Strategy effectiveness varied across profiles: main idea selection helped only the ambivalent group and trial-and-error helped only the moderate group¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Trial and Error showed a significant positive effect only in the Moderate Group, and neither it nor Problem Solving was significant in G1 or G3. → Zhu 2026

Evidence¶

Zhu 2026¶

Zhu, S., Yao, Y., Cheong, C. M., & Zhu, X. (2026). Latent motivational-emotional profiles and their effects on strategy use and performance in online multimodal reading tasks: A mixed-methods investigation. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102386

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Multigroup path analysis of procedural strategies (trial and error, problem solving) across the three profiles; the article reports this as a small effect and states that both strategies were non-significant in G1 and G3.

"only the "Trial and Error" strategy showed a significant positive effect in the G2 (β = .227, p < .05), indicating a small effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The ambivalent profile reported the highest OMR strategy use but achieved the lowest OMR performance, while the positive profile scored highest — related
• Ambivalent-profile students undervalued visual information and rigidly applied print-reading strategies, undermining their OMR comprehension — related
• The disorientation strategy negatively predicted OMR performance in the moderate and ambivalent profiles but not in the positive profile — related
• Hong Kong fourth graders' OMR self-efficacy and emotions form three distinct motivational-emotional profiles: positive, moderate, and ambivalent — a broader claim this one bears on