Heterogeneity between studies of the metacognition–math association is significant and remains high in all moderator analyses¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q4
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.
q4 i? There was significant heterogeneity between studies in the metacognition–math correlation, and heterogeneity remained high for all moderator analyses. → Gemma Muncer 2021
Evidence¶
Gemma Muncer 2021¶
Gemma Muncer, Philip A. Higham, Corentin J. Gosling, Samuele Cortese, Henry Wood-Downie, & Julie A. Hadwin. (2021). A Meta-Analysis Investigating the Association Between Metacognition and Math Performance in Adolescence. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09620-x
q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
The meta-analysis reports "significant heterogeneity between studies" in the pooled metacognition–math correlation, and states that "heterogeneity remained high for all analyses", including the moderator subgroups. No heterogeneity statistic is printed in the available text.
"There was significant heterogeneity between studies. Consideration of online (versus offline) measures of metacognition and more complex (versus simple) measures of math performance, and their combination, was associated with larger effect sizes; however, heterogeneity remained high for all analyses."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The choice of online versus offline measures of SRL moderates the strength of the relationship between SRL processes and achievement — related
- Planned moderator subgroup analyses could not be conducted because fewer than 10 studies per subgroup were available
- Online (versus offline) measures of metacognition are associated with larger metacognition–math effect sizes — related
- The combination of online metacognition measures with complex math assessments is associated with the largest effect sizes — related
- More complex (versus simple) math performance measures are associated with larger metacognition–math effect sizes — related
- Metacognitive measures show large variability, and online measures relate to each other more than to offline measures — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
metacognition-math-heterogeneity-high |
title |
Heterogeneity between studies of the metacognition–math association is significant and remains high in all moderator analyses |
description |
Heterogeneity between studies of the metacognition–math association is significant and remains high in all moderator analyses |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gemma-muncer-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.