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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Condition significantly affected team learning-task performance, with the matched causal-simulation condition scoring highest. → B. Slof 2012

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 · r2

One-way ANOVA (Brown-Forsythe) on total team performance scores across four conditions (34 teams); matched teams scored M = 39.14 (SD = 1.22) versus 28.00–31.56 in other conditions. The condition effect was significant, F(3, 21.50) = 7.00, p < .01, with a printed variance-explained effect size of 0.33 (its symbol is garbled in the extracted text); impact is left uncoded because no d-type effect size is printed for the matched-versus-other comparisons.

"One-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of condition on learning-task performance, F(3, 21.50) = 7.00, P\ 0.01, x2 = 0.33 (Brown-Forsythe because homogeneity of variance assumption was violated)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teams in the matched condition had more elaborate discussions of the domain than teams in the mismatched condition, especially about relations and mathematical relationships — related
• Learners in the matched condition exhibited more meta-cognitive and cognitive activities—monitoring, preparation, and ending discussions—than learners in other conditions — related
• 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
• No significant performance difference was found between the causal-only and simulation-only conditions, nor between the mismatched and partly matched conditions — related
• Model progression benefits learning only in sufficiently complex simulations; in a simple domain it was less efficient than full complexity from the start — related
• Shared mental models of the task predict actual team performance in a business simulation game — related
• Instruction combining communication rules (RIDE) and a hypothesis tool (CHT) increases team regulation in computer-supported collaborative inquiry, and team regulation relates to learning outcomes only in that combined condition — related