After initial acquisition, problem-solving leads to better long-term performance than example study, even for complex tasks

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102027
Sterre K. Ruitenburg , Kevin Ackermans , Paul A. Kirschner , Halszka Jarodzka , Gino Camp
{"title":"After initial acquisition, problem-solving leads to better long-term performance than example study, even for complex tasks","authors":"Sterre K. Ruitenburg ,&nbsp;Kevin Ackermans ,&nbsp;Paul A. Kirschner ,&nbsp;Halszka Jarodzka ,&nbsp;Gino Camp","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Successful implementation of effective acquisition strategies (e.g., example study, problem-solving) could help improve mathematics performance. However, it is not yet fully understood <em>when</em> each acquisition strategy should be used, despite the practical value of this knowledge for mathematics textbook authors, teachers, and students.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>Building upon two recent perspectives on when example study and problem-solving are beneficial, we proposed that the optimal acquisition strategy could depend on both task complexity and retention interval (i.e., time between the final practice opportunity and the test). We conducted a multi-classroom experiment to test this proposition.</div></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><div>166 typically-developing Dutch fifth-grade students participated (<em>M</em><sub>age</sub> = 11.14 years; 42.2% boys).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used a 2 (Task Complexity: simple vs. complex) x 2 (Acquisition Strategy: example study vs. problem-solving) x 2 (Retention Interval: 5 min vs. 1 week) between-subjects design with problem-solving performance as dependent variable.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There was no evidence for the hypothesised three-way interaction effect of task complexity, acquisition strategy, and retention interval. However, there was evidence for the hypothesised two-way interaction effect of acquisition strategy and retention interval, <em>independent</em> of task complexity. More specifically, after 5 min, there was no statistically significant performance difference between students studying worked examples and those solving practice problems, but after 1 week, students solving practice problems outperformed those studying worked examples.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our findings imply that, after initial acquisition, problem-solving leads to better long-term problem-solving performance than example study. This holds true even for a relatively complex task and with limited instruction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 102027"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001543","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Successful implementation of effective acquisition strategies (e.g., example study, problem-solving) could help improve mathematics performance. However, it is not yet fully understood when each acquisition strategy should be used, despite the practical value of this knowledge for mathematics textbook authors, teachers, and students.

Aims

Building upon two recent perspectives on when example study and problem-solving are beneficial, we proposed that the optimal acquisition strategy could depend on both task complexity and retention interval (i.e., time between the final practice opportunity and the test). We conducted a multi-classroom experiment to test this proposition.

Sample

166 typically-developing Dutch fifth-grade students participated (Mage = 11.14 years; 42.2% boys).

Methods

We used a 2 (Task Complexity: simple vs. complex) x 2 (Acquisition Strategy: example study vs. problem-solving) x 2 (Retention Interval: 5 min vs. 1 week) between-subjects design with problem-solving performance as dependent variable.

Results

There was no evidence for the hypothesised three-way interaction effect of task complexity, acquisition strategy, and retention interval. However, there was evidence for the hypothesised two-way interaction effect of acquisition strategy and retention interval, independent of task complexity. More specifically, after 5 min, there was no statistically significant performance difference between students studying worked examples and those solving practice problems, but after 1 week, students solving practice problems outperformed those studying worked examples.

Conclusions

Our findings imply that, after initial acquisition, problem-solving leads to better long-term problem-solving performance than example study. This holds true even for a relatively complex task and with limited instruction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
即使是复杂的任务,在初步掌握之后,解决问题比学习范例更能提高长期绩效
背景成功实施有效的习得策略(如例题学习、问题解决)有助于提高数学成绩。尽管这些知识对数学教科书的编写者、教师和学生都有实用价值,但人们对每种习得策略的使用时间还不完全了解。目的基于最近关于例题学习和问题解决何时有益的两种观点,我们提出最佳习得策略可能取决于任务的复杂性和保持间隔(即最后练习机会与测试之间的时间间隔)。为了验证这一观点,我们进行了一次多教室实验。样本166名发育典型的荷兰五年级学生(年龄=11.14岁;42.2%为男生)参加了实验。方法我们采用了2(任务复杂性:简单与复杂)×2(习得策略:范例学习与问题解决)×2(保持间隔时间)实验。结果没有证据表明任务复杂性、习得策略和保持时间间隔三者之间存在假设的交互效应。然而,有证据表明,假设的习得策略和保持间隔的双向交互效应与任务复杂性无关。更具体地说,在 5 分钟后,学习工作示例的学生和解决练习题的学生之间没有统计学意义上的成绩差异,但在 1 周后,解决练习题的学生的成绩优于学习工作示例的学生。即使是相对复杂的任务和有限的指导也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.
期刊最新文献
Competitive and non-competitive school climate and students’ well-being Comparison effects on self- and external ratings: Testing the generalizability of the 2I/E model to parents and teachers of academic track school students Testing the CONIC model: The interplay of conscientiousness and interest in predicting academic effort Metacognitive scaffolding for digital reading and mind-wandering in adults with and without ADHD Retrieval supports word learning in children with Down syndrome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1