Self-explanation in the domain of statistics: an expertise reversal effect

This study investigated the effects of four instructional methods on cognitive load, propositional knowledge, and conceptual understanding of statistics, for low prior knowledge students and for high prior knowledge students. The instructional methods were (1) a reading-only control condition, (2) answering open-ended questions, (3) answering open-ended questions and formulating arguments, and (4) studying worked-out examples of the type of arguments students in the third group had to formulate themselves. The results indicate that high prior knowledge students develop more propositional knowledge of statistics than low prior knowledge students. With regard to conceptual understanding, the results indicate an expertise reversal effect: low prior knowledge students learn most from studying worked-out examples, whereas high prior knowledge students profit most from formulating arguments. Thus, novice students should be guided into the subject matter by means of worked-out examples. As soon as students have developed more knowledge of the subject matter, they should be provided with learning tasks that stimulate students to solve problems by formulating arguments

Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load

Item does not contain fulltextAccording to cognitive load theory, instructions can impose three types of cognitive load on the learner: intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load. Proper measurement of the different types of cognitive load can help us understand why the effectiveness and efficiency of learning environments may differ as a function of instructional formats and learner characteristics. In this article, we present a ten-item instrument for the measurement of the three types of cognitive load. Principal component analysis on data from a lecture in statistics for PhD students (n = 56) in psychology and health sciences revealed a three-component solution, consistent with the types of load that the different items were intended to measure. This solution was confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis of data from three lectures in statistics for different cohorts of bachelor students in the social and health sciences (ns = 171, 136, and 148), and received further support from a randomized experiment with university freshmen in the health sciences (n = 58)

The expertise reversal effect in prompting focused processing of instructional explanations

Roelle J, Berthold K. The expertise reversal effect in prompting focused processing of instructional explanations. Instructional Science. 2013;41(4):635-656.Providing prompts to induce focused processing of the central contents of instructional explanations is a promising instructional means to support novice learners in learning from instructional explanations. However, within research on the expertise reversal effect it has been shown that instructional means that are beneficial for novices can be detrimental for learners with more expertise if the instructional means provide guidance that overlaps with the internal guidance provided by the prior knowledge of learners with more expertise. Under such circumstances, prompts to induce focused processing might even be detrimental for learners with expertise whose prior knowledge already provides internal guidance to learn from explanations. On this basis, we aimed at experimentally varying expertise by developing prior knowledge. Specifically, we used a preparation intervention with contrasting cases to enhance learners' prior knowledge (expertise). Against this background, we tested 71 university students in a 2 x 2 factorial experimental design: (a) Factor of expertise. Working with contrasting cases to develop prior knowledge and expertise to provide internal guidance to learn from instructional explanations (with vs. without), (b) Factor of prompts. Prompts to induce focused processing of the explanations (with vs. without). The results showed that prompts to induce focused processing fostered conceptual knowledge for novice learners whereas prompts hindered the acquisition of conceptual knowledge for learners with expertise that was developed by working with contrasting cases beforehand. Moreover, measures of subjective cognitive load and learning processes suggest that the instructional guidance provided by prompts compensated for the low internal guidance of novice learners and overlapped with the internal guidance of learners with expertise