Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Immediate Versus Delayed Low-Stakes Questioning: Encouraging the Testing Effect Through Embedded Video Questions to Support Students’ Knowledge Outcomes, Self-Regulation, and Critical Thinking

Wong, Joseph T., Richland, Lindsey Engle, Hughes, Bradley S.·2025·Technology, Knowledge and Learning
DOI 10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In light of the educational challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing need to bolster online science teaching and learning by incorporating evidence-based pedagogical principles of Learning Experience Design (LXD). As a response to this, we conducted a quasi-experimental, design-based research study involving nN = 183 undergraduate students enrolled across two online classes in an upper-division course on Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at a large R1 public university. The study extended over a period of 10 weeks, during which half of the students encountered low-stakes questions immediately embedded within the video player, while the remaining half received the same low-stakes questions after viewing all the instructional videos within the unit. Consequently, this study experimentally manipulated the timing of the questions across the two class conditions. These questions functioned as opportunities for low-stakes content practice and retention, designed to encourage learners to experience testing effect and augment the formation of their conceptual understanding. Across both conditions, we assessed potential differences in total weekly quiz grades, page views, and course participation among students who encountered embedded video questions. We also assessed students’ self-report engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking. On average, the outcomes indicated that learners exposed to immediate low-stakes questioning exhibited notably superior summative quiz scores, increased page views, and enhanced participation in the course. Additionally, those who experienced immediate questioning demonstrated heightened levels of online engagement, self-regulation, and critical thinking. Moreover, our analysis delved into the intricate interplay between treatment conditions, learners’ self-regulation, critical thinking, and quiz grades through a multiple regression model. Notably, the interaction between those in the immediate questioning condition and self-regulation emerged as a significant factor, suggesting that the influence of immediate questioning on quiz grades varies based on learners’ self-regulation abilities. Collectively, these findings highlight the substantial positive effects of immediate questioning of online video lectures on both academic performance and cognitive skills within an online learning context. This discussion delves into the potential implications for institutions to continually refine their approach in order to effectively promote successful online science teaching and learning, drawing from the foundations of pedagogical learning experience design paradigms and the testing effect model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 89

