Include student solutions in explicit instruction that are actually typical for the taught sample¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 against) · 1 study (1 causal), q2 · 1 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The authors' second design recommendation is that "the explicit instruction phase should include student solutions that really are typical." Only an alignment between the products of the problem-solving phase and the subsequent explicit instruction allows refuting misconceptions and integrating newly introduced knowledge components. In this study, the refuted solutions (evidence only, averaging) were typical in general Bayesian-reasoning research but rarely generated by this sample, so instruction missed students' actual errors such as missing normalization.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Knowledge of the solution attempts learners actually generate during the problem-solving phase, e.g., from prior studies or piloting

Constraints¶

• Solutions typical in the general literature on a topic may not be typical for a specific sample or representation

Target Learners¶

• undergraduate teacher students learning Bayesian reasoning

Target Learning Goals¶

• integrating newly introduced knowledge components with learners' existing and erroneous ideas

Claims¶

• Students' generated solutions rarely matched the erroneous solutions included in the explicit instruction phase [-W]
• Including typical student solutions in explicit instruction showed no significant effect on conceptual knowledge in the Bayesian-reasoning replication [-W]

Related Strategies¶

• Provide feedback in the problem-solving phase to foster negative knowledge and multiple solution attempts
• Productive Failure

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Loibl, K., & Leuders, T. (2024). Can failure be made productive also in Bayesian reasoning? A conceptual replication study. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09670-y