Example–problem pairs raise perceived competence but not perceived autonomy or enjoyment¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i2 Students in the EPEP condition reported greater perceived competence after learning (η²p = .06) than PEPE students, with no sequence differences in autonomy or enjoyment. → Coppens 2019
Evidence¶
Coppens 2019¶
Coppens, L. C., Hoogerheide, V., Snippe, E. M., Flunger, B., & van Gog, T. (2019). Effects of problem–example and example–problem pairs on gifted and nongifted primary school students' learning. Instructional Science, 47, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09484-3
q2 · i2 · causal · r2
2 × 2 ANOVA (giftedness × task sequence) on posttest perceived competence, with 126 primary students quasi-randomly assigned to sequence (matched on gender and a standardized math score): "Students in the EPEP condition" reported greater perceived competence than PEPE students, F(1, 122) = 7.71, p = .006, η²p = .06; no interaction with giftedness.
"There was also a main effect of task sequence, F(1, 122) = 7.71, p = .006, /u1D7022 p = .06. Students in the EPEP condition (M = 2.97, SD = 0.59) reported greater levels of perceived competence than students in the PEPE condition (M = 2.70, SD = 0.49)"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Achievement Emotions — outcome: instruction changes it
- Interest — outcome: instruction changes it
- Self-Efficacy — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Task sequence effects on mental effort reverse between learning phase and transfer test — related
- Example–problem pairs are more efficient than problem–example pairs for both gifted and nongifted primary school students — related
- Starting with an example strongly benefits first practice problem performance, with a larger effect for gifted students — related
- Perceived competence predicts isomorphic test performance and perceived autonomy predicts transfer performance — related
- Gifted primary students report higher need for cognition, perceived competence and perceived autonomy than nongifted students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
example-problem-pairs-raise-perceived-competence |
title |
Example–problem pairs raise perceived competence but not perceived autonomy or enjoyment |
description |
Example–problem pairs raise perceived competence but not perceived autonomy or enjoyment |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-19 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — coppens-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.