Self-explaining led to significantly higher written procedural knowledge than re-experiencing, opposite to the hypothesized direction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The self-explaining group scored significantly higher than the re-experiencing group on the written procedural knowledge post-test (d = −0.34). → Valdemar Stenberdt 2025 q3 i? No significant differences between groups on written factual or conceptual knowledge. → Valdemar Stenberdt 2025

Evidence¶

Valdemar Stenberdt 2025¶

Valdemar Stenberdt, Ban Mouid Shiwalia, Guido Makransky. (2025). Re-Experiencing vs. Self-Explaining: Comparing Generative Learning Activities in VR. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10096-2

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Independent-samples t-tests on the full sample of 161 students comparing written post-test scores. Procedural knowledge favored self-explaining (M = 5.12 vs 4.23), "in the opposite direction of the hypothesized relationship". Factual knowledge showed no difference (p = 0.845); conceptual knowledge was marginal (p = 0.058).

"a significant difference between the self-explaining ( M = 5.12, SD = 2.59) and re-experiencing (M = 4.23, SD = 2.60) groups, t(df = 159) = 2.17, p = 0.031, d = −0.34, 95% CI = [−0.65, −0.03]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Exploratory correlations suggest embodiment was specifically relevant in the re-experiencing group, correlating with written procedural knowledge and post-test self-efficacy — related
• Corrective feedback plus either GLA significantly improved students' safety behavior in VR, with no difference between re-experiencing and self-explaining — related
• Both GLAs significantly reduced dexterity errors over time; the between-group difference after the GLA was not significant after Bonferroni correction — related