Loading…

Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy

Although learning approaches are designed to enhance individuals' ability to store and retrieve information, not all of them are considered effective. The goal of the present study was to experimentally compare the test performance as well as the accuracy of metacognitive judgements of a multip...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Instructional science 2024-11
Main Authors: Seban, Peter, Urban, Kamila, Sikl, Radovan
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-defcfa08d12349825c7a6f1e0c89d4ca7820d175468aa2f8859ed139f9adb0273
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Instructional science
container_volume
creator Seban, Peter
Urban, Kamila
Sikl, Radovan
description Although learning approaches are designed to enhance individuals' ability to store and retrieve information, not all of them are considered effective. The goal of the present study was to experimentally compare the test performance as well as the accuracy of metacognitive judgements of a multiple text reading group, rereading group, and single reading group in a one-day vs. one-week delayed test (3 × 2 between subject design). A total of 186 psychology students ( M age = 20.76) participated in the experiment focused on reading comprehension, accuracy of metacognitive judgments and knowledge retention. Results of the knowledge test indicate that in the one-day delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading yield similar results: both deliver slightly better results than single reading. In the one-week delayed test, though, multiple text reading yields better results than rereading, and both these reading approaches outperform single reading. Moreover, multiple text reading results in fairly robust knowledge retention with only a slight decrease in scores between the one-day delayed and one-week delayed test. Regarding metacognitive monitoring, judgements of learning in the multiple text reading group remained relatively stable after each reading and participants were underconfident about their knowledge. In the rereading group, judgements of learning increased after each reading and participants were overconfident about their knowledge, especially on the one-day delayed test. These findings have implications for educational practices aimed at enhancing learning outcomes and promoting effective learning.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_s11251_024_09686_4</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1007_s11251_024_09686_4</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-defcfa08d12349825c7a6f1e0c89d4ca7820d175468aa2f8859ed139f9adb0273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kMtOxCAYhYnRxHH0BVzxAugPpYUuzcRbMokbXROEn7Ha0gkw6ry9raOrc8nJWXyEXHK44gDqOnMuas5ASAZtoxsmj8iC16pivK3FMVkACGBSKHVKznJ-BwAuNSxIWY3D1qYubmh5Q4ohoCvdJ0bMmY6BDru-dNseacHvQhNaP09t9JP_T2OkH3H86tFvcKoLxtJN3TwasFg3bmI3f1Lr3C5Ztz8nJ8H2GS_-dEle7m6fVw9s_XT_uLpZM8eVKMxjcMGC9lxUstWidso2gSM43XrprNICPFe1bLS1Imhdt-h51YbW-lcQqloScfh1acw5YTDb1A027Q0HM3MzB25m4mZ-uRlZ_QAR2GPo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Seban, Peter ; Urban, Kamila ; Sikl, Radovan</creator><creatorcontrib>Seban, Peter ; Urban, Kamila ; Sikl, Radovan</creatorcontrib><description>Although learning approaches are designed to enhance individuals' ability to store and retrieve information, not all of them are considered effective. The goal of the present study was to experimentally compare the test performance as well as the accuracy of metacognitive judgements of a multiple text reading group, rereading group, and single reading group in a one-day vs. one-week delayed test (3 × 2 between subject design). A total of 186 psychology students ( M age = 20.76) participated in the experiment focused on reading comprehension, accuracy of metacognitive judgments and knowledge retention. Results of the knowledge test indicate that in the one-day delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading yield similar results: both deliver slightly better results than single reading. In the one-week delayed test, though, multiple text reading yields better results than rereading, and both these reading approaches outperform single reading. Moreover, multiple text reading results in fairly robust knowledge retention with only a slight decrease in scores between the one-day delayed and one-week delayed test. Regarding metacognitive monitoring, judgements of learning in the multiple text reading group remained relatively stable after each reading and participants were underconfident about their knowledge. In the rereading group, judgements of learning increased after each reading and participants were overconfident about their knowledge, especially on the one-day delayed test. These findings have implications for educational practices aimed at enhancing learning outcomes and promoting effective learning.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-4277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1952</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Instructional science, 2024-11</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-defcfa08d12349825c7a6f1e0c89d4ca7820d175468aa2f8859ed139f9adb0273</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8717-1616 ; 0000-0003-4547-9804 ; 0000-0002-7277-8183</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Seban, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Urban, Kamila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sikl, Radovan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy</title><title>Instructional science</title><description>Although learning approaches are designed to enhance individuals' ability to store and retrieve information, not all of them are considered effective. The goal of the present study was to experimentally