Oral explanations contain more personal references and more concepts than written explanations, but not more elaborations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Oral explanations contained more personal references than written explanations, t(77) = 2.20, p = .033, d = 0.50. → Jacob 2019 q3 i3 Oral explanations contained more concepts than written explanations, t(77) = 3.65, p < .001, d = 0.83. → Jacob 2019 q3 i? There was no significant difference between oral and written explanations in the number of elaborations, t(77) = 1.44, p = .155, d = 0.33. → 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 · i2 · causal · r3

Exploratory independent t-tests comparing features of explanations generated in the oral versus written conditions. The article reports higher social presence via personal references (d = 0.50), more concepts (d = 0.83), but no significant difference in elaborations (d = 0.33, p = .155).

"Oral explanations contained more personal references (e.g., “I”, “you”, etc.) than written explanations, t(77) = 2.20, p = .033, d = 0.50, indicating that the social presence was higher in the oral condition than in the written condition (see Table 1)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For the low-difficult text, oral explaining, written explaining, and retrieval practice yield comparable learning outcomes — related
• The modality effect on inference-based questions is serially mediated by personal references and comprehensiveness of explanations — related
• Text difficulty moderates the effect of explaining modality: oral explaining outperforms written explaining on inference-based questions only for the high-difficult text — related