**7. Conclusions**

*Metacognition in Learning*

Drawing content

Drawing relations

Drawing content

Drawing relations

**74**

*\**

*\**

**Table 2.**

**Table 3.**

(i.e., systematicity, semantic relations, connections and the number of big ideas). By contrast, for the Representational-Drawing group, only connections were correlated with metacomprehension judgments. However, for this group, connections were not correlated with test performance; therefore, utilizing this cue would not

**Drawing metrics Representational Organizational**

**Drawing metrics Representational Organizational**

Number of actions −0.15 (0.13) 0.13 (0.11) Number of related elements −0.01 (0.11) 0.18 (0.11) Number of novel elements −0.12 (0.12) 0.13 (0.13) Number of unrelated elements −0.15 (0.14) −0.01 (0.14) Number of big ideas −0.14 (0.18) 0.42 (0.14)*\**

Systematicity 0.22 (0.23) 0.24 (0.11)*\** Semantic relations 0.03 (0.15) 0.22 (0.11)*\** Connections −0.09 (0.16) 0.66 (0.18)*\** Number of captions −0.02 (0.13) 0.15 (0.12)

Number of actions −0.16 (0.12) 0.24 (0.09)*\** Number of related elements 0.14 (0.11) 0.07 (0.11) Number of novel elements 0.40 (0.09) 0.10 (0.11) Number of unrelated elements 0.07 (0.10) −0.11 (0.13) Number of big ideas 0.10 (0.13) 0.22 (0.10)*\**

Systematicity 0.21 (0.15) 0.27 (0.13)*\** Semantic relations 0.16 (0.11) 0.24 (0.12)*\** Connections 0.73 (0.17)*\** 0.60 (0.14)*\** Number of captions −0.02 (0.12) 0.07 (0.10)

These results provide additional empirical evidence that metacomprehension accuracy is influenced by cue diagnosticity and cue utilization.

Metacomprehension accuracy was greater for the Organizational-Drawing group than the Representational-Drawing group. Drawings provided diagnostic cues for the Organizational-Drawing group but not for the Representational-Drawing group. Moreover, diagnostic cues were utilized for metacomprehension judgments for the Organizational-Drawing group but not for the Representational-Drawing group.

contribute to a high level of judgment accuracy.

*Note: the number in parentheses is the standard error of the mean.*

*Note: the number in parentheses is the standard error of the mean.*

*Cue diagnosticity for drawing metrics by group.*

*Indicates a correlation is significantly different than zero (p < 0.05).*

*Cue utilization for drawing metrics by group.*

*Indicates a correlation is significantly different than zero (p < 0.05).*

Metacomprehension accuracy is important to reading comprehension because monitoring guides decisions about rereading [31, 44], which improves overall comprehension [32, 45]. Thus, it is important to find ways to improve metacomprehension accuracy.

The cue-utilization framework of metacognitive monitoring [14] suggests improving monitoring accuracy involves identifying cues that are highly diagnostic of test performance and then instructing people to use those cues when making judgments. Thus, as described above, researchers have employed a variety of techniques to help facilitate the construction of a situation model or access the situation model prior to judging comprehension because this arguably provides cues that are highly diagnostic of comprehension tests. Researchers have also employed other techniques to promote use of diagnostic cues when making metacomprehension judgments [18].

Recent research using drawings as an encoding task shows promise in improving metacomprehension accuracy. This research shows that drawings need to emphasize the underlying organization of the phenomenon described in the text to improve metacomprehension accuracy, which is consistent with research showing the effect of graphics on metacomprehension accuracy is determined by the nature of the graphics presented with texts [46–48]. Specifically, organizational graphics improved metacomprehension accuracy and other graphics have little or adverse effects on metacomprehension accuracy [47].

The GAP-drawing provides a scoring system to help identify specific attributes of drawings that could be diagnostic of comprehension and utilized as a basis for metacomprehension judgments. Our findings suggest that with instruction on generating organizational drawings while reading, metrics related to drawing relations are predictive of test performance (diagnostic). Moreover, the instruction promoted utilization of these cues when judging comprehension.

Instructions focused on generating organizational drawings improved metacomprehension accuracy and comprehension. Thus, drawing can influence learning. More research is needed to identify the most effective instruction for drawing. With attention to cue diagnosticity and cue utilization, this research could reshape the field of metacomprehension.