compare the test performance as well as the accuracy of metacognitive judgements of a multiple text reading group, rereading group, and single reading group in a one-day vs. one-week delayed test (3 × 2 between subject design). A total of 186 psychology students ( M age = 20.76) participated in the experiment focused on reading comprehension, accuracy of metacognitive judgments and knowledge retention. Results of the knowledge test indicate that in the one-day delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading yield similar results: both deliver slightly better results than single reading. In the one-week delayed test, though, multiple text reading yields better results than rereading, and both these reading approaches outperform single reading. Moreover, multiple text reading results in fairly robust knowledge retention with only a slight decrease in scores between the one-day delayed and one-week delayed test. Regarding metacognitive monitoring, judgements of learning in the multiple text reading group remained relatively stable after each reading and participants were underconfident about their knowledge. In the rereading group, judgements of learning increased after each reading and participants were overconfident about their knowledge, especially on the one-day delayed test. These findings have implications for educational practices aimed at enhancing learning outcomes and promoting effective learning.</description><issn>0020-4277</issn><issn>1573-1952</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo1kMtOxCAYhYnRxHH0BVzxAugPpYUuzcRbMokbXROEn7Ha0gkw6ry9raOrc8nJWXyEXHK44gDqOnMuas5ASAZtoxsmj8iC16pivK3FMVkACGBSKHVKznJ-BwAuNSxIWY3D1qYubmh5Q4ohoCvdJ0bMmY6BDru-dNseacHvQhNaP09t9JP_T2OkH3H86tFvcKoLxtJN3TwasFg3bmI3f1Lr3C5Ztz8nJ8H2GS_-dEle7m6fVw9s_XT_uLpZM8eVKMxjcMGC9lxUstWidso2gSM43XrprNICPFe1bLS1Imhdt-h51YbW-lcQqloScfh1acw5YTDb1A027Q0HM3MzB25m4mZ-uRlZ_QAR2GPo</recordid><startdate>20241112</startdate><enddate>20241112</enddate><creator>Seban, Peter</creator><creator>Urban, Kamila</creator><creator>Sikl, Radovan</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-1616</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4547-9804</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7277-8183</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241112</creationdate><title>Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy</title><author>Seban, Peter ; Urban, Kamila ; Sikl, Radovan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-defcfa08d12349825c7a6f1e0c89d4ca7820d175468aa2f8859ed139f9adb0273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Seban, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Urban, Kamila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sikl, Radovan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Instructional science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Seban, Peter</au><au>Urban, Kamila</au><au>Sikl, Radovan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy</atitle><jtitle>Instructional science</jtitle><date>2024-11-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><issn>0020-4277</issn><eissn>1573-1952</eissn><abstract>Although learning approaches are designed to enhance individuals' ability to store and retrieve information, not all of them are considered effective. The goal of the present study was to experimentally compare the test performance as well as the accuracy of metacognitive judgements of a multiple text reading group, rereading group, and single reading group in a one-day vs. one-week delayed test (3 × 2 between subject design). A total of 186 psychology students ( M age = 20.76) participated in the experiment focused on reading comprehension, accuracy of metacognitive judgments and knowledge retention. Results of the knowledge test indicate that in the one-day delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading yield similar results: both deliver slightly better results than single reading. In the one-week delayed test, though, multiple text reading yields better results than rereading, and both these reading approaches outperform single reading. Moreover, multiple text reading results in fairly robust knowledge retention with only a slight decrease in scores between the one-day delayed and one-week delayed test. Regarding metacognitive monitoring, judgements of learning in the multiple text reading group remained relatively stable after each reading and participants were underconfident about their knowledge. In the rereading group, judgements of learning increased after each reading and participants were overconfident about their knowledge, especially on the one-day delayed test. These findings have implications for educational practices aimed at enhancing learning outcomes and promoting effective learning.</abstract><doi>10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-1616</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4547-9804</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7277-8183</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-4277
ispartof Instructional science, 2024-11
issn 0020-4277
1573-1952
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1007_s11251_024_09686_4
source Springer Nature
title Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T22%3A00%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20effectiveness%20of%20multiple%20text%20reading%20and%20rereading%20on%20knowledge%20retention%20and%20metacognitive%20accuracy&rft.jtitle=Instructional%20science&rft.au=Seban,%20Peter&rft.date=2024-11-12&rft.issn=0020-4277&rft.eissn=1573-1952&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1007_s11251_024_09686_4%3C/crossref%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c172t-defcfa08d12349825c7a6f1e0c89d4ca7820d175468aa2f8859ed139f9adb0273%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true