Cited by 68Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy

Open access
van Loon, Mariëtte H., de Bruin, Anique B.H., van Gog, Tamara, van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G., Dunlosky, John·2014·Acta Psychologica

Abstract

For effective self-regulated study of expository texts, it is crucial that learners can accurately monitor their understanding of cause-and-effect relations. This study aimed to improve adolescents' monitoring accuracy using a diagram completion task. Participants read six texts, predicted performance, selected texts for restudy, and were tested for comprehension. Three groups were compared, in which learners either completed causal diagrams immediately after reading, completed them after a delay, or received no-diagram control instructions. Accuracy of predictions of performance was highest for learning of causal relations following delayed diagram completion. Completing delayed diagrams focused learners specifically on their learning of causal relations, so this task did not improve monitoring of learning of factual information. When selecting texts for restudy, the participants followed their predictions of performance to the same degree, regardless of monitoring accuracy. Fine-grained analyses also showed that, when completing delayed diagrams, learners based judgments on diagnostic cues that indicated actual understanding of connections between events in the text. Most important, delayed diagram completion can improve adolescents' ability to monitor their learning of cause-and-effect relations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.007

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 68

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Otero, J., Leon, J. A., & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.). (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Erlbaum: Mahwah NJ.

Authors
van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dunlosky, J.
Affiliations
Kent State University (US)
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
151
Pages
143-154
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994768593
Cited by
68
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (411.07.151)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
metacognitive monitoring, student self-regulation, causal relationship, causal graphs, performance prediction, expository texts, adolescents, reading comprehension, diagnostic cues
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cues, Female, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Male, Reading, Social Control, Informal, Students, 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