Terminology test advantage of tracing and pointing is not robust to adjustment for prior knowledge¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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 i1 The tracing and pointing condition answered more terminology questions correctly (d = 0.39, one-tailed p = 0.041), but the difference was no longer statistically significant in an ANCOVA controlling self-reported prior knowledge (d = 0.30). → Yining Wang 2025
q3 i? After covariate adjustment the terminology difference was not statistically significant, so H4 was not supported. → Yining Wang 2025 (2)
Evidence¶
Yining Wang 2025¶
Yining Wang, Kexin Han, Paul Ginns. (2025). Tracing and Pointing Support Multimedia Learning: A Cross-Cultural Replication. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10005-7
q3 · i1 · causal · r2
In the same randomized experiment, the tracing and pointing condition scored higher on the 20-item terminology test, "d = 0.39 [95% CI 0.05, ∞]", one-tailed p = 0.041, before covariate adjustment.
"Participants in the tracing and pointing condition answered more terminology test questions correctly (M = 12.69, SD = 3.51) than those in the non-tracing and pointing condition (M = 11.38, SD = 3.30), t(82) = 1.76, p = 0.041 (one-tailed), d = 0.39 [95% CI 0.05, ∞]."
Yining Wang 2025 (2)¶
Yining Wang, Kexin Han, Paul Ginns. (2025). Tracing and Pointing Support Multimedia Learning: A Cross-Cultural Replication. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10005-7
q3 · i? · causal · r2
ANCOVA using self-reported prior knowledge as covariate (correlated with terminology scores, r = 0.26, p = 0.019) eliminated the group difference: "F(1, 81) = 2.00, p = 0.162".
"Under this analysis, the difference between conditions was no longer statistically significant, F(1, 81) = 2.00, p = 0.162, d = 0.30 [95% CI −0.12, ∞]."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Tracing and pointing during a paper-based multimedia lesson improves comprehension test performance in Chinese-speaking adults — related
- Tracing and pointing does not significantly raise intrinsic motivation, though the point estimate resembles prior meta-analytic estimates — related
- Tracing and pointing does not significantly reduce self-reported intrinsic cognitive load — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
tracing-pointing-terminology-not-robust-ancova |
title |
Terminology test advantage of tracing and pointing is not robust to adjustment for prior knowledge |
description |
Terminology test advantage of tracing and pointing is not robust to adjustment for prior knowledge |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — yining-wang-2025, yining-wang-2025-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.