In the case study, the student with the most coded activities scored highest on the questionnaire and the student with the fewest scored lowest, but all four over-rated Orienting & planning relative to their protocols¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? The student executing the highest number of activities (292) showed the highest overall questionnaire score (M=2.17) and the student with the fewest (74) the lowest (M=1.64); on Orienting & planning all four students rated relatively high frequencies despite low protocol percentages. → Gonny Schellings 2011
Evidence¶
Gonny Schellings 2011¶
Gonny Schellings. (2011). Applying learning strategy questionnaires: problems and possibilities. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9069-5
q1 · i? · associational · r2
Descriptive analysis of four case-study students' protocol activity counts versus questionnaire scale means; the expected trend was visible across students. The author adds that the Orienting & planning scale "might be affected by social desirability."
"the student executing the highest number of activities (student 2: 292 activities) showed the highest overall score on the questionnaire ( M=2.17), whereas the student who executed the least number of activities (student 4: 74 activities) ended up with the lowest overall score on the questionnaire ( M=1.64)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Planner and reviser questionnaire scores show frequency main effects on several online activities, with no interaction with episode — related
- A task-specific questionnaire built item-by-item from a think-aloud coding taxonomy correlated r=.51 with think-aloud protocols, higher than the -.07 to .42 regularly reported — related
- Low questionnaire–think-aloud correlations may have two alternative explanations besides poor self-report ability: the methods may measure different strategies or be aimed at different tasks — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
case-study-activity-count-questionnaire-trend |
title |
In the case study, the student with the most coded activities scored highest on the questionnaire and the student with the fewest scored lowest, but all four over-rated Orienting & planning relative to their protocols |
description |
In the case study, the student with the most coded activities scored highest on the questionnaire and the student with the fewest scored lowest, but all four over-rated Orienting & planning relative to their protocols |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
recheck_by |
2014 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gonny-schellings-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.