Goal-driven manipulations weaken the negative effort–monitoring correlation, which is nonsignificant under incentives, time pressure or self-agency ratings taken singly¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? With any goal-driven manipulation present, the negative effort–monitoring correlation was weaker but still significant (r = −.193, 95% CI [−.332, −.046], k = 21, against r = −.385 without); it became nonsignificant when incentives (r = −.174) or time pressure (r = −.117) were analysed separately, and self-agency effort ratings gave a nonsignificant positive association (r = .283, k = 3). → Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas 2020

Evidence¶

Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas 2020¶

Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas. (2020). The Relation Between Students' Effort and Monitoring Judgments During Learning: A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09569-3

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Moderator analyses (mixed-effects model) comparing studies with versus without goal-driven manipulations found a significant moderation effect, Q(1) = 6.39, p = .011: with a manipulation present the correlation was still significantly negative but lower (r = −.193 against −.385). Analysed separately, the correlation was "nonsignificant when incentives or time pressure were used", and self-agency effort ratings gave a nonsignificant positive association (r = .283, k = 3).

"In support of Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we found that the association between effort and monitoring judgments became nonsignificant when incentives or time pressure were used (see Table1)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Effort appraisals correlate negatively with monitoring judgments: high mental effort is associated with poorer performance judgments — related
• Effort measurement type moderates the correlation: self-agency ratings show a positive association and subjective ratings a stronger negative one than objective measures — related
• Time pressure weakens monitoring-based self-regulation of study time: gamma correlations between judgments of learning and study time are stronger in the untimed than the timed condition — related
• In the multivariate meta-regression, goal-driven manipulation, judgment timing, and task type remain significant moderators — related
• Effort and monitoring judgments show a medium negative correlation (r = −.355) during learning — related
• Task type moderates the correlation: problem-solving tasks show a stronger negative association than word/paired-associate tasks — related
• Monitoring judgment timing moderates the correlation: concurrent judgments show a stronger negative association than prospective judgments — related
• Forced pacing eliminates positive transfer from computer aiding and leads subjects to use strategies requiring many more tests than necessary — related
• Effort ratings correlate negatively with judgments of learning (r = −0.355), but the correlation disappears under a goal-driven interpretation of effort — related
• Mental effort and judgments of learning show a medium-sized negative correlation, moderated by regulation mode and task type — a broader claim this one bears on
• Prior meta-analysis found a negative medium-sized effort–monitoring correlation (r = -0.35), attenuated under goal-driven manipulations — a broader claim this one bears on