Effects of comparing contrasting cases and inventing on learning from subsequent instructional explanations

Abstract

Comparing contrasting cases is a promising means to prepare learners for future learning from related direct instruction. The most prevalent type of preparation intervention used in this case comparison approach is providing contrasting cases together with comparison prompts. However, if the contrasting cases are complex learners might need more guidance than mere prompts in order to detect their relevant similarities and differences and thus exploit their full potential. The inventing approach entails having learners invent explanations that deal with the detected similarities and differences in addition to comparing contrasting cases. In this approach, however, it is unclear whether the generation of inventions per se has an added value to the concomitant detection of similarities and differences. Against this background, in a 2 9 2 factorial experiment with N = 80 eighth-grade students we varied the preparation intervention the learners received before they processed some instructional explanations according to: (a) type of task while comparing contrasting cases (responding to a comparison prompt vs. verifying provided comparisons), and (b) inventing task after comparing contrasting cases (with vs. without). We found that if there was no invention task, the learners who verified the provided comparisons learned more from the instructional explanations than those who received a comparison prompt. Requiring learners to generate inventions only after comparing the cases yielded differential results. The learners who detected only one similarity or difference among the cases benefitted from the inventing task, whereas the learners who detected all of the relevant features were hindered by it, albeit marginally.

Teaching Sourcing in Upper Secondary School: A Comprehensive Sourcing Intervention With Follow‐Up Data

“…Second, the intervention was implemented by classroom teachers and integrated in authentic curriculum‐based tasks that mattered for the students in terms of academic performance, which likely increased their will to engage in sourcing activities (Paul, Macedo‐Rouet, Rouet, & Stadtler, ). Third, the detailed case descriptions and the strong focus on the distinguishing features of adaptive sourcing that characterized the contrasting cases approach gave the intervention students rich opportunities to learn the principles of adaptive sourcing required for transfer (Nagarajan & Hmelo‐Silver, ; Roelle & Berthold, , ; Sidney et al., ). Finally, the intervention lasted longer than most other sourcing interventions implemented to date (Brante & Strømsø, ; Bråten, Stadtler, & Salmerón, ).…”

“…For example, Roelle and Berthold (, ) showed that, at least when the contrasting cases are complex, learners may profit from high amounts of instructional guidance and, conversely, that contrasting cases may be less beneficial when learners are only prompted to compare the cases. In these studies, high guidance conditions involved students being provided with model answers to the comparison prompts, which highlighted the dimensions in which the two cases differed.…”

“…This approach provided students with rich case descriptions (Nagarajan & Hmelo‐Silver, ) and high amounts of instructional guidance that directed their attention to the differences between the cases and the distinguishing features of adaptive sourcing (Roelle & Berthold, . ). Further, the intervention was implemented by classroom teachers within the context of regular subject matter teaching.…”

Wie wirken elektronische Substituenteneffekte? – Entwicklung eines konzeptbasierten Zugangs durch Inventing with Contrasting Cases am Modellbeispiel der alkalischen Esterhydrolyse

“…Eine fachdidaktische Strukturierungshilfe zurK onzeptanwendung bietend ie Basiskonzepted er Chemie [14].I mF okus unsererL erngelegenheitsteht diesbezüglichdie Frage, welchenEinflussSubstituentenals Strukturmerkmalauf dieEnergie unddarausresultierenda uf dieG eschwindigkeit einerR eaktionh aben, die weiterhind em gleichen Reaktionspfadf olgt undw ie dieser Einfluss fachgerechtbegründet werden kann. Diesem zuträgliche rscheintinsbesondere beikomplexen,nur konzeptbasiert zu erklärenden Inhalten einh ohes Maßa nI nstruktion unde ine Mçglichkeitz ur Prüfung entwickelter Erklärungen [18].I n derC hemiedidaktikh at dieser Ansatz bisher nurv ereinzelt Anwendungg efunden. Mite inem Satz vonC ontrasting Casesw irdd er Fachgegenstands omit in seinen Va riationen systematisch erfasst.…”

How teacher talk guidance during Invention activities shapes students’ cognitive engagement and transfer

“…In this paper, we investigate teacher talk guidance in an exploratory task called Invention (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998;Schwartz & Martin, 2004), during which students attempt to invent representations to describe a set of data or examples. Research on effective guidance for Invention activities has yielded conflicting results (Chase, Connolly, Lamnina, & Aleven, 2019;Holmes, Day, Park, Bonn, & Roll, 2014;Kapur, 2011;Loibl & Rummel, 2014;Roelle & Berthold, 2016); however, no work has explored teacher talk guidance of Invention.…”