Pre-reading relevance instructions did not change reading time on sentences targeted by the questions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There were no differences in reading time across conditions for sentences targeted by the pre-reading questions. → Matthew T. McCrudden 2011

Evidence¶

Matthew T. McCrudden 2011¶

Matthew T. McCrudden. (2011). Do specific relevance instructions promote transfer appropriate processing? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9158-x

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Process measure from the randomized experiment (n = 52): the abstract reports "There were no differences in reading time across conditions for sentences targeted by the pre-reading questions", indicating effects emerged in recall quality rather than reading time. Equivalence was not tested beyond this reported null.

"There were no differences in reading time across conditions for sentences targeted by the pre-reading questions"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Pre-reading relevance instructions produce better cued recall for test questions more similar to the instructions than for questions less similar to them — related
• Relevancy of emphasized text directs attention and influences test performance — related
• Question timing interacts with relevance of rereading: inserted-question students reread more relevant and less non-relevant information than post-reading students — related
• Relevance instructions and guiding questions both improve pre-service teachers' first-order knowledge integration in a reading- and writing-based learning setting with three domain-specific texts — related