PS-DI learners consulted the reference book on supplier selection procedure far more often than DI-PS learners (d = .83)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 The two sequencing groups differed significantly only in reference book use, with PS-DI opening and reading the procedure document more frequently. → Sabrina Ludwig 2026

Evidence¶

Sabrina Ludwig 2026¶

Sabrina Ludwig, Andreas Rausch, Michelle Taub. (2026). Effects of instructional design, instructional preferences, and cognitive load on problem solving and knowledge acquisition in a computer-based office simulation. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102255

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Log file analysis of mouse clicks and keystrokes during the problem-solving scenario, deriving behavioural indicators such as note-taking and document reading. Reference book use showed "d = .83" (M = 4.51 for PS-DI vs 1.3 for DI-PS); bi-gram sequence analysis yielded no additional significance.

"They only significantly differ in their activities regarding reference books that contain a document showing the procedure of supplier selection (MDI-PS = 1.3; SDDI-PS = 2.89 and MPS-DI = 4.51; SDPS-DI = 4.67, d = .83)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• DI-PS significantly outperformed PS-DI on the two supplier-reasoning problem-solving criteria (d = .60 and d = .64) — related
• Log-based behaviours predicted problem-solving performance in the DI-PS group but hardly explained knowledge acquisition in either group — related
• Overall problem-solving performance did not differ significantly between DI-PS and PS-DI (p = .08) — related
• Learners in both sequencing conditions predominantly preferred and were satisfied with DI-PS sequencing — related