Learners report more positive attitudes toward externally regulated prompts than self-regulated prompts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2004 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Across the four role-of-instructional-prompts items, externally regulated prompts received significantly higher ratings (M = 4.18 vs. 3.73), F(1,47) = 5.40, p = .03, Cohen's f = .34. → Reisslein 2004 q2 i? On the single item about hints helping learning, externally regulated prompts scored significantly higher (M = 4.37 vs. 3.75), F(1,49) = 6.18, p = .02. → Reisslein 2004 (2)

Evidence¶

Reisslein 2004¶

Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2004). Exploring the Presentation and Format of Help in a Computer-Based Electrical Engineering Learning Environment. Arizona State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED484994

q2 · i2 · causal · r2

MANOVA of attitude survey data from the 51-participant experiment found a "significant overall main effect across the four items relating to the presentation of prompts", favoring externally regulated prompts with Cohen's f = .34.

"there was a significant overall main effect across the four items relating to the presentation of prompts, ( M = 4.18 for externally regulated prompts and M = 3.73 for self-regulated prompts), F(1,47) = 5.40, MSE = .45, p = .03. Cohen's f statistic for these data yields an effect size of .34, which corresponds to medium to large effect."

Reisslein 2004 (2)¶

Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2004). Exploring the Presentation and Format of Help in a Computer-Based Electrical Engineering Learning Environment. Arizona State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED484994

q2 · i? · causal · r2

A univariate ANOVA on the hint-helpfulness item in the same attitude data showed "significantly higher scores on the item“The instructional explanations (hint s) helped me to learn”" for externally regulated prompts.

"revealed significantly higher scores on the item “The instructional explanations (hint s) helped me to learn” for the externally regulated prompts ( M = 4.37 for externally regulated prompts and 3.75 for self -regulated prompts, F(1,49) = 6.18, MSE = .79, p = .02)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Textual prompts yield significantly stronger continuing motivation than pictorial prompts — related
• Students may be unaware of the absence of objectives: the no-objectives group gave the highest ratings on objective-related attitude items — related
• Students notice the absence of practice and examples: attitude items about those events are rated lower when the events are missing — related
• Self-regulated vs. externally regulated prompt presentation shows no significant effect on posttest performance and no interaction with prompt format — related
• Textual instructional prompts yield significantly higher near-transfer posttest performance than pictorial prompts for novice circuit-analysis learners — related
• Draft usefulness varies by grading context: higher for submissions with mistakes and applied questions — related
• Active processing of instructional explanation prompts increase coverage of main content items — related
• Textual prompts produce higher first-attempt practice accuracy, while pictorial prompts produce higher second-attempt accuracy — related