Cited by 260Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy

Nietfeld, John L., Cao, Li, Osborne, Jason W.·2006·Metacognition and Learning

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10409-006-9595-6

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University of West Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Nietfeld, John L.
Venue
Metacognition and Learning
Published
2006-08
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
159-179
ISSN
  • 1556-1623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-1631
OpenAlex
W2159790293
Cited by
260
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Metacognition and Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
distributed monitoring, metacognitive monitoring, metacognitive calibration, self-efficacy, student self-regulation, metacognitive feedback, test performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review