{"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.
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.