Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?

There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on lear...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Instructional science 2021-12, Vol.49 (6), p.747-777
Hauptverfasser: van Peppen, Lara M., Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L., Heijltjes, Anita E. G., Janssen, Eva M., van Gog, Tamara
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 777
container_issue 6
container_start_page 747
container_title Instructional science
container_volume 49
creator van Peppen, Lara M.
Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L.
Heijltjes, Anita E. G.
Janssen, Eva M.
van Gog, Tamara
description There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on learning and transfer of CT-skills, focusing on avoiding biased reasoning. Students (N = 170) received instructions on CT and avoiding biases in reasoning tasks, followed by: (1) contrasting examples, (2) correct examples, (3) erroneous examples, or (4) practice problems. Performance was measured on a pretest, immediate posttest, 3-week delayed posttest, and 9-month delayed posttest. Our results revealed that participants’ reasoning task performance improved from pretest to immediate posttest, and even further after a delay (i.e., they learned to avoid biased reasoning). Surprisingly, there were no differences in learning gains or transfer performance between the four conditions. Our findings raise questions about the preconditions of contrasting examples effects. Moreover, how transfer of CT-skills can be fostered remains an important issue for future research.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2595305347</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1316790</ericid><jstor_id>48700269</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48700269</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-44b354f4ba9ae82ac002759f2099f2bd4d84ce6c95d66cb2e909f62f4cf596a73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUEtOwzAQtRBIlMIFkJAqsU4Z_-J4iaryUyU2sLYcx27dhqTYyYId1-B6nAS3QWXLYmYW76d5CF1imGIAcRMxJhxnQNJIzmUGR2iEuaAZlpwcoxEAgYwRIU7RWYxrAMCsgBGazpuVboxvlpPY9ZVtuvj9-TUxwXfe6HrSrXyz2aMbX9fxHJ04XUd78XvH6PVu_jJ7yBbP94-z20VmGIguY6yknDlWaqltQbRJ8YJLR0CmVVasKpixuZG8ynNTEitBupw4ZhyXuRZ0jK4H321o33sbO7Vu-9CkSEW45BQ4ZTsWGVgmtDEG69Q2-DcdPhQGtetFDb2o1Iva96Igia4GkQ3eHATzJ0xxLuQOpwMeE9YsbfiL_o_rOnZtONiyQqTXc0l_ACmzeI4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2595305347</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>van Peppen, Lara M. ; Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L. ; Heijltjes, Anita E. G. ; Janssen, Eva M. ; van Gog, Tamara</creator><creatorcontrib>van Peppen, Lara M. ; Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L. ; Heijltjes, Anita E. G. ; Janssen, Eva M. ; van Gog, Tamara</creatorcontrib><description>There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on learning and transfer of CT-skills, focusing on avoiding biased reasoning. Students (N = 170) received instructions on CT and avoiding biases in reasoning tasks, followed by: (1) contrasting examples, (2) correct examples, (3) erroneous examples, or (4) practice problems. Performance was measured on a pretest, immediate posttest, 3-week delayed posttest, and 9-month delayed posttest. Our results revealed that participants’ reasoning task performance improved from pretest to immediate posttest, and even further after a delay (i.e., they learned to avoid biased reasoning). Surprisingly, there were no differences in learning gains or transfer performance between the four conditions. Our findings raise questions about the preconditions of contrasting examples effects. Moreover, how transfer of CT-skills can be fostered remains an important issue for future research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-4277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1952</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Achievement Gains ; Bias ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Critical Thinking ; Delayed ; Demonstrations (Educational) ; Education ; Educational Psychology ; Instructional Effectiveness ; Learning ; Learning and Instruction ; ORIGINAL RESEARCH ; Pedagogic Psychology ; Pedagogy ; Skill Development ; Task performance ; Teaching methods ; Thinking Skills ; Transfer of Training</subject><ispartof>Instructional science, 2021-12, Vol.49 (6), p.747-777</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-44b354f4ba9ae82ac002759f2099f2bd4d84ce6c95d66cb2e909f62f4cf596a73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-44b354f4ba9ae82ac002759f2099f2bd4d84ce6c95d66cb2e909f62f4cf596a73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1219-8267</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1316790$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Peppen, Lara M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijltjes, Anita E. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssen, Eva M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Gog, Tamara</creatorcontrib><title>Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?</title><title>Instructional science</title><addtitle>Instr Sci</addtitle><description>There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on learning and transfer of CT-skills, focusing on avoiding biased reasoning. Students (N = 170) received instructions on CT and avoiding biases in reasoning tasks, followed by: (1) contrasting examples, (2) correct examples, (3) erroneous examples, or (4) practice problems. Performance was measured on a pretest, immediate posttest, 3-week delayed posttest, and 9-month delayed posttest. Our results revealed that participants’ reasoning task performance improved from pretest to immediate posttest, and even further after a delay (i.e., they learned to avoid biased reasoning). Surprisingly, there were no differences in learning gains or transfer performance between the four conditions. Our findings raise questions about the preconditions of contrasting examples effects. Moreover, how transfer of CT-skills can be fostered remains an important issue for future research.