Worked-example preparation leads to more application of canonical criteria during future learning, which mediates higher transfer¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2–q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The worked example group applied the canonical assessment criteria to examples more often than the inventing group (BF+0 = 4.238, d = .71). → Inga Glogger-Frey 2022 q3 i? Application of canonical criteria significantly mediated the effect of preparation condition on transfer (b = -0.276, 95% CI [-0.687, -0.012]). → Inga Glogger-Frey 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Inga Glogger-Frey 2022¶

Inga Glogger-Frey, Anne-Katrin Treier, Alexander Renkl. (2022). How preparation-for-learning with a worked versus an open inventing problem affect subsequent learning processes in pre-service teachers. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Think-aloud process coding in the N = 45 experiment; Table 2 reports means of 10.25 (worked example) versus 6.20 (inventing), d = .71, BF+0 = 4.238, moderate evidence that the "worked example group applied the canonical assessment criteria more often".

"During working with the various examples of learning strategies in the learning environment, the worked example group applied the canonical assessment criteria more often."

Inga Glogger-Frey 2022 (2)¶

Inga Glogger-Frey, Anne-Katrin Treier, Alexander Renkl. (2022). How preparation-for-learning with a worked versus an open inventing problem affect subsequent learning processes in pre-service teachers. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory multiple mediation analysis (PROCESS macro, 5000 bootstrap samples) with four process mediators; the confidence interval for the canonical-criteria indirect effect excluded zero, indicating "a significant indirect effect of the application of canonical criteria".

"We found a significant indirect effect of the application of canonical criteria (a*b path: b = -0.276, 95% CI [-0.687, -0.012])"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pre-service teachers preparing with a worked example outperform inventing peers on transfer of learning-strategy assessment skills — related
• Worked-example preparation deepens subsequent learning via more elaboration during the future-learning phase — related
• Contrary to expectation, the worked-example group applied suboptimal criteria more often, and fewer suboptimal applications mediated inventing's transfer — related
• The inventing group showed more metacognitive regulation during future learning, contrary to hypothesis, without benefiting transfer — related
• Invention Tasks Prepare Future Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning — related
• Inventing-phase failure was unproductive: invented solutions did not correlate with transfer, but suboptimal inventions related to lower interest and learning time — related
• Metacognitive scaffolding during guided invention improved conceptual features, dataset ranking accuracy, and learning-strategy behaviors over unguided invention — related
• Exploratory learning is expected to raise metacognitive activity, which in turn increases strategic knowledge and adaptive transfer — related