In the diagram-only condition teachers rely mainly on performance cues but fabricate student cues for half the students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Teachers in the diagram-only condition used fabricated student cues for 50% of the students despite not knowing student identity. → Janneke van de Pol 2021 q2 i? In the diagram-only condition teachers mainly used performance cues (78% of cue use). → Janneke van de Pol 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Janneke van de Pol 2021¶

Janneke van de Pol, Selia N. van den Boom-Muilenburg, Tamara van Gog. (2021). Exploring the relations between teachers' cue-utilization, monitoring and regulation of students' text learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09268-6

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Qualitative analysis of 125 think-aloud protocols, coded with a scheme of four categories and 27 subcategories (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.82), showed teachers "used fabri- cated student cues for 50% of the students", e.g. guessing gender or intelligence from the work.

"Furthermore, as expected, teachers in the diagram-only condition used fabri- cated student cues for 50% of the students."

Janneke van de Pol 2021 (2)¶

Janneke van de Pol, Selia N. van den Boom-Muilenburg, Tamara van Gog. (2021). Exploring the relations between teachers' cue-utilization, monitoring and regulation of students' text learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09268-6

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The think-aloud coding showed diagram-only condition cue use was dominated by performance cues: "teachers mainly used performance cues (78%)", with task cues and miscellaneous cues each at 11%.

"In the diagram-only condition, teachers mainly used performance cues (78%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

-