Teams in the matched condition had more elaborate discussions of the domain than teams in the mismatched condition, especially about relations and mathematical relationships¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Matched-condition learners discussed more concepts (marginally) and more and different kinds of relationships than mismatched-condition learners. → B. Slof 2012 q3 i? Matched-condition learners discussed more mathematical relationships than learners in the causal-only and mismatched conditions. → B. Slof 2012 (2)

Evidence¶

B. Slof 2012¶

B. Slof, G. Erkens, P. A. Kirschner, J. Janssen, J. G. M. Jaspers. (2012). Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instr Sci 40:623–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9185-2

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Multilevel analysis of event-level chat codes also found a significant category effect for relations (b = 16.47, P < 0.05), with matched learners discussing more and different kinds of relationships than mismatched learners; no effect sizes printed.

"First, a marginally significant category effect for concepts (b = 11.91, P = 0.07) was found; learners in the matched condition discussed more concepts than learners in the mismatched condition."

B. Slof 2012 (2)¶

B. Slof, G. Erkens, P. A. Kirschner, J. Janssen, J. G. M. Jaspers. (2012). Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instr Sci 40:623–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9185-2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Multilevel analysis of domain discussion codes showed matched learners discussed more mathematical relationships than causal-only and mismatched learners; only b coefficients and p-values are printed, no standardized effect sizes.

"MLAs also revealed that learners in the matched condition discussed more mathematical relationships than learners in both the causal-only (b = 4.96, P\ 0.05) and mismatched ( b = 6.36, P\ 0.05) conditions."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Algebraic Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Teams with part-task congruent tools adjusted their representations across phases—broad causal representations first, then more selective algebraic specification—unlike single-tool teams — related
• Teams receiving part-task congruent representational tools (causal then simulation) outperformed teams with partly matched or mismatched tools on a complex business-economics learning task — related
• Learners in the matched condition exhibited more meta-cognitive and cognitive activities—monitoring, preparation, and ending discussions—than learners in other conditions — related
• No significant performance difference was found between the causal-only and simulation-only conditions, nor between the mismatched and partly matched conditions — related