Self-explanation beats unguided studying for equal time, but instructional explanations, problem solving and retrieval practice can be equally or more effective¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · review r2 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-16 (automated, 3 of 3 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A meta-analysis of six studies comparing self-explanation prompts plus worked examples versus instructional explanations found no effect of condition, with mixed findings across studies. → Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr 2017 q2 i? Retrieval practice supported long-term retention substantially better than prompted self-explanation, though both beat unsupported studying. → Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr 2017 (2) q2 i? When time on task is controlled, prompted self-explanation continues to improve comprehension and transfer relative to unguided studying. → Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr 2017 (3)

Evidence¶

Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr 2017¶

Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5

q3 · i? · review · r2

The review reports the Wittwer & Renkl (2010) meta-analysis of six worked-example studies: "there was no effect of condition," reflecting findings that variously favored instructional explanations, self-explanations, or neither.

"In a meta-analysis of six studies that compared learning from worked examples in conjunction with self-explanation prompts vs. instructional explanations, there was no effect of condition (Wittwer & Renkl,2010)."

Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr 2017 (2)¶

Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports Larsen et al. (2013) with medical-school students over a 6-month delay. Both techniques beat unsupported studying, but repeated testing's "effect... was much stronger"; adding self-explanation to testing yielded a non-reliable difference.

"Both repeated-testing and prompted self-explanation supported medical-school stu- dents' comprehension 6-months later better than unsupported studying. However, the effect of repeated-testing was much stronger."

Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr 2017 (3)¶

Bethany Rittle-Johnson & Abbey M. Loehr. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review notes that although self-explanation takes far more time (e.g., nearly twice as long in Chi et al., 1994), time-controlled studies show prompts still improve comprehension and transfer relative to unguided studying for the same amount of time.

"In studies that have controlled for time on task, self- explanation prompts continued to improve comprehension and transfer"

Studies bearing on this claim¶

When is self-explaining worth its extra time, and what can it cost compared with being given an explanation or practising retrieval? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 3 narrower claims that bear on it: 2 distinct studies (2 review), q2–q3, 0 of 2 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The assisting self-explanation prompt effect: assisting prompts elicit high-quality self-explanations and deep understanding — related
• Prompting learners to self-explain improves understanding and problem solving on immediate tests by a moderate average amount, with little evidence yet on delayed or classroom gains. — related
• Prompting learners to self-explain, one generative strategy, improves learning by a moderate average amount; other generative activities are not tested by the evidence recorded here — a broader claim this one bears on
• Constructive learning beats active and passive learning — related
• Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice — related
• Minimal guidance is less effective for novices than explicit instruction — related
• Studying worked examples is more effective and more efficient than problem solving for novice learners (the worked example effect) — related
• Peer instruction is less effective than explicit teacher creativity teaching for lower-level students — related
• Self-explanation prompts in an instructional video do not improve retention or comprehension when learning time is controlled — related
• Teacher and peer explanations of the scientific concepts during problem solving were at times scientifically misleading or wrong — related
• Adding a self-explanation feature to a base game improved transfer performance — related
• Self-explanation promotes transfer of general patterns but can reduce recall of details and cause overgeneralization — related
• Self-explanation substantially increases time on task, raising questions about its efficiency — related
• Explaining one's own potentially incorrect ideas can reduce learning, while explaining known-correct content supports it — related
• Adding instructional explanations to worked examples yields a small positive effect on learning, stronger for conceptual than procedural knowledge — related
• Explaining and teaching both improve basic comprehension relative to notetaking, but do not differ from each other — related