Claims

Metacognitive prompting did not significantly support young learners’ recall learning performance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Prompted learners (M = 58.32% correctness) and control learners (M = 55.71%) did not differ significantly on a 10-min recall knowledge test. → 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 · r2

Posttest analysis of the 10-min recall knowledge test after the 30-min CBLE session; the Mann-Whitney U test found "no significant difference between the groups" (U = 145.50, Z = .343, p = .736).

"The statistical analysis showed, using a Mann-Whitney U test, no significant difference between the groups (U = 145.50, Z = .343, p = .736). Hence, the metacognitive prompts did not significantly support the students’ recall learning performance."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id prompting-no-recall-performance-effect
title Metacognitive prompting did not significantly support young learners’ recall learning performance
description Metacognitive prompting did not significantly support young learners’ recall learning performance
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2026
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — rebecca-pape-2026

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.