Abstract
In this study we investigated the effects of two treatments supplementing students’ (16 to 18 years of age and in pre-university education) regular course in economics. One treatment, labelled concept treatment, aimed at the solidification of the students’ knowledge about economic concepts and their interrelations. The other treatment, labeled context treatment, aimed at the solidification of the connections between economic concepts and practical contexts.
The aim of the study was to find out which treatment was most effective in meeting two demands that have been made by educators and advisory boards. The first demand is that students should gain competence in analysing practical problems from an economic perspective. The second demand is that students should be prepared for transfer of what they learned in the lessons to problems that are new to them.
We expected that near transfer is reached more readily than semifar transfer. This was the case for the solidification of connections between concepts and contexts. The context condition performed better. It was not the case for the solidification of the concepts which was the aim for the concept treatment. There was no difference in the results on the concept test between the two conditions. As to the assumption that a solid conceptual network is a prerequisite for far transfer, the findings are inconclusive.
Résumé
Dans cette étude nous avons étudié les effets de deux types d’instruction, supplémentaires aux classes normales d’économie. (éléves de 16–18 ans, classes préparatoires au bac). La première instruction, du type ‘instruction Concept’ accentue le renforcement des connaissances préalables dans le domaine de l’économie, tandis que l’autre type, appelé ‘instruction Context’, mise à intensifier la relation entre certains concepts économiques et des contextes pratiques.
L’objectif de la présente étude consistait à analyser l’efficacité de ces deux types d’instruction. L’expérience devait démontrer laquelle des deux instructions serait la plus efficace pour bien répondre à deux questions posées par les enseignants et par les organismes consultatifs.
La première question servait à mesurer s’il y avait une augmentation de la compétence analytique des éléves en ce qui concerne des problèmes pratiques économiques. La deuxième question servait à voir si les élèves étaient préparés à transférer leurs connaissances économiques à des problèmes jusque-là inconnus.
Nous nous attendions à ce que le transfert proche serait plus facile que le transfert semi-lointain. Cela était le cas pour le renforcement des relations entre les concepts et les contextes: l’instruction ‘Contexte’ rendait plus de réponses correctes. Mais ce n’était pas le cas pour l’instruction ‘Concept’ qui avait comme objectif d’intensifier les concepts économiques. Il n’y avait aucune différence entre les deux conditions quant aux résultats du test ‘Concept’.
Cette étude n’a donc pas confirmé notre hypothèse qu’un réseau conceptuel solide est une condition indispensable pour le transfert lointain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, P.A. (2003). the development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency.Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.
Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, K.A. (1999). Nurturing the seeds of transfer: A domain-specific perspective.International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 561–576.
Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P.R.-J. (1995).Leren en instructie. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999).How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
De Corte, E. (2003).Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations. InPowerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Ltd.
Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (1998). A process model for interaction and mathematitical level raising.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 303–314.
Gelman, R., & Greeno, J.G. (1989). On the nature of competence: Principles for understanding in a domain. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowning, learning and isntruction: Essaya in honor of robert glaser (pp. 125–186). Hilsdale NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1987).Transfer of learning. Academic Press.
Hansen, W.L., Salami, K.M., & Siegfried, J.J. (2002). Use it or lose it: Teaching literacy in the economics principles course.American Economic Review, 92 (Mai), 463–472.
Hartkamp, H. (1998).Jullie zijn nog niet van me af! Amsterdam: Stichting LWEO.
Hatano, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1999). Commentary: Alternative perspectives on transfer and transferstudies.International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 645–654.
Horton, P.B., McConny, A.A., Gallo, M., Woods, A.L., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiviness of concept-mapping as an instructional tool.Science Education, 77(1), 95–111.
Kealy, W.P. (2001). Knowledge maps and their use in computer-based collaborative learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 325–349.
Mayer, R. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning.Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
Mayer, R., & Greeno, J.G. (1972). Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 183–200.
Novak, J.D. (2002). Meaningfull learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inapproriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. In G.J. Kelly & R.E. Mayer (Eds.),Learning (pp. 548–571). Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound?Educational Researcher, 16, 16–25.
Pijls, M., Dekker, R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2003). Mathematical level raising htrough collaborative inverstigations with the computer.International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8, 191–213.
Prawat, R.S. (1989). Promoting acces to knowledge, strategy, and dispositions in students: A research synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 59, 1–41.
Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept-mapping: New prespectives for the teacher.Internation Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 437–455.
Simons, P.R.-J. (1990).Transfervermogen. Unpublished Oratie. KUN, Nijmegen.
SLO (1997).Economie in de tweede fase. Een leerplankundige uitwerking van het examenprogramma havo, Enschede: SLO.
Sternberg, R.J. (2003). What is an “expert student?”Educational Researcher, 32(8), 5–9.
Teulings, C.N. (2002).Economie moet je doen. Enschede: SLO.
Teulings, C.N. (2005).The wealth of education. Enschede: SLO.
Van Boxtel, C.A.M., Linden, J.v.d., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge.Learning and instruction, 10, 311–330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kneppers, L., Elshout-Mohr, M., van Boxtel, C. et al. Conceptual learning in relation to near and far transfer in the secondary school subject of economics. Eur J Psychol Educ 22, 115–129 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173517
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173517