Closed-book self-explanation prompts reduce the number of generated self-explanations when learners are not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations beforehand¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 In Experiment 1, the closed-book format reduced the number of generated self-explanations for learners without active processing prompts (ηp2 = .09) but not for learners with them. → Sara Hiller · Stefan Rumann · Kirsten Berthold · Julian Roelle 2020
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 · i2 · causal · r2
ANCOVA on learning processes in Experiment 1 with N = 97 eighth-graders found a significant format × active-processing interaction; the simple effect of prompt format held only for learners without active processing prompts, "F(1, 44) = 4.44, p = .041, ηp2 = .09".
"Probing the interaction revealed that the closed-book format reduced the number of generated self-explanations for the learners who did not receive active processing of instructional explanation prompts, F(1, 44) = 4.44, p = .041, ηp2 = .09"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Closed-book self-explanation prompts show no added value on delayed posttest performance, even with prior active processing of instructional explanations — related
- Generated self-explanations mediate the immediate posttest advantage of open-book over closed-book prompts — related
- Closed-book prompts reduce immediate posttest performance only when learners were not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
closed-book-prompts-reduce-self-explanations-without-active-processing |
title |
Closed-book self-explanation prompts reduce the number of generated self-explanations when learners are not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations beforehand |
description |
Closed-book self-explanation prompts reduce the number of generated self-explanations when learners are not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations beforehand |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
source_checked |
2026-10-19 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — sara-hiller-stefan-rumann-kirsten-berthold-julian-roelle-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.