Cognitive and metacognitive prompts did not increase self-reported online strategy use, the quality of strategies in learners' notes, or learning outcomes in hypermedia learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Prompted and non-prompted learners did not differ in self-reported cognitive or metacognitive online strategy use, in the quality of cognitive or metacognitive strategies in their notes, in time on relevant pages, or in recall, comprehension, and transfer outcomes. → Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert 2020 q3 i? A MANCOVA with prior knowledge as covariate showed no systematic differences between groups on the three learning outcome measures. → 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 · i? · causal · r2

Between-subjects experiment with N = 70 first-semester psychology students learning with hypermedia; independent t-tests compared the prompt and no-prompt groups on self-reported online strategies, note quality, and navigation. The study reports "no statistically significant differences between both groups ’ self-reported cognitive online learning strategies"; equivalence was not tested.

"In contrast to our expectations, analyses indicated that no statistically significant differences between both groups ’ self-reported cognitive online learning strategies existed, t(63.5) = -1.34, p = .09 (one-tailed)."

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

MANCOVA on the post-test (recall, comprehension, transfer) with prior knowledge as covariate found "no systematic differences regarding learning outcomes" between the prompt and no-prompt groups; no effect size was printed for this null result.

"Following Pillai’st r a c e the analysis indicated no systematic differences regarding learning outcomes (recall, comprehension, transfer) between the groups V = 0.003, F(3,65) = 0.063, ns."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The hypothesised mediation of prompt effects on self-efficacy via strategy use was not confirmed because prompts did not affect strategy use — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Metacognitive prompts improve learning — reports the opposite
• Self-regulated learning improves achievement — a broader claim this one bears on
• Combining cognitive and metacognitive prompts optimizes germane processing; metacognitive prompts alone help only when remedial planning is prompted and remediation is possible — reports the opposite
• 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
• Short-term prompting increases the quantity of cognitive strategy use in open-ended learning journals, but not the quantity of metacognitive strategy use — reports the opposite
• Generative learning strategy prompts with metacognitive feedback yield higher self-regulation, strategy-use quality, recall and comprehension than strategy tools alone, controlling for prior knowledge — reports the opposite
• 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
• Metacognitive prompting did not significantly support young learners’ recall learning performance — a narrower finding that bears on this claim