Both treatment groups improved near within domain transfer, but the One Model Group's benefit depended on having a content-expert teacher while the Two Models Group's did not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Both groups improved on the butterfly effect near transfer item from pretest to posttest, with no main effect of Condition. → Jacobson 2020 q3 i2 A Condition × Teacher interaction arose solely because the One Model Group benefited from the content-expert teacher on near transfer, whereas the Two Models Group showed no teacher-expertise effect. → Jacobson 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Jacobson 2020¶

Jacobson, Michael, Goldwater, Micah, Markauskaite, Lina, Lai, Polly, Kapur, Manu, Roberts, Gareth, & Hilton, Courtney. (2020). Schema abstraction with productive failure and analogical comparison: Learning designs for far across domain transfer. Learning and Instruction, 65, Article number: 101222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101222

q3 · i2 · causal · r1

Linear mixed-model analysis of the butterfly effect near within domain transfer item in the quasi-experimental study. Both groups improved significantly by posttest regardless of whether they learned with one or two models.

"there was a main effect for Time, F(1,92) = 7.585, p = 0.007, η2 = .076, but no main effect for Condition, F(1,92) = 0.425 , p = 0.516, η 2 = .005, nor an interaction between Condition and Time, F(1,92) = 0.067 , p = 0.796, η2 = .001."

Jacobson 2020 (2)¶

Jacobson, Michael, Goldwater, Micah, Markauskaite, Lina, Lai, Polly, Kapur, Manu, Roberts, Gareth, & Hilton, Courtney. (2020). Schema abstraction with productive failure and analogical comparison: Learning designs for far across domain transfer. Learning and Instruction, 65, Article number: 101222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101222

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

The Condition by Teacher Content Expertise interaction on near transfer was significant (F(1,92) = 3.967, p = 0.049, η2 = .041); follow-up comparisons showed the difference was "solely due to" teacher expertise within the One Model Group, while the Two Models Group "showed no effect of teacher expertise".

"There was a pairwise difference between the content-expert and the non-expert for participants in the One Model Group (M = 0.283, SE = 0.127), t = 2.23, p = 0.028, with students exposed to the content-expert teacher showing higher performance for the near within domain transfer."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Both treatment groups significantly improved complex systems explanatory knowledge, and students taught by the content-expert teacher learned more than those taught by less expert teachers — related
• Students who compared a climate model with non-climate analog models during productive failure scored significantly higher on far across domain transfer than students who used only the climate model — related
• PF students scored significantly higher than DI students on near transfer (butterfly effect problem) — related
• Both treatment groups significantly improved climate explanatory knowledge, with no reliable condition or teacher-expertise differences — related