No evidence that framing affected transfer of the surface area principle¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For the surface area principle there were no main or interaction effects on immediate transfer measured three ways, with p-values ranging from .12 to 1.0; the study did not detect an effect. → Randi A. Engle 2011

Evidence¶

Randi A. Engle 2011¶

Randi A. Engle, Phi D. Nguyen, Adam Mendelson. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instr Sci 39:603–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9145-2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ANOVA results across transfer-of-knowing, transfer-of-learning, and transfer-after-exposure measures in the tutoring experiment. Descriptive means favored expansive (M = 71%) over bounded (M = 59%) on transfer-of-knowing, but "there was too much variability for any effects to be detected".

"For the surface area principle there were no main or interaction effects on immediate transfer when measured in each of the three ways, with p-values ranging from .12 to 1.0."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• General biology students in the expansive condition transferred more of what they learned about the differential pressure principle (d = 1.2)
• Expansive framing increased transfer-of-knowing of the differential pressure principle (d = .95) — related
• Expansive framing increased high school biology students' transfer-of-knowing of facts between body systems (d = .89) — related
• No condition differences in prior knowledge, time-on-task, interest, or amount learned, supporting the framing manipulation's isolation — related
• Students perceived the intended expansive versus bounded framing manipulation (d = 1.4) — related