The text-recall benefit of problem analysis is confined to explanatory propositions; descriptive facts are not better remembered¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1989 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For explanations the treatment difference was significant, F(1, 82) = 4.73, p < .05, but for descriptions it was not, F(1, 82) = .18, p < .67, with significant treatment-by-type and expertise-by-type interactions. → Schmidt 1989

Evidence¶

Schmidt 1989¶

Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory Models in the Processing of Science Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge Activation Through Small-Group Discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610-619. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.81.4.610

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Follow-up tests within the Experiment 2 three-way ANOVA showed the experimental effect on recall "was entirely due to the processing and retrieval of explanative information"; interactions of treatment by type, F(1, 82) = 7.77, p < .01, and expertise by type, F(1, 82) = 20.47, p < .001, were significant, the three-way interaction was not, F(1, 82) = 1.32, p < .25.

"For explanations, the difference between treat- ments was significant, F(1, 82) = 4.73, MSe = 254.93,/9 < .05; for descriptions, however, the difference was not signifi- cant, F(1, 82) = .18, MS~ = 54.40,/9 < .67."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Problem analysis through small-group discussion particularly stimulates the production of explanatory propositions, via a significant treatment-by-proposition-type interaction — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The recall benefit of prior problem-based discussion applies to both explanatory and descriptive propositions, with no interaction between treatment and proposition type — reports the opposite
• Analyzing a problem before reading facilitates subsequent recall of a relevant text for both novices and experts — related