Instructionally supported (prompted) journal writing outperforms unsupported journal writing on learning outcomes (Hedges's g = 0.78)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 A mini meta-analysis of the program's experimental studies found a medium-to-large effect size in favor of instructionally supported journal writing by prompts versus unsupported journal writing. → Nückles 2020

Evidence¶

Nückles 2020¶

Nückles, M., Roelle, J., Glogger-Frey, I., Waldeyer, J., & Renkl, A. (2020). The Self-Regulation-View in Writing-to-Learn: Using Journal Writing to Optimize Cognitive Load in Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09541-1

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r1

Mini meta-analysis (following Goh et al., 2016) pooling the program's experimental studies contrasting prompted with unsupported journal writing, based on data of 238 participants. It showed "a medium-to-large effect size in favor of instructionally supported journal writing by prompts versus unsupported journal writing, Hedges ’s g of 0.78".

"a mini meta-analysis following Goh et al. (2016) showed a medium-to-large effect size in favor of instructionally supported journal writing by prompts versus unsupported journal writing, Hedges ’s g of 0.78, SE = 0.14, p <. 0 0 0 1"

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does the design of a writing prompt (cognitive and metacognitive prompts, a model entry, a stated purpose) change what learners write and learn, compared with an open invitation to write? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 6 narrower claims that bear on it: 3 distinct studies (1 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 associational), q2–q3, 1 of 3 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Keeping a structured learning diary without further intervention did not improve university students' self-regulation — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Metacognitive strategy instruction, which includes comprehension monitoring, improves academic performance by a medium amount, and in one non-randomised study comprehension-monitoring training raised low achievers' reading scores — a broader claim this one bears on
• Reflective Practice Improves Outcomes When Structured — related
• Metacognitive prompts improve learning — related
• Learning journal writing improves learning outcomes, but learners often do not apply sufficient strategies without support; prompts, worked examples and fading are the supports studied — a broader claim this one bears on
• A meta-analysis of 20 studies found a large effect (Hedges' g = 0.871) for CTA use in training design — related
• Cognitive and metacognitive prompts in learning journals helped early in a term but became detrimental by its end; adaptive fading-out mitigated this — related
• A personal utility prompt in journal writing improves learning motivation and comprehension — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Self-explaining a worked example of a learning journal entry enhances strategy use and transfer of journal-writing benefits to a new topic — related
• Without instructional support, learners show low cognitive strategy use and almost absent metacognitive strategies in journal writing, and realized strategy use correlates with learning outcomes — related