Both expert and negative example standards increase perceived mental effort during example evaluation, and negative standards increase perceived task difficulty¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2–r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Both standard types significantly increased subjective mental effort during example evaluation, with no interaction. → Linda Froese 2023 q3 i2 Negative example standards significantly increased perceived task difficulty during evaluation, with a significant interaction such that each type raised difficulty only in the absence of the other. → Linda Froese 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Linda Froese 2023¶

Linda Froese, Julian Roelle. (2023). Expert example but not negative example standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09347-w

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

In the 2×2 ANCOVA on evaluation-phase mental effort, both main effects were significant: "F(1, 122) = 5.98, p = .016, ηp2 = .04" for expert and "F(1, 122) = 6.81, p = .010, ηp2 = .05" for negative standards; the interaction was non-significant.

"Concerning mental effort, we found that both types of standards increased mental effort, F(1, 122) = 5.98, p = .016, ηp2 = .04 for expert example standards, and F(1, 122) = 6.81, p = .010, ηp2 = .05 for negative example standards."

Linda Froese 2023 (2)¶

Linda Froese, Julian Roelle. (2023). Expert example but not negative example standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09347-w

q3 · i2 · causal · r3

On perceived task difficulty during evaluation, negative standards showed a significant main effect, "F(1, 122) = 7.15, p = .009, ηp2 = .05"; a significant interaction (F(1, 122) = 5.30, p = .023, ηp2 = .04) showed each type raised difficulty only without the other.

"Regarding task difficulty, we found a statistically significant main effect of negative example standards, F(1, 122) = 7.15, p = .009, ηp2 = .05, but not of expert example standards, F(1, 122) = 2.64, p = .107, ηp2 = .02."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Expert example standards increase subjective task difficulty and mental effort during example evaluation — related
• Invested mental effort and perceived task difficulty are significantly positively correlated at all measurement points except MP2.5, with correlations increasing as material complexity rises — related