Abstract
For (facilitating) effective learning from texts, students and teachers need to accurately monitor students’ comprehension. Monitoring judgments are accurate when they correspond to students’ actual comprehension. Accurate monitoring enables accurate (self-)regulation of the learning process, i.e., making study decisions that are in line with monitoring judgments and/or students’ comprehension. Yet, (self-)monitoring accuracy is often poor as the information or cues used are not always diagnostic (i.e., predictive) for students’ actual comprehension. Having students engage in generative activities making diagnostic cues available improves monitoring and regulation accuracy. In this review, we focus on generative activities in which text is transformed into visual representations using mapping and drawing (i.e., making diagrams, concept maps, or drawings). This has been shown to improve monitoring and regulation accuracy and is suited for studying cue diagnosticity and cue utilization. First, we review and synthesize findings of studies regarding (1) students’ monitoring accuracy, regulation accuracy, learning, cue diagnosticity, and cue utilization; (2) teachers’ monitoring and regulation accuracy and cue utilization; and (3) how mapping and drawing affect using effort as a cue during monitoring and regulation, and how this affects monitoring and regulation accuracy. Then, we show how this research offers unique opportunities for future research on advancing measurements of cue diagnosticity and cue utilization and on how effort is used as a cue during monitoring and regulation. Improving measures of cue diagnosticity and cue utilization can provide us with more insight into how students and teachers monitor and regulate students’ learning, to help design effective interventions to foster these important skills.
Highlights
Students and teachers monitor students’ text learning well when their judgments about students’ text comprehension are accurate; that is, when their judgments are in line with students’ actual comprehension as evidenced by test performance (e.g., Griffin, Mielicki, & Wiley, 2019). When regulation decisions such as deciding which text(s) need to be restudied before taking a test are in line with one’s monitoring judgments and/or text comprehension, regulation is considered accurate
We focus on two mapping techniques: concept mapping and diagramming
The explicitness and extensiveness of the instructions seem to matter for concept mapping and drawing to be effective for monitoring accuracy
Summary
Exp: concept-mapping/rereading Exp: concept map construction, concept map provision, control. Completing diagrams at a delay seems to help students focus on and possibly use diagnostic cues that are indicative of the quality of their situation model It is not clear why more accurate monitoring is not necessarily accompanied by more accurate comprehension-based regulation. Students’ test scores are not reported in this study Students in both conditions seem to have used relational information (indicated by relations between cues and students’ judgments), this cue was only diagnostic of performance for the organizational drawing condition (Table 2). There was an indication that relative monitoring was more accurate in the drawing condition, comprehension-based regulation accuracy was not, so students did not necessarily select those paragraphs for restudy that they understood less well. Thiede et al (2019) provided full information about students’ cue utilization and cue diagnosticity per condition and showed that cue diagnosticity differed between instructional conditions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
