Does Instruction-First or Problem-Solving-First Depend on Learners’ Prior Knowledge?

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1007/s10648-025-09993-3
Cheng-Wen He, Logan Fiorella, Paula P. Lemons
{"title":"Does Instruction-First or Problem-Solving-First Depend on Learners’ Prior Knowledge?","authors":"Cheng-Wen He, Logan Fiorella, Paula P. Lemons","doi":"10.1007/s10648-025-09993-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study tested competing theories about the effectiveness of different instructional sequences for learners with different levels of prior knowledge. Across two classroom experiments, undergraduates learned about noncovalent interactions in biochemistry by either receiving explicit instruction before problem-solving (I-PS group) or engaging in problem-solving before explicit instruction (PS-I group). Then all students completed near- and far-transfer tests on the material. In Experiment 1, participants were introductory biology students (<span>\\(n=\\,367\\)</span>), who had relatively low prior knowledge of the topic. Results indicated that the PS-I group significantly outperformed the I-PS group on the near-transfer test, providing support for productive failure. In Experiment 2, participants were biochemistry students (<span>\\(n=138\\)</span>), who had relatively higher prior knowledge of the topic. In contrast to Experiment 1, results indicated that the I-PS group significantly outperformed the PS-I group, providing support for cognitive load theory. Neither experiment showed significant effects of instructional sequences on the far-transfer test. Overall, the findings suggest the effects of instructional sequences on students with different levels of topic-specific prior knowledge may not be as straightforward as existing theories suggest.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"84 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09993-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study tested competing theories about the effectiveness of different instructional sequences for learners with different levels of prior knowledge. Across two classroom experiments, undergraduates learned about noncovalent interactions in biochemistry by either receiving explicit instruction before problem-solving (I-PS group) or engaging in problem-solving before explicit instruction (PS-I group). Then all students completed near- and far-transfer tests on the material. In Experiment 1, participants were introductory biology students (\(n=\,367\)), who had relatively low prior knowledge of the topic. Results indicated that the PS-I group significantly outperformed the I-PS group on the near-transfer test, providing support for productive failure. In Experiment 2, participants were biochemistry students (\(n=138\)), who had relatively higher prior knowledge of the topic. In contrast to Experiment 1, results indicated that the I-PS group significantly outperformed the PS-I group, providing support for cognitive load theory. Neither experiment showed significant effects of instructional sequences on the far-transfer test. Overall, the findings suggest the effects of instructional sequences on students with different levels of topic-specific prior knowledge may not be as straightforward as existing theories suggest.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Academic Performance Through Self-Explanation in Digital Learning Environments (DLEs): A Three-Level Meta-Analysis Emotional Wellbeing in the Context of Primary-Secondary School Transitions: A Concept Analysis Paper Examining the Academic Effects of Cross-age Tutoring: A Meta-analysis Does Instruction-First or Problem-Solving-First Depend on Learners’ Prior Knowledge? Blending Teacher Autonomy Support and Provision of Structure in the Classroom for Optimal Motivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
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