Difference between revisions of "Hausmann Study2"
(→A comparison of self-explanation to instructional explanation) |
(→A comparison of self-explanation to instructional explanation) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=== Background and Significance === | === Background and Significance === | ||
| − | It is widely assumed that an interactive learning resource is more effective in producing learning gains than non-interactive sources. It turns out, however, that this assumption may not be completely accurate. For instance, research on human tutoring suggests that human tutoring (i.e., interactive) is just as effective as reading a textbook (i.e., non-interactive) under very particular circumstances (VanLehn et al., in press). | + | It is widely assumed that an interactive learning resource is more effective in producing learning gains than non-interactive sources. It turns out, however, that this assumption may not be completely accurate. For instance, research on human tutoring suggests that human tutoring (i.e., interactive) is just as effective as reading a textbook (i.e., non-interactive) under very particular circumstances (VanLehn et al., in press). This rises the question, under which conditions should we expect to observe strong learning gains from interactive learning situations? The current project seeks to address this question by contrasting interactive learning (i.e., jointly constructing explanations) with non-interactive learning (i.e., individually constructing explanations). |
| − | |||
| − | |||
=== Glossary === | === Glossary === | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 9 October 2006
Contents
A comparison of self-explanation to instructional explanation
Robert Hausmann and Kurt VanLehn
Abstract
Background and Significance
It is widely assumed that an interactive learning resource is more effective in producing learning gains than non-interactive sources. It turns out, however, that this assumption may not be completely accurate. For instance, research on human tutoring suggests that human tutoring (i.e., interactive) is just as effective as reading a textbook (i.e., non-interactive) under very particular circumstances (VanLehn et al., in press). This rises the question, under which conditions should we expect to observe strong learning gains from interactive learning situations? The current project seeks to address this question by contrasting interactive learning (i.e., jointly constructing explanations) with non-interactive learning (i.e., individually constructing explanations).
Glossary
Jointly constructed explanation:
Prompting:
Research question
How is robust learning affected by self-explanation vs. jointly constructed explanations?
Independent variables
Two variables were crossed:
- Interaction: singleton vs. dyad
- Engagement: natural vs. prompted
Hypothesis
The Interactive Hypothesis: the peers will learn more than the solo learners because they benefit from the process of negotiating meaning with a peer, of appropriating part of the peers’ perspective, of building and maintaining common ground, and of articulating their knowledge and clarifying it when the peer misunderstands.
The Coverage Hypothesis: if both peers and singletons cover the same knowledge components, then they will learn the same amount.
Dependent variables & Results
- Near transfer, immediate: problems solved during the laboratory period.
- Near transfer, retention: homework preformance on electrodynamics problems that are isomorphic to the problems solved during the laboratory period.
- Far transfer, retention: homework preformance on electrodynamics problems that are not isomorphic to the problems solved during the laboratory period.
- Acceleration of future learning: homework preformance on magnetisim problems.
Explanation
This study is part of the Interactive Communication cluster, and its hypothesis is
Annotated bibliography
References
VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (in press). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science.
