In-between explaining did not improve metacomprehension accuracy relative to other conditions in either experiment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Contrast analyses on absolute metacomprehension accuracy were not significant in Experiment 1 or Experiment 2. → Lachner 2020

Evidence¶

Lachner 2020¶

Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2020). Timing matters! Explaining between study phases enhances students' learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000396

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In Experiment 2, contrast analysis on absolute accuracy of final judgments of learning, controlling for reading-phase judgments, was not significant, "F(1, 121) = 1.02, p = .315, ηp2 = .008"; the same null held in Experiment 1 (F < 1).

"a contrast analysis with students' final metacomprehension judgments (i.e., the absolute accuracy measure at the last measuring point) as a dependent variable and students' metacomprehension judgements during the reading phase as covariate (Hertzog et al., 2013), was not significant, F(1, 121) = 1.02, p = .315, ηp2 = .008."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Diagramming scaffold also improves absolute metacomprehension accuracy for causal relations, extending the effect beyond relative accuracy — related
• Adding diagram self-assessment to diagram completion does not increase diagnostic cue utilization or metacomprehension accuracy beyond diagramming alone — related
• In Studies 1a and 2, instructional visuals produced no significant difference in test performance or in test and explain relative metacomprehension accuracy — related
• Pre-structured diagrams improved metacomprehension accuracy while self-assessment cues showed no differences — related
• Situation-model-approach interventions produce a medium positive average effect (g = 0.46) on relative metacomprehension accuracy — related