Aleven, V. & Koedinger, K. (2016). An interview reflection on “Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 13–24.Google Scholar

Arguel, A., Lockyer, L., Lipp, O. V., Lordge, J. M., & Kennedy, G. (2016). Inside out: Detecting learners’ confusion to improve interactive digital learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55, 526–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of self- and socially-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 217–228.Google Scholar

Azevedo, R. & Aleven, V. (eds.). (2013). International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Azevedo, R. & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Azevedo, R., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Harley, J., & Trevors, G. (2012). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered learning environments. In Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (eds.), Theoretical foundations of student-center learning environments, 2nd edn (pp. 171–197). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Azevedo, R., Harley, J., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Bouchet, F., & Landis, R. S. (2013). Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi-agent systems. In Azevedo, R. & Aleven, V. (eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 427–449). Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar

Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools. In Khine, M. & Saleh, I. (eds.), New science of learning (pp. 225–247). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Azevedo, R., Mudrick, N. V., Taub, M., & Wortha, F. (2017). Coupling between metacognition and emotions during STEM learning with advanced learning technologies: A critical analysis, implications for future research, and design of learning systems. In Michalsky, T. & Schechter, C. (eds.), Self-regulated learning: Conceptualization, contribution, and empirically based models for teaching and learning (pp. 1–18). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2018). Using multi-channel trace data to infer and foster self-regulated learning between humans and advanced learning technologies. In Schunk, D. & Greene, J. A. (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 2nd edn (pp. 254–270). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Azevedo, R. & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bannert, M. & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40, 193–211.Google Scholar

Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K. Jr., Gilbertson, R. C., , J., et al. (2007). The Quest Atlantis project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. In Shelton, B. E. & Wiley, D. (eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 159–186). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Bargh, J. A. & Schul, Y.. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barral, O., Eugster, M. J. A., Ruotsalo, T., Spapé, M. M., Kosunen, I., Ravaja, N., Kaski, S., & Jacucci, G. (2015). Exploring peripheral physiology as a predictor of perceived relevance in information retrieval. In Brdiczka, O., Chau, P., Crenini, G., Pan, S., & Kristensson, P. O. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, (pp. 389–399). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benedek, M. & Kaernbach, C. (2010), Decomposition of skin conductance data by means of nonnegative deconvolution. Psychophysiology, 47, 647–658.Google Scholar

Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J. S., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5, 123–152.Google Scholar

Biswas, G., Segedy, J. R., & Bunchongchit, K. (2016). From design to implementation to practice a learning by teaching system: Betty’s Brain. International Journal of Artificial intelligence in Education, 26, 350–364.Google Scholar

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.Google Scholar

Boucsein, W. (2012). Electrodermal activity. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bradbury, A.E., Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. 2017. The effects of autonomy on emotions and learning in game-based learning environments. In Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T., & Davelaar, E. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1666–1671). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Brawner, K. W. & Gonzalez, A. J. (2016). Modeling a learner’s affective state in real time to improve intelligent tutoring effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics, 17, 183–210.Google Scholar

Burkett, C. & Azevedo, R. (2012). The effect of multimedia discrepancies on metacognitive judgments. Computers and Human Behavior, 28, 1276–1285.Google Scholar

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 79–122.Google Scholar

Conati, C., Jaques, N., & Muir, M. (2013). Understanding attention to adaptive hints in educational games: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23, 136–161.Google Scholar

D’Mello, S. K. & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Mello, S. K., Lehman, B. Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170.Google Scholar

Duffy, M. & Azevedo, R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition: A textbook for cognitive, educational, life span and applied psychology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

Greene, J. A. & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Education Psychology, 34, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gross, J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hardy, M., Wiebe, E. N, Grafsgaard, J. F., Boyer, K. E., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Physiological responses to events during training: Use of skin conductance to inform future adaptive learning systems. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomic society 57th annual meeting (pp. 2101–2105).Google Scholar

Harley, J. M., Bouchet, F., Hussain, M. S., Azevedo, R., & Calvo, R. (2015). A multi-componential analysis of emotions during complex learning with an intelligent multi-agent system. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 615–625.Google Scholar

Harley, J. M., Taub, M., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F. (2018). “Let’s set up some subgoals”: Understanding human-pedagogical agent collaborations and their implications for learning and prompt and feedback compliance. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11, 54–66.Google Scholar

