The quality of elaborative-interrogation answers had little effect on retention; even failed or inadequate why-answers facilitated learning relative to reading¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 1992 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 1, adequate, inadequate, and no-response items showed almost no retention differences; only adequate vs no-response differed on immediate recognition. → Woloshyn 1992 q3 i? In Experiment 2, answer type did not affect learning except adequate vs unanswered items on cued recall. → Woloshyn 1992 (2)

Evidence¶

Woloshyn 1992¶

Woloshyn, Vera E.; Paivio, Allan; Pressley, Mike. (1992). Using Elaborative Interrogation To Help Students Overcome Their Inaccurate Science Beliefs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED356949

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Experiment 1 response-quality analysis: raters scored why-answers as adequate (34.70%), inadequate (55.70%), or no response (9.60%); conditional-probability analyses found only one significant difference, adequate items retained better than response failures on immediate recognition (R = 3.87, p<.05).

"The quality of students' elaborative-interrogation study responses had little affect on retention.Even when subjects failed to generate an answer to the why question, or generated an answer that contained irrelevant information, learning was facilitated relative to reading."

Woloshyn 1992 (2)¶

Woloshyn, Vera E.; Paivio, Allan; Pressley, Mike. (1992). Using Elaborative Interrogation To Help Students Overcome Their Inaccurate Science Beliefs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED356949

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Experiment 2 response-quality analysis: adequate responses 46.40%, inadequate 43.60%, no responses 10.00%. Conditional-probability analyses found only one significant difference, on cued recall, where "items answered adequately were retained better than items that were not answered" (g = 3.51, p<.01).

"There was one significant difference.For cued recall, items answered adequately were retained better than items that were not answered (g = 3.51, 2<.01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Answers to elaborative interrogation questions were mostly poor in quality, and answer quality correlated positively with posttest scores — reports the opposite
• Elaborative interrogation produced greater pretest-to-posttest gains on items about common misbeliefs than reading control in Experiment 2 — related
• Elaborative interrogation instructions produce better recall and recognition of science facts than reading-for-understanding instructions — related
• Elaborative interrogation increased perceived difficulty and time spent with the lesson — related
• Elaborative interrogation produced lower posttest accuracy than reading the lesson twice in a written lesson on posterior probability — reports the opposite
• Elaborative Interrogation Improves Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Elaborative interrogation improved true/false test performance in an introductory biology course context — related
• Generating a good question for a topic strongly predicts answering the matching test item correctly — related
• Elaborative-interrogation students are less confident in their incorrect recognition selections than reading controls, who express great confidence in erroneous answers — related
• Prior-knowledge activation instructions before study had little effect on retention in Experiment 2 — related