Low-guidance set-ups took longer than high-guidance set-ups in the CVS instruction sessions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mean time on task was longer for the low-guidance set-ups than for the high-guidance set-ups during instruction. → Matlen 2013

Evidence¶

Matlen 2013¶

Matlen, B.J., Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children's acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing?. Instructional Science, 41, 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive time-on-task report from the instruction phases of the guidance-sequencing experiment: mean time was 9:15 for the four high-guidance set-ups and 14:33 for the eight low-guidance set-ups. The article prints these as descriptive means with no significance test.

"Mean time on task four the four set-ups in the High Guidance condition was 9:15 and for the eight set-ups in the Low Guidance condition 14:33."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• High-then-high guidance produced stronger understanding of CVS than low-then-low guidance in third graders, including on a 5-month post-test — related
• Phase 4 low-guidance procedure was truncated for children who already demonstrated unconfounded designs — related
• Direct instruction's advantages do not persist over the longer term — related
• Preceding high guidance with low guidance conferred no advantage for children's CVS learning — related
• Both hint conditions took more time-on-task than control, but ChatGPT and human tutor conditions did not differ in session time — related
• Engage-to-Unlock redistributed effort across tasks: participants spent more time writing and less time evaluating, without increasing overall task duration — related