Cited by 43Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

The role of specificity, targeted learning activities, and prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions.

Roelle, Julian, Lehmkuhl, Nina, Beyer, Martin-Uwe, Berthold, Kirsten·2015·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

In 2 experiments we examined the role of (a) specificity, (b) the type of targeted learning activities, and (c) learners' prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions on learning from instructional explanations. In Experiment 1, we recruited novices regarding the topic of atomic structure (N = 80) and found that specific relevance instructions designed to focus learners' attention on basic contents (i.e., focused processing prompts) were more effective than general relevance instructions that merely told learners to process the explanations for study purposes. This specificity effect was mediated by lower extraneous load that was due to having to identify the relevant information. Furthermore, regarding the role of the type of targeted learning activities, we found that focused processing prompts were more effective when they were combined with reduced explanations without explicit answers to the focused processing prompts, rather than with complete explanations that included them. This effect was mediated by a higher amount of generative learning activities on the part of the learners who received reduced explanations. To explore the role of learners' prior knowledge, in Experiment 2 we recruited a sample with greater diversity in prior knowledge (N = 77). As in Experiment 1, we found that reduced explanations and focused processing prompts were more effective than complete explanations and general purpose instructions for novice learners. However, learners with a higher degree of prior knowledge benefited more from complete explanations and general purpose instructions than from reduced explanations and focused processing prompts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/edu0000010

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roelle, J., Lehmkuhl, N., Beyer, M.-U., & Berthold, K.
Affiliations
Bielefeld University (DE)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2015-08
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
705-723
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2122699240
Cited by
42
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
prior knowledge, instructional explanations, extraneous cognitive load, atomic structure, novice learners, learning from explanations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review