Contrary to expectation, the worked-example group applied suboptimal criteria more often, and fewer suboptimal applications mediated inventing's transfer¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2–q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The worked example condition applied suboptimal criteria to given examples more often than the inventing condition (BF+0 = 3.458, d = .68), contrary to Hypothesis 3d. → Inga Glogger-Frey 2022 q3 i? Application of suboptimal criteria significantly mediated condition effects on transfer (b = 0.292, 95% CI [0.029, 0.761]). → Inga Glogger-Frey 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Inga Glogger-Frey 2022¶

Inga Glogger-Frey, Anne-Katrin Treier, Alexander Renkl. (2022). How preparation-for-learning with a worked versus an open inventing problem affect subsequent learning processes in pre-service teachers. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Think-aloud coding in the N = 45 experiment; Table 2 reports suboptimal-solution application of 16.35 (worked example) versus 10.10 (inventing), d = .68, and the exploratory inverse test showed "about 3.5 times more likely" support under the worked-example hypothesis.

"It was about 3.5 times more likely that the data occur under the hypothesis that the worked example activity leads to more application of suboptimal solutions than the inventing."

Inga Glogger-Frey 2022 (2)¶

Inga Glogger-Frey, Anne-Katrin Treier, Alexander Renkl. (2022). How preparation-for-learning with a worked versus an open inventing problem affect subsequent learning processes in pre-service teachers. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory PROCESS mediation (5000 bootstrap samples): the inventing condition applied suboptimal criteria less often, which in turn related to higher transfer scores, via "the application of suboptimal criteria (a*b path: b = 0.292, 95% CI [0.029, 0.761])".

"as well as of the application of suboptimal criteria (a*b path: b = 0.292, 95% CI [0.029, 0.761])"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Worked-example preparation leads to more application of canonical criteria during future learning, which mediates higher transfer — related
• Inventing-phase failure was unproductive: invented solutions did not correlate with transfer, but suboptimal inventions related to lower interest and learning time — related
• The inventing group showed more metacognitive regulation during future learning, contrary to hypothesis, without benefiting transfer — related
• Pre-service teachers preparing with a worked example outperform inventing peers on transfer of learning-strategy assessment skills — related
• Worked-example preparation deepens subsequent learning via more elaboration during the future-learning phase — related
• Exploratory learning is expected to raise metacognitive activity, which in turn increases strategic knowledge and adaptive transfer — related