Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of comparing contrasting cases and inventing on learning from subsequent instructional explanations

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparing contrasting cases is a promising means to prepare learners for future learning from related direct instruction. The most prevalent type of preparation intervention used in this case comparison approach is providing contrasting cases together with comparison prompts. However, if the contrasting cases are complex learners might need more guidance than mere prompts in order to detect their relevant similarities and differences and thus exploit their full potential. The inventing approach entails having learners invent explanations that deal with the detected similarities and differences in addition to comparing contrasting cases. In this approach, however, it is unclear whether the generation of inventions per se has an added value to the concomitant detection of similarities and differences. Against this background, in a 2 × 2 factorial experiment with N = 80 eighth-grade students we varied the preparation intervention the learners received before they processed some instructional explanations according to: (a) type of task while comparing contrasting cases (responding to a comparison prompt vs. verifying provided comparisons), and (b) inventing task after comparing contrasting cases (with vs. without). We found that if there was no invention task, the learners who verified the provided comparisons learned more from the instructional explanations than those who received a comparison prompt. Requiring learners to generate inventions only after comparing the cases yielded differential results. The learners who detected only one similarity or difference among the cases benefitted from the inventing task, whereas the learners who detected all of the relevant features were hindered by it, albeit marginally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Using the gain score on the items that were parallel between the pretest and the posttest as the dependent variable, an ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of condition, F(1, 37) = 4.14, p = .049, η2 = .10. The learners in the verifying-provided-comparisons group showed higher gains than the learners in the prompted-comparisons group. However, as only two items were parallel between the pretest and the posttest, this finding should be interpreted cautiously.

  2. Using the gain score on the items that were parallel between the pretest and the posttest as the dependent variable, an ANCOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction between inventing and the number of detected similarities and differences, F(1, 75) = 3.24, p = .076, η2 = .04. This interaction was analogous to the one found in the ANCOVA that used the total posttest scores as the dependent variable. However, as only two items were parallel between the pretest and the posttest, this finding should be interpreted cautiously.

References

  • Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48, 87–113. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 399–432. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.651232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. F. (2001). Quantifying the effects of chance in multiple choice and true/false tests: Question selection and guessing of answers. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 41–50. doi:10.1080/02602930020022273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147–1156. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active–constructive–interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Dohmen, I., Shemwell, J. T., Chin, D. B., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2012, April). Seeing the forest from the trees: A comparison of two instructional models using contrasting cases. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186. doi:10.3102/00346543069002145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glogger-Frey, I., Fleischer, C., Grüny, L., Kappich, J., & Renkl, A. (2015). Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 72–87. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glogger, I., Holzäpfel, L., Kappich, J., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2013a). Development and evaluation of a computer-based learning environment for teachers: Assessment of learning strategies in learning journals. Education Research International. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2013/785065.

  • Glogger, I., Kappich, J., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2013b). Inventing prepares learning motivationally, but a worked-out solution enhances learning outcomes. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2416–2421). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efficiency: Applications in learning and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 45, 1–14. doi:10.1080/00461520903213618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, N. G., Day, J., Park, A. H. K., Bonn, D. A., & Roll, I. (2014). Making the failure more productive: Scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instructional Science, 42, 523–538. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9300-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420–1436. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40, 651–672. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45–83. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.59171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 417–446. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1004new_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014a). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014b). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42, 305–326. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351–357. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453–460. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. doi:10.1037/a0022658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41, 147–160. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4103_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2009). Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments—A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science, 37, 495–498. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9098-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529–544. doi:10.1037/a0014224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2013). The expertise reversal effect in prompting focused processing of instructional explanations. Instructional Science, 41, 635–656. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9247-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2015). Effects of comparing contrasting cases on learning from subsequent explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 33, 199–225. doi:10.1080/07370008.2015.1063636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2014). Two instructional aids to optimise processing and learning from instructional explanations. Instructional Science, 42, 207–228. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9277-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., Lehmkuhl, N., Beyer, M.-U., & Berthold, K. (2015a). The role of specificity, targeted learning activities, and prior knowledge for the effects of relevance instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 705–723. doi:10.1037/edu0000010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., Müller, C., Roelle, D., & Berthold, K. (2015b). Learning from instructional explanations: Effects of prompts based on the active–constructive–interactive framework. PLoS One, 10(4), e0124115. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Holmes, N., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691–710. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, E., & García-Rodicio, H. (2013). Using online measures to determine how learners process instructional explanations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 610–619. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315–323. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9104-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759–775. doi:10.1037/a0025140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Sears, D., & Chang, J. (2007). Reconsidering prior knowledge. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 319–344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40, 711–730. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43, 49–64. doi:10.1080/00461520701756420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the students who participated in our study. Furthermore, we would like to thank Anna Schulze and Andreas Reitz for conducting the experiment, coding the process data, and analyzing the tests and Florian Kopp for his assistance in programming. Moreover, we would like to thank Stewart Campbell for proofreading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 100131, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Julian Roelle & Kirsten Berthold

Authors
  1. Julian Roelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Berthold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Roelle.

Appendix

Appendix

The posttest questions used in the present study (translated from German).

  1. (1)

    Why do different types of atoms have different numbers of electrons (e.g., a hydrogen atom [H] has just one electron, whereas a sodium [Na] atom has 11)?

  2. (2)

    How can you infer the number of electrons from the number of protons of an atom (the atomic number)? Give reasons for your answer.

  3. (3)

    Why do different types of atoms have different atomic masses? While answering, go into detail with respect to how the mass number, the atomic number, and the neutron number of an atom relate to each other.

  4. (4)

    Why is it that not all types of atoms have the same number of electron shells?

  5. (5)

    In your own words, formulate a set of rules for how electron shells are filled.

  6. (6)

    Explain in detail why the radius of the innermost electron shell (the K-shell) is different for each type of atom.

  7. (7)

    Which type of atom has a smaller K-shell radius, aluminum or phosphorus? Give reasons for your answer.

  8. (8)

    What reasons could explain the fact that it takes less ionization energy to split the first atom from an electron shell than it does to split the second atom?

  9. (9)

    Does the radius of an electron shell grow or shrink after an electron has been split from it? Provide reasons for your answer.

  10. (10)

    Which of the three diagrams might best represent the ionization energy of the first five electrons that have been ejected from an aluminum atom (Al, atomic number 13)? Give reasons for your answer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roelle, J., Berthold, K. Effects of comparing contrasting cases and inventing on learning from subsequent instructional explanations. Instr Sci 44, 147–176 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9368-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9368-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation