Successful discoverers regulate learning more systematically, planning experiments and monitoring progress, while unsuccessful learners work unsystematically¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1998 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Successful learners follow a plan across experiments, whereas unsuccessful learners use random, locally driven strategies and monitor poorly. → Ton de Jong 1998 q2 i? Working method contributed to learning outcomes over and above intellectual ability across several studies. → Ton de Jong 1998 (2)

Evidence¶

Ton de Jong 1998¶

Ton de Jong, Wouter R. van Joolingen. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research. https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00190680v1

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's narrative synthesis of process studies attributing to Glaser et al. the observation that "successful discoverers followed a plan over experiments" while unsuccessful learners concentrated on local decisions.

"Glaser et al. (1992) report that successful discoverers followed a plan over experiments, whereas unsuccessful ones used a more random strategy, concentrating at local decisions, which also gave them problems to monitor what they had been doing"

Ton de Jong 1998 (2)¶

Ton de Jong, Wouter R. van Joolingen. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research. https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00190680v1

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports Veenman and Elshout's cross-study comparison, finding working method made "its own contribution to learning outcome on top of intellectual ability"; no effect size is printed.

"Veenman and Elshout (1995) found that, over a number of studies, individuals with a high intellectual ability showed a better working method than individuals with a low intellectual ability, but also that working method had its own contribution to learning outcome on top of intellectual ability."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scaffolded task progression shifts novice reasoning from local completion toward diagnosis and systematic debugging as task demands increase — related
• PIA groups follow a strategic generate-options-to-implement cycle with fewer random idea attempts, while TFA groups loop through repeated metacognitive interactions and unproductive idea testing — related
• Self-regulated learning improves achievement — a broader claim this one bears on
• Successful and unsuccessful listening performance in this study is associated with learners' strategic behaviour rather than with heritage or non-heritage status — related
• Process models of successful students come closer to self-regulated learning theory expectations than those of unsuccessful students, who do not evaluate their learning — related
• The report attributes to Glaser et al. (1985) that skilled and less skilled avionics technicians generated plans equally often but differed in plan quality, with experts deploying domain-particularized strong methods
• Successful and unsuccessful complex problem solvers differ in transition frequencies between questions and decisions — related
• Learners often fail to regulate their own learning in computer-based learning environments — a broader claim this one bears on
• Low-prior-knowledge students struggle to deploy key self-regulatory processes during learning — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Self-monitoring of work quality requires three student capacities: appreciation of high quality, evaluative skill, and a store of modification tactics — related
• Successful hypermedia learners showed more orientation and planning before processing content, deeper elaboration, constant monitoring, and evaluation compared to less successful students — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• A BERT-based prediction task distinguishes between successful and unsuccessful math strategies in MATHia, yielding insights into student strategies — related