Tell and no-agent conditions showed no significant JoL–confidence correlations, with mixed results for progress and mastery¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the tell condition, no correlation between JoL and any system metric was significant (confidence r = −0.075, progress r = 0.164, mastery r = 0.143). → Graf 2026 q2 i2 In the none condition, results were mixed: confidence correlation was negative and non-significant, while progress (r = 0.312) and mastery (r = 0.256) correlations were significant. → Graf 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Graf 2026¶

Graf, L., Bassner, P., Anzinger, M., Dietrich, F., Krusche, S., & Poquet, O. (2026). Interactive learning dashboards: rethinking learning visualisations as engagement tools. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-14082-1

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Across 80 JoLs in the tell condition, no JoL–system-metric correlation reached significance; the article reports progress r = 0.164 (p = 0.146) and mastery r = 0.143 (p = 0.206), "again showing no significant improvement".

"In contrast, the tell condition ( n = 80 JoLs) did not show significant correlations with any of the system metrics. The correlation for confidence was negative and not significant, r = − 0.075 (p = 0.511)."

Graf 2026 (2)¶

Graf, L., Bassner, P., Anzinger, M., Dietrich, F., Krusche, S., & Poquet, O. (2026). Interactive learning dashboards: rethinking learning visualisations as engagement tools. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-14082-1

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

Across 118 JoLs in the no-agent condition, confidence correlated negatively and non-significantly, while progress and mastery correlations were significant (mastery r = 0.256, p = 0.005).

"The none condition (n = 118 JoLs) showed mixed results. For confidence, the correlation was negative and not significant, r = − 0.055 (p = 0.551). However, for progress, there was a highly significant positive correlation, r = 0.312 (p = 0.001)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students using the eliciting agent showed JoL ratings correlated with system learning metrics, strongest for mastery — related
• JoL–mastery accuracy trajectories over the five weeks rose in the elicit condition, declined in the none condition, and were mixed in the tell condition — related
• Students' JoL ratings became more consistent over time and evolved from under-rating to over-rating to accurate judgement — related
• Most students submitted JoLs out of curiosity about the system rating, often without attending to the LA graphs, and reported behaviour change more from JoL than from the agent — related
• Students' self-assessed question specificity was not significantly correlated with their observed specificity — related
• No trace format supported calibrated self-evaluation: perceived-achieved correlations were low and non-significant in all conditions — related
• In a real programming course, students with an eliciting LLM agent on a learning dashboard wrote more reflection messages than students with a telling agent — related