Adding time-varying task features roughly halves unexplained variance in disciplinary engagement ratings¶

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? Model 2, adding time-varying task features as contemporaneous predictors, explained about half of the variance in DE ratings (within-group R2 = 0.51), up from 0.34 in Model 1. → Rogat 2026

Evidence¶

Rogat 2026¶

Rogat, T. K., Traynor, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Cheng, B. H. (2026). Situating collaborative disciplinary activity: creating a space for high-quality group engagement. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09772-1

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Model-fit comparison in the Results section of the dynamic structural equation modeling study. The printed within-group R2 values rose from Model 1 (0.28-0.34) to Model 2, with DE at 0.51; no standardized effect size beyond variance explained is printed.

"Model 2, which added time-varying task features as contemporaneous predictors of engagement, explained about half of the variance in the DE ratings: 0.36 for BEt, 0.38 for CEt, 0.46 for MEt, 0.42 for SEt, and 0.51 for DEt."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Disciplinary engagement at one interval positively predicts subsequent behavioral and collaborative engagement
• Open-ended tasks are associated with higher disciplinary engagement in the same observation interval — related
• The structural model explains about half the variance in critical thinking and technical problem-solving and about a third in metacognitive self-regulation — related