Hypothesized ATI effects of individualized explanations based on typical mistakes were not supported; exploratory benefits emerged for high-resource vocational-school students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-24 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither the hypothesized benefit for low-prior-knowledge students nor the hypothesized moderation by sustained attention was found for individualized explanations. → Sarah I. Hofer 2025 q3 i? Exploratively, individualized explanations were especially helpful for vocational school students with high interest, high self-concept, and high visual-spatial ability. → Sarah I. Hofer 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarah I. Hofer 2025¶

Sarah I. Hofer, Frank Reinhold. (2025). Scaffolding of learning activities: Aptitude-treatment-interaction effects in math?. Learning and Instruction 99 (2025) 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102177

q3 · i? · causal · r?

GLMM tests of the fifth and sixth hypotheses in the randomized experiment (N = 332) found no support for the expected interactions of individualized explanations with prior knowledge or sustained attention; the article reports no effect sizes for these null findings.

"Figs. 6 and 7 showed that neither of these was true for our study."

Sarah I. Hofer 2025 (2)¶

Sarah I. Hofer, Frank Reinhold. (2025). Scaffolding of learning activities: Aptitude-treatment-interaction effects in math?. Learning and Instruction 99 (2025) 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102177

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory GLMM interaction tests in the VS subgroup showed significant interactions of individualized explanations with interest, self-concept, and visual-spatial ability; the article flags these as tentative findings requiring confirmation in larger samples.

"However, we exploratively found individualized explanations to be especially helpful for VS students with high interest, X2(8,68) = 16.29, p < .05, high self-concept, X2(8,68) = 27.23, p < .001, and high visual- spatial ability, X2(8,68) = 23.21, p < .01 (Fig. 7)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• General Cognitive Ability — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Adaptive task difficulty compensates low interest but not low self-concept among vocational-school students during repeated practice — related
• Empirical patterns of the expertise reversal effect fit those found in Aptitude Treatment Interaction studies initiated in the mid-60s — a broader claim this one bears on
• In a computer learning environment for electricity, the benefit of exploratory simulation time depended on instructional treatment (rule induction vs. rule application) — related
• For recall performance, the study found no significant three-way interaction between modeling condition, prior knowledge activation and domain knowledge, so the model-observer similarity hypotheses were not supported. — related
• Advanced-placement students outperformed vocational-school students on most learner characteristics, with large effect sizes except interest — related
• Prior mathematical competence by in-class attention interaction: attention benefits were strongest among students with stronger prior knowledge — related