Merely delaying instruction until after problem solving does not improve conceptual understanding when no additional measures trigger knowledge-gap awareness or deep-feature discovery¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The order of the learning phases did not significantly affect conceptual understanding posttest scores, and the PS-I vs. I-PS difference was not significant. → Loibl 2020

Evidence¶

Loibl 2020¶

Loibl, K., Tillema, M., Rummel, N., & van Gog, T. (2020). The effect of contrasting cases during problem solving prior to and after instruction. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09504-7

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA on conceptual understanding in the randomized 2×2 experiment (N = 181). Neither factor was significant; the PS-I vs. I-PS pairwise difference was "not significant (p = 0.22)" with overlapping confidence intervals. Equivalence was not tested.

"the ANCOVA on conceptual understanding showed that neither the order of the learning phases, F(1, 176) = 0.74, p = 0.39, η2 < 0.01, nor the presence or absence of contrasting cases during problem solving, F(1, 176) = 2.65, p = 0.11, η2 = 0.02, significantly affected posttest scores"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 2, I-PS students outperformed PS-I students on problem-solving, idea generation, and embedded video quizzes — related
• In Experiment 1, I-PS students solved the initial problem better but PS-I students learned more from the subsequent instructional video — related
• Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning — reports the opposite
• Micro productive failure (problem solving before instruction) improved sixth-graders' isomorphic algebraic procedural problem solving, with the advantage stable across one-day and one-week delays — reports the opposite