Target strategy use did not vary by instructional support condition for any of the three fraction comparison tasks¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Chi-square analyses revealed that use of the targeted comparison strategy did not vary by condition at first draft or revision for Tasks A, B, and C. → Guba 2026

Evidence¶

Guba 2026¶

Guba, T.-P., Barbieri, C. A., Jansen, A., & Morris, A. (2026). Supports for preservice teachers' metacognitive monitoring and explanations of fraction comparisons. Instructional Science (2026) 54:18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09773-0

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Analysis of strategy use in the coding of the N = 87 sample (analytic sample reduced to n = 77), reported alongside first-draft target-strategy rates of 72% (n = 63/87) for Task A, 94% (n = 82/87) for Task B, and 62% (n = 53/85) for Task C. No effect sizes are printed for these null tests.

"Usage of target strategy did not vary by condition for any of the three tasks (Task A: χ2 [2] = 0.274, p =.872; Task B: χ2 [2] = 2.886, p =.236; Task C: χ2 [2] = 4.857, p =.088). As there were no systematic differences by condition, this does not impact interpretation of our results in relation to condition effects."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Self-Regulation — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Students are far more inclined to use conceptual and textual representational tools than arithmetical ones, and collaboration does not stimulate arithmetical tool use — related
• Most preservice teachers were overconfident in the completeness of their fraction comparison explanations at both first draft and revision — related
• Correct exemplars supported greater detection and correction of errors and omissions in explanations than a list of steps focused on structural aspects — related