Using online measures to determine how learners process instructional explanations

Sánchez, Emilio; García-Rodicio, Héctor

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.003

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the explanations were not provided in a manner that was responsive to the learners' specific explanations or errors. Although the findings from studies that have explored the effects of adapted instructional explanations show that adaptation does not necessarily foster learning outcomes (e.g., Roelle et al 2015b;Sánchez and García-Rodicio 2013), findings by Loibl and Rummel (2014a, see also Kapur 2012) suggest that explicitly building on learners' inventions is a crucial ingredient of direct instruction following a preparation phase in which learners invent solutions for a problem. Thus, if the instructional explanations explicitly respond to learners' inventions, the potential detrimental effect of inventing due to the learners' reluctance to give up their suboptimal inventions might be reduced.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Roelle

Berthold

2016

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 9 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.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Roelle

Berthold

2016

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These systems are really good for developing formal studies and subjects of the different university degrees but they fall short in delivering open materials and integrating the socio-digital learners´ environment. Learners desire a learning system allowing for anywhere, anytime, and anyone learning opportunities (Sánchez, & García-Rodicio, 2013). Personal learning environments (PLE) give the opportunity to integrate and cerate OER and allow students to control their own learning.…”

Section: Ples In Higher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal Learning Environments and Open Educational Resources in Higher Education

Vázquez‐Cano¹

2017

Notandum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen: Este artículo presenta, desde un enfoque teórico, la funcionalidad didáctica de los Entornos Virtuales de Aprendizaje (EVA) y los Recursos Educativos en Abierto (REA) en la Educación Superior. El tratamiento conjunto de ambas estrategias didácticas ha revelado en recientes investigaciones que el uso combinado de EVA y REA diseñados por los propios estudiantes mejora su competencia digital, principalmente en habilidades como: acceder y buscar información en la red, articular y encontrar información relevante, seleccionar los recursos de manera eficiente durante la navegación y crear estrategias personales con respecto al tratamiento de la información. Asimismo, algunos de los beneficios que produce el desarrollo de EVA y REA son: un modelo didáctico centrado en el alumno, el desarrollo de estrategias de gestión del conocimiento y la formación de un modelo autorregulado de aprendizaje. Palabras clave: Entornos Virtuales de Aprendizaje, Recursos Educativos en Abierto, Educación Superior, competencias, métodos de aprendizaje. Abstract: This paper presents from a theoretical approach the didactic functionality of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and Open Educational Resources (OERs) in Higher Education. The combination of both didactic strategies in recent studies show that the joint use of PLEs and OERs designed by students improves their digital competence, mainly in capabilities such as: accessing and searching for online information; articulating information needs; finding relevant information; selecting resources effectively; navigating between online sources; and creating personal information strategies. Furthermore, the main benefits of the implementation of PLEs and OERs are: a student-centric approach, the development of personal knowledge management strategies and the formation of a self-regulated learning model.

show abstract

“…Esto puede hacerse permitiéndoles un acceso libre o, como hemos hecho en nuestros estudios, proporcionándoles un texto con las ideas necesarias para reparar el malentendido justo después de ser advertidos de su existencia ¿Sería suficiente? Hemos llevado a cabo varios trabajos (Acuña, García-Rodicio, Sánchez, 2010;García-Rodicio, Acuña y Sánchez, 2013). que muestran que esa doble ayuda (advertencia de error más texto reparador) mejora la comprensión y rebaja el número de malentendidos.…”

Section: Issn 2171-9624unclassified

“…Más interesante todavía es que hemos comparado las dos formas de advetencia mencionadas, de manera que en una condición experimental los participantes reciben advertencias débiles y los textos de reparación; en otra condición reciben advertencias fuertes y los textos reparadores, y en la tercera, reciben sólo textos reparadores. (Sánchez y García Rodicio, 2013). ¿Basta con una advertencia débil para sacar partido del texto reparador?…”

Section: Issn 2171-9624unclassified

Aspiraciones y conocimientos: ¿cómo explicar que la innovación educativa resulte decepcionante? El caso de la comprensión lectora

Miguel

2016

Alabe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen. En estas páginas tratamos de aclarar por qué tenemos tantas dificultades para dar un tratamiento adecuado a la lectura y a la comprensión de textos en el aula. Tenemos un volumen importante de conocimientos sobre qué, cómo y cuándo enseñar a comprender, pero las evidencias reunidas en diferentes paises sugieren que la implantación en las aulas de estas ideas es muy escasa. El objetivo del artículo es mostrar tres limitaciones que podrían explicar esta frustrante situación. La primera y fundamental es que no siempre se distingue entre conocimientos y aspiraciones. Una indiferenciación que afecta a nuestra visión de lo que es una lectura experta, a nuestros conocimiento sobre la vida en el aula y el papel de los profesores. Ambos problemas, repercuten decisivamente en el papel adoptado por asesores y formadores. Para aclarar estas ideas y darles un fundamento empírico, resumimos seis estudios que hemos llevado a cabo durante los últimos años.Palabras clave: Lectura; dificultad lectora; lector experto; comprensión de textos.Abstract. This paper seeks to clarify why we find it so difficult to properly tackle reading and text comprehension in the classroom. We have a large volume of knowledge on what, how and when to teach pupils comprehension, but the evidence gathered in different countries suggests that these notions are rarely implemented in classrooms. The aim here is to shed light on three limitations that could explain this frustrating situation. The first and most basic one is that a distinction is not always made between knowledge and aspirations. This lack of differentiation colours our view of the nature of proficiency in reading, as well as our understanding of classroom activities and a teacher's role. Both issues have a decisive impact on the role played by coaches and mentors. With a view to clarifying these notions and provide them with an empirical grounding, we summarise six studies we have conducted in recent years.

show abstract

Using online measures to determine how learners process instructional explanations

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

Personal Learning Environments and Open Educational Resources in Higher Education

Aspiraciones y conocimientos: ¿cómo explicar que la innovación educativa resulte decepcionante? El caso de la comprensión lectora

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About