The authors judge insufficient instructional intensity (dosage) as the primary factor behind the null result of learning strategies instruction in adult education¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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.
q1 i? The authors' post hoc judgment is that insufficient instructional intensity (dosage) was the primary factor affecting study outcomes, since strategy instruction requires explicit, intensive, and systematic delivery that adult education settings could not sustain. → Hock Michael F. 2011
Evidence¶
Hock Michael F. 2011¶
Hock Michael F., Mellard Daryl F. (2011). Efficacy of learning strategies instruction in adult basic education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(2), 134-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.555291
q1 · i? · causal · r2
Authors' interpretation in the Discussion, not a tested result. They note prior research indicates adolescents may require as much as 90 hours to reach mastery of a new reading strategy, while this study delivered 19 to 34 planned hours, of which completers received 68% to 86%.
"However, after reflecting on the data and our observations, our judgment is that insufficient instructional intensity (dosage) was the primary factor affecting study outcomes."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Too few studies exist to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors (age, gender, screen size, dosage, SAMR-based activities) or on whether benefits persist beyond the post-test — related
- No specific coaching dosage is established as necessary; coaching outcomes appear more sensitive to coaching quality than dosage, with sustained duration favoring comprehensive coaching — related
- Coaching dosage shows precisely estimated null effects: more coaching hours are not associated with larger program effects — related
- Retention and delivered instructional minutes did not differ significantly between experimental and control conditions, and completers received well under planned dosage — related
- Intervention dosage moderates child language outcomes: brief interventions under 60 minutes show no significant effect — related
- Reading instructions without further instructional support are not sufficient to help students accurately judge their text comprehension — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
insufficient-dosage-primary-factor-null-strategy-outcome |
title |
The authors judge insufficient instructional intensity (dosage) as the primary factor behind the null result of learning strategies instruction in adult education |
description |
The authors judge insufficient instructional intensity (dosage) as the primary factor behind the null result of learning strategies instruction in adult education |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hock-michael-f-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.