Difference between revisions of "Analogical comparison principle"
(→Brief statement of principle) |
(→Laboratory experiment support) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Experimental support== | ==Experimental support== | ||
===Laboratory experiment support=== | ===Laboratory experiment support=== | ||
| + | Several factors have been shown to improve schema acquisition including: increasing the number of examples (Gick & Holyoak, 1983), increasing the variability of the examples (Chen, 1999; Paas & Merrienboer, 1994), using instructions that focus the learner on structural commonalities (Cummins, 1992; Gentner et al., 2003), focusing the learner on the subgoals of the problems (Catrambone, 1996, 1998), and using examples that minimize students cognitive load (Ward & Sweller, 1990). | ||
| + | |||
===In vivo experiment support=== | ===In vivo experiment support=== | ||
==Theoretical rationale== | ==Theoretical rationale== | ||
Revision as of 16:33, 25 March 2008
Contents
Brief statement of principle
Analogical comparison can facilitate schema abstraction and transfer of that knowledge to new problem. By comparing the commonalities between two examples, students could focus on the causal structure and improve their learning about the concept.
Description of principle
Operational definition
Examples
Experimental support
Laboratory experiment support
Several factors have been shown to improve schema acquisition including: increasing the number of examples (Gick & Holyoak, 1983), increasing the variability of the examples (Chen, 1999; Paas & Merrienboer, 1994), using instructions that focus the learner on structural commonalities (Cummins, 1992; Gentner et al., 2003), focusing the learner on the subgoals of the problems (Catrambone, 1996, 1998), and using examples that minimize students cognitive load (Ward & Sweller, 1990).
In vivo experiment support
Theoretical rationale
(These entries should link to one or more learning processes.)
