Explaining was not more effective than oral retrieval practice overall in Experiment 1¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Contrasting the two explaining conditions against the oral retrieval practice condition yielded no significant difference on conceptual knowledge. → Lachner 2020

Evidence¶

Lachner 2020¶

Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2020). Timing matters! Explaining between study phases enhances students' learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000396

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In Experiment 1's three-group contrast analysis (in-between explaining and after-study explaining each weighted 1, oral retrieval practice weighted -2), controlling for prior knowledge, the explaining contrast was not significant; the authors note "explaining was as effective as retrieval practice".

"the explaining-contrast was not significant, F(1, 87) = 0.47, p = .496, ηp2 = .005, suggesting that explaining was as effective as retrieval practice"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Generating explanations (oral or written) outperforms retrieval practice on inference-based questions for the high-difficult text — related
• In-between explaining enhanced university students' conceptual knowledge more than after-study explaining (Experiment 1) — related
• Oral explaining yields more accurate meta-comprehension judgments than written explaining and retrieval practice — related