Overt student behavior is an unreliable proxy for covert cognitive engagement and instructional effectiveness¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Overt behavior does not reliably indicate the covert cognitive processes that determine learning effectiveness. → Thurn 2023

Evidence¶

Thurn 2023¶

Thurn, C. M., Edelsbrunner, P. A., Berkowitz, M., Deiglmayr, A. & Schalk, L. (2023). Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework. npj Science of Learning 8:49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00197-4

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Argumentative synthesis in a comment article: the authors draw on educational research on instructional quality to conclude that "overt behavior is an unreliable proxy" and that covert features determine learning effectiveness. No effect sizes are reported.

"To sum up, overt behavior is an unreliable proxy of the cognitive activities of students and of the effectiveness of instruction"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Overt retrieval practice produces higher delayed recall of definitions than covert retrieval practice for learners studying declarative concepts — related
• Both overt and covert retrieval practice outperform restudy when practice and test match (the testing effect) — related
• The overt-retrieval advantage does not significantly differ by definition complexity (number of idea units), contrary to a retrieval-dynamics prediction — related
• Overt retrieval also outperforms covert retrieval for key terms, but with a smaller advantage than for definitions — related
• Transfer across response formats is incomplete: practicing terms benefited definition recall, but practicing definitions showed no overt-over-covert advantage on a term test — related
• Covert retrieval is the most time-efficient practice strategy, yielding the largest gains per minute of practice for both terms and definitions — related
• Cue-only JOLs, but not cue–target JOLs, showed the inverted U-shaped JOL–response-time relationship taken as a behavioral signature of covert retrieval (Experiment 1) — related
• Response format (overt vs. covert retrieval) did not affect final cued recall in spaced retrieval practice, and list structure (blocked vs. random; proportion of overt trials) did not moderate the effect. — related
• No significant difference in learning between overt (observable) and covert (mental) practice during film participation — related