Heilig, M. (1962). United States Patent No. #3,050,870. Alexandria, VA: United States Patent Office.Google Scholar

iMotions. (2017). Attention tool (Version 6.3) [Computer software]. Boston, MA: iMotions Inc.Google Scholar

Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kulik, J. A. & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86, 42–78.Google Scholar

Lajoie, S. P., Poitras, E. G., Doleck, T., & Jarrell, A. (2015). Modeling metacognitive activities in medical problem-solving with BioWorld. In Peña-Ayala, A. (ed.), Metacognition: Fundamentals, applications, and trends. A profile of the current state-of the-art (pp. 323–343). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Lin, M., Preston, A., Kharrufa, A., & Kong, Z. (2016). Making L2 learners’ reasoning skills visible: The potential of computer supported collaborative learning environments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 303–322.Google Scholar

Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Cohen, W. W., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Cognitive anatomy of tutor learning: Lessons learned with SimStudent. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1152–1163.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (ed.). (2014b). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. & Alexander, P. A. (eds.). (2017). Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 70, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mudrick, N. V., Rowe, J., Taub, M., Lester, J., & Azevedo, R. (2017). Toward affect-sensitive virtual human tutors: The influence of facial expressions on learning and emotion. In Busso, C. & Epps, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 seventh international conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction (ACII) (pp. 184–189). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173.Google Scholar

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36–48.Google Scholar

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.Google Scholar

Rowe, J. P., Shores, L. R., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 115–133.Google Scholar

Santos, M. E. C., Chen, A., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Miyazaki, J., & Kato, H. (2014). Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7, 38–56.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., Lester, J., & Carolina, N. (2017). Is more agency better? The impact of student agency on game-based learning. In André, E., Baker, R., Hu, X., Rodrigo, M., & du Bouley, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 335–346). Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar

Scheiter, K. & Eitel, A. (2016). The use of eye tracking as a research and instructional tool in multimedia learning. In Was, C. A., Sansosti, F. J., & Morris, B. (eds.), Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 143–164). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Schunk, D. & Greene, J. (2017). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Taub, M. & Azevedo, R. (2016a). Using multi-channel data to assess, understand, and support affect and metacognition with Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., & Panourgia, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 543–544). Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar

Taub, M. & Azevedo, R. (2016b). Using eye-tracking to determine the impact of prior knowledge on self-regulated learning with an adaptive hypermedia- learning environment? In Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., & Panourgia, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 34–47). Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Bouchet, F., & Khosravifar, B. (2014). Can the use of cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies be predicted by learners’ levels of prior knowledge in hypermedia-learning environments? Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 356–36.Google Scholar

Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Bradbury, A. E., Millar, G. C., & Lester, J. (2018). Using sequence mining to reveal the efficiency in scientific reasoning during STEM learning with a game-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 54, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Azevedo, R., Millar, G. C., Rowe, J., & Lester, J. (2017). Using multi-channel data with multi-level modeling to assess in-game performance during gameplay with Crystal Island. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taub, M., Mudrick., N., Bradbury, A. E., & Azevedo, R. (in press). Self-regulation, selfexplanation, and reflection in game-based learning. In Plass, J., Horner, B., & Mayer, R. (eds.), Handbook of game-based learning. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor: Interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 507–528.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition in self-regulated learning. In Schunk, D. & Greene, J. (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd edn) (pp. 36–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In Sawyer, K. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 63–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In Schunk, D. & Zimmerman, B. (eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Wolff, B. (2009). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for adaptive e-learning. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Ackerman, R. & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 18–32.Google Scholar

Anderson, M. & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Benjamin, A. S. & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In Reder, L. M. (ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Benjamin, A. S. & Diaz, M. (2008). Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy. In Dunlosky, J. & Bjork, R. A. (eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 73–94). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Commander, N. E., Zhao, Y., Li, H., Zabrucky, K. M., & Agler, L. M. L. (2014). American and Chinese students’ calibration of comprehension and performance. Current Psychology, 33, 655–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, L. T., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy. Psychology and Aging, 12, 50–71.Google Scholar

de Bruin, A. B. H., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. (2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294–310.Google Scholar

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Lipko, A.R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. L., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Methodology for investigating human metamemory. In Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 23–38). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory and Cognition, 20, 374–380.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes, 40, 37–55.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produced underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551–565.Google Scholar

Fischer, P. M. & Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, text variables, and the control of text comprehension and recall. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L., & Trabasco, T. (eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 213–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324–340.Google Scholar

