In the multivariate meta-regression, goal-driven manipulation, judgment timing, and task type remain significant moderators¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Controlling for other moderators, goal-driven manipulations made the correlation less negative, prospective judgments weaker than concurrent, and problem-solving tasks stronger than other tasks. → Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas 2020

Evidence¶

Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas 2020¶

Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas. (2020). The Relation Between Students' Effort and Monitoring Judgments During Learning: A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09569-3

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-regression with one moderator per research question was significant (Q(7) = 51.86, p < .001, R2 = .39); school level and subjective-vs-objective effort measure were no longer significant predictors in this model.

"The model including all moderators (excluding the intercept) was significant,Q(7) = 51.86, p <. 0 0 1 ,R2 = .39."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Monitoring judgment timing moderates the correlation: concurrent judgments show a stronger negative association than prospective judgments — related
• Effort measurement type moderates the correlation: self-agency ratings show a positive association and subjective ratings a stronger negative one than objective measures — related
• Goal-driven manipulations weaken the negative effort–monitoring correlation, which is nonsignificant under incentives, time pressure or self-agency ratings taken singly — related
• Task type moderates the correlation: problem-solving tasks show a stronger negative association than word/paired-associate tasks — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Effort appraisals correlate negatively with monitoring judgments: high mental effort is associated with poorer performance judgments — a broader claim this one bears on
• Effort and monitoring judgments show a medium negative correlation (r = −.355) during learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Effort-rating item wording changes what learners reflect on: requirement wording correlates negatively and engagement wording positively with judgments of learning — related
• Effort ratings correlate negatively with judgments of learning (r = −0.355), but the correlation disappears under a goal-driven interpretation of effort — related
• Mental effort and judgments of learning show a medium-sized negative correlation, moderated by regulation mode and task type — a broader claim this one bears on
• Prior meta-analysis found a negative medium-sized effort–monitoring correlation (r = -0.35), attenuated under goal-driven manipulations — related