Image_6_Self-Generation in the Context of Inquiry-Based Learning.pdf
Self-generation of knowledge can activate deeper cognitive processing and improve long-term retention compared to the passive reception of information. It plays a distinctive role within the concept of inquiry-based learning, which is an activity-oriented, student-centered collaborative learning approach in which students become actively involved in knowledge construction by following an idealized hypothetico-deductive method. This approach allows students to not only acquire content knowledge, but also an understanding of investigative procedures/inquiry skills – in particular the control-of-variables strategy (CVS). From the perspective of cognitive load theory, generating answers and solutions during inquiry-based learning is inefficient as it imposes an intrinsic and extraneous load on learners. Previous research on self-generation of content knowledge in inquiry-based learning has demonstrated that (1) a high cognitive load impairs retention of the generated information, (2) feedback is a fundamental requirement for self-generation of complex content knowledge, (3) self-generation success is key to long-term retention, and (4) generating and rereading place different demands on learners. However, there is still no research on the self-generation of scientific reasoning skills (procedural knowledge) and no knowledge of interaction between the (long-term) retention of these skills with prior knowledge, feedback and self-generation success. That is why this experiment was conducted. The focus of this research is to analyze the distinctive role of self-generation of scientific reasoning skills within the concept of inquiry-based learning and to identify the influence of prior knowledge and self-generation success on short-term and long-term retention. For this purpose, an experiment involving 133 6th and 7th graders was conducted. An inquiry activity that included the self-generation of scientific reasoning skills was compared to an inquiry task that had students simply read information about the experimental design. We used both an immediate and a delayed test to examine which treatment better developed a deeper understanding of CVS and an ability to apply this knowledge to novel problems (transfer). Direct instruction was clearly superior to self-generation in facilitating students’ acquisition of CVS immediately after the inquiry task. However, after a period of 1 week had elapsed, both treatment conditions turned out to be equally effective. A generation effect was only found among students with high self-generation success after a 1-week delay.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.18637/jss.v074.i08
- https://doi.org//10.1080/09500693.2014.930209
- https://doi.org//10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- https://doi.org//10.3758/BF03193441
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-3-642-04636-0_38
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.007
- https://doi.org//10.1111/1467-8624.00081
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
- https://doi.org//10.1002/sce.10001
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020
- https://doi.org//10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_1
- https://doi.org//10.3758/BF03193146
- https://doi.org//10.1037//0022-0663.86.4.567
- https://doi.org//10.3102/0034654312457206
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-3-531-93192-0
- https://doi.org//10.1080/00461520701263368
- https://doi.org//10.1006/jmla.1993.1023
- https://doi.org//10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
- https://doi.org//10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01628.x
- https://doi.org//10.2307/2529310
- https://doi.org//10.1002/tea.3660220702
- https://doi.org//10.3102/0034654315627366
- https://doi.org//10.18637/jss.v069.i01
- https://doi.org//10.1002/tea.3660180507
- https://doi.org//10.1080/00221300309601283
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-3-540-68166-3_16
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.307
- https://doi.org//10.3758/BF03194056
- https://doi.org//10.17226/18290
- https://doi.org//10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419
- https://doi.org//10.1027/1015-5759/a000170
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-3-540-88573-3_1
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jecp.2008.03.001
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
- https://doi.org//10.1080/0263514930110208
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.352
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.dr.2015.12.001
- https://doi.org//10.1111/1467-9280.00076
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0959-4752(91)90020-9
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
- https://doi.org//10.1002/sce.3730680410
- https://doi.org//10.1080/713755794
- https://doi.org//10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
- https://doi.org//10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Psychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified
- Applied Psychology
- Clinical Psychology
- Developmental and Educational Psychology
- Neuroscience and Physiological Psychology
- Organizational Behavioral Psychology
- Personality, Social and Criminal Psychology
- Gender Psychology
- Health, Clinical and Counselling Psychology
- Industrial and Organisational Psychology
- Psychology not elsewhere classified