Diagramming conditions show no significant differences from control in regulation measures or reading comprehension test scores for causal relations¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
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.
q3 i? No significant differences among conditions were found in metacomprehension-based regulation, comprehension-based regulation, or test scores for causal relations. → Pijeira-Díaz 2023
Evidence¶
Pijeira-Díaz 2023¶
Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., van de Pol, J., Channa, F., & de Bruin, A. (2023). Scaffolding self-regulated learning from causal-relations texts: Diagramming and self-assessment to improve metacomprehension accuracy? Metacognition and Learning, 18, 631–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09343-0
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Supplementary analyses in the randomized experiment found "no significant differences among conditions in terms of test scores for relations"; regulation measures for relations and facts likewise showed no significant differences (e.g., p = .067 and p = .086).
"There were no significant differences among conditions in terms of test scores for relations, F(3, 2538) = 1.189, p = .130, η 2 p =0 .002."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Diagramming scaffold also improves absolute metacomprehension accuracy for causal relations, extending the effect beyond relative accuracy — related
- Diagramming scaffold improves relative metacomprehension accuracy for causal relations in expository texts — related
- Pre-structured diagrams improved metacomprehension accuracy while self-assessment cues showed no differences — related
- Adding diagram self-assessment to diagram completion does not increase diagnostic cue utilization or metacomprehension accuracy beyond diagramming alone — related
- Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
- Monitoring accuracy predicts comprehension-based regulation accuracy, and cue availability also has an indirect effect on regulation accuracy via monitoring accuracy — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
diagramming-no-effect-regulation-test-scores |
title |
Diagramming conditions show no significant differences from control in regulation measures or reading comprehension test scores for causal relations |
description |
Diagramming conditions show no significant differences from control in regulation measures or reading comprehension test scores for causal relations |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — pijeira-díaz-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.