Elaborative interrogation increased perceived difficulty and time spent with the lesson¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Participants in the elaborative-interrogation condition spent more time with the lesson than participants in the read-twice or embedded-questioning conditions. → Clinton 2016 q3 i1 Participants in the elaborative-interrogation condition rated the lesson as more difficult than participants in the read-twice condition. → Clinton 2016 (2)

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 · i3 · causal · r2

ANOVA on minutes spent with the lesson (square-root transformed prior to analysis) in the randomized factorial experiment. The elaborative-interrogation condition exceeded both comparison conditions, with Cohen's d = 1.48 versus read-twice and d = .40 versus embedded questioning.

"Participants in the elaborative-interrogation condition spent more time with the lesson than did participants in either the read-twice condition, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.48, or the embedded-questioning condition, p = .001, Cohen's d = .40"

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

ANOVA on 1-7 Likert difficulty self-ratings after the lesson. The elaborative-interrogation condition rated the lesson as more difficult than the read-twice condition, Cohen's d = .59; the embedded-questioning condition also rated it more difficult (d = .63).

"Participants in the elaborative-interrogation condition rated the lesson as more difficult than did participants in the read-twice condition, p = .001, Cohen's d = .59"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Diagrams improved posttest accuracy only in the read-twice condition, not in the questioning conditions — related
• Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability — related
• Elaborative Interrogation Improves Learning — related
• Answers to elaborative interrogation questions were mostly poor in quality, and answer quality correlated positively with posttest scores — related
• Rereading Is A Low Utility Study Strategy — related
• The quality of elaborative-interrogation answers had little effect on retention; even failed or inadequate why-answers facilitated learning relative to reading — related
• Open-ended responses rank the review section and practice questions as the most-liked lesson features — related
• Mental effort and study time increase with a topic's element interactivity level, making them indicators of element interactivity — related
• AIDA-supported participants spent on average twice as long in the course platform as controls, but the difference in usage time was not statistically significant — related
• Questioning-with-training produced higher posttest scores than read-reread study (Experiment 2) — related
• Participants rated the complex three-population scenario as more difficult than the simple one-population scenario — related
• Course sections given guided reflection assignments wrote roughly twice as much reflection as sections given free assignments — related