Fukaya, T. (2013) Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition Learning, 8, 1–18.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M. & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 119–136.Google Scholar

Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory and Cognition, 37, 1001–1013.Google Scholar

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In Azevedo, R. & Aleven, V. (eds.) International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory and Cognition, 36, 93–103.Google Scholar

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2018). The effects of comprehension-test expectancies on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000634Google Scholar

Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 208–216.Google Scholar

Jaeger, A. J. & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy?. Learning and Instruction, 34, 58–73.Google Scholar

Jaeger, A. J. & Wiley, J. (2015). Reading an analogy can cause the illusion of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 52, 376–405.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.Google Scholar

Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370.Google Scholar

Kwon, H. & Linderholm, T. (2014). Effects of self-perception of reading skill on absolute accuracy of metacomprehension judgments. Current Psychology, 33, 73–88.Google Scholar

Maki, R. H. (1998a) Metacomprehension of text: Influence of absolute confidence level on bias and accuracy. In Medin, D. L. (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 223–248). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Maki, R. H. (1998b). Test predictions over text material. In Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A.C. (eds), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Maki, R. H. & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.Google Scholar

Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A. E., & Zacchilli, T. L. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 723–731.Google Scholar

Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986–992.Google Scholar

Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643–655.Google Scholar

Masson, M. E. & Rotello, C. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman–Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 509–527.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363.Google Scholar

Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & tenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 26, 232–246.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.” Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1980). A new technique for investigating the feeling of knowing. Acta Psychologica, 46, 69–80.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 26, pp. 125–141. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Nesbit, J. C. & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.Google Scholar

Otero, J. (1998). Influence of knowledge activation and context on comprehension monitoring of science texts. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 145–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ozuru, Y., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). The effect of metacomprehension judgment task on comprehension monitoring and metacognitive accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 113–131.Google Scholar

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pilegard, C. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Within-subject and between-subject conceptions of metacomprehension accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 54–61.Google Scholar

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In Schraw, G. & Impara, J.C. (eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559–579.Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.Google Scholar

Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, 262–270.Google Scholar

Rhodes, M. G. & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148.Google Scholar

Schwartz, B.L. & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Serra, M. J. & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgments reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711.Google Scholar

Shiu, L. & Chen, Q. (2013). Self and external monitoring of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 78–88.Google Scholar

Stensvold, M. S. & Wilson, J. T. (1990). The interaction of verbal ability with concept mapping in learning from a chemistry laboratory activity. Science Education, 74, 473–480.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W. & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129–160.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W. & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1267–1280.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47, 331–362.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds). Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85–106). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 554–564.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2017). How restudy decisions affect overall comprehension for 7th grade students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 590–605.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 264–273.Google Scholar

Thomas, A. K. & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The negative cascade of incongruent task-test processing in memory and metamemory. Memory and Cognition, 35, 668–678.Google Scholar

van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Weaver, C. A. & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory and Cognition, 23, 12–22.Google Scholar

Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Handbook on research in teaching, 3rd edn. (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Jaeger, A. J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 393–405.Google Scholar

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428.Google Scholar

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). To understand your understanding, you must understand what understanding means. In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 817–822). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension with the situation-model approach. In Mokhtari, K., Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction for first and second language readers (pp. 93–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., Taylor, A. R., & Griffin, T. D. (2017). When analogies harm: The effects of analogies and valid cues on the metacomprehension of science text. Learning and Instruction, 55, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.001Google Scholar

Wiley, J. & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129.Google Scholar

Wiley, J. Sarmento, D., Griffin, T. D., & Hinze, S. R. (2017). Biology textbook graphics and their impact on expectations of understanding, Discourse Processes, 54, 463–478.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Yates, J. E (1990). Judgment and decision-making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Zhao, Q. & Linderholm, T. (2011). Anchoring effects on prospective and retrospective metacomprehension judgments as a function of peer performance information. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 25–43.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–72.Google Scholar

Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Self-regulated learning in academic domains. In Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 393–407). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–131.Google Scholar

Bol, L., Hacker, D., Walck, C., & Nunnery, J. (2012). The effects of individual or group guidelines on the calibration accuracy and achievement of high school biology students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 280–287.Google Scholar

Bol, L., Riggs, R., Hacker, D., Dickerson, D., & Nunnery, J. (2010). The calibration accuracy of middle school students in match classes. Journal of Research in Education, 21, 81–96.Google Scholar

