Difference between revisions of "Hausmann Study2"
(→A comparison of self-explanation to instructional explanation) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
=== Glossary === | === Glossary === | ||
| − | + | Jointly constructed explanation: | |
| + | Prompting: | ||
=== Research question === | === Research question === | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
=== Independent variables === | === Independent variables === | ||
Two variables were crossed: | Two variables were crossed: | ||
| − | * | + | * Interaction: singleton vs. dyad |
| + | * Engagement: natural vs. prompted | ||
=== Hypothesis === | === 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 === | === Dependent variables & Results === | ||
| − | * ''Near transfer, immediate'': | + | * ''Near transfer, immediate'': problems solved during the laboratory period. |
| − | * ''Near transfer, retention'': | + | * ''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'': | + | * ''Acceleration of future learning'': homework preformance on magnetisim problems. |
=== Explanation === | === Explanation === | ||
| Line 37: | Line 41: | ||
=== References === | === 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.'' | ||
Revision as of 14:43, 9 October 2006
Contents
A comparison of self-explanation to instructional explanation
Robert Hausmann and Kurt VanLehn
Abstract
Background and Significance
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.
