Example-Based Learning: Should Learners Receive Closed-Book or Open-Book Self-Explanation Prompts?

Autor/inn/en	Hiller, Sara; Rumann, Stefan; Berthold, Kirsten; Roelle, Julian
Titel	Example-Based Learning: Should Learners Receive Closed-Book or Open-Book Self-Explanation Prompts?
Quelle	In: Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 48 (2020) 6, S.623-649 (27 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Roelle, Julian)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0020-4277
DOI	10.1007/s11251-020-09523-4
Schlagwörter	Problem Solving; Test Format; Prompting; Learning Strategies; Learning Processes; Pretests Posttests; Retention (Psychology) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Problemlösen; Testentwicklung; Benutzerführung; Learning methode; Learning techniques; Lernmethode; Lernstrategie; Learning process; Lernprozess; Merkfähigkeit
Abstract	In learning from examples, students are often first provided with basic instructional explanations of new principles and concepts and second with examples thereof. In this sequence, it is important that learners self-explain by generating links between the basic instructional explanations' content and the examples. Therefore, it is well established that learners receive self-explanation prompts. However, there is hardly any research on whether these prompts should be provided in a closed-book format--in which learners cannot access the basic instructional explanations during self-explaining and thus have to retrieve the main content of the instructional explanations that is needed to explain the examples from memory (i.e., retrieval practice)--or in an open-book format in which learners can access the instructional explanations during self-explaining. In two experiments, we varied whether learners received closed- or open-book self-explanation prompts. We also varied whether learners were prompted to actively process the main content of the basic instructional explanations before they proceeded to the self-explanation prompts. When the learners were not prompted to actively process the basic instructional explanations, closed-book prompts yielded detrimental effects on immediate and delayed (1 week) posttest performance. When the learners were prompted to actively process the basic instructional explanations beforehand, closed-book self-explanation prompts were not less beneficial than open-book prompts regarding performance on a delayed posttest. We conclude that at least when the retention interval does not exceed 1 week, closed-book self-explanation prompts do not entail an added value and can even be harmful in comparison to open-book ones. (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