  1. Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H., Roediger, I. I. I., H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open-and closed‐book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(7), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ahn, J. (2019). Drawing inspiration for learning experience design (LX) from diverse perspectives. The Emerging Learning Design Journal, 6(1), 1. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldj/vol6/iss1/1.
  3. Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Isaacson, R. M. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation a path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1. · DOI
  4. Asad, M. M., Hussain, N., Wadho, M., Khand, Z. H., & Churi, P. P. (2020). Integration of e-learning technologies for interactive teaching and learning process: An empirical study on higher education institutes of Pakistan. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0103. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational psychologist, 45(4), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515934. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Barak, M., Hussein-Farraj, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2016). On-campus or online: Examining self-regulation and cognitive transfer skills in different learning settings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0035-9. · DOI
  7. Betts, S. C. (2008). Teaching and assessing basic concepts to advanced applications: Using Bloom’s taxonomy to inform graduate course design. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(3), 99.
  8. Bloom, H. (2001). How to read and why. Simon and Schuster.
  9. Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845. · DOI
  10. Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: An overview. International Encyclopedia of Education, 10, 375–380.
  11. Bruning, K. (2005). The role of critical thinking in the online learning environment. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(5), 21–31.
  12. Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 35(6), 1563. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Chan, J. C. (2010). Long-term effects of testing on the recall of nontested materials. Memory, 18(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210903405737. · DOI
  14. Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633–642. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202713. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Chick, R. C., Clifton, G. T., Peace, K. M., Propper, B. W., Hale, D. F., Alseidi, A. A., & Vreeland, T. J. (2020). Using technology to maintain the education of residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Surgical Education, 77(4), 729–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.03.018. · DOI
  17. ​​Christiansen, M. A., Lambert, A. M., Nadelson, L. S., Dupree, K. M., & Kingsford, T. A. (2017). In-class versus at-home quizzes: Which is better? A flipped learning study in a two-site synchronously broadcast organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00370. · DOI
  18. Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1–6.
  19. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ440511.
  20. Cruse, E. (2006). Using educational video in the classroom: Theory, research and practice. Library Video Company, 12(4), 56–80.
  21. Cummins, S., Beresford, A. R., & Rice, A. (2015). Investigating engagement with in-video quiz questions in a programming course. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2015.2444374. · DOI
  22. Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60, 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0110-z. · DOI
  23. Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Deng, R., & Gao, Y. (2023). Effects of embedded questions in pre-class videos on learner perceptions, video engagement, and learning performance in flipped classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231167098 · DOI
  25. Deng, R., Feng, S., & Shen, S. (2023). Improving the effectiveness of video-based flipped classrooms with question-embedding. Education and Information Technologies, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12303-5. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Fisher, M., & Baird, D. E. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740510587100. · DOI
  27. Floor, N. (2018). What is learning experience design. Springer.
  28. Floor, N. (2023). This is learning experience design: What it is, how it works, and why it matters. New Riders.
  29. Fries-Britt, S., & White-Lewis, D. (2020). In pursuit of meaningful relationships: How black males perceive faculty interactions in STEM. The Urban Review, 52(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00559-x. · DOI
  30. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn't work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015 · DOI
  31. Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Exploring the video-based learning research: A review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), E191–E195. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12070. · DOI
  32. Haagsman, M. E., Scager, K., Boonstra, J., & Koster, M. C. (2020). Pop-up questions within educational videos: Effects on students’ learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09847-3. · DOI
  33. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145–178. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020114231387. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Humphries, B., & Clark, D. (2021). An examination of student preference for traditional didactic or chunking teaching strategies in an online learning environment. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2405 · DOI
  36. Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using KahootTM on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306561. · DOI
  37. Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014. · DOI
  38. Jain, S., & Dowson, M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety as a function of multidimensional self-regulation and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.05.004. · DOI
  39. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183. · DOI
  40. Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2), n2.
  41. Kestin, G., & Miller, K. (2022). Harnessing active engagement in educational videos: Enhanced visuals and embedded questions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), 010148. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010148. · DOI
  42. Kolås, L. (2015, June). Application of interactive videos in education. In 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2015.7218037. · DOI
  43. Kovacs, G. (2016, April). Effects of in-video quizzes on MOOC lecture viewing. In Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 31–40). https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2876041. · DOI
  44. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Never let it rest lessons about student success from high-performing colleges and universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(4), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.4.44-51. · DOI
  45. Littrell-Baez, M. K., Friend, A., Caccamise, D., & Okochi, C. (2015). Using retrieval practice and metacognitive skills to improve content learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(8), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.420. · DOI
  46. Matthews, M. T., Williams, G. S., Yanchar, S. C., & McDonald, J. K. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. TechTrends, 61(5), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0212-2. · DOI
  47. Marshall, F. B., & Marshall, J. (2021, November). The effects of embedding knowledge-check questions in instructional videos. In innovate learning summit (pp. 319–327). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220301/.
  48. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist instruction (pp. 196–212). Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Introduction to multimedia learning. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3482. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., ... & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  52. McMahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2001). Promoting self-regulated learning in an on-line environment (pp. 1299–1305). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8630/.
