All three instructional methods reduced misconceptions, and comprehension and transfer effects were stable at delayed testing one week later¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i3 Compared to before studying, the number of misconceptions was reduced at immediate and delayed testing with all three instructional methods, with a large main effect of time of assessment (η² = .34). → Anja Prinz 2021 q3 i? At delayed testing 6 to 8 days later, there was no significant overall interaction between misconceptions and instructional method on delayed comprehension or delayed transfer. → Anja Prinz 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Anja Prinz 2021¶

Anja Prinz, Stefanie Golke, Jörg Wittwer. (2021). Counteracting detrimental effects of misconceptions on learning and metacomprehension accuracy: The utility of refutation texts and think sheets. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09535-8

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Mixed ANOVA on misconception counts (before studying, immediate, delayed) in the randomized experiment with Huynh–Feldt correction: "F(1.63, 143.52) = 44.59, p < .001, η2 = .34 (large effect)". Simple effects showed misconceptions were reduced at immediate and delayed testing with all three methods (ps ≤ .010).

"Yet, there was a significant main effect of time of misconceptions assessment, F(1.63, 143.52) = 44.59, p < .001, η2 = .34 (large effect)."

Anja Prinz 2021 (2)¶

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Delayed-session regression (N = 91, one participant missing) on delayed comprehension: "∆R 2 = .01, F(2, 85) = 0.95, p = .391"; the delayed-transfer analysis likewise showed no significant interaction (∆R2 = .04, p = .190), so the delayed hypotheses were not confirmed.

"The analysis on delayed comprehension showed that there was no significant overall interaction between misconceptions and instructional method, ∆R 2 = .01, F(2, 85) = 0.95, p = .391."

Discussion¶

Quiz accuracy declines from immediate to 1-week delayed testing regardless of text medium — related
Final-test reading comprehension after retrieval practice does not differ significantly between an immediate test and a test delayed by three weeks — related
Misconceptions impair comprehension of a standard text, and both a refutation text and a think sheet compensate for this detrimental effect — related
Misconceptions decreased over time in all three instructional methods, with no difference between methods — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`misconception-reduction-stable-delayed-testing`
`title`	`All three instructional methods reduced misconceptions, and comprehension and transfer effects were stable at delayed testing one week later`
`description`	`All three instructional methods reduced misconceptions, and comprehension and transfer effects were stable at delayed testing one week later`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2021`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-18`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `anja-prinz-2021`, `anja-prinz-2021-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.