Callender, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Roberts, A. S. (2016). Improving metacognition in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition and Learning, 11, 215–235.Google Scholar

DiGiacomo, G. & Chen, P. P. (2016). Enhancing self-regulatory skills through an intervention embedded in middle school mathematics curriculum. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 601–616.Google Scholar

Dinsmore, D. L. & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence judgments made of? Students’ explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4–14.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280.Google Scholar

Foster, N. L., Was, C. A., Dunlosky, J., & Isaacson, R. M. (2017). Even after thirteen class exams, students are still overconfident: the role of memory for past exam performance in student predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016–9158-6.Google Scholar

García, T., Rodríguez, C., González-Castro, P., González-Pienda, J. A., & Torrance, M. (2016). Elementary students’ metacognitive processes and post-performance calibration on mathematical problem-solving tasks. Metacognition and Learning, 11(2), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015–9139-1.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, A. & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of strategy training and incentives on students’ performance, confidence, and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83, 386–404.Google Scholar

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and attributional style. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 101–121.Google Scholar

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.Google Scholar

Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2008). Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In Dunlosky, J., & Bjork, R. (eds.), Handbook of memory and metacognition (pp. 429–455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hadwin, A. F. & Webster, E. A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37–47.Google Scholar

Hawthorne, K., Bol, L., & Pribesh, S. (2017). Can providing rubrics for writing tasks improve developing writers’ calibration accuracy? Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1299081.Google Scholar

Huff, J. D. & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 161–176.Google Scholar

Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krebs, S.S. & Roebers, C.M. (2010). Children’s strategic regulation, metacognitive monitoring, and control processes during test-taking. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 325–340.Google Scholar

Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self- regulation: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 173–194.Google Scholar

Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lin, L. & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.Google Scholar

List, A. & Alexander, P. A. (2015). Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 407–436.Google Scholar

Miller, T. M. & Geraci, L. (2011b). Training metacognition in the classroom: The influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 303–314.Google Scholar

Morrison, J., Bol, L., Ross, S., & Watson, G. (2015). Paraphrasing and prediction with self- explanation as generative strategies for learning science principles. Education Technology: Research and Development, 63, 861–882.Google Scholar

Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 7–28.Google Scholar

Schneider, E. F., Castleberry, A. N., Vuk, J., & Stowe, C. D. (2014). Pharmacy students’ ability to think about thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78, 1–5.Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.Google Scholar

Serra, M. J. & DeMarree, K. G. (2016). Unskilled and unaware in the classroom: College students’ desired grades predict their biased grade predictions. Memory and Cognition, 44, 1127–1137.Google Scholar

Reid, A. J., Morrison, G. R., & Bol, L. (2016). Knowing what you know: Improving metacomprehension and calibration accuracy in digital text. Educational Technology Research and Development, https://doi.org/10.10007/s11423-016–9454-5.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488.Google Scholar

Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166–183.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J. & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J. & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognitive and motivation intersect. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Airasian, P. W. & Russell, M. K. (2007). Classroom assessment, 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Artelt, C. & Rausch, T. (2014). Accuracy of teacher judgments. In Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Glock, S., & Böhmer, M. (eds.). Teachers’ professional development: Assessment, training, and learning (pp. 27–43). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?. American Educator, 29(3), 14–46.Google Scholar

Ball, D. L. & Rowan, B. (2004). Introduction: Measuring instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 3–10.Google Scholar

Bates, C. & Nettelbeck, T. (2001). Primary school teachers’ judgments of reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 21(2), 177–187.Google Scholar

Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 55–68.Google Scholar

Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. A., & Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers’ judgments of students’ academic skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 347–356.Google Scholar

Box, C., Skoog, G., & Dabbs, J. M. (2015). A case study of teacher personal practice assessment theory and complexities of implementing formative assessment. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 956–983.Google Scholar

Brendefur, J. L., Carney, M. B., Hughes, G., & Strother, S. (2015). Framing professional development that promotes mathematical thinking. In Ostler, E. (ed.), Emerging trends and perspectives in STEM learning.Google Scholar

Brendefur, J. L., Thiede, K. T., Strother, S., Jesse, D., & Sutton, J. (2016). The effects of professional development on elementary students’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 5(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.Google Scholar

Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Coladarci, T. (1986). Accuracy of teacher judgments of student responses to standardized test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 141–146.Google Scholar

