Pop-up cues contributed only modestly to note taking, triggering note taking in under 4% of instances¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only 3.83% of cues triggered note taking, though 9.82% of PC+ notes were taken in response to a cue and 5.98% of cues led to other PC actions. → Sarah Manlove 2007

Evidence¶

Sarah Manlove 2007¶

Sarah Manlove, Ard W. Lazonder & Ton de Jong. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Logfile analysis of cue responses among the 20 PC+ dyads; percentages are descriptive, no effect size or significance test is printed for cue response rates.

"On average, 9.82% of the PC+ dyads ’note taking occurred in response to a cue. Still, a mere 3.83% of all cues triggered note taking activity, while 5.98% of the cues resulted in a regulative action with the PC other than note taking."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Predictive cues aid transfer of perceptual representations into working memory via pre-encoding top-down modulation — related
• Retro-cues during maintenance dynamically modulate working memory representations and confer large performance benefits — related
• In the generalized condition, compliance with several suggested actions was associated with higher essay scores, with one exception: note-taking after the last scaffold was associated with lower essay scores. — related
• Higher model quality was associated with less goal viewing and note taking, while lab report scores correlated positively with regulative tool use and negatively with helpfile viewing — related