Investigating the mechanisms of learning from a constrained preparation for future learning activity

Siler, Stephanie A.; Klahr, David; Price, Norman

doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9224-7

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the observed effect does not seem to reflect differences in students’ confidence in their task‐specific skills, as we found no differences between students’ confidence in their experimental findings. Instead, this effect might be similar to what Siler, Klahr, and Price () found when they engaged students in CVS tasks prior to CVS training in order to prepare them for future learning. Students might develop some understanding of the materials and the nature of the task during training even when they do not receive feedback or guidance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

What students learn from hands‐on activities

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to design and interpret controlled experiments is an important scientific process skill and a common objective of science standards. Numerous intervention studies have investigated how the control-of-variables-strategy (CVS) can be introduced to students. However, a meta-analysis of 72 intervention studies found that the opportunity to train CVS skills with hands-on tasks (g ¼ 0.59) did not lead to better acquisition of CVS relative to interventions without a hands-on component (g ¼ 0.74). We conducted an intervention study in which we investigated the differential effects of hands-on and paper-and-pencil training tasks on 161 eighth-grade students' achievement. CVS was demonstrated to all students before they were grouped into a hands-on or a paper-and-pencil training condition. In both training conditions, students designed and interpreted experiments about which variables influence the force of electromagnets. Students in the hands-on group interacted with physical equipment while students in the paper-and-pencil group planned experiments using sketches and interpreted the outcome of experiments presented in photographs. We found no general advantage or disadvantage of hands-on tasks, as both groups did equally well on CVS and content knowledge tests. However, hands-on students outperformed paper-and-pencil students on a hands-on test identical to the training tasks, whereas the paper-and-pencil students outperformed hands-on students on a science fair poster evaluation task similar to the paper-and-pencil training. In summary, students learned task-specific procedural knowledge, but they did not acquire a deeper conceptual understanding of CVS or the content domain as a function of type of training. Implications for instruction and assessment are discussed. # The ability to design and interpret controlled experiments is an important scientific process skill and a common curricular objective of science standards (National Research Council, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Accordingly, numerous intervention studies have investigated how students can be taught to design and interpret controlled experiments. Many of these studies utilize hands-on tasks to train students' experimentation skills because it has been assumed that students should benefit from hands-on experiences, as they offer authentic and direct practice with designing and interpreting controlled experiments. However, the results of a recent meta-analysis of 72 intervention studies challenge this assumption (Schwichow, Croker, Zimmerman, H€ offler, Correspondence to: M. Schwichow;

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

What students learn from hands‐on activities

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar outcome can be expected when considering the continued-influence effect (Johnson & Seifert, 1994): Learners tend to stick to their own suboptimal solution instead of adopting the directly instructed canonical one. Similarly, Siler, Klahr, and Price (2013) found that students who applied the suboptimal engineering approach instead of the canonical science approach to designing experiments did not benefit from the preparation phase. However, research on productive failure (e.g., Kapur, 2010Kapur, , 2012Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012;Loibl & Rummel, 2014a) shows that initial problem-solving activities can be effective even though invented solutions to problems are often suboptimal or even false (see Schmidt et al, 1989 for similar findings).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction

Glogger‐Frey

Fleischer

Grüny

et al. 2015

Learning and Instruction

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other studies like this have shown that children presented with type A instruction remembered and used what they learned about CVS in substantially different contexts (i.e., they transferred their CVS knowledge) (25), and they retained it for several months, and even several years, after their instruction (26)(27)(28). Moreover, the explicit steps involved in our type A instruction have been transformed into a computer tutor that is as effective as a human tutor for CVS (29).…”

Section: Operational Definitions and Shifting Terminology-a Cautionarmentioning

confidence: 68%

What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about science education

Klahr

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the "science of science communication" usually refers to the flow of scientific knowledge from scientists to the public, scientists direct most of their communications not to the public, but instead to other scientists in their field. This paper presents a case study on this understudied type of communication: within a discipline, among its practitioners. I argue that many of the contentious disagreements that exist today in the field in which I conduct my research-early science education-derive from a lack of operational definitions, such that when competing claims are made for the efficacy of one type of science instruction vs. another, the arguments are hopelessly disjointed. The aim of the paper is not to resolve the current claims and counterclaims about the most effective pedagogies in science education, but rather to note that the assessment of one approach vs. the other is all too often defended on the basis of strongly held beliefs, rather than on the results of replicable experiments, designed around operational definitions of the teaching methods being investigated. A detailed example of operational definitions from my own research on elementary school science instruction is provided. In addition, the paper addresses the issue of how casual use of labels-both within the discipline and when communicating with the public-may inadvertently "undo" the benefits of operational definitions.

show abstract

Investigating the mechanisms of learning from a constrained preparation for future learning activity

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

What students learn from hands‐on activities

What students learn from hands‐on activities

Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction

What do we mean? On the importance of not abandoning scientific rigor when talking about science education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About