Connor, C. M., Spencer, M., Day, S. L., Giuliani, S., Ingebrand, S. W., McLean, L., & Morrison, F. J. (2014). Capturing the complexity: Content, type, and amount of instruction and quality of the classroom learning environment synergistically predict third graders’ vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 762–778.Google Scholar

Curby, T W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Cameron Ponitz, C. (2009). Teacher-child interactions and children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 912–925.Google Scholar

Demaray, M. K. & Elliot, S. N. (1998). Teachers’ judgments of students’ academic functioning: A comparison of actual and predicted performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 8–14.Google Scholar

Dompnier, B., Pansu, P., & Bressoux, P. (2006). An integrative model of scholastic judgments: Pupils’ characteristics, class context, halo effect and internal attributions. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 21(2), 119–133.Google Scholar

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (eds.). (2000). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Research Council and National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Handbook of metamemory and memory. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produced underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory and Cognition, 32(5), 779–788.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four cornerstones of calibration research: Why understanding students’ judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24(1), 58–61.Google Scholar

Dusek, J. D. & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 327–346.Google Scholar

Feinberg, A. B. & Shapiro, E. S. (2003). Accuracy of teacher judgment of oral reading fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 52–65.Google Scholar

Feinberg, A. B. & Shapiro, E. S. (2009). Teacher accuracy: An examination of teacher-based judgments of students’ reading with differing achievement levels. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 453–462.Google Scholar

Gabriele, A. J., Joram, E., & Park, K. H. (2016). Elementary mathematics teachers’ judgment accuracy and calibration accuracy: Do they predict students’ mathematics achievement outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 45(1), 49–60.Google Scholar

Givvin, K. B., Stipek, D. J., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). In the eyes of the beholder: Students’ and teachers’ judgments of students motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 321–331.Google Scholar

Hauser-Cram, P., Selcuk, R. S., & Stipek, D. (2003). When teachers’ and parents’ values differ: Teachers’ ratings of academic competence in children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 813–820.Google Scholar

Hecht, S. A. & Greenfield, D. B. (2002). Explaining the predictive accuracy of teacher judgments of their students’ reading achievement: The role of gender, classroom behavior, and emergent literacy skills in longitudinal sample of children exposed to poverty. Reading and Writing, 15(7–8), 789–809.Google Scholar

Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (1987). Interactional effects of instructional quality and teacher judgement accuracy on achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 91–98.Google Scholar

Helwig, R., Anderson, L., & Tindal, G. (2001). Influence of elementary student gender on teachers perceptions of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 93–102.Google Scholar

Hertzog, C., Dunlosky, J., Robinson, A. E., & Kidder, D. P. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue utilized for judgments about learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22–34.Google Scholar

Hinnant, J. B., O’Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of teacher expectations to achievement in the early school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662–670.Google Scholar

Hoge, R. D. & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313.Google Scholar

Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O. M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Hurwitz, J. T., Elliot, S. N., & Braden, J. P. (2007). The influence of test familiarity and student disability status upon teachers’ judgments of students’ test performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 115–144.Google Scholar

Jenkins, L. N. & Demaray, M. K. (2016). Teachers’ judgments of academic achievement of children with and without characteristics of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(2), 183–191.Google Scholar

Kaiser, J., Retelsdorf, J., Südkamp, A., & Möller, J. (2013). Achievement and engagement: How student characteristics influence teacher judgments. Learning and Instruction, 28(1), 73–84.Google Scholar

Kaiser, J., Südkamp, A., & Möller, J. (2017). The effects of student characteristics on teachers’ judgment accuracy: Disentangling ethnicity, minority status, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 871–888.Google Scholar

Kikas, E., Silinskas, G., & Soodla, P. (2015). The effect of children’s reading skill and interest on teacher perceptions of children’s skill and individualized support. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(5), 402–412.Google Scholar

Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.Google Scholar

Koriat, A. & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194.Google Scholar

Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Leinhardt, G. (1983). Novice and expert knowledge of individual student’s achievement. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 165–179.Google Scholar

Leinhardt, G. & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247–271.Google Scholar

Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P.W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar

Martínez, J. F., Stecher, B., & Borko, H. (2009). Classroom assessment practices, teacher judgments, and student achievement in mathematics: Evidence from the ECLS. Educational Assessment, 14(1), 78–102.Google Scholar

Mizala, A., Martínez, F., Martínez, S. (2015). Pre-service elementary school teachers’ expectations about student performance: How their beliefs are affected by their mathematics anxiety and student’s gender. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50(1), 70–78.Google Scholar

NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 26, pp. 125–141. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Nurmi, J. E. (2012). Students’ characteristics and teacher-child relationships in instruction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 177–197.Google Scholar

Oswalt, S. G. (2013). Identifying formative assessment in classroom instruction: Creating an instrument to observe use of formative assessment in practice (Doctoral dissertation). http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1772&context=td.Google Scholar

Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T., & Fennema, E. (1989). Teachers’ knowledge of students’ knowledge in mathematics problem solving: Correlational and case analyses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 558–569.Google Scholar

Randel, B., Apthorp, H., Beesley, A. D., Clark, T. F., & Wang, X. (2016). Impacts of professional development in classroom assessment on teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 491–502.Google Scholar

Rausch, T., Karing, C., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2016). Personality similarity between teachers and their students influences teacher judgment of student achievement. Educational Psychology, 36(5), 863–878.Google Scholar

Rawson, K. A., O’Neil, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Accurate monitoring leads to effective control and greater learning of patient education materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(3), 288–302.Google Scholar

Ready, D. D. & Wright, D. L. (2011). Accuracy and inaccuracy in teachers’ perceptions of young children’s cognitive abilities the role of child background and classroom context. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 335–360.Google Scholar

Robinson, E. A., Hertzog, C, & Dunlosky, J. (2006). Aging, encoding fluency, and metacognitive monitoring. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13(3–4), 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, J., Myran, S., Strauss, R., & Reed, W. (2014). The impact of an alternative professional development model on teacher practices in formative assessment and student learning. Teacher Development, 18(2), 141–162.Google Scholar

Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.Google Scholar

Shavelson, R. J. (1978). Teachers’ estimates of student “states of mind” and behavior. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(5), 37–40.Google Scholar

Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Tomita, M. K., Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314.Google Scholar

Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.Google Scholar

Son, L. K. & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221.Google Scholar

Spinath, B. (2005). Accuracy of teacher judgments on student characteristics and the construct of diagnostic competence. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 19(1), 85–95.Google Scholar

Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 10(4), 313–340.Google Scholar

Stiggins, R. (2008). Student-involved assessment for learning. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar

Stiggins, R. J. & Chappuis, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes: Assessment “for” learning rather than assessment “of” learning helps students succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 10–14.Google Scholar

Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762.Google Scholar

Südkamp, A. & Möller, J. (2009). Reference-group-effects in a simulated classroom: Direct and indirect judgments. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 23(1), 161–174.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Brendefur, J. L., Osguthorpe, R. D., Carney, M.B., Bremner, A., Strother, S., Oswalt, S., Snow, J. L. Sutton, J., & Jesse, D. (2015). Can teachers accurately predict student performance? Teaching and Teacher Education, 49(1), 36–44.Google Scholar

Thiede, K.W. & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25(4), 1024–1037.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M.C.M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 331–362.Google Scholar

Thiede, K.W., Redford, J.S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T.D. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among 7th and 8th graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 554–564.Google Scholar

Van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effect of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151(1), 143–154.Google Scholar

Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In Andrade, H. L. & Cizek, G. J. (eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts, M. and Pintrich, P. (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baker, L. (2016). The development of metacognitive knowledge and control of comprehension. Improving Reading Comprehension through Metacognitive Reading Strategies Instruction, 1.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Campitelli, G. & Gobet, F. (2011). Deliberate practice: Necessary but not sufficient. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 280–285.Google Scholar

Caverly, D. C., Orlando, V. P., & Mullen, J. L. (2000). Textbook study reading. In Flippo, R. F. & Caverly, D. C. (eds.), Teaching reaching and study strategies at the college level (pp. 86–165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar

Chipman, S. F., Segal, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1985). Thinking and learning skills. Vol. 2: Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences and practices. In Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (eds.). Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 229–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Credé, M. & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425–453.Google Scholar

Dearborn, G. V. N. (1916). How to learn easily: Practical hints on economical study. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Derry, S. J. (1990). Learning strategies for acquiring useful knowledge. Jones, B. F. & Idol, L. (eds.) Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 347–379). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Donker, A. S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk, C. C., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11,1–26.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 249, 276.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory and Cognition, 32 (5), 779–788.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital.Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1(4), 324–340.Google Scholar

Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (2012). Motivation: Past, present and future. In Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (eds.), APA Educational psychology handbook. Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Hadwin, A. F. & Winne, P. H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support: A review with recommendations for implementation. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 692–715.Google Scholar

