Detrimental effects of immediate explanation feedback

Adjunct questions are a common means to foster learning from instructional explanations. As the benefit of adjunct questions is mitigated if learner performance on them is low, it is also common to provide feedback as an add-on if learners fail to correctly respond to them. However, if adjunct questions are highly demanding, feedback might not only beneficially affect learning because it helps learners revise their comprehension difficulties; at the same time, it could also detrimentally affect learning by causing learners to invest less time in responding to subsequent adjunct questions, which lowers learner performance on these questions. This, in turn, could reduce learning outcomes. To address these potential detrimental effects of feedback, we experimentally varied whether N?=?59 students received immediate feedback after they responded to highly demanding adjunct questions. We found that the feedback did indeed have detrimental effects: At least for the learners who perceived the task of responding to the adjunct questions as highly demanding, the feedback decreased both the time the learners invested in responding to the adjunct questions and their performance on them. This detrimental effect on the performance on the adjunct questions, in turn, entailed a detrimental effect on learning outcomes. We conclude that immediate feedback is not necessarily a beneficial add-on to adjunct questions in all situations.     

The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: a student–scientist comparison

Multiple text comprehension can greatly benefit from paying attention to sources and from using this information for evaluating text information. Previous research based on texts from the domain of history suggests that source-related strategies are acquired as part of the discipline expertise as opposed to the spontaneous use of these strategies by students just entering a field. In the present study, we compared the performance of students and scientists in the domain of psychology with regard to (a) their knowledge of publication types, (b) relevant source characteristics, (c) their use of sources for evaluating the credibility of multiple texts, and (d) their ability to judge the plausibility of argumentative statements in psychological texts. Participants worked on a battery of newly developed computerised tests with a think-aloud instruction to uncover strategies that scientists and students used when reading a text. Results showed that scientists scored higher in all of the assessed abilities and that these abilities were positively correlated with each other. Importantly, the superior performance of scientists in evaluating the credibility of multiple texts was mediated by their use of source information. Implications are discussed in terms of discipline expertise.     

Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations

Learning with multiple representations is usually employed in order to foster understanding. However, it also imposes high demands on the learners and often does not lead to the expected results, especially because the learners do not integrate the different representations. Thus, it is necessary to support the learners’ self-explanation activity, which concerns the integration and understanding of multiple representations. In the present experiment, we employed multi-representational worked-out examples and tested the effects of two types of self-explanation prompts as help procedures for integrating and understanding multiple representations. The participants (N = 62) learned about probability theory under three conditions: (a) open self-explanation prompts, (b) self-explanation prompts in an assistance-giving-assistance-withholding procedure (assisting self-explanation prompts), or (c) no prompts (control group). Both types of self-explanation prompts fostered procedural knowledge. This effect was mediated by self-explanations directed to domain principles. Conceptual knowledge was particularly fostered by assisting self-explanation prompts which was mediated by self-explanations on the rationale of a principle. Thus, for enhancing high-quality self-explanations and both procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding, we conclude that assisting self-explanation prompts should be provided. We call this the assisting self-explanation prompt effect which refers to the elicitation of high-quality self-explanations and the acquisition of deep understanding.     

Two instructional aids to optimise processing and learning from instructional explanations

Although instructional explanations are commonly used to introduce learners to new learning content, previous studies have often shown that their effects on learning outcomes are minimal. This failure might partly be due to mental passivity of the learners while processing introductory explanations and to a lack of opportunity to revise potential misunderstandings after working on introductory explanations. Against this background, we provided learners with two instructional support measures to optimise the introduction of new principles and concepts by providing instructional explanations in the domain of management theory: (a) prompts designed to induce inferences that are focused on the central content of the explanations, and (b) remedial explanations that are adapted to the learners’ knowledge gaps. We tested their effects in a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design with the following factors: (a) prompts designed to induce focused processing (with vs. without), and (b) remedial explanations (adapted vs. random). The participants consisted of 80 psychology students. We found that the prompts fostered both the share of deep-oriented processing and the acquisition of conceptual knowledge. The beneficial effect of prompts on conceptual knowledge was mediated by the number of inferences that learners generated in response to the prompts. In addition, we found that prompts also fostered the instructional efficiency of providing instructional explanations. The provision of adapted remedial explanations, however, fostered neither deep-oriented processing nor the acquisition of conceptual knowledge. We conclude that prompts designed to induce focused processing can foster deep-oriented processing as well as both the effectiveness and efficiency of learning from instructional explanations.