The hypothesised mediation of prompt effects on self-efficacy via strategy use was not confirmed because prompts did not affect strategy use¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Prompting did not influence self-reported online strategy use or the quality of strategies in notes, so the prerequisites for the hypothesised mediation were not met. → Nadja Gentner & Tina Seufert 2020

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

Regression-based mediator analysis (Hayes 2018 approach) testing whether prompts affected self-efficacy indirectly via strategy use. Prompts predicted neither self-reported cognitive (β = 0.16, p = .18) nor metacognitive strategy use (β = 0.03, p = .78), nor note quality (β = -0.18, p = .12; β = -0.19, p = .11), so the mediation could not be tested further.

"Prompting learnerswhile learning did neither influence learners’self- reported cognitive online strategy use,β =0 . 1 6 ,p = .18, nor learners’self-reported metacognitive online strategy use (β =0 . 0 3 ,p = .78). The prerequisites for a mediation were not reached in this case."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Metacognitive prompts improve learning — reports the opposite
• Cognitive load showed no significant mediation of the effects of navigation features or self-explanation prompts on video learning outcomes — related