Cited by 112Innovations in Medical EducationInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Monitoring and regulation of learning in medical education: The need for predictive cues

Open access
de Bruin, Anique B H, Dunlosky, John, Cavalcanti, Rodrigo B·2017·Medical Education

Abstract

CONTEXT: Being able to accurately monitor learning activities is a key element in self-regulated learning in all settings, including medical schools. Yet students' ability to monitor their progress is often limited, leading to inefficient use of study time. Interventions that improve the accuracy of students' monitoring can optimise self-regulated learning, leading to higher achievement. This paper reviews findings from cognitive psychology and explores potential applications in medical education, as well as areas for future research. COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY: Effective monitoring depends on students' ability to generate information ('cues') that accurately reflects their knowledge and skills. The ability of these 'cues' to predict achievement is referred to as 'cue diagnosticity'. Interventions that improve the ability of students to elicit predictive cues typically fall into two categories: (i) self-generation of cues and (ii) generation of cues that is delayed after self-study. Providing feedback and support is useful when cues are predictive but may be too complex to be readily used. APPLICATION TO MEDICAL EDUCATION: Limited evidence exists about interventions to improve the accuracy of self-monitoring among medical students or trainees. Developing interventions that foster use of predictive cues can enhance the accuracy of self-monitoring, thereby improving self-study and clinical reasoning. First, insight should be gained into the characteristics of predictive cues used by medical students and trainees. Next, predictive cue prompts should be designed and tested to improve monitoring and regulation of learning. Finally, the use of predictive cues should be explored in relation to teaching and learning clinical reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Improving self-regulated learning is important to help medical students and trainees efficiently acquire knowledge and skills necessary for clinical practice. Interventions that help students generate and use predictive cues hold the promise of improved self-regulated learning and achievement. This framework is applicable to learning in several areas, including the development of clinical reasoning.

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 · 10.1111/medu.13267

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Dunlosky J, Metcalfe J. Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Bruin, A. B. H., Dunlosky, J., & Cavalcanti, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Maastricht The Netherlands
  • Kent State University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-23
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
575-584
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2600939863
Cited by
112
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Dutch Science Foundation (016.115.123)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
student self-regulation, self-monitoring, predictive cues, medical students, medical trainees, self-directed learning, clinical reasoning, feedback, learning regulation
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Cues, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Learning, Motivation, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical

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