Elaborative-interrogation students are less confident in their incorrect recognition selections than reading controls, who express great confidence in erroneous answers¶

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, significant three-way strategy-by-accuracy-by-certainty interactions showed reading controls endorsed more incorrect statements with great certainty. → Woloshyn 1992 q3 i? In Experiment 2, three-way interactions replicated the pattern for each posttest recognition measure. → 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 certainty analysis: for facts addressing misbeliefs, significant three-way interactions on immediate and 14-day recognition (F(2,116) > 8.74 and > 8.05, p<.001); "Reading-controls endorsed more incorrect statements with great certainty than did elaborative-interrogation 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.

"Reading-controls endorsed more incorrect statements with great certainty than did elaborative-interrogation subjects (i.e., 50% certainty for immediate recognition,a= 9.03; 100% certainty for 14-day recognition,a= 3.58)."

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 certainty analysis: three-way strategy-by-accuracy-by-certainty interactions on each posttest recognition measure; elaborative-interrogation students identified more statements with 100% certainty and made fewer erroneous 100%-certain selections on misbelief facts. 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.

"There were three-way interactions of strategy, accuracy, and certainty for each posttest recognition measure [F(2,156) > 2.94]. Elaborative-interrogation subjects identified more study statements with 100% certainty than did reading-controls (a > 4.49, 2....01).For facts that addressed inaccurate beliefs, reading-controls made more erroneous selections with 100% certainty than did elaborative-interrogation subjects (a > 4.74, 2:<.01)."

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 learning gains are durable, with performance maintained up to six months after study — related
• Elaborative interrogation produced greater pretest-to-posttest gains on items about common misbeliefs than reading control in Experiment 2 — related
• Elaborative interrogation instructions produce better recall and recognition of science facts than reading-for-understanding instructions — related
• Elaborative Interrogation Improves Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Elaborative interrogation improved true/false test performance in an introductory biology course context — related
• The quality of elaborative-interrogation answers had little effect on retention; even failed or inadequate why-answers facilitated learning relative to reading — related
• Children's confidence in endorsing statements indicates they were not confused by hybrid statements — related