Hadwin, A. F. & Winne, P. H. (2012). Promoting learning skills in undergraduate students. In Lawson, M. J. & Kirby, J. R. (eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and mental structures (pp. 201–227). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hartwig, M. K. & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19 (1), 126–134.Google Scholar

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.Google Scholar

Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609–629.Google Scholar

Hinsdale, B. A. (1910). The art of study. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar

Idol, L. & Jones, B. F. (1991). Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Johns, J. L. & McNamara, L. P. (1980). The SQ3 R study technique: A forgotten research target. Journal of Reading, 23, 705–708.Google Scholar

Jones, B. F. & Idol, L. (eds.) (1990). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479.Google Scholar

Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In Zelazo, P. D., Moscovitch, M., & Thompson, E. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kornell, N. & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219–224.Google Scholar

Marzouk, Z., Rakovic, M., Liaqat, A., Vytasek, J. Samadi, D., Stewart-Alonso, J., Ram, I., Woloshen, S., Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2016). What if learning analytics were based on learning science? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(6). https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3058/1433Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. A. & Kearney, E. M. (1984). Optimal learning strategies and their spontaneous use: The importance of task-appropriate processing. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 361–373.Google Scholar

McKeachie, W. J. (1988). The need for study strategy training. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 3–9). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 131 (3), 349–363.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132 (4), 530–542Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (4), 463–477.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163.Google Scholar

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Mulcavy-Ernt, P. I. & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Strategic study-reading. In Flippo, R. F. & Caverly, D. C. (eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 177–198). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Pauk, W. (1991). How to study in college. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387.Google Scholar

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.Google Scholar

Roll, I. & Winne, P. H. (2015). Understanding, evaluating, and supporting self-regulated learning using learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 7–12.Google Scholar

Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472Google Scholar

Segal, J. W., Chipman, S. F., & Glaser, R. (1985). Thinking and learning skills. Vol. 1: Relating instruction to research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.Google Scholar

Sitzmann, T. & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: what we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421–42.Google Scholar

Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 255–262.Google Scholar

Son, L. K. & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 20 r-221.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 66–73.Google Scholar

Thiede, K. W. & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (4), 1024.Google Scholar

Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.Google Scholar

Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (1988). Learning and study strategies. Issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Whipple, G. M. (1916). How to study effectively. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (1995a). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–187.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (1995b). Self regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 30, 223–228.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 397–410.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5–17.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2010). Bootstrapping learner’s self-regulated learning. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 472–490.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2013). Learning strategies, study skills and self-regulated learning in postsecondary education. In Paulsen, M. B. (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Vol. 28 (pp. 377–403). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2014). Issues in researching self-regulated learning as patterns of events. Metacognition and Learning, 9 (2), 229–237.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2017a). The trajectory of research on self-regulated learning. In Michalsky, T. (ed.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Vol. 116: Self-regulated learning: Conceptualizations, contributions, and empirically based models for teaching and learning. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of EducationGoogle Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2017b). Cognition and metacognition in self-regulated learning. In Schunk, D. & Greene, J (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. (2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (2017c). Leveraging big data to help each learner upgrade learning and accelerate learning science. Teachers College Record, 119(3), 1–24.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd edn (pp. 63–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H., Gupta, L., & Nesbit, J. C. (1994). Exploring individual differences in studying strategies using graph theoretic statistics. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 177–193.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Marx, R. W. (1987). The best tool teachers have: Their students’ thinking. In Berliner, D. & Rosenshine, B. (eds.), Talks to teachers: A festschrift for N. L. Gage (pp. 267–304). New York: Random House. Note: This article was misprinted identifying Marx as first author.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H., Vytasek, J. M., Patzak, A., Rakovic, M., Marzouk, Z., Savoji, Pakdaman, Ram, I., Samadi, D., Lin, M. P. C., Liu, A., Liaqat, A., Nashaat, N., Mozaffari, Z., Stewart-Alonso, J., & Nesbit, J. C. (2017). Designs for learning analytics to support information problem solving. In Buder, J. & Hesse, F. W. (eds.) Informational environments: Effects of use, effective designs (pp. 249–272). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H., Zhou, M., & Egan, R. (2011). Designing assessments of self-regulated learning. In Schraw, G. & Robinson, D. H. (eds.), Assessment of higher-order thinking skills (pp. 89–118). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar