Zusammenfassung
The study explores if established support devices for paper-pencil problem solving, namely worked examples and incremental scaffolds, are applicable to laboratory tasks. N = 173 grade eight students solved in dyads a physics laboratory task in one of three conditions. In condition A (unguided problem solving), students were asked to determine the mass of an unknown object by applying Hooke's law. ...
Zusammenfassung
The study explores if established support devices for paper-pencil problem solving, namely worked examples and incremental scaffolds, are applicable to laboratory tasks. N = 173 grade eight students solved in dyads a physics laboratory task in one of three conditions. In condition A (unguided problem solving), students were asked to determine the mass of an unknown object by applying Hooke's law. In condition B (laboratory guide), students received a guide which instructed and explained each solution step. In condition C (incremental scaffolds), the solution steps were presented incrementally on learner demand and were preceded by strategic prompts. Dependent variables were learning outcomes (solution, retention, knowledge) and motivational learning experiences (basic needs, situational interest, deeper level processing). The laboratory guide (B) led to better learning outcomes (d = 0.42) but lower motivation (d > 0.38) compared to unguided problem solving (A). Incremental scaffolds (C) led to higher motivation (d > 0.44) but similar learning outcomes compared to a laboratory guide.
Altmetric