Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40549267›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025

Does text generation improve learning from expository text? A conceptual replication attempt.

Julia Schindler, Tobias Richter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Julia SchindlerDepartment of Psychology IV, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 10, 97070, Würzburg, Germany. julia.schindler@fu-berlin.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5833-1334
Tobias RichterDepartment of Psychology IV, University of Würzburg, Röntgenring 10, 97070, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0467-9044

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft FOR 5254/1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft project number 450142163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to test the replicability of the text generation effect for learning with expository texts while systematically varying contextual factors that-based on extant literature-can be assumed to affect the occurrence and magnitude of the text generation effect. Seven experiments were conducted in which participants either read (control condition) or unscrambled sentences (generation condition) in expository texts. The experiments varied systematically on intentionality of learning, learning time constraint, retention interval, and study design. Contrary to expectations, no text generation effect could be found. Instead, some of the experiments even revealed a learning disadvantage for text generation compared to the reading control condition. In only one experiment (Experiment 6) and for just one of the learning measures, learners performed better when they had generated the texts. In sum, the results indicate that a generation effect is most likely to occur when learning is intentional, when learning time is unrestricted, and for immediate testing. The findings suggest that the applications of text generation in educational contexts are rather limited.

Indexed as

LearningReadingAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultConceptual replicationExpository textsGeneration effectLearningText generation

Identifiers

PMID40549267
PMCPMC12185794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.