</description><subject>Achievement Gains</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Critical Thinking</subject><subject>Delayed</subject><subject>Demonstrations (Educational)</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Psychology</subject><subject>Instructional Effectiveness</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>ORIGINAL RESEARCH</subject><subject>Pedagogic Psychology</subject><subject>Pedagogy</subject><subject>Skill Development</subject><subject>Task performance</subject><subject>Teaching methods</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><subject>Transfer of Training</subject><issn>0020-4277</issn><issn>1573-1952</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUEtOwzAQtRBIlMIFkJAqsU4Z_-J4iaryUyU2sLYcx27dhqTYyYId1-B6nAS3QWXLYmYW76d5CF1imGIAcRMxJhxnQNJIzmUGR2iEuaAZlpwcoxEAgYwRIU7RWYxrAMCsgBGazpuVboxvlpPY9ZVtuvj9-TUxwXfe6HrSrXyz2aMbX9fxHJ04XUd78XvH6PVu_jJ7yBbP94-z20VmGIguY6yknDlWaqltQbRJ8YJLR0CmVVasKpixuZG8ynNTEitBupw4ZhyXuRZ0jK4H321o33sbO7Vu-9CkSEW45BQ4ZTsWGVgmtDEG69Q2-DcdPhQGtetFDb2o1Iva96Igia4GkQ3eHATzJ0xxLuQOpwMeE9YsbfiL_o_rOnZtONiyQqTXc0l_ACmzeI4</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>van Peppen, Lara M.</creator><creator>Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L.</creator><creator>Heijltjes, Anita E. G.</creator><creator>Janssen, Eva M.</creator><creator>van Gog, Tamara</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1219-8267</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills</title><author>van Peppen, Lara M. ; Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L. ; Heijltjes, Anita E. G. ; Janssen, Eva M. ; van Gog, Tamara</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-44b354f4ba9ae82ac002759f2099f2bd4d84ce6c95d66cb2e909f62f4cf596a73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Achievement Gains</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Critical Thinking</topic><topic>Delayed</topic><topic>Demonstrations (Educational)</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Psychology</topic><topic>Instructional Effectiveness</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>ORIGINAL RESEARCH</topic><topic>Pedagogic Psychology</topic><topic>Pedagogy</topic><topic>Skill Development</topic><topic>Task performance</topic><topic>Teaching methods</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><topic>Transfer of Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Peppen, Lara M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijltjes, Anita E. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssen, Eva M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Gog, Tamara</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Instructional science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Peppen, Lara M.</au><au>Verkoeijen, Peter P. J. L.</au><au>Heijltjes, Anita E. G.</au><au>Janssen, Eva M.</au><au>van Gog, Tamara</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1316790</ericid><atitle>Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?</atitle><jtitle>Instructional science</jtitle><stitle>Instr Sci</stitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>747</spage><epage>777</epage><pages>747-777</pages><issn>0020-4277</issn><eissn>1573-1952</eissn><abstract>There is a need for effective methods to teach critical thinking (CT). One instructional method that seems promising is comparing correct and erroneous worked examples (i.e., contrasting examples). The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effect of contrasting examples on learning and transfer of CT-skills, focusing on avoiding biased reasoning. Students (N = 170) received instructions on CT and avoiding biases in reasoning tasks, followed by: (1) contrasting examples, (2) correct examples, (3) erroneous examples, or (4) practice problems. Performance was measured on a pretest, immediate posttest, 3-week delayed posttest, and 9-month delayed posttest. Our results revealed that participants’ reasoning task performance improved from pretest to immediate posttest, and even further after a delay (i.e., they learned to avoid biased reasoning). Surprisingly, there were no differences in learning gains or transfer performance between the four conditions. Our findings raise questions about the preconditions of contrasting examples effects. Moreover, how transfer of CT-skills can be fostered remains an important issue for future research.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0</doi><tpages>31</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1219-8267</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-4277
ispartof Instructional science, 2021-12, Vol.49 (6), p.747-777
issn 0020-4277
1573-1952
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2595305347
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; EBSCOhost Education Source
subjects Achievement Gains
Bias
Cognition & reasoning
Critical Thinking
Delayed
Demonstrations (Educational)
Education
Educational Psychology
Instructional Effectiveness
Learning
Learning and Instruction
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Pedagogic Psychology
Pedagogy
Skