Generating or comparing keywords had no substantial effect on posttest learning performance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · 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? The three conditions did not differ significantly in posttest performance, indicating keyword generation and comparison affected judgment accuracy rather than learning itself in this study. → Waldeyer 2021
Evidence¶
Waldeyer 2021¶
Waldeyer, J., & Roelle, J. (2021). The keyword effect: A conceptual replication, effects on bias, and an optimization. Metacognition and Learning, 16, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09235-7
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Preliminary ANOVA comparing the three conditions on the 20-item inference posttest (Cronbach's α = .61). "we did not find a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding posttest performance", F(2, 105) = 2.57, p = .082; the printed ηp2 = .05 was descriptive of this non-significant test.
"we did not find a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding posttest performance, F(2, 105) = 2.57, p =. 0 8 2 ,ηp2 =. 0 5"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Generating keywords after a delay increases relative judgment accuracy compared with no keyword generation, replicating the keyword effect with a new sample and new materials
- Generating delayed keywords does not reduce bias in comprehension judgments
- Comparing self-generated keywords with expert keywords increases bias, specifically underconfidence
- The keyword-quality–JOL correlation increases after comparison with expert keywords, indicating learners exploit keyword quality as a cue only when given external standards
- Test performance differs by cue-prompt condition in Experiment 1, with higher scores in the no-cue condition than the summary condition. — related
- Comprehension-test expectancy tended to be more effective than delayed-keywords listing and rereading, though interventions did not substantially differ overall — related
- The quality of sixth-graders' keywords is not diagnostic of intra-individual variation in test performance (Experiment 1). — related
- Organizational cues during a lecture have a large effect on understanding of lecture structure and memory for details — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
keyword-generation-no-posttest-learning-effect |
title |
Generating or comparing keywords had no substantial effect on posttest learning performance |
description |
Generating or comparing keywords had no substantial effect on posttest learning performance |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — waldeyer-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.