Include interactive elements in metacognitive prompts that require young learners to respond¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (2 for, 3 mixed) · 1 study (1 causal), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 5 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article recommends designing metacognitive prompts with obligatory interactive components so that young learners actually respond rather than skipping past them. The authors conclude that "Interactive el- ements in metacognitive prompts that require young learners to respond appropriately seem beneficial", because prompts with interactive elements required students to respond, whereas without them some students simply continued learning without engaging with the prompt.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Prompt compliance measurements should be included when evaluating prompting interventions

Constraints¶

• Based on a single study with 33 participants and low compliance on two of four prompts

Target Learners¶

• lower secondary school students aged 10–12

Target Learning Goals¶

• metacognitive SRL activities in computer-based learning environments

Claims¶

• Prompt compliance varied widely across the four metacognitive prompts, with interactive prompts responded to more appropriately [+W]
• Metacognitive prompting increases domain-general metacognitive SRL activities (goal specification and strategic planning) in young learners in a CBLE [+W]
• Metacognitive prompting did not significantly change the overall frequency of metacognitive SRL activities in main categories and subcategories [~W]
• Metacognitive prompting did not significantly support young learners’ recall learning performance [~W]
• Prompted learners’ sequential SRL structure resembled traditional SRL models, using reflection more as an ending activity than unprompted learners [~W]

Related Strategies¶

• Metacognitive Prompting

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Rebecca Pape, Joachim Thomas. (2026). Exploring young learners’ prompted and unprompted SRL think-alouds. Learning and Instruction 102 (2026) 102294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102294