Elaborative interrogation instructions produce better recall and recognition of science facts than reading-for-understanding instructions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · 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 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 1, across all recall and recognition measures, elaborative-interrogation subjects performed significantly better than reading controls. → Woloshyn 1992 q3 i? Experiment 2 replicated the strategy advantage with a significant main effect for strategy on recall and recognition scores. → Woloshyn 1992 (2)

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 1: 60 grade 6 and 7 students, randomly assigned to elaborative interrogation or reading control, studied 32 science facts in three text formats. A 2x2x3 ANOVA showed significant strategy main effects, with "significant main effects for strategy" favoring elaborative interrogation. 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.

"Across all the recall and recognition measures, there were significant main effects for strategy [F(1,58) > 14.02, 2,(.001]. Instructions to use elaborative interrogation produced better learning performances than did instructions to read for understanding (g > 3.38, p<.01)."

Woloshyn 1992 (2)¶

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: 80 grade 6 and 7 students in four conditions (strategy x activation) studied 32 traditional-format science facts. ANOVA showed "a significant main effect for strategy" with F(1,76) > 50.31, p<.001, favoring elaborative interrogation. 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.

"For both recall and recognition scores, there was a significant main effect for strategy [F(1,76) > 50.31, 2<.001]. Elaborative-interrogation subjects retained more study facts than did reading-controls (smallera= 7.82)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students recognize more belief-consistent science facts than belief-inconsistent facts, an effect appearing on recognition but not recall tests — related
• Elaborative-interrogation students are less confident in their incorrect recognition selections than reading controls, who express great confidence in erroneous answers — 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 Improves Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Elaborative-interrogation learning gains are durable, with performance maintained up to six months after study — related
• Rereading Is A Low Utility Study Strategy — related
• Elaborative interrogation improved true/false test performance in an introductory biology course context — related
• Elaborative interrogation produced greater pretest-to-posttest gains on items about common misbeliefs than reading control in Experiment 2 — related