Individual instructional design principles show small correlations with self-efficacy, mental effort, and transfer performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Applying the example-first-principle positively correlated with average self-efficacy in the learning phase (r = .183), while applying the lowest-level-first-principle negatively correlated with self-efficacy (r = −.257; r = −.268 after learning), perceived competence (r = −.219), and procedural transfer performance (r = −.235). → Milou van Harsel 2022

Evidence¶

Milou van Harsel 2022¶

Milou van Harsel, Vincent Hoogerheide, Eva Janssen, Peter Verkoeijen, Tamara van Gog. (2022). How do higher education students regulate their learning with video modeling examples, worked examples, and practice problems? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09589-2

q2 · i2 · associational · r1

Pearson correlation analysis between individual principle scores and cognitive/motivational variables in the same sample. The article also reports lowest-level-first-principle correlations of r = −.257, r = −.268, r = −.219, and r = −.235, and simple-to-complex-principle correlations with mental effort of r = −.180 and r = −.183.

"there was a positive relation between spontaneously applying the example-first-principle and average scores on self-efficacy in the learning phase (r = .183)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Total adherence to instructional design principles does not correlate with learning outcomes, mental effort, or motivational variables — a broader claim this one bears on
• Task sequence effects on mental effort reverse between learning phase and transfer test — related
• Most students' self-regulated task selections match instructional design principles, with the simple-to-complex principle least often fully applied — related