General biology students in the expansive condition transferred more of what they learned about the differential pressure principle (d = 1.2)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Among general biology students, expansive-condition students transferred 78.6% of what they learned about differential pressure versus 33.6% in the bounded condition (d = 1.2; t(12) = 2.27, p < .05). → 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 · r1

t-test restricted to general biology students because too few AP students learned new differential-pressure propositions. The expansive condition showed "transferred 78.6% of what they learned" versus 33.6% in the bounded condition.

"General biology students in the expansive condition transferred 78.6% of what they learned during the cardiovascular session while those in the bounded condition only transferred 33.6% of it (see Fig. 4; d = 1.2; t(12) = 2.27, p\ .05)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Expansive framing increased transfer-of-knowing of the differential pressure principle (d = .95)
• Expansive framing increased transfer-after-exposure of facts (d = .94)
• Expansive framing increased spontaneous transfer of the diagram-drawing learning strategy (7 of 12 vs. 1 of 12 students)
• No evidence that framing affected transfer of the surface area principle
• 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