Erroneous examples produce significantly higher delayed-test learning gains than problem solving for decimal learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Students working with interactive erroneous examples showed significantly higher gains from pretest to delayed posttest than problem-solving students (d=.33), replicating Adams et al. (2014). → Bruce M. McLaren & Deanne M. Adams & Richard E. Mayer 2015

Evidence¶

Bruce M. McLaren & Deanne M. Adams & Richard E. Mayer 2015¶

Bruce M. McLaren & Deanne M. Adams & Richard E. Mayer. (2015). Delayed Learning Effects with Erroneous Examples: a Study of Learning Decimals with a Web-Based Tutor. International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0064-x

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Randomized experiment with 390 sixth-grade students (188 ErrEx, 202 PS) using web-based CTAT materials; delayed test given one week after the immediate posttest. "students in the ErrEx group had significantly higher gains than students in the PS condition" with d=.33.

"For the gains scores between the pretest and delayed posttest, an ANCOV A with pretest score as a covariate showed that students in the ErrEx group had significantly higher gains than students in the PS condition, F(1387)=10.15, MSE=402.09 ,p=.002 ,d=.33."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The delayed erroneous-examples advantage replicated at one school but was not statistically significant at the other — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Erroneous examples and problem solving do not differ significantly on an immediate posttest — related
• The delayed erroneous-examples benefit holds for both low and high prior knowledge students — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Time on task does not explain the erroneous-examples delayed learning advantage — related
• Prompting learners to self-explain improves understanding and problem solving on immediate tests by a moderate average amount, with little evidence yet on delayed or classroom gains. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Erroneous examples improve conceptual understanding by forcing comparison with correct models. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Erroneous examples do not raise general confidence calibration but yield more high-confidence correct answers on the delayed posttest — related
• Students like problem solving more than erroneous examples and find its interface easier, though it yields weaker delayed learning — reports the opposite
• Worked examples did not improve application of CDR strategy knowledge relative to problem-solving — related
• Contrasting examples, correct examples, erroneous examples, and practice problems produced no differences in learning gains or transfer of unbiased-reasoning skills — related
• Contrasting erroneous examples were more often effective than correct examples and problem-solving, sometimes equally or more effective than erroneous examples — related
• Erroneous examples show no general learning benefit over correct examples in most comparisons, but outperform them for negative knowledge in some studies — related
• Classroom testing benefits facts (g = 0.524), concept learning (g = 0.644), and knowledge application in problem solving (g = 0.453). — related