A cornerstone of adaptivity – A meta-analysis of the expertise reversal effect

IF 4.7 1区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2025-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102142

Leonard Tetzlaff , Bianca Simonsmeier , Tabea Peters , Garvin Brod

{"title":"A cornerstone of adaptivity – A meta-analysis of the expertise reversal effect","authors":"Leonard Tetzlaff , Bianca Simonsmeier , Tabea Peters , Garvin Brod","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Different learners thrive under different instructional conditions, thus requiring adaptivity. Such differential effects became known as aptitude-treatment interactions (ATIs). An example of an ATI is the expertise reversal effect. The expertise reversal effect is present when instructional assistance leads to increased learning gains in novices, but decreased learning gains in experts.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the strength of the expertise reversal effect as well as to identify potential moderators.</div></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><div>A standardized literature search was conducted in the online databases PsycINFO and ERIC in December 2022 and November 2024. Of 1590 identified studies, 176 effect sizes from 60 experimental studies and a total of 5924 participants were finally included in the meta-analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The data was analyzed using the metafor package in R, accounting for dependency among effect sizes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Low prior knowledge learners learn better from high-assistance instruction (d = 0.505). High prior knowledge learners learn better from low-assistance instruction (d = −0.428). These effects are moderated by the type of prior knowledge assessment, the educational status of the sample, and the domain of the learned content.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Our results suggest that the expertise reversal effect is robust across a wide variety of contexts. However, for younger students and some fields of study (i.e., humanities and language learning), the evidence for effectiveness is less clear.</div><div>Furthermore, the expertise reversal effect is not symmetrical: providing novices with assistance has a stronger effect than withholding assistance from experts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"98 ","pages":"Article 102142"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475225000660","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Different learners thrive under different instructional conditions, thus requiring adaptivity. Such differential effects became known as aptitude-treatment interactions (ATIs). An example of an ATI is the expertise reversal effect. The expertise reversal effect is present when instructional assistance leads to increased learning gains in novices, but decreased learning gains in experts.

Aims

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the strength of the expertise reversal effect as well as to identify potential moderators.

Sample

A standardized literature search was conducted in the online databases PsycINFO and ERIC in December 2022 and November 2024. Of 1590 identified studies, 176 effect sizes from 60 experimental studies and a total of 5924 participants were finally included in the meta-analysis.

Methods

The meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The data was analyzed using the metafor package in R, accounting for dependency among effect sizes.

Results

Low prior knowledge learners learn better from high-assistance instruction (d = 0.505). High prior knowledge learners learn better from low-assistance instruction (d = −0.428). These effects are moderated by the type of prior knowledge assessment, the educational status of the sample, and the domain of the learned content.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the expertise reversal effect is robust across a wide variety of contexts. However, for younger students and some fields of study (i.e., humanities and language learning), the evidence for effectiveness is less clear.

Furthermore, the expertise reversal effect is not symmetrical: providing novices with assistance has a stronger effect than withholding assistance from experts.

查看原文本刊更多论文

适应性的基石——专业知识逆转效应的元分析

不同的学习者在不同的教学条件下茁壮成长，因此需要适应性。这种差异效应被称为能力-治疗相互作用（ATIs）。ATI的一个例子是专业知识逆转效应。当教学辅助导致新手的学习收益增加，而专家的学习收益减少时，存在专业知识逆转效应。目的：我们进行了一项荟萃分析，以评估专业知识逆转效应的强度，并确定潜在的调节因子。于2022年12月和2024年11月分别在PsycINFO和ERIC在线数据库中进行SampleA标准化文献检索。在1590项确定的研究中，来自60项实验研究的176个效应量和总共5924名参与者最终被纳入meta分析。方法meta分析遵循PRISMA指南（Page et al., 2021）。使用R中的元包分析数据，考虑效应大小之间的依赖性。结果在高辅助教学中，慢先验知识学习者的学习效果更好（d = 0.505）。高先验知识学习者在低辅助教学中学习效果更好（d =−0.428）。这些影响被先前知识评估的类型、样本的教育状况和学习内容的领域所调节。结论本研究结果表明，专业知识逆转效应在多种情境下均具有显著性。然而，对于年龄较小的学生和某些学习领域（如人文学科和语言学习），有效性的证据就不那么清楚了。此外，专家逆转效应不对称，向新手提供帮助比不提供专家帮助的效果更强。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Learning and Instruction Multiple-

CiteScore

11.30

自引率

4.80%

发文量

109

期刊介绍： As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.