Test performance differs by cue-prompt condition in Experiment 1, with higher scores in the no-cue condition than the summary condition.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? The effect of cue prompt on test performance was significant, F(2, 239) = 4.741, p = .010; Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons showed no-cue scores exceeded summary scores. → Jan A. A. Engelen 2018
Evidence¶
Jan A. A. Engelen 2018¶
Jan A. A. Engelen, Gino Camp, Janneke van de Pol, Anique B. H. de Bruin. (2018). Teachers' monitoring of students' text comprehension: can students' keywords and summaries improve teachers' judgment accuracy? Metacognition and Learning 13:287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Experiment 1 comprehension analysis across 255 students: cue prompt significantly affected test scores, F(2, 239) = 4.741, p = .010; no-cue scores were "higher than in the summary condition", Mdiff = .364, SE = .119, p = .007. The authors call the effect small on the 0–5 scale.
"This effect was significant, F(2, 239) = 4.741, p = .010. Post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction indicated that test scores in the no-cue condition were higher than in the summary condition, Mdiff = .364, SE = .119, p= .007."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The quality of sixth-graders' keywords is not diagnostic of intra-individual variation in test performance (Experiment 1).
- Sixth-graders' own monitoring accuracy is low and does not differ between no-cue, keyword, and summary cue-prompt conditions (Experiment 1).
- Generating or comparing keywords had no substantial effect on posttest learning performance — related
- Teachers' intra-individual monitoring accuracy of students' text-by-text learning is not better than chance and is not improved by students' keywords or summaries (Experiment 1). — related
- Organizational cues during a lecture have a large effect on understanding of lecture structure and memory for details — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
test-performance-higher-no-cue-than-summary-condition |
title |
Test performance differs by cue-prompt condition in Experiment 1, with higher scores in the no-cue condition than the summary condition. |
description |
Test performance differs by cue-prompt condition in Experiment 1, with higher scores in the no-cue condition than the summary condition. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jan-a-a-engelen-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.