Groups with prior collaborative experience on similar tasks outperform inexperienced groups on individual retention tests after collaborative learning of complex tasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In the learning phase, experienced groups outperformed inexperienced groups on task performance. → Jimmy Zambrano 2019 q3 i2 In the delayed retention test one week later, experienced groups still outperformed inexperienced groups on individual test performance. → Jimmy Zambrano 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Jimmy Zambrano 2019¶

Jimmy Zambrano, Femke Kirschner, John Sweller, Paul A. Kirschner. (2019). Effects of group experience and information distribution on collaborative learning. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09495-0

q3 · i3 · large effect, ηp² = .26 · causal · r2

ANOVA from the learning phase of the 2×2 experiment. Of 240 secondary school students recruited, the learning phase analysed 65 three-person groups after exclusions (39 experienced, 26 inexperienced), at group level (F(1, 61) = 21.12, p < .001, ηp² = .26, Table 4). On break-even problems, "experienced groups (M = .52, SD = .42) outperformed inexperienced groups (M = .13, SD = .21)".

"Concerning performance, ANOVA revealed that experienced groups (M = .52, SD = .42) outperformed inexperienced groups (M = .13, SD = .21)."

Jimmy Zambrano 2019 (2)¶

Jimmy Zambrano, Femke Kirschner, John Sweller, Paul A. Kirschner. (2019). Effects of group experience and information distribution on collaborative learning. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09495-0

q3 · i2 · medium effect, ηp² = .09 · causal · r2

Analysis of the delayed retention test taken seven days after the learning phase, solved individually: three problems similar to the learning tasks, with the business situation and cost names varied. "experienced groups (M = .46, SD = .30) outperformed inexperienced groups (M = .29, SD = .26)" (F(1, 177) = 17.23, p < .001, ηp² = .09, Table 4).

"For performance (Table 4), the analysis revealed that experienced groups (M = .46, SD = .30) outperformed inexperienced groups (M = .29, SD = .26)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Experienced groups show higher instructional efficiency than inexperienced groups in the delayed retention test after collaborative learning — related
• The efficiency advantage of prior collaborative experience emerges under high information density but not under low information density — related
• Collaboration facilitates learning only under specific knowledge and experience conditions; with advanced learners it can be detrimental via the expertise reversal effect — a broader claim this one bears on
• In the learning phase, group experience and information distribution each produce significant multivariate effects on performance, mental effort, and efficiency, without interacting — related