In-between explaining enhanced university students' conceptual knowledge more than after-study explaining (Experiment 1)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Students who explained between the two study phases scored higher on the conceptual knowledge posttest than students who explained after the entire study phase. → 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 · i2 · causal · r3

Experiment 1 randomly assigned 91 university students to in-between explaining, after-study explaining, or oral retrieval practice after reading a text on four-stroke engines; contrast analyses controlling for prior knowledge showed the in-between contrast was significant, "F(1, 87) = 5.88, p = .017, ηp2 = .063".

"the in-between-contrast was significant, F(1, 87) = 5.88, p = .017, ηp2 = .063, indicating that in-between explaining was more beneficial than after-study explaining"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Explaining was not more effective than oral retrieval practice overall in Experiment 1 — related
• Monitoring activities and metacomprehension accuracy serially mediated the effect of in-between versus after-study explaining on conceptual learning (Experiment 1) — related
• In-between explaining triggered more monitoring of knowledge gaps than after-study explaining (Experiment 1) — related
• Teaching between study phases contributes to comprehension more than teaching after the study phase — related