Compliance with MetaTutor's summarize, stay-on-subgoal, move-to-next-subgoal, and open-diagram prompts shows no significant effect on learning gains¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.
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.
q3 i? No significant effects and small effect sizes were found for summarize, stay on subgoal, move to next subgoal, and open the diagram prompts. → Lallé 2017
Evidence¶
Lallé 2017¶
Lallé, S., Mudrick, N., Conati, C., Taub, M., Azevedo, R. (2017). On the Influence on Learning of Student Compliance with Prompts Fostering Self-Regulated Learning. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. https://educationaldatamining.org/EDM2017/
q3 · i? · associational · r1
In the same regression analysis of explicit compliance rates, the four remaining prompts showed no significant effects; Appendix A reports e.g. summarizing F1,20 = 1.76, p=.20, ηp2 =.06 and open diagram F1,20 = 0.71, p=.41, ηp2 =.08. No standardized effect size warrants a non-null impact code.
"We found no significant effects and small effect sizes (see Appendix A) for the four remaining prompts, namely summarize, stay on subgoal or move to next subgoal , and open the diagram ."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
-
Training in text structure improves college students' summaries, but summarizing has not been shown here to improve recall or writing more than rereading or other active reading — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
-
Metacognitive prompts improve learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- No behavioral measure of compliance with MetaTutor's stay-on-page and move-to-next-page prompts relates to learning gains — related
- More fixations on the learning content after an add-subgoal prompt are associated with higher learning gains, suggesting complying with that prompt may not be effective — related
- Higher compliance with MetaTutor's review-notes prompt is associated with larger proportional learning gains — related
- Higher compliance with MetaTutor's revise-summary prompt is associated with larger proportional learning gains — related
- Higher compliance with MetaTutor's suggest-subgoal prompt is associated with larger proportional learning gains — related
- Providing subgoals did not help on the Missionaries and Cannibals problem but facilitated performance on an extended 5-Missionaries and 5-Cannibals variant — related
- Prompt compliance varied widely across the four metacognitive prompts, with interactive prompts responded to more appropriately — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-learning-effect-for-four-explicit-srl-prompts |
title |
Compliance with MetaTutor's summarize, stay-on-subgoal, move-to-next-subgoal, and open-diagram prompts shows no significant effect on learning gains |
description |
Compliance with MetaTutor's summarize, stay-on-subgoal, move-to-next-subgoal, and open-diagram prompts shows no significant effect on learning gains |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — lallé-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.