Learning-outcome effects of open- versus closed-book generative tasks are mixed¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Some studies favor open-book formats of generative tasks on learning outcomes, others find no significant differences, and closed-book advantages are rare. → Julian Roelle 2023

Evidence¶

Julian Roelle 2023¶

Julian Roelle, Tino Endres, Roman Abel, Niklas Obergassel, Matthias Nückles, Alexander Renkl. (2023). Happy Together? On the Relationship Between Research on Retrieval Practice and Generative Learning Using the Case of Follow-Up Learning Tasks. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09810-9

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports a mixed pattern of learning-outcome effects across format-comparison studies: "significant effects favoring the open-book format" in some studies, no significant differences in others (e.g., Arnold et al., 2021; Roelle & Nückles, 2019; Waldeyer et al., 2020), and closed-book advantages described as few and far between. No pooled effect size is printed.

"Some studies reported significant effects favoring the open-book format of generative tasks (e.g., Hiller et al., 2020; Roelle & Berthold, 2017; Sibley et al., 2022), whereas other studies, just like that by Agarwal et al., 2008"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Closed-book generative tasks can outperform open-book ones when learners can later reinspect the material — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Closed-book self-explanation prompts show no added value on delayed posttest performance, even with prior active processing of instructional explanations — related
• Closed-book self-explanation prompts reduce the number of generated self-explanations when learners are not prompted to actively process the instructional explanations beforehand — related