Answers to elaborative interrogation questions were mostly poor in quality, and answer quality correlated positively with posttest scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The overwhelming majority of elaborative interrogation answers were missing, circular, wrong, or inadequate. → Clinton 2016 q3 i1 Elaborative interrogation answer scores correlated positively with posttest scores. → Clinton 2016 (2) q3 i? Embedded question answer accuracy showed no association with posttest scores. → Clinton 2016 (3)

Evidence¶

Clinton 2016¶

Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning About Posterior Probability: Do Diagrams and Elaborative Interrogation Help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Rubric-coded answers (Cohen's κ = .84 reliability) from the elaborative-interrogation condition. The average score was 4.80 (SD = 2.27) out of 18, with 37% missing, circular, or wrong and 51% inadequate.

"Participants received an average score of 4.80 (SD = 2.27), out of a maximum possible score of 18, for the answers to elaborative interrogations. Approximately 37% of the answers were missing, circular, or wrong, 51% of the answers were inadequate, 9% of the answers were adequate, and 4% were ideal"

Clinton 2016 (2)¶

Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning About Posterior Probability: Do Diagrams and Elaborative Interrogation Help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Spearman rank-order correlation between elaborative interrogation answer quality and posttest accuracy in the elaborative-interrogation condition: ρ(62) = .40, p = .001. Correlational, not causal.

"There was a positive correlation between elaborative interrogation answer scores and posttest scores, ρ(62) = .40, p = .001"

Clinton 2016 (3)¶

Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning About Posterior Probability: Do Diagrams and Elaborative Interrogation Help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Spearman rank-order correlation in the embedded-questioning condition (mean 3.08 of 6 correct, SD = 1.70): ρ(54) = .11, p = .44, no association with posttest scores.

"There were no association between embedded question answer accuracy and posttest scores, ρ(54) = .11, p = .44"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The quality of elaborative-interrogation answers had little effect on retention; even failed or inadequate why-answers facilitated learning relative to reading — reports the opposite
• Elaborative Interrogation Improves Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Elaborative interrogation produced greater pretest-to-posttest gains on items about common misbeliefs than reading control in Experiment 2 — related
• Elaborative interrogation increased perceived difficulty and time spent with the lesson — related
• Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability — related
• Elaborative interrogation benefits increase as learners' prior knowledge increases — related
• Question quality, not study time, predicted comprehension test performance among questioners — related
• Generating a good question for a topic strongly predicts answering the matching test item correctly — related