Elaborative interrogation produced greater pretest-to-posttest gains on items about common misbeliefs than reading control in Experiment 2¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1992 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students who answered misbelief items incorrectly at pretest but correctly at posttest improved more under elaborative interrogation. → Woloshyn 1992

Evidence¶

Woloshyn 1992¶

Woloshyn, Vera E.; Paivio, Allan; Pressley, Mike. (1992). Using Elaborative Interrogation To Help Students Overcome Their Inaccurate Science Beliefs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED356949

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 pretest-posttest analysis: 132 students completed a 90-item pretest questionnaire; the analysis counted items answered incorrectly at pretest but correctly at posttest for facts addressing common misbeliefs, and "Elaborative-interrogation subjects made greater pretest-to-posttest gains than did reading-control subjects." The values printed as "g", "a" or "smaller a" in the quotes are Tukey HSD post hoc statistics (the source names Tukey's HSD as its post hoc method; the scan garbles the letter and the p values), not effect sizes, and no effect size is printed.

"Elaborative-interrogation subjects made greater pretest-to-posttest gains than did reading-control subjects [F(1,78) > 8.16,a> 4.04, 2:<.01]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Elaborative Interrogation Improves Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Instruction that confronts science misconceptions (conceptual-conflict interventions, refutation text) produces conceptual change more often than standard exposition — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Elaborative-interrogation students are less confident in their incorrect recognition selections than reading controls, who express great confidence in erroneous answers — related
• Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability — reports the opposite
• Answers to elaborative interrogation questions were mostly poor in quality, and answer quality correlated positively with posttest scores — related
• The quality of elaborative-interrogation answers had little effect on retention; even failed or inadequate why-answers facilitated learning relative to reading — related
• Elaborative interrogation improved true/false test performance in an introductory biology course context — related
• Generating a good question for a topic strongly predicts answering the matching test item correctly — related
• Elaborative interrogation instructions produce better recall and recognition of science facts than reading-for-understanding instructions — related