在贝叶斯推理中,失败也能产生结果吗?概念复制研究

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Katharina Loibl, Timo Leuders
{"title":"在贝叶斯推理中,失败也能产生结果吗?概念复制研究","authors":"Katharina Loibl, Timo Leuders","doi":"10.1007/s11251-024-09670-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The composite instructional design PS-I combines an initial problem-solving phase (PS) with a subsequent explicit instruction phase (I). PS-I has proven effective for conceptual learning in comparison to instructional designs with the reverse order (I-PS), especially when the explicit instruction phase productively builds on students’ erroneous or incomplete (i.e., failed) solution attempts. Building on student solutions during explicit instruction may support students to integrate their intermediate knowledge (acquired during problem solving) with the newly introduced knowledge components. While these effects have been shown for learning the concept of variance in multiple studies, it remains unclear whether these effects generalize to other situations. We conducted a conceptual replication study of Loibl and Rummel (Loibl and Rummel, Learning and Instruction 34:74–85, 2014a) choosing Bayesian reasoning as target knowledge. 75 students were assigned to four conditions in a 2 × 2 design (factor 1: PS-I vs. I-PS; factor 2: instruction phase with vs. without typical student solutions). In contrast to Loibl and Rummel (2014a), we did neither find a main effect for PS-I vs. I-PS, nor for building on typical student solutions. The missing effect of PS-I can be explained by the fact that students merely activated their prior knowledge on probabilities without exploring the problem-solving space and without becoming aware of their knowledge gaps. The missing effect of building on typical student solutions can be explained by a mismatch of the solutions generated and the ones included in the explicit instruction. Therefore, building on typical student solutions did not foster an integration of students’ intermediate knowledge and the introduced knowledge components.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can failure be made productive also in Bayesian reasoning? A conceptual replication study\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Loibl, Timo Leuders\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11251-024-09670-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The composite instructional design PS-I combines an initial problem-solving phase (PS) with a subsequent explicit instruction phase (I). PS-I has proven effective for conceptual learning in comparison to instructional designs with the reverse order (I-PS), especially when the explicit instruction phase productively builds on students’ erroneous or incomplete (i.e., failed) solution attempts. Building on student solutions during explicit instruction may support students to integrate their intermediate knowledge (acquired during problem solving) with the newly introduced knowledge components. While these effects have been shown for learning the concept of variance in multiple studies, it remains unclear whether these effects generalize to other situations. We conducted a conceptual replication study of Loibl and Rummel (Loibl and Rummel, Learning and Instruction 34:74–85, 2014a) choosing Bayesian reasoning as target knowledge. 75 students were assigned to four conditions in a 2 × 2 design (factor 1: PS-I vs. I-PS; factor 2: instruction phase with vs. without typical student solutions). In contrast to Loibl and Rummel (2014a), we did neither find a main effect for PS-I vs. I-PS, nor for building on typical student solutions. The missing effect of PS-I can be explained by the fact that students merely activated their prior knowledge on probabilities without exploring the problem-solving space and without becoming aware of their knowledge gaps. The missing effect of building on typical student solutions can be explained by a mismatch of the solutions generated and the ones included in the explicit instruction. Therefore, building on typical student solutions did not foster an integration of students’ intermediate knowledge and the introduced knowledge components.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Instructional Science\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Instructional Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09670-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09670-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

PS-I 复合教学设计结合了最初的问题解决阶段(PS)和随后的明确指导阶段(I)。与顺序相反的教学设计(I-PS)相比,PS-I 已被证明能有效地促进概念学习,尤其是当显性教学阶段在学生错误或不完整(即失败)的解决方案尝试基础上进行有效教学时。在显性教学过程中以学生的解决方案为基础,可以帮助学生将他们的中间知识(在解决问题过程中获得的)与新引入的知识成分整合起来。虽然在多项研究中,方差概念的学习都显示出了这些效果,但这些效果是否能推广到其他情况,目前仍不清楚。我们对 Loibl 和 Rummel(Loibl 和 Rummel,《学习与教学》34:74-85,2014a)进行了一项概念复制研究,选择贝叶斯推理作为目标知识。在 2 × 2 设计中,75 名学生被分配到四个条件中(因素 1:PS-I vs. I-PS;因素 2:有典型学生解决方案的教学阶段 vs. 无典型学生解决方案的教学阶段)。与 Loibl 和 Rummel(2014a)不同的是,我们既没有发现 PS-I 与 I-PS 的主效应,也没有发现基于典型学生解决方案的主效应。PS-I效果缺失的原因在于,学生只是在没有探索问题解决空间、没有意识到自己的知识缺口的情况下激活了已有的概率知识。建立在典型学生解决方案基础上的效果缺失,可以解释为生成的解决方案与明确教学中的解决方案不匹配。因此,以典型的学生解决方案为基础并不能促进学生将中间知识与引入的知识成分进行整合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Can failure be made productive also in Bayesian reasoning? A conceptual replication study

Can failure be made productive also in Bayesian reasoning? A conceptual replication study

The composite instructional design PS-I combines an initial problem-solving phase (PS) with a subsequent explicit instruction phase (I). PS-I has proven effective for conceptual learning in comparison to instructional designs with the reverse order (I-PS), especially when the explicit instruction phase productively builds on students’ erroneous or incomplete (i.e., failed) solution attempts. Building on student solutions during explicit instruction may support students to integrate their intermediate knowledge (acquired during problem solving) with the newly introduced knowledge components. While these effects have been shown for learning the concept of variance in multiple studies, it remains unclear whether these effects generalize to other situations. We conducted a conceptual replication study of Loibl and Rummel (Loibl and Rummel, Learning and Instruction 34:74–85, 2014a) choosing Bayesian reasoning as target knowledge. 75 students were assigned to four conditions in a 2 × 2 design (factor 1: PS-I vs. I-PS; factor 2: instruction phase with vs. without typical student solutions). In contrast to Loibl and Rummel (2014a), we did neither find a main effect for PS-I vs. I-PS, nor for building on typical student solutions. The missing effect of PS-I can be explained by the fact that students merely activated their prior knowledge on probabilities without exploring the problem-solving space and without becoming aware of their knowledge gaps. The missing effect of building on typical student solutions can be explained by a mismatch of the solutions generated and the ones included in the explicit instruction. Therefore, building on typical student solutions did not foster an integration of students’ intermediate knowledge and the introduced knowledge components.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
×
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