Monitoring tool effects were larger in shorter interventions, contrary to the duration hypothesis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Effect sizes were highest for monitoring tools implemented in shorter studies, contradicting the expectation that longer interventions would be more effective. → Dignath 2023

Evidence¶

Dignath 2023¶

Dignath, C., van Ewijk, R., Perels, F., & Fabriz, S. (2023). Let Learners Monitor the Learning Content and Their Learning Behavior! A Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Tools to Foster Monitoring. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09718-4

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Moderator analysis of intervention duration across the 32 included studies (duration ranged from 2 to 28 weeks, M = 12.43, SD = 6.92). The review reports effects were highest for tools "implemented in shorter studies".

"Effect sizes were highest for tools that (1) focused on the monitoring of both learning content as well as learning behavior, (2) stimulated metacognitive monitoring, and (3) were implemented in shorter studies."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Effects of monitoring tools are highest when tools address both learning content and learning behavior and stimulate metacognitive monitoring — related
• Intervention duration significantly moderates Gen-AI's effect on HOT, with the strongest effects at 8–16 weeks (ES = 0.759) and weaker effects for shorter (0.494) and longer (0.372) interventions — related
• Monitoring tools show low effects on learning motivation (d = 0.17) — related