A 1966 conceptual paper reports, citing earlier programmed-instruction work, that a rule-example-incomplete-example sequence appeared efficient for introducing a new rule¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1966 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 3 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In early programmed-sequence work, presenting an explicitly stated rule with chosen examples before incomplete examples was an excellent method for efficient introduction of a new rule. → Glaser 1966

Evidence¶

Glaser 1966¶

Glaser, Robert. (1966). Variables in "Discovery Learning." Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED010518

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The paper reports, citing the Evans, Homme, and Glaser ruleg work, that the rule-example-incomplete-example sequence "appeared to be an excellent method for the efficient introduction of a new rule"; the student works on examples of a new rule very early in exposure.

"in early work with programmed sequences, a rule-example.ecomplete-example sequence, appeared to be an excellent method for the efficient introduction of a new rule (Evans, Homme, and Glaser, 1962)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Minimal guidance is less effective for novices than explicit instruction — a broader claim this one bears on
• Self-discovery through errorful exploration is basically incompatible with error minimization in instruction — related