Scholarlink

<p>Exploratory learning before instruction typically benefits conceptual understanding compared to traditional instruction-first methods. The current study examined whether different exploration prompts impact students’ exploration approaches and learning outcomes, using a quasi-experimental design. Undergraduate students (<i>N</i> = 164) in psychological statistics courses were taught the procedure and concepts of standard deviation. Students in the <i>instruct-first</i> condition received direct instruction then a practice problem. Students in the explore-first conditions attempted the problem before instruction, with exploration prompts differing between conditions. Students in the <i>explore-first invent</i> condition were asked to invent a formula; students in the <i>explore-first generate</i> condition were asked to come up with different ways of measuring consistency. Students in the explore-first generate condition scored significantly higher on&#xa0;procedural knowledge (problem solving) than in&#xa0;the explore-first invent condition, conceptual knowledge than in&#xa0;both other conditions, and preparation for future learning (transfer) than in&#xa0;the instruct-first condition. Students in the explore-first invent condition scored no differently on any learning outcomes than in&#xa0;the instruct-first condition. Students given the strategy generation prompt more&#xa0;broadly explored different&#xa0;strategies during the exploration activity, but used&#xa0;fewer correct solution steps than those given&#xa0;the invention prompt. Broader exploration—and not accuracy—was associated with higher conceptual knowledge. Conversely, students in the instruct-first condition used fewer, more accurate, strategies on the activity compared to the explore-first conditions. They also showed greater misconceptions during the activity and posttest, indicating superficial understanding. Both explore-first conditions induced greater awareness of knowledge gaps compared to the instruct-first condition. Generating multiple strategies likely helped students discern important problem features, deepening conceptual structures that supported learning even beyond the initial lesson.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparing effectiveness of exploratory learning activities given before instruction: generating multiple strategies vs. inventing one strategy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月22日

查看全文
  • Lianda Velić,
  • Marci S. DeCaro

摘要

Exploratory learning before instruction typically benefits conceptual understanding compared to traditional instruction-first methods. The current study examined whether different exploration prompts impact students’ exploration approaches and learning outcomes, using a quasi-experimental design. Undergraduate students (N = 164) in psychological statistics courses were taught the procedure and concepts of standard deviation. Students in the instruct-first condition received direct instruction then a practice problem. Students in the explore-first conditions attempted the problem before instruction, with exploration prompts differing between conditions. Students in the explore-first invent condition were asked to invent a formula; students in the explore-first generate condition were asked to come up with different ways of measuring consistency. Students in the explore-first generate condition scored significantly higher on procedural knowledge (problem solving) than in the explore-first invent condition, conceptual knowledge than in both other conditions, and preparation for future learning (transfer) than in the instruct-first condition. Students in the explore-first invent condition scored no differently on any learning outcomes than in the instruct-first condition. Students given the strategy generation prompt more broadly explored different strategies during the exploration activity, but used fewer correct solution steps than those given the invention prompt. Broader exploration—and not accuracy—was associated with higher conceptual knowledge. Conversely, students in the instruct-first condition used fewer, more accurate, strategies on the activity compared to the explore-first conditions. They also showed greater misconceptions during the activity and posttest, indicating superficial understanding. Both explore-first conditions induced greater awareness of knowledge gaps compared to the instruct-first condition. Generating multiple strategies likely helped students discern important problem features, deepening conceptual structures that supported learning even beyond the initial lesson.