Self-explanation support did not change Answer-item performance even though the explanation condition completed only half as many problems¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Performance on Answer items did not differ between the Explanation and Problem Solving conditions, despite the Explanation Condition encountering half as many such items during training. → Koedinger 2008

Evidence¶

Koedinger 2008¶

Koedinger, K., Aleven, V., Roll, I., & Baker, R. (2008). In vivo experiments on whether supporting metacognition in intelligent tutoring systems yields robust learning. https://learnlab.org/

q3 · i? · review · r2

Null result from the same Geometry Cognitive Tutor classroom experiment on isomorphic Answer items. Because time-on-task was controlled, explanation students completed fewer problems; no statistically significant difference was found and equivalence was not tested.

"The performance on the Answer items did not differ between the two conditions, despite the fact that the students in the Explanation Condition had encountered only half as many of them during training as their counterparts in the Problem Solving Condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Static self-explanation prompts in the Geometry Cognitive Tutor produced greater gains on Reason and Not Enough Info test items than problem-solving practice alone — related
• Error rates per completed problem-solving step did not significantly differ between conditions — related