Question quality, not study time, predicted comprehension test performance among questioners¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 1978 · 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 i3 For trained questioners, the correlation between percentage of good comprehension questions and test scores was .62, and question percentage was a significant predictor of achievement, while study time was not. → Marli E.D.A. Andre and Thomas H. Anderson 1978
Evidence¶
Marli E.D.A. Andre and Thomas H. Anderson 1978¶
Marli E.D.A. Andre and Thomas H. Anderson. (1978). The Development and Evaluation of a Self-Questioning Study Technique. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report No. 87. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=The+Development+and+Evaluation+of+a+Self-Questioning+Study+Technique
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
Multiple regression analyses in Experiment 2 using study time and percentage of good questions as predictors. For trained questioners r = .62 (p < .01) for question percentage and r = .11 (p > .05) for time; only question percentage was a significant predictor, t(21) = 3.58, p < .005. For untrained questioners the correlation was .37, p < .05.
"the correlation between amount of study time and achievement was .11, p > .05, whereas the correlation between percentage of good comprehension questions and test scores was .62, p < .01."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Tutors' proportion of knowledge-building responses to an agent's adaptive follow-up questions predicts conceptual and procedural post-test scores — related
- Answers to elaborative interrogation questions were mostly poor in quality, and answer quality correlated positively with posttest scores — related
- Questioning-with-training produced higher posttest scores than read-reread study (Experiment 2) — related
- Reading comprehension measured with open questions uniquely predicts integration while cloze-measured comprehension does not — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
question-quality-not-time-predicts-achievement |
title |
Question quality, not study time, predicted comprehension test performance among questioners |
description |
Question quality, not study time, predicted comprehension test performance among questioners |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
1978 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — marli-eda-andre-and-thomas-h-anderson-1978 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.