Both GLA groups showed a large, significant increase in pipetting self-efficacy, with no difference between conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Self-efficacy increased significantly over time in both groups (re-experiencing d = 0.94; self-explaining d = 1.04), with no condition difference or interaction. → Valdemar Stenberdt 2025

Evidence¶

Valdemar Stenberdt 2025¶

Valdemar Stenberdt, Ban Mouid Shiwalia, Guido Makransky. (2025). Re-Experiencing vs. Self-Explaining: Comparing Generative Learning Activities in VR. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10096-2

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Self-efficacy analysis on 159 students in the VR pipetting experiment using a mixed ANOVA with Time and Condition. Both groups improved significantly (p < 0.001), effects persisted after Bonferroni correction; "There were no differences in the two groups’ self-efficacy" and no Condition × Time interaction. Supports H3a but not H3b.

"An ANOV A showed a large, significant increase in students’ self-efficacy over time, F(1, 157) = 114.774, p < 0.001, η p2 = 0.422."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Corrective feedback plus either GLA significantly improved students' safety behavior in VR, with no difference between re-experiencing and self-explaining — related
• Both GLAs significantly reduced dexterity errors over time; the between-group difference after the GLA was not significant after Bonferroni correction — related
• Exploratory correlations suggest embodiment was specifically relevant in the re-experiencing group, correlating with written procedural knowledge and post-test self-efficacy — related
• Prompts increased learners' self-efficacy during learning within the prompted group but did not produce between-group differences at mid-learning or post-learning — related