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

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信