  53. van der Meij, H., & Bӧckmann, L. (2021). Effects of embedded questions in recorded lectures. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(1), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09263-x. · DOI
  54. Moos, D. C., & Bonde, C. (2016). Flipping the classroom: Embedding self-regulated learning prompts in videos. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 21, 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9269-1. · DOI
  55. Pan, S. C., Cooke, J., Little, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Foster, E. R., Connor, L. T., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Online and clicker quizzing on jargon terms enhances definition-focused but not conceptually focused biology exam performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar54. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0248. · DOI
  56. Pellas, N. (2018). Is the flipped classroom model for all? Correspondence analysis from trainee instructional media designers. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9634-x. · DOI
  57. Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048. · DOI
  58. Peng, Y., Liu, Y., & Guo, C. (2019). Examining the neural mechanism behind testing effect with concrete and abstract words. Neuroreport, 30(2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000001169. · DOI
  59. Picciano, A. G. (2023). Future technological trends and research. In Data Analytics and Adaptive Learning (pp. 303–322). Routledge. · DOI
  60. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Pulukuri, S., & Abrams, B. (2021). Improving learning outcomes and metacognitive monitoring: Replacing traditional textbook readings with question-embedded videos. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(7), 2156–2166. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00237. · DOI
  62. Redmond, P., Abawi, L., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175. · DOI
  63. Rice, P., Beeson, P., & Blackmore-Wright, J. (2019). Evaluating the impact of a quiz question within an educational video. TechTrends, 63(5), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00374-6. · DOI
  64. Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1336. · DOI
  65. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/7071.
  66. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford publications. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Sandars, J., Correia, R., Dankbaar, M., de Jong, P., Goh, P. S., Hege, I., & Pusic, M. (2020). Twelve tips for rapidly migrating to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000082.1. · DOI
  68. Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J. L., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9193-6. · DOI
  69. Scott, E. E., Wenderoth, M. P., & Doherty, J. H. (2020). Design-based research: A methodology to extend and enrich biology education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), es11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0245. · DOI
  70. Schmitz, W. H. G. (2020). Embedded questions in text and video-based lectures (Master’s thesis, University of Twente). https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/82825.
  71. Shneiderman, B., & Hochheiser, H. (2001). Universal usability as a stimulus to advanced interface design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110083602. · DOI
  72. Siek, K. A., Hayes, G. R., Newman, M. W., & Tang, J. C. (2014). Field deployments: Knowing from using in context. In J. Olson & W. Kellogg (Eds.), Ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 119–142). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_6. · DOI
  73. Sotola, L. K., & Crede, M. (2021). Regarding class quizzes: A meta-analytic synthesis of studies on the relationship between frequent low-stakes testing and class performance. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09563-9. · DOI
  74. Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x. · DOI · Paper page
  75. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI global. · DOI
  76. Torres, D., Pulukuri, S., & Abrams, B. (2022). Embedded questions and targeted feedback transform passive educational videos into effective active learning tools. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(7), 2738–2742. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00342. · DOI
  77. Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002. · DOI · Paper page
  78. Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Capa-Aydin, Y. (2013). Predicting critical thinking skills of university students through metacognitive self-regulation skills and chemistry self-efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 666–670. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016667.
  79. Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9022-4. · DOI · Paper page
  80. Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2017). The effects of college students’ positive thinking, learning motivation and self-regulation through a self-reflection intervention in Taiwan. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1176999. · DOI
  81. Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779. · DOI
  82. Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students’ use of strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.699901. · DOI
  83. Wong, J. T., Bui, N. N., Fields, D. T., & Hughes, B. S. (2023). A learning experience design approach to online professional development for teaching science through the arts: Evaluation of teacher content knowledge, self-efficacy and STEAM perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2112552 · DOI
  84. Wong, J., Chen, E., Rose, E., Lerner, B., Richland, L., & Hughes, B. (2023). The cognitive and behavioral learning impacts of embedded video questions: Leveraging learning experience design to support students’ knowledge outcomes. In P. Blikstein, J. Van Aalst, R. Kizito, & K. Brennan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international conference of the learning sciences - ICLS 2023 (pp. 1861–1862). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2023.356980 · DOI
  85. Wong, J. T., Chen, E., Au-Yeung, N., Lerner, B. S., & Richland, L. E. (2024). Fostering engaging online learning experiences: Investigating situational interest and mind-wandering as mediators through learning experience design. Education and Information Technologies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12524-2 · DOI
  86. Wong, J. T., & Hughes, B. S. (2022). Leveraging learning experience design: Digital media approaches to influence motivational traits that support student learning behaviors in undergraduate online courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09342-1 · DOI
  87. Wong, J. T., Mesghina, A., Chen, E., Yeung, N. A., Lerner, B. S., & Richland, L. E. (2023b). Zooming in or zoning out: Examining undergraduate learning experiences with zoom and the role of mind-wandering. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100118. · DOI
  88. Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). Video-based learning: A critical analysis of the research published in 2003–2013 and future visions. In eLmL 2014, The sixth international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning (pp. 112–119).
  89. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Routledge.

Cited by

See all 13

Metadata

Authors
Wong, J. T., Richland, L. E., & Hughes, B. S.
Venue
Technology, Knowledge and Learning
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-07-30
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
1421-1456
ISSN
  • 2211-1662
  • 2211-1670
DOI
10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1
Cited by
13
References
13
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Science Foundation (2020304238)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Immediate Versus Delayed Low-Stakes Questioning: Encouraging the Testing Effect Through Embedded Video Questions to Support Students’ Knowledge Outcomes, Self-Regulation, and Critical Thinking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1
The paper
Wong, J. T., Richland, L. E., & Hughes, B. S. (2025). Immediate Versus Delayed Low-Stakes Questioning: Encouraging the Testing Effect Through Embedded Video Questions to Support Students’ Knowledge Outcomes, Self-Regulation, and Critical Thinking. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09746-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.