Oral explaining yields more accurate meta-comprehension judgments than written explaining and retrieval practice¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i? A main effect of learning activity on meta-comprehension accuracy emerged, F(2, 111) = 9.05, p < .001, η²p = .032; oral explainers judged their comprehension more accurately than written explainers (p < .001) and retrievers (p = .026). → Jacob 2019
Evidence¶
Jacob 2019¶
Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Learning by Explaining Orally or In Written Form? Text Difficulty Matters. https://aspredicted.org/sv3zv.pdf
q3 · i? · causal · r3
ANCOVA on meta-comprehension accuracy (bias) after the learning activity, controlling for study-phase judgments. Post-hoc tests showed "a significant difference between students who explained orally and students who wrote an explanation (p < .001)" and oral versus retrieval (p = .026); written versus retrieval showed no effect (p = .446).
"Results demonstrated a main effect of learning activity, F(2, 111) = 9.05, p < .001, η²p = .032, and a main effect of text difficulty, F(1, 111) = 41.11, p < .001, η²p = .039, indicating that students rated their comprehension more precisely in the low-difficult text condition than in the high-difficult text condition (see Table 1)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- For the low-difficult text, oral explaining, written explaining, and retrieval practice yield comparable learning outcomes — related
- Students report more mental effort and subjective difficulty during oral explaining than during retrieval practice — related
- Generating explanations (oral or written) outperforms retrieval practice on inference-based questions for the high-difficult text — related
- Self-explaining does not improve retrospective monitoring accuracy, while problem complexity reduces it — related
- Explaining was not more effective than oral retrieval practice overall in Experiment 1 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
oral-explaining-improves-meta-comprehension-accuracy |
title |
Oral explaining yields more accurate meta-comprehension judgments than written explaining and retrieval practice |
description |
Oral explaining yields more accurate meta-comprehension judgments than written explaining and retrieval practice |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-23 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jacob-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.