Enhancing learning through strategy instruction and group interaction: is active generation of elaborations critical?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined strategic intervention when learners were actively engaged in group discussion to assess the impact of peer interaction. In addition, memory performance was compared between students who generated or evaluated elaborations when using the elaborative interrogation strategy, as well as between a supported strategy where learners were provided with explanatory elaborations and a self-study condition. Introductory psychology students (N=263) in groups of 3 to 5 members studied sixty facts about familiar and unfamiliar animals. Overall, the potency of elaborative interrogation was confirmed regardless of whether students studied interactively or independently. The contribution of group members in facilitating knowledge when the group was able to share sophisticated strategic information also was highlighted. Most critically, when background knowledge was sufficient to promote connections between existing and new material, it was the active generation of elaborations that maximized learning. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it