更好的自我解释是向后还是向前?在学习诊断策略的基于视频的建模示例中提示自我解释

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Instructional Science Pub Date : 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1007/s11251-023-09651-7
Julius Meier, Peter Hesse, Stephan Abele, Alexander Renkl, Inga Glogger-Frey
{"title":"更好的自我解释是向后还是向前?在学习诊断策略的基于视频的建模示例中提示自我解释","authors":"Julius Meier, Peter Hesse, Stephan Abele, Alexander Renkl, Inga Glogger-Frey","doi":"10.1007/s11251-023-09651-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Self-explanation prompts in example-based learning are usually directed backwards: Learners are required to self-explain problem-solving steps just presented (<i>retrospective</i> prompts). However, it might also help to self-explain upcoming steps (<i>anticipatory</i> prompts). The effects of the prompt type may differ for learners with various expertise levels, with anticipatory prompts being better for learners with more expertise. In an experiment, we employed extensive modelling examples and different types of self-explanations prompts to teach 78 automotive apprentices a complex and job-relevant problem-solving strategy, namely the diagnosis of car malfunctions. We tested the effects of these modelling examples and self-explanation prompts on problem-solving strategy knowledge and skill, self-efficacy, and cognitive load while learning. In two conditions, the apprentices learned with modelling examples and received either retrospective or anticipatory prompts. The third condition was a control condition receiving no modelling examples, but the respective open problems. In comparison with the control condition, modelling examples did not promote learning. However, we observed differential effects of the self-explanation prompts depending on the learner’s prior knowledge level. Apprentices with higher prior knowledge learned more when learning with anticipatory prompts. Apprentices with less prior knowledge experienced a greater increase in self-efficacy and a higher germane cognitive load when learning with retrospective prompts. These findings suggest using different self-explanation prompts for learners possessing varying levels of expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Better self-explaining backwards or forwards? Prompting self-explanation in video-based modelling examples for learning a diagnostic strategy\",\"authors\":\"Julius Meier, Peter Hesse, Stephan Abele, Alexander Renkl, Inga Glogger-Frey\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11251-023-09651-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Self-explanation prompts in example-based learning are usually directed backwards: Learners are required to self-explain problem-solving steps just presented (<i>retrospective</i> prompts). However, it might also help to self-explain upcoming steps (<i>anticipatory</i> prompts). The effects of the prompt type may differ for learners with various expertise levels, with anticipatory prompts being better for learners with more expertise. In an experiment, we employed extensive modelling examples and different types of self-explanations prompts to teach 78 automotive apprentices a complex and job-relevant problem-solving strategy, namely the diagnosis of car malfunctions. We tested the effects of these modelling examples and self-explanation prompts on problem-solving strategy knowledge and skill, self-efficacy, and cognitive load while learning. In two conditions, the apprentices learned with modelling examples and received either retrospective or anticipatory prompts. The third condition was a control condition receiving no modelling examples, but the respective open problems. In comparison with the control condition, modelling examples did not promote learning. However, we observed differential effects of the self-explanation prompts depending on the learner’s prior knowledge level. Apprentices with higher prior knowledge learned more when learning with anticipatory prompts. Apprentices with less prior knowledge experienced a greater increase in self-efficacy and a higher germane cognitive load when learning with retrospective prompts. These findings suggest using different self-explanation prompts for learners possessing varying levels of expertise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Instructional Science\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Instructional Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09651-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09651-7","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

在基于实例的学习中,自我解释提示通常是反向的:学习者需要自我解释刚刚提出的解决问题的步骤(回顾性提示)。然而,它也可能有助于自我解释即将采取的步骤(预期提示)。提示类型对不同专业水平的学习者的效果可能不同,预期提示对专业水平较高的学习者效果更好。在一项实验中,我们使用大量的建模示例和不同类型的自我解释提示来教授78名汽车学徒一种复杂的和与工作相关的问题解决策略,即汽车故障诊断。我们测试了这些模型示例和自我解释提示对解决问题策略知识和技能、自我效能感和学习时认知负荷的影响。在两种情况下,学徒们通过建模例子学习,并接受回顾性或预见性提示。第三个条件是控制条件,不接受建模示例,但各自的开放问题。与控制条件相比,建模示例并没有促进学习。然而,我们观察到自我解释提示的不同效果取决于学习者的先验知识水平。具有较高先验知识的学徒在使用预期提示学习时学得更多。先前知识较少的学徒在回溯性提示学习时,自我效能感有更大的提高,相关认知负荷也更高。这些发现表明,对于拥有不同专业水平的学习者,可以使用不同的自我解释提示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Better self-explaining backwards or forwards? Prompting self-explanation in video-based modelling examples for learning a diagnostic strategy

Self-explanation prompts in example-based learning are usually directed backwards: Learners are required to self-explain problem-solving steps just presented (retrospective prompts). However, it might also help to self-explain upcoming steps (anticipatory prompts). The effects of the prompt type may differ for learners with various expertise levels, with anticipatory prompts being better for learners with more expertise. In an experiment, we employed extensive modelling examples and different types of self-explanations prompts to teach 78 automotive apprentices a complex and job-relevant problem-solving strategy, namely the diagnosis of car malfunctions. We tested the effects of these modelling examples and self-explanation prompts on problem-solving strategy knowledge and skill, self-efficacy, and cognitive load while learning. In two conditions, the apprentices learned with modelling examples and received either retrospective or anticipatory prompts. The third condition was a control condition receiving no modelling examples, but the respective open problems. In comparison with the control condition, modelling examples did not promote learning. However, we observed differential effects of the self-explanation prompts depending on the learner’s prior knowledge level. Apprentices with higher prior knowledge learned more when learning with anticipatory prompts. Apprentices with less prior knowledge experienced a greater increase in self-efficacy and a higher germane cognitive load when learning with retrospective prompts. These findings suggest using different self-explanation prompts for learners possessing varying levels of expertise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
期刊最新文献
Spaced recall reduces forgetting of fundamental mathematical concepts in a post high school precalculus course The roles that students’ ethnicity and achievement levels play in teachers’ choice of learning materials in online teaching: evidence from two experimental studies Research on the correlation between teacher classroom questioning types and student thinking development from the perspective of discourse analysis Developmental relations between mathematics self-concept, interest, and achievement: A comparison of solo- and co-taught classes Gaming the system mediates the relationship between gender and learning outcomes in a digital learning game
×
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