Prompts increased learners' self-efficacy during learning within the prompted group but did not produce between-group differences at mid-learning or post-learning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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.
q3 i2 Self-efficacy increased significantly over the three measurement points in the prompted group (ηp2 = .26) but not in the control group, producing a time × condition interaction (ηp2 = .07). → Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert 2020
q3 i? Despite the within-group increase, prompted and non-prompted learners did not differ in self-efficacy 20 minutes into learning or immediately after learning. → Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert 2020 (2)
Evidence¶
Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert 2020¶
Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert. (2020). The Double-Edged Interactions of Prompts and Self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09227-7
q3 · i2 · causal · r2
Mixed ANOVA (condition between-subjects, time before/during/after learning within-subjects) on self-efficacy ratings. The time × condition interaction was significant, ηp2 = .07; within the prompted group self-efficacy rose significantly (F(2,66) = 11.91, p < .001, ηp2 = .26) but not in the control group (F(2,66) = 0.39, ns).
"the analysis indicated an interaction effect between time and condition F(2,134) = 4.70, p =. 0 1 ,ηp2 = .07 (medium effect), ε = .886."
Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert 2020 (2)¶
Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert. (2020). The Double-Edged Interactions of Prompts and Self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09227-7
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Follow-up t-tests comparing the prompt and no-prompt groups at the during-learning and after-learning measurement points found "no differences regarding learners ’ self-efficacy" at either point; the increase did not yield between-group differences.
"Analyses indicated no differences regarding learners ’ self-efficacy 20 minutes into learning, t(68) = -1.21, p = .23, and immediately after learning, t(68) = -1.26, p =. 2 1 ."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In Study 1, differences in self-efficacy between the three conditions did not reach significance — related
- The 45-minute prompting lesson significantly increased prompting self-efficacy relative to a business-as-usual control lesson — related
- Students’ prompt self-efficacy increased significantly after the scaffolded GenAI course (t = 3.729, p < .001) — related
- Prompted and control groups show no significant differences in separative elaborations within domains or in additions — related
- Both GLA groups showed a large, significant increase in pipetting self-efficacy, with no difference between conditions — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
prompts-increase-self-efficacy-during-learning |
title |
Prompts increased learners' self-efficacy during learning within the prompted group but did not produce between-group differences at mid-learning or post-learning |
description |
Prompts increased learners' self-efficacy during learning within the prompted group but did not produce between-group differences at mid-learning or post-learning |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — nadja-gentner-tina-seufert-2020, nadja-gentner-tina-seufert-2020-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.