Intervention effects on comprehension and regulation accuracy do not differ by home language (English vs other)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Adding home language as a factor showed no main effect of home language on monitoring accuracy, comprehension, or either regulation accuracy measure, and the overall pattern of results was similar. → Hepner 2024

Evidence¶

Hepner 2024¶

Hepner, S. L., Oudman, S., Carlson, T. E., van de Pol, J., & van Gog, T. (2024). Improving (meta)comprehension: Feedback and self-assessment. Learning and Instruction, 92, 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101922

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory re-analysis of the randomized experiment with home language (103 of 258 students spoke a language other than English at home) as an additional fixed effect and interaction term; no significant home-language effects emerged.

"The models that added home language not English as a factor showed no main effect of home language (monitoring accuracy: F (1,237) = 0.06, p = .8; comprehension: F (1,237) = 2.95, p = .09, partial η2 = .01; monitoring-based regulation accuracy: F (1,237) = 0.02, p = .90; comprehension-based regulation accuracy: F (1,237) = 0.19, p = .66)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Model answers improve both monitoring-based and comprehension-based regulation accuracy — related
• Phonological awareness accounted for more unique variance in reading accuracy than RAN in the orthographies studied, while English was the only orthography where RAN added substantial unique variance (14.2%) and total explained variance was highest (39%) — related