Julian Roelle

Learning from Instructional Explanations: Effects of Prompts Based on the Active-Constructive-Interactive Framework

Although instructional explanations are commonly provided when learners are introduced to new content, they often fail because they are not integrated into effective learning activities. The recently introduced active-constructive-interactive framework posits an effectiveness hierarchy in which interactive learning activities are at the top; these are then followed by constructive and active learning activities, respectively. Against this background, we combined instructional explanations with different types of prompts that were designed to elicit these learning activities and tested the central predictions of the active-constructive-interactive framework. In Experiment 1, N = 83 students were randomly assigned to one of four combinations of instructional explanations and prompts. To test the active < constructive learning hypothesis, the learners received either (1) complete explanations and engaging prompts designed to elicit active activities or (2) explanations that were reduced by inferences and inference prompts designed to engage learners in constructing the withheld information. Furthermore, in order to explore how interactive learning activities can be elicited, we gave the learners who had difficulties in constructing the prompted inferences adapted remedial explanations with either (3) unspecific engaging prompts or (4) revision prompts. In support of the active < constructive learning hypothesis, we found that the learners who received reduced explanations and inference prompts outperformed the learners who received complete explanations and engaging prompts. Moreover, revision prompts were more effective in eliciting interactive learning activities than engaging prompts. In Experiment 2, N = 40 students were randomly assigned to either (1) a reduced explanations and inference prompts or (2) a reduced explanations and inference prompts plus adapted remedial explanations and revision prompts condition. In support of the constructive < interactive learning hypothesis, the learners who received adapted remedial explanations and revision prompts as add-ons to reduced explanations and inference prompts acquired more conceptual knowledge.

Effects of Feedback on Learning Strategies in Learning Journals: Learner-Expertise Matters

Feedback on learning strategies is a promising instructional support measure. However, research on the expertise reversal effect suggests that if instructional support measures are provided to expert learners, these learners would have to integrate and cross-reference redundant instructional guidance with available knowledge structures, resulting in less available resources for effective learning processes. Thus, feedback might be detrimental for learners who possess high-quality learning strategies. Against this background, the authors used an online learning management system to employ a feedback procedure that included highly elaborated feedback on learning strategies in a learning journal. The effects of this feedback procedure were tested in a field study using a within-subject design with the factor feedback (no vs. yes). Participants were 246 university students who wrote journal entries over an entire term. The results show that providing feedback to low expertise learners is effective, whereas the effectiveness of feedback is reversed regarding high expertise learners.

Effects of Comparing Contrasting Cases on Learning From Subsequent Explanations

In an experiment, prior to processing instructional explanations N = 75 students received either (a) contrasting cases plus comparison prompts, (b) contrasting cases plus provided comparisons (i.e., model answers to the comparison prompts), or (c) no preparation intervention. We found that the learners with preparation intervention learned more and with a higher degree of efficiency, perceived less extraneous load, and experienced a higher feeling of smooth automatic running while they processed the explanations than the learners without a preparation intervention. These findings suggest that comparing contrasting cases serves a focusing function. Furthermore, we found that the learners in the provided comparisons condition acquired more conceptual knowledge from the explanations than the learners in the prompted comparisons condition. This result indicates that providing high amounts of instructional guidance while learners compare contrasting cases can have an added value in comparison to providing comparison prompts concerning the resulting preparation for future learning.

The Use of Solved Example Problems for Fostering Strategies of Self-Regulated Learning in Journal Writing

Writing learning journals is a powerful tool to integrate self-regulated learning in classrooms. However, to exploit the full potential of journal writing, instructional support is needed that addresses the students’ deficits in the use of self-regulated learning strategies. A promising means to foster learning strategies in learning journals is the provision of solved example problems along with prompts. In a quasiexperimental field study, we provided fifth-grade students () with solved example problems along with prompts either right from the beginning of writing their journals or after they had already written two learning journal entries. We found that the provision of solved example problems along with prompts right from the beginning of the journal writing process fostered the quality of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies and conceptual knowledge in the initial phase. The delayed provision of solved example problems after an initial phase of journal writing yielded a detrimental effect on the quality of cognitive strategies and a beneficial effect on the quality of metacognitive strategies. In sum, our results suggest that the provision of solved example problems along with prompts right from the beginning of journal writing can effectively support fifth-grade students in overcoming deficits in the use of self-regulated learning strategies.

Effects of informing learners about the dangers of making overconfident judgments of learning.

Learners often insufficiently monitor their comprehension, which results in overconfident judgments of learning and underachievement. In the 3 present experiments, we investigated whether insufficient comprehension monitoring is due in part to the fact that learners are not sufficiently aware of the benefit of comprehension monitoring and thus scarcely engage in this process. As an intervention, we informed learners about the likely negative consequences of failing to monitor their comprehension. Specifically, we informed them about the high frequency of and the detrimental consequences that result from making overconfident judgments of learning. In Experiment 1 we found that for university students, this intervention increased their engagement in comprehension monitoring, led to more cautious judgments of learning, and fostered the acquisition of conceptual knowledge in a subsequent learning phase in which they received instructional explanations relating to a new topic. By contrast, this intervention was less beneficial for 13- to 15-year-old high school students: Although the intervention increased their comprehension monitoring and led to more cautious judgments of learning, it did not foster the acquisition of conceptual knowledge from the subsequent explanations (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, we varied whether 13- to 15-year-old high school students received (a) information about the frequency of and the detrimental consequences that result from making overconfident judgments of learning and (b) information about effective regulation strategies. The results of this experiment suggest that the limited beneficial effect found in Experiment 2 could be attributed to a lack of knowledge regarding effective regulation strategies for this age group.

Test-Based Learning: Inconsistent Effects Between Higher- and Lower-Level Test Questions

ABSTRACT Providing test questions after an initial study phase is a common instructional technique. In theory, questions that require higher-level (deep) processing should be more beneficial than those that require lower-level (shallow) processing. However, empirical evidence on the matter is inconsistent. To shed light on two potential reasons for these inconsistencies, we conducted an experiment (N = 81) to analyze the role of (a) the share of information to which test questions direct learners and (b) the learning activities performed in the initial study phase with respect to the effects between higher- and lower-level test questions. We found that both the share of focused information and the initial learning activities moderated the effects between higher- and lower-level test questions.