No Causal Self‐Explanation Effect for Factual Knowledge

ABSTRACT The effect of self‐explanation on learning has rarely been tested experimentally, using sufficient sample sizes and active control conditions. In this preregistered study ( N = 208), a 2 × 2 mixed design was implemented to test whether (1) factual information is better retrieved after self‐explanation versus re‐reading, (2) memory depends on retention interval (immediate vs. 2‐week delay), (3) learning strategy and retention interval interact, and (4) the number of self‐explanations predicts performance. Participants learnt fictional facts under laboratory conditions. An ANOVA revealed a large effect of retention interval, but no effect of learning strategy and no interaction. A multiple regression revealed that—within correct self‐explanations—the number of inferences predicted factual test performance, but not the number of paraphrases. Thus, although producing correct inferences during self‐explanation was associated with better performance, self‐explanation itself had no effect on factual learning compared to re‐reading, neither immediately nor after a delay.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Published
2026-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70174
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

No Causal Self‐Explanation Effect for Factual Knowledge

Mirjam Ebersbach, Benjamin Harders
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Memory Processes and Influences
article

No Causal Self‐Explanation Effect for Factual Knowledge

Mirjam Ebersbach, Benjamin Harders
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT The effect of self‐explanation on learning has rarely been tested experimentally, using sufficient sample sizes and active control conditions. In this preregistered study ( N = 208), a 2 × 2 mixed design was implemented to test whether (1) factual information is better retrieved after self‐explanation versus re‐reading, (2) memory depends on retention interval (immediate vs. 2‐week delay), (3) learning strategy and retention interval interact, and (4) the number of self‐explanations predicts performance. Participants learnt fictional facts under laboratory conditions. An ANOVA revealed a large effect of retention interval, but no effect of learning strategy and no interaction. A multiple regression revealed that—within correct self‐explanations—the number of inferences predicted factual test performance, but not the number of paraphrases. Thus, although producing correct inferences during self‐explanation was associated with better performance, self‐explanation itself had no effect on factual learning compared to re‐reading, neither immediately nor after a delay.

Applied Cognitive PsychologyVol. 40(3)
University of Kassel (DE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.