Skip to content

On-line versus off-line methods for assessing strategy use

Research Method · All research methods
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 quant-synthesis), q4 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description

The article distinguishes two families of strategy-use assessment. On-line methods, such as thinking aloud, observation, eye-movement registration, and logfile registration, take "measurements taken concurrent to task performance" and code actual behavior against externally defined criteria. Off-line methods, such as questionnaires (e.g., MSLQ) and interviews, ask learners about strategy use before or after performance, so answers rest on reconstruction from memory of past experiences. The article uses this framework to evaluate the five special-issue instruments.

Accounts

  • On-line versus off-line methods for assessing strategy use: The article distinguishes two families of strategy-use assessment. On-line methods, such as thinking aloud, observation, eye-movement registration, and logfile registration, take "measurements taken concurrent to task performance" and code actual behavior against externally defined criteria. Off-line methods, such as questionnaires (e.g., MSLQ) and interviews, ask learners about strategy use before or after performance, so answers rest on reconstruction from memory of past experiences. The article uses this framework to evaluate the five special-issue instruments. (Marcel V. J. Veenman (2011))
  • Online versus offline measurement as an organising distinction for metacognition assessment: The article organises metacognition measures by whether they capture metacognition during task performance or via retrospective self-report. "Offline measures are questionnaires that aim to capture an individual's self-reported perception of their own MC ability based on previous learning experiences", such as the MSLQ, MAI and Jr. MAI, whereas "online measures capture an individual's MC via ongoing behaviour and performance as they complete a task", including think-aloud protocols and behaviour observations. The article notes contested boundary cases (confidence judgements, calibration accuracy, JOLs) classified differently by Saraç and Karakelle, Veenman and van Cleef, and Craig et al., and reports poor correspondence between the two measure types in prior studies. (Gemma Muncer et al. (2021))

Claims

-

Key Sources

  • Marcel V. J. Veenman. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x
  • Gemma Muncer, Philip A. Higham, Corentin J. Gosling, Samuele Cortese, Henry Wood-Downie, & Julie A. Hadwin. (2021). A Meta-Analysis Investigating the Association Between Metacognition and Math Performance in Adolescence. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09620-x
Page metadata
Field Value
type research-method
id on-line-versus-off-line-methods-for-assessing-strategy-use
title On-line versus off-line methods for assessing strategy use
description The article distinguishes two families of strategy-use assessment.
status review
generated by process:settle-candidates on 2026-10-16
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.