CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Improving students’ science text comprehension through metacognitive self-regulation when applying learning strategies

Leopold, Claudia, Leutner, Detlev·2015·Metacognition and Learning
DOI 10.1007/s11409-014-9130-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11409-014-9130-2

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Hybrid training is more beneficial than non-hybrid training in terms of the quality of cognitive strategy application and for learning performance in general.

    “In terms of metacognitive content, previous research has shown that hybrid training is more beneficial than non-hybrid training in terms of the quality of cognitive strategy application (e.g., Leopold and Leutner 2015) and for learning performance in general (e.g., Dignath and Büttner 2008).”

    From Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: an experimental training study (2020) · cites this paper as Leopold and Leutner 2015

  • The hybrid approach helps students learn to regulate a particular cognitive or motivational strategy, so the quality of strategy use via application of metacognitive skills may increase.

    “Since the hybrid approach helps students learn to regulate a particular cognitive or motivational strategy, the quality of strategy use via application of metacognitive skills may increase (e.g., Leopold & Leutner 2015).”

    From Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: an experimental training study (2020) · cites this paper as Leopold & Leutner 2015

  • Our results replicate Leopold and Leutner's (2015) assertion classifying hybrid training, compared to non-hybrid training, as more beneficial to fostering cognitive strategy application.

    “For example, our results replicate Leopold and Leutner's (2015) assertion classifying hybrid training, compared to non-hybrid training, as more beneficial to fostering cognitive strategy application.”

    From Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: an experimental training study (2020) · cites this paper as Leopold and Leutner (2015)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Leopold, Claudia
ORCID
Venue
Metacognition and Learning
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-01-23
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
313-346
ISSN
  • 1556-1623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-1631
DOI
10.1007/s11409-014-9130-2
OpenAlex
W2066915314
Cited by
75
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4
FWCI
13.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Metacognition and Learning (publishedVersion)
  • RERO DOC (Universität Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
science text comprehension, metacognitive self-regulation, cognitive strategy instruction, text highlighting, knowledge mapping, visualization, reading comprehension

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