Expansive framing increased transfer-after-exposure of facts (d = .94)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Students in the expansive condition listed 20% more facts after exposure while bounded-condition students listed 3% more (d = .94; F(1,19) = 4.82, p = .04). → Randi A. Engle 2011

Evidence¶

Randi A. Engle 2011¶

Randi A. Engle, Phi D. Nguyen, Adam Mendelson. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instr Sci 39:603–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9145-2

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Transfer-after-exposure analysis in the same tutoring experiment, controlling for prior knowledge via the respiratory screening test. The expansive condition showed "listing 20% more facts" than at screening versus 3% more in the bounded condition.

"there was also a large main effect of condition (d = .94), with students in the expansive condition listing 20% more facts than they had during the original screening assessment while students in the bounded condition listed 3% more facts than they had originally ( F(1,19) = 4.82, p = .04"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• General biology students in the expansive condition transferred more of what they learned about the differential pressure principle (d = 1.2)
• Expansive framing increased transfer-of-knowing of the differential pressure principle (d = .95) — related
• Expansive framing increased high school biology students' transfer-of-knowing of facts between body systems (d = .89) — related
• A non-significant trend favored expansive framing on transfer-of-learning of facts (36% vs. 13%, p = .09) — related
• Students perceived the intended expansive versus bounded framing manipulation (d = 1.4) — related
• Expansive framing increased spontaneous transfer of the diagram-drawing learning strategy (7 of 12 vs. 1 of 12 students) — related