No correlation between motivation or engagement measures and tutor learning gains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Matsuda 2013: groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-28)

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No notable correlation between motivation factors and learning gains on either test, and no notable correlation between engagement and tutor learning. → Matsuda 2013

Evidence¶

Matsuda 2013¶

Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Studying the Effect of a Competitive Game Show in a Learning by Teaching Environment. Int J Artif Intell Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013-0009-1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Correlational analysis within the classroom study linking questionnaire motivation constructs and process-data engagement variables to test gains; a few motivation–engagement correlations existed but were relatively small.

"There was no notable correlation between the motivation factors and the learning gain on the test scores (both on the procedural skill test and the conceptual knowledge test)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The competitive Game Show increased students' tutoring engagement relative to baseline — related
• Motivational SRL factors correlate with but do not directly predict Japanese EFL learners' proficiency — related
• Low- and high-proficiency EFL learners differ significantly in self-efficacy, intrinsic goal orientation, and test anxiety — related
• Pre-instruction LCTSR scores correlate with normalized learning gains, most strongly for theoretical content (TUG-K r=0.59) and more weakly for descriptive content (DIRECT r=0.50) — related
• Low-prior-knowledge tutors with high %KBR outperformed their low-%KBR counterparts at post-test and scored statistically equivalent to high-prior peers — related
• Post-test scores correlate with motivation, response time, reading time and in-game accuracy — reports the opposite