Worked-example preparation deepens subsequent learning via more elaboration during the future-learning phase¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 During future learning, the worked example group showed more elaboration processes than the inventing group (BF+0 = 3.608, d = .68). → Inga Glogger-Frey 2022

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 protocols coded by two independent raters (κ = 0.89) during learning of the quality-criteria unit in the CBLE; Table 2 reports elaboration means of 11.25 (worked example) versus 7.50 (inventing), d = .68, supporting that the "worked example group showed more cognitive processes of elaboration".

"During learning, the worked example group showed more cognitive processes of elaboration than the inventing group, BF +0 = 3.608 (see Table 2)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Worked-example preparation leads to more application of canonical criteria during future learning, which mediates higher transfer — related
• The inventing group showed more metacognitive regulation during future learning, contrary to hypothesis, without benefiting transfer — related
• Contrary to expectation, the worked-example group applied suboptimal criteria more often, and fewer suboptimal applications mediated inventing's transfer — related
• Teaching between study phases contributes to comprehension more than teaching after the study phase — related