Preceding high guidance with low guidance conferred no advantage for children's CVS learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Sequencing low guidance before high guidance (LH or HL) showed no advantage over other orderings for children's acquisition of CVS. → 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

q3 · i? · causal · r1

In the same four-condition experiment with third graders, the article reports that it "found no advantage for preceding high guidance with low guidance", addressing claims that invention or low-guidance exploration should precede explicit instruction.

"Moreover, we found no advantage for preceding high guidance with low guidance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Preliminary explicit instruction in scientific reasoning patterns (e.g., IAT statement construction) produced much larger LCTSR gains (g = 0.68) than courses without such intervention (g = 0.11) — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• 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
• Low-guidance set-ups took longer than high-guidance set-ups in the CVS instruction sessions — related
• Direct instruction's advantages do not persist over the longer term — related
• In the underlying laboratory study, only expository instruction combined with probes produced CVS learning, with transfer limited by grade level — related