High prior knowledge students learned most conceptual understanding from questions plus arguments; answering questions alone was least effective¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Among high prior knowledge students, the combination of open-ended questions and arguments beat answering open-ended questions only, t(25) = 2.688, Cohen's d = 1.06. → Leppink 2012 q3 i2 Worked-out examples did not yield significantly worse conceptual understanding than questions plus arguments for high prior knowledge students, though the difference was a medium-size effect, d = 0.51. → Leppink 2012 (2)

Evidence¶

Leppink 2012¶

Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Berger, M. P. F. (2012). Self-explanation in the domain of statistics: an expertise reversal effect. Higher Education, 63, 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9476-1

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Pairwise comparison within the high prior knowledge group on the conceptual understanding test in the randomized experiment. Questions-only was the least effective condition for this group, significantly below the questions-plus-arguments condition, with Cohen's d = 1.06.

"High prior knowledge students, though, learn most from the combination of open-ended questions and arguments, while answering open-ended questions only is least effective, t(25) = 2.688, p\ .05 (Cohen’s d = 1.06),"

Leppink 2012 (2)¶

Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Berger, M. P. F. (2012). Self-explanation in the domain of statistics: an expertise reversal effect. Higher Education, 63, 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9476-1

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Pairwise comparison within the high prior knowledge group on conceptual understanding. The difference between worked-out examples and questions plus arguments was not statistically significant; the authors attribute this "to a statistical power problem, since the difference illustrates a medium size effect" (d = 0.51).

"studying worked-out examples not yielding significantly worse learning outcomes than the combination of open-ended questions and arguments, t(25) = 1.271, p[ .20 (Cohen’s d = 0.51). The non-significant difference between the open-ended questions plus argu-ments condition and the worked-out examples condition may be due to a statistical power problem, since the difference illustrates a medium size effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Low prior knowledge students learned most conceptual understanding from worked-out examples, and least from questions plus arguments — related
• Some classroom discussion approaches improve text comprehension, but gains are not uniform across approaches and more student talk alone does not produce them — related
• Peer Discussion Improves Conceptual Understanding — related
• Constructive learning beats active and passive learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• 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. — related