Cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports show the largest intervention-category benchmarks, while assessment and contextual interventions show the smallest¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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? Across intervention categories, learning-strategy supports yield the largest quartiles (raw 0.36, 0.65, 1.15) and assessment/contextual interventions the smallest (raw 0.18, 0.43, 0.75). → Mehmet Bicakci 2026
Evidence¶
Mehmet Bicakci 2026¶
Mehmet Bicakci, Heidrun Stoeger, Diana Wengler, Albert Ziegler. (2026). Recalibrating impact in STEM education: Empirical benchmarks for interpreting intervention effects. Educational Research Review 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100803
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Subgroup analysis by intervention category in the umbrella dataset; the article reports "cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports yielded the largest quartiles, whereas assessment and contextual interventions yielded the smallest" (Table 2).
"Greater differentiation was observed across intervention categories: cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports yielded the largest quartiles, whereas assessment and contextual interventions yielded the smallest."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- STEM field benchmarks differ markedly: science shows the largest quartiles and mathematics the smallest — related
- SRL training effects vary by outcome category, largest for metacognitive strategies (g = .40) and smallest for cognitive strategies (g = .32) — related
- Benchmarks are sensitive to precision and publication bias, but subgroup ordering remains stable and one-per-primary-study quartiles are broadly similar to raw values — related
- Raw effect size quartiles for STEM education interventions overall are 0.21, 0.48, and 0.86 at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles — a broader claim this one bears on
- Metacognitive and strategic scaffolding show larger effects in PBL-STEM than conceptual scaffolding — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
intervention-category-benchmark-heterogeneity |
title |
Cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports show the largest intervention-category benchmarks, while assessment and contextual interventions show the smallest |
description |
Cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports show the largest intervention-category benchmarks, while assessment and contextual interventions show the smallest |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mehmet-bicakci-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.