Prompted cue type and timing of cue prompt do not interact in their effect on self-assessment accuracy (Experiment 1)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 1, the interaction between prompted cue type and timing of cue prompt on self-assessment accuracy was not statistically significant. → Waldeyer 2024

Evidence¶

Waldeyer 2024¶

Waldeyer, J., Endres, T., Roelle, J., Baars, M., & Renkl, A. (2024). How to Optimize Self-Assessment Accuracy in Cognitive Skill Acquisition When Learning from Worked Examples. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09944-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 exploratory ANOVA analysis (N = 129). The interaction of prompted cue type and timing of cue prompt on absolute accuracy "did not reveal a statistically significant interaction effect", F(1, 125) = 0.10, p = 0.758. No effect size beyond the printed ηp2 < 0.01 was reported.

"The ANOVA, how - ever, did not reveal a statistically significant interaction effect, F(1, 125) = 0.10, p = 0.758, ηp 2 < 0.01."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Informing learners about the to-be-monitored cue before problem-solving did not affect mental effort or problem-solving performance (Experiment 1) — related
• Prompting learners to infer self-assessments from performance-based cues yields better self-assessment accuracy than prompting explanation-based cues in the initial problem-solving phase — related
• Informing learners about the to-be-monitored cue before the problem-solving phase improves self-assessment accuracy compared with informing them only afterwards — related