Closed-book self-explanation prompts show no added value on delayed posttest performance, even with prior active processing of instructional explanations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Contrary to hypothesis 3b, Experiment 2 did not find closed-book prompts superior on a delayed posttest when learners had received active processing prompts beforehand. → Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle 2020 q3 i? In Experiment 1, no significant interaction with prompt format emerged for delayed posttest performance. → Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle 2020¶

Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle. (2020). Example-based learning: should learners receive closed-book or open-book self-explanation prompts? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09523-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 (N = 124) removed the immediate posttest to avoid confounding the delayed posttest; despite hypothesis 3b, the authors report "not superior to the open-book prompts" in the active-processing groups. Delayed posttest was one week later.

"contrary to our expectation, the closed-book self-explanations prompts were not superior to the open-book prompts when the learners received active processing of instructional explanation prompts beforehand"

Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle 2020 (2)¶

Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle. (2020). Example-based learning: should learners receive closed-book or open-book self-explanation prompts? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09523-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA on delayed posttest performance in Experiment 1 found no format × active-processing interaction ("F(1, 77) = 1.05, p = .307, ηp2 = .01"), unlike at the immediate posttest.

"However, other than at the immediate posttest, there was no statistically significant interaction effect, F(1, 77) = 1.05, p = .307, ηp2 = .01."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Closed-book prompts reduce immediate posttest performance only when learners were not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations — related
• Generated self-explanations mediate the immediate posttest advantage of open-book over closed-book prompts — related
• Closed-book self-explanation prompts reduce the number of generated self-explanations when learners are not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations beforehand — related
• Prompting learners to self-explain improves understanding and problem solving on immediate tests by a moderate average amount, with little evidence yet on delayed or classroom gains. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Active processing of instructional explanation prompts increase coverage of main content items — related
• Adding self-explanation prompts to heuristic worked examples yields no additional benefit and impedes seventh graders' modeling competency — related
• Closed-book generative tasks can outperform open-book ones when learners can later reinspect the material — related
• Learning-outcome effects of open- versus closed-book generative tasks are mixed — related