"Sophia Braumann ,&nbsp;Janneke van de Pol ,&nbsp;Ellen Kok ,&nbsp;Héctor J. Pijeira-Díaz ,&nbsp;Margot van Wermeskerken ,&nbsp;Anique B.H. de Bruin ,&nbsp;Tamara van Gog","doi":"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Accurate self-monitoring of text comprehension is critical for effective self-regulated learning from texts. Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly shown that students’ monitoring of their text comprehension is often inaccurate, which can subsequently lead to inaccurate regulation and ineffective restudy decisions. Previous research provided evidence that completing causal diagrams at a delay after text reading (i.e., diagramming) can help to improve students’ monitoring of text comprehension. However, even after diagramming, there is still substantial room for improvement. The current studies therefore aimed to test whether providing feedback in the form of a correctly completed diagram (i.e., performance standard) would further increase students’ monitoring accuracy. In Study 1, 79 participants (aged 18–23) made judgements of learning under four conditions: I. No-Diagram (control), II. Standard-Only, III. Diagramming-Only, or IV. Diagramming + Standard. In each condition, students studied a text, made a judgement of learning before and after the experimental tasks, and completed a comprehension test at the end of each of the (overall six) trials. Results showed that only Diagramming + Standard improved monitoring accuracy and text comprehension. In Study 2, 20 undergraduate students (aged 18–23) completed the Diagramming + Standard condition while their eye movements were tracked and subsequently replayed for cued retrospective verbal reporting. The findings suggest that students used the standards to identify mistakes and improve their monitoring and text comprehension.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10635,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X23001054/pdfft?md5=4f2e44fcf9f79184ecf927c1875eed72&pid=1-s2.0-S0361476X23001054-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of feedback on students’ diagramming: Effects on monitoring accuracy and text comprehension\",\"authors\":\"Sophia Braumann ,&nbsp;Janneke van de Pol ,&nbsp;Ellen Kok ,&nbsp;Héctor J. Pijeira-Díaz ,&nbsp;Margot van Wermeskerken ,&nbsp;Anique B.H. de Bruin ,&nbsp;Tamara van Gog\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Accurate self-monitoring of text comprehension is critical for effective self-regulated learning from texts. Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly shown that students’ monitoring of their text comprehension is often inaccurate, which can subsequently lead to inaccurate regulation and ineffective restudy decisions. Previous research provided evidence that completing causal diagrams at a delay after text reading (i.e., diagramming) can help to improve students’ monitoring of text comprehension. However, even after diagramming, there is still substantial room for improvement. The current studies therefore aimed to test whether providing feedback in the form of a correctly completed diagram (i.e., performance standard) would further increase students’ monitoring accuracy. In Study 1, 79 participants (aged 18–23) made judgements of learning under four conditions: I. No-Diagram (control), II. Standard-Only, III. Diagramming-Only, or IV. Diagramming + Standard. In each condition, students studied a text, made a judgement of learning before and after the experimental tasks, and completed a comprehension test at the end of each of the (overall six) trials. Results showed that only Diagramming + Standard improved monitoring accuracy and text comprehension. In Study 2, 20 undergraduate students (aged 18–23) completed the Diagramming + Standard condition while their eye movements were tracked and subsequently replayed for cued retrospective verbal reporting. The findings suggest that students used the standards to identify mistakes and improve their monitoring and text comprehension.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Educational Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X23001054/pdfft?md5=4f2e44fcf9f79184ecf927c1875eed72&pid=1-s2.0-S0361476X23001054-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Educational Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X23001054\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X23001054","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对课文理解进行准确的自我监控,对于有效的课文自我调节学习至关重要。遗憾的是,研究一再表明,学生对文本理解的监控往往是不准确的,这可能会导致不准确的调节和无效的重新学习决策。以往的研究证明,在课文阅读后延迟完成因果图(即绘制图表)有助于改善学生对课文理解的监控。然而,即使在绘制图表之后,仍有很大的改进空间。因此,本研究旨在测试以正确完成图表(即成绩标准)的形式提供反馈是否会进一步提高学生的监测准确性。在研究 1 中,79 名参与者(18-23 岁)在四种条件下对学习作出了判断:I. 无图表(对照组),II.只有标准;III.仅绘制图表,或 IV.图表+标准。在每种条件下,学生学习一篇课文,在实验任务前后对学习情况做出判断,并在每次(总共六次)试验结束时完成理解测试。结果显示,只有 "图表法+标准 "提高了监测的准确性和文本理解能力。在研究 2 中,20 名本科生(18-23 岁)完成了 "图解+标准 "条件,同时对他们的眼球运动进行了跟踪,并在随后重放了他们的眼球运动,以进行有提示的回顾性口头报告。研究结果表明,学生利用标准来识别错误,提高了他们的监控能力和文本理解能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The role of feedback on students’ diagramming: Effects on monitoring accuracy and text comprehension

Accurate self-monitoring of text comprehension is critical for effective self-regulated learning from texts. Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly shown that students’ monitoring of their text comprehension is often inaccurate, which can subsequently lead to inaccurate regulation and ineffective restudy decisions. Previous research provided evidence that completing causal diagrams at a delay after text reading (i.e., diagramming) can help to improve students’ monitoring of text comprehension. However, even after diagramming, there is still substantial room for improvement. The current studies therefore aimed to test whether providing feedback in the form of a correctly completed diagram (i.e., performance standard) would further increase students’ monitoring accuracy. In Study 1, 79 participants (aged 18–23) made judgements of learning under four conditions: I. No-Diagram (control), II. Standard-Only, III. Diagramming-Only, or IV. Diagramming + Standard. In each condition, students studied a text, made a judgement of learning before and after the experimental tasks, and completed a comprehension test at the end of each of the (overall six) trials. Results showed that only Diagramming + Standard improved monitoring accuracy and text comprehension. In Study 2, 20 undergraduate students (aged 18–23) completed the Diagramming + Standard condition while their eye movements were tracked and subsequently replayed for cued retrospective verbal reporting. The findings suggest that students used the standards to identify mistakes and improve their monitoring and text comprehension.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Educational Psychology
Contemporary Educational Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
16.50
自引率
3.90%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Contemporary Educational Psychology is a scholarly journal that publishes empirical research from various parts of the world. The research aims to substantially advance, extend, or re-envision the ongoing discourse in educational psychology research and practice. To be considered for publication, manuscripts must be well-grounded in a comprehensive theoretical and empirical framework. This framework should raise critical and timely questions that educational psychology currently faces. Additionally, the questions asked should be closely related to the chosen methodological approach, and the authors should provide actionable implications for education research and practice. The journal seeks to publish manuscripts that offer cutting-edge theoretical and methodological perspectives on critical and timely education questions. The journal is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Contents Pages in Education, Australian Educational Index, Current Contents, EBSCOhost, Education Index, ERA, PsycINFO, Sociology of Education Abstracts, PubMed/Medline, BIOSIS Previews, and others.
期刊最新文献
It’s not all about recognition and Influence: The role of communal and agentic goals and motives in science for diverse high school students Three applications of semantic network analysis to individual student think-aloud data An exploratory experiment investigating teachers’ attributional race and gender bias and the moderating effects of personal experience of racial discrimination How much active teaching should be incorporated into college course lectures to promote active learning? Self-efficacy inertia: The role of competency beliefs and academic burden in achievement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1