Prompt compliance varied widely across the four metacognitive prompts, with interactive prompts responded to more appropriately¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The prioritize prompt was responded to appropriately in 17 of 17 cases, while the set goal prompt was responded to appropriately in only 3 of 17 cases. → Rebecca Pape 2026

Evidence¶

Rebecca Pape 2026¶

Rebecca Pape, Joachim Thomas. (2026). Exploring young learners’ prompted and unprompted SRL think-alouds. Learning and Instruction 102 (2026) 102294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102294

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Think-aloud analysis of prompt use among the 17 prompted participants; compliance ranged from "three out of 17 times (M1 = 17.65 %)" for the set goal prompt to 100% for the prioritize prompt.

"The set goal prompt was responded to appro- priately in three out of 17 times (M1 = 17.65 %). The prioritize prompt was appropriately responded to in 17 out of 17 times (M2 = 100 %). The reflect prompt was appropriately reacted to in five out of 17 times (M3 = 29.4 %)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Metacognitive prompts improve learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Higher compliance with MetaTutor's revise-summary prompt is associated with larger proportional learning gains — related
• Compliance with MetaTutor's summarize, stay-on-subgoal, move-to-next-subgoal, and open-diagram prompts shows no significant effect on 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
• No behavioral measure of compliance with MetaTutor's stay-on-page and move-to-next-page prompts relates to learning gains — related