Cited by 198Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning?

Bannert, Maria, Mengelkamp, Christoph·2008·Metacognition and Learning

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11409-007-9009-6

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C.
Affiliations
  • Chemnitz University of Technology (DE)
  • University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
Corresponding author
Bannert, Maria
Venue
Metacognition and Learning
Published
2007-11-09
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
39-58
ISSN
  • 1556-1623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-1631
OpenAlex
W2041293453
Cited by
198
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
14.00
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 › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
metacognition, metacognitive evaluation, think-aloud, verbalization, learning performance, transfer performance, operant conditioning, hypermedia learning, protocol analysis

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