Providing key features during case comparison improves student teachers' ability to explain teacher behavior with operant conditioning principles, but not lower levels of understanding¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Experimental conditions with key features provided outperformed conditions without key features on the explanation posttest (ηp² = 0.10), but not on definition or classification scores. → Julia Kienzler 2023

Evidence¶

Julia Kienzler 2023¶

Julia Kienzler, Thamar Voss, Jörg Wittwer. (2023). Student teachers' conceptual knowledge of operant conditioning: How can case comparison support knowledge acquisition? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09627-7

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

MANCOVA in a randomized 2×2 experiment with 181 student teachers, controlling prior knowledge, gender, and semester. The printed effect size for the key-features main effect was ηp² = 0.10; the univariate test showed it was "statistically significant for the highest level of conceptual understanding, that is, explanation, F(3, 169) = 18.45, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.10".

"We found a large and significant main effect of provision of key features, F(3, 169) = 6.533, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.10, but no significant effect of timing of input"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Case comparison shifts student teachers' beliefs about operant conditioning toward more positive, regardless of experimental condition
• Providing key features during case comparison reduces learning time — related
• Presenting principles before case comparison yields higher germane load and lower extraneous load than presenting them after — related
• Higher germane load and lower extraneous load mediate the effect of instructional guidance on conceptual knowledge — related