How Preparation-for-Learning with a Worked versus an Open Inventing Problem Affect Subsequent Learning Processes in Pre-Service Teachers

Autor/inn/en	Glogger-Frey, Inga; Treier, Anne-Katrin; Renkl, Alexander
Titel	How Preparation-for-Learning with a Worked versus an Open Inventing Problem Affect Subsequent Learning Processes in Pre-Service Teachers
Quelle	In: Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 50 (2022) 3, S.451-473 (23 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Glogger-Frey, Inga)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0020-4277
DOI	10.1007/s11251-022-09577-6
Schlagwörter	Preservice Teachers; Motivation; Learning Processes; Learning Strategies; Problem Solving; Protocol Analysis; Computer Assisted Instruction; Computer Uses in Education + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? psychologische; Motivation (psychologisch); Learning process; Lernprozess; Learning methode; Learning techniques; Lernmethode; Lernstrategie; Problemlösen; Computer based training; Computerunterstützter Unterricht; Computernutzung
Abstract	A worked-out or an open inventing problem with contrasting cases can prepare learners for learning from subsequent instruction differently regarding motivation and cognition. In addition, such activities potentially initiate different learning processes during the subsequent ("future") learning phase. In this experiment (N = 45 pre-service teachers), we aimed to replicate effects of earlier studies on learning outcomes and, on this basis, to analyze respective learning processes during the future-learning phase via think-aloud protocols. The inventing group invented criteria to assess learning strategies in learning journals while the worked-example group studied the same problem in a solved version. Afterwards, the pre-service teachers thought aloud during learning in a computer-based learning environment. We did not find substantial motivational differences (interest, self-efficacy), but the worked-example group clearly outperformed their counterparts in transfer (BF[subscript +0] > 313). We found moderate evidence for the hypothesis that their learning processes during the subsequent learning phase was deepened: the example group showed more elaborative processes, more spontaneous application of the canonical, but also of sub-optimal solutions than the inventing group (BFs around 4), and it tended to focus more on the most relevant learning contents. Explorative analyses suggest that applying canonical solutions to examples is one of the processes explaining why working through the solution leads to higher transfer. In conclusion, a worked-out inventing problem seems to prepare future learning more effectively than an open inventing activity by deepening and focusing subsequent learning processes. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01