Adding a self-explanation feature to a base game improved transfer performance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · 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.
q2 i? Students who played the base version of The Circuit Game plus prompts to self-explain each major decision performed better on solving transfer problems than students who played the base version alone. → Mayer 2014
Evidence¶
Mayer 2014¶
Mayer, Richard E. (2014). Computer Games for Learning: An Evidence-Based Approach. The MIT Press. http://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/4028/bookpreview-pdf/2362507
q2 · i? · causal · r?
Value-added study conducted in the author's UCSB lab comparing students who played the base version of The Circuit Game with those who played it with self-explanation prompts. The "base plus self-explanation group performed better than the base group" on transfer problems. No effect size is printed in the text.
"The base plus self-explanation group performed better than the base group on solving transfer problems on a embedded test, indicating that adding an instructional feature based on self-explanation improved student learning."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Prompting learners to self-explain improves understanding and problem solving on immediate tests by a moderate average amount, with little evidence yet on delayed or classroom gains. — a broader claim this one bears on
- Self-explanation beats unguided studying for equal time, but instructional explanations, problem solving and retrieval practice can be equally or more effective — related
- Prompting learners to self-explain, one generative strategy, improves learning by a moderate average amount; other generative activities are not tested by the evidence recorded here — a broader claim this one bears on
- Explaining one's own potentially incorrect ideas can reduce learning, while explaining known-correct content supports it — related
- Backward fading and principle prompts supported transfer in probability learning — related
- Learning from examples depends on the explaining mode: prompting principle-based self-explanations and guided comparison of examples improves transfer — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
self-explanation-feature-improved-game-transfer |
title |
Adding a self-explanation feature to a base game improved transfer performance |
description |
Adding a self-explanation feature to a base game improved transfer performance |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mayer-2014 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.