A time for telling

Suggestions for improving text understanding often prescribe activating prior knowledge, a prescription that may be problematic if students do not have the relevant prior knowledge to begin with. In this article, we describe research about a method for developing prior knowledge that prepares students to learn from a text or lecture. We propose that analyzing contrasting cases can help learners generate the differentiated knowledge structures that enable them to understand a text deeply. Noticing the distinctions between contrasting cases creates a "time for telling"; learners are prepared to be told the significance of the distinctions they have discovered. In 3 classroom studies, college students analyzed contrasting cases that consisted of simplified experimental designs and data from classic psychology experiments. They then received a lecture or text on the psychological phenomena highlighted in the experiments. Approximately 1 week later, the students predicted outcomes for a hypothetical experiment that could be interpreted in light of the concepts they had studied. Generating the distinctions between contrasting cases and then reading a text or hearing a lecture led to more accurate predictions than the control treatments of (a) reading about the distinctions between the cases and hearing alecture, (b) summarizing a relevant text and hearing a lecture, and (c) analyzing the contrasting cases twice without receiving a lecture. We argue that analyzing the contrasting cases increased students' abilities to discern specific features that differentiated classes of psychological phenomena, much as a botanist can distinguish subspecies of a given flower. This differentiated knowledge prepared the students to understand deeply an explanation of the relevant psychological principles when it was presented to them. These results can inform constructivist models of instruction as they apply to classroom activities and learning from verbal materials. In particular, the results indicate that there is a place for lectures and readings in the classroom if students have sufficiently differentiated domain knowledge to use the expository materials in a generative manner.

[1]  E. Gibson.  A systematic application of the concepts of generalization and differentiation to verbal learning , 1940 .

[2]  John Cohen.  Social Learning and Imitation , 1945, Nature.

[3]  Transfer of discrimination training to a motor task. , 1950, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  M. D. Arnoult.  Transfer of predifferentiation training in simple and multiple shape discrimination. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  J. Gibson,et al.  Perceptual learning; differentiation or enrichment? , 1955, Psychological review.

[6]  R. Gagne,et al.  Some factors in the programming of conceptual learning. , 1961 .

[7]  E. Gibson.  Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

[8]  D. Dooling,et al.  Effects of comprehension on retention of prose , 1971 .

[9]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall , 1972 .

[10]  Walter B. Weimer,et al.  Cognition and the symbolic processes , 1974 .

[11]  John D. Bransford,et al.  A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: Some thoughts about understanding what it means to comprehend. , 1974 .

[12]  J. Bransford,et al.  Comprehension and semantic flexibility , 1974 .

[13]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[14]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  On putting apples into bottles — A problem of polysemy , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  M. Chi.  Short-term memory limitations in children: Capacity or processing deficits? , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[16]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[17]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[18]  J. Bransford,et al.  Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subject generation , 1979 .

[19]  John B. Black,et al.  Scripts in memory for text , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  E. Yalow.  On Educational psychology: A cognitive view. , 1979 .

[21]  Gregg T. Vesonder,et al.  Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals , 1980 .

[22]  M. A. Lindberg.  Is knowledge base development a necessary and sufficient condition for memory development? , 1980, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[23]  R. Abelson.  Psychological status of the script concept. , 1981 .

[24]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing , 1982 .

[25]  J. Bergeron,et al.  Models of Understanding. , 1983 .

[26]  Isabel L. Beck.  Developing Comprehension: The Impact of the Directed Reading Lesson. , 1984 .

[27]  Brian H. Ross,et al.  Remindings in learning and instruction , 1989 .

[28]  Ann Landrum Michael.  The transition from language theory to therapy : test of two instructional methods , 1989 .

[29]  John D. Bransford,et al.  New approaches to instruction: because wisdom can't be told , 1989 .

[30]  I. Begg,et al.  Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[31]  I. Begg,et al.  Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: Memory-oriented training promotes memory for training , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[32]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media , 1991 .

[33]  M. Gick,et al.  Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer , 1992 .

[34]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[35]  Susan M. Williams,et al.  Putting Case-Based Instruction Into Context: Examples From Legal and Medical Education , 1992 .

[36]  John D. Bransford,et al.  The transition form theory to therapy: Test of two instructional methods , 1993 .

[37]  B. White.  ThinkerTools: Causal Models, Conceptual Change, and Science Education , 1993 .

[38]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  A Comprehension-Based Approach to Learning and Understanding , 1993 .

[39]  K. McGilly,et al.  Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. , 1994 .

[40]  P. Cobb.  Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development , 1994 .

[41]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided discovery in a community of learners. , 1994 .

[42]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Models of Understanding Text , 1996 .

[43]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[44]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Shuttling Between Depictive Models and Abstract Rules: Induction and Fallback , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[46]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  SMART Environments That Support Monitoring, Reflection, and Revision , 1998 .

[47]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  On the Role of Mathematics in Explaining the Material World: Mental Models for Proportional Reasoning , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[48]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning , 1998 .

[49]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course , 1999 .