Using elaboration strategies training in computer-based instruction to promote generative learning

Johnsey, Ava; Morrison, Gary R.; Ross, Steven M.

doi:10.1016/0361-476x(92)90054-3

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding deviates from studies showing the positive effects of generative learning strategies on learning (Di Vesta & Peverly, 1984;Johnsey, Morrison, & Ross, 1992;Linden & Wittrock, 1981;Slamecka & Graf, 1978;Wittrock & Alesandrini, 1990). There are several plausible explanations.…”

Section: Effect Of Embedded Generative Learning Strategiescontrasting

confidence: 97%

“…deviates from studies that demonstrate a significant advantage favoring subject-generated elaborations versus instruction-provided elaborations (Slamecka & Graf, 1978) or no relative advantage either way (Johnsey et al, 1992).…”

Section: Effect Of Embedded Generative Learning Strategiescontrasting

confidence: 89%

“…Was the negative effect for generative learning strategies due solely to the quality of the students used in the study (i.e., advanced learners), use in a problem-solving environment, or both? In addition, the findings support the relationship between the quality of the generated elaborations and learning (Di Vesta, 1989), but contradict the relationship between learner-generated elaborations and learning relative to instruction-provided elaborations (Johnsey et al, 1992;Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Given the importance of facilitating the mindful processes of learning, more research devoted to the contextual application of generative learning strategies is necessary.…”

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…It is my contention that combining strategies designed to engage students in generative learning activities should facilitate student interaction and increase achievement. Second, research demonstrates that generative learning strategies are effective for increasing comprehension (Di Vesta & Peverley, 1984;Doctorow, Wittrock, & Marks, 1978;Grabowski, 1996;Johnsey, Morrison, & Ross, 1992;Linden & Wittrock, 1981;Stein & Bransford, 1979;Wittrock, 1990;Wittrock & Alesandrini, 1990). However, most generative learning studies focus on learners working alone.…”

Section: Research On Collaborative Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Embedded Generative Learning Strategies and Collaboration on Knowledge Acquisition in a Cognitive Flexibility-Based Computer Learning Environment

Higgs¹,

.²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching oiisting data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, John Robert Higgs, Jr. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)University of Colorado at Denver This study used a 2 X 2 experimental design. The two independent variables were program version and method of instruction. Two qualitatively different computer programs were used: a base program developed according to cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) and a generative program containing embedded generative learning strategies (explanation and summary cues). Students completed these programs either individually or collaboratively.One hundred and thirty-two second-year medical students participated in the study. The two treatment variables were randomly assigned to the students. Students This research suggests that advanced learners did not benefit equally from the two computer programs. Learners using the base computer program performed significantly better than students using the generative version on the posttest. Also, although the students felt there was an advantage to working with a peer, no significant advantage materialized. Recommendations for future research based on these findings are presented.This abstract accurately reflects the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. R. Scott Grabing^r

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Embedded Generative Learning Strategiescontrasting

confidence: 97%

Section: Effect Of Embedded Generative Learning Strategiescontrasting

confidence: 89%

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Research On Collaborative Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Embedded Generative Learning Strategies and Collaboration on Knowledge Acquisition in a Cognitive Flexibility-Based Computer Learning Environment

Higgs¹,

.²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there have been limited studies that suggest readers prefer paperbased documents to digital text (Dillon, 1994;Schilit, Price, Golovchinsky, Tanaka, & Marshall, 1999), digital text can provide unique advantages such as searching and locating key words and phrases, hyperlinking sections of the text, high portability, affordable price, and easy accessibility and storage of documents (Johnson et al, 2011;Waycott & Kukulska-Hulme, 2003). In addition to these basic functions of digital text, possibly the greatest advantage for electronic textbooks is the potential for embedding learning strategies coupled with self-regulatory prompting that has been studied in a computer-based learning environment (Johnsey, Morrison, & Ross, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generative Learning Strategy Use and Self-Regulatory Prompting in Digital Text

Reid

Morrison

2014

JITE:Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digital revolution is shifting print-based textbooks to digital text, and it has afforded the opportunity to incorporate meaningful learning strategies and otherwise separate metacognitive activities directly into these texts as embedded support. A sample of 89 undergraduates read a digital, expository text on the basics of photography. The treatment prompted the reader with selfregulatory questions and embedded a generative strategy, paraphrasing, and confirmed previous research on the relationships between prior knowledge and level of self-regulation on reading comprehension.A one-way between subjects ANOVA revealed significance for the level of self-regulation on comprehension-level items and for the level of prior knowledge on recall-level items. ANOVA also indicated that the quality of paraphrasing has a significant impact on recall-level and overall performance on the posttest. Further, participants were generally positive towards the instructional materials, which suggests willingness, and in some cases, preference, to reading in a digital format while experiencing embedded, metacognitive instructional interventions. It is recommended that comprehension may be enhanced by providing deeper training on the use of the generative strategy and by increasing motivation prior to interacting with the text in order to capitalize on the unique advantages of digital materials.

show abstract