Continuing prompts long-term in learning journals confers no additional benefit: self-reported strategy use and self-efficacy decline across the second unit in both the short-term and long-term conditions, while the quantity of cognitive strategy use in the journals stays stable¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For self-reported cognitive strategy use in unit 2 there was a main effect of time but no main effect of condition and no time × condition interaction, F(3,216)=0.23, p=.87; strategy use decreased irrespective of condition. → Nadja M. Gentner 2024 q3 i2 For self-reported metacognitive strategy use in unit 2 there was a main effect of time, ηp²=0.10, no main effect of condition and no time × condition interaction (F < 1). → Nadja M. Gentner 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Nadja M. Gentner 2024¶

Nadja M. Gentner, Lisa Respondek, Tina Seufert. (2024). Effects of short- and long-term prompting in learning journals on strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes. Instructional Science (2024) 52:919–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09671-x

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Mixed ANOVA (condition short-term vs. long-term as between factor, t5–t8 as within factor) during unit 2, when only the long-term group still received prompts. "Learners’ self-reported cognitive strategy use decreased during unit two irrespective of the condition".

"No interaction of time × condition was found, F(3, 216) = 0.23, p = .87. Learners’ self-reported cognitive strategy use decreased during unit two irrespective of the condition"

Nadja M. Gentner 2024 (2)¶

Nadja M. Gentner, Lisa Respondek, Tina Seufert. (2024). Effects of short- and long-term prompting in learning journals on strategy use, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes. Instructional Science (2024) 52:919–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09671-x

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Mixed ANOVA on self-reported metacognitive strategy use across t5–t8 comparing the short-term and long-term prompting groups. "No time × condition interaction, F < 1" with a main effect of time, ηp² = 0.10, indicating decrease in both groups.

"There was a main effect of time, F(2.65,190.69) = 7.82, p < .001, ηp² = 0.10, but no main effect of condition, F < 1, and no time × condition interaction, F < 1."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Short-term prompting in weekly learning journals increases university students' self-reported cognitive strategy use over time — related
• Short-term prompting in weekly learning journals increases university students' self-reported metacognitive strategy use over time — related
• University students' self-efficacy showed no significant change during a unit of short-term prompting in learning journals — related
• Self-efficacy, but not self-reported strategy use, predicts subsequent exam grades in the university course — related
• Short-term prompting increases the quantity of cognitive strategy use in open-ended learning journals, but not the quantity of metacognitive strategy use — related
• Prompted and control groups show no significant differences in separative elaborations within domains or in additions — related