Interest ratings were the only significant predictor of readers' predictive judgments of understanding¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In a simultaneous regression, interest ratings, not actual outcomes or helpfulness, significantly predicted composite predictions. → Wiley 2019

Evidence¶

Wiley 2019¶

Wiley, J. (2019). Picture this! Effects of photographs, diagrams, animations, and sketching on learning and beliefs about learning from a geoscience text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3495

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Regression analysis in the 120-participant study: "ratings of interest were found to be the only significant predictor of the composite predictions". The article reports R2 = .13 but no standardized coefficients, so no effect size is coded.

"three predictors (ratings of interest, ratings of helpfulness, and actual learning outcome composites) were entered into a simultaneous regression, R2 = .13, F (3, 116) = 5.86, p < .001. As shown in Table 2, ratings of interest were found to be the only significant predictor of the composite predictions."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Motivation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Interest — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Spatial thinking and generative activity reduced monitoring error while higher interest increased it — related
• Instructional condition did not significantly affect readers' predictive judgments of understanding — related
• Sketching and viewing animations produced the best understanding of a geoscience text, while the photograph condition produced the worst — related
• Monitoring judgments are positively associated with learning outcomes (β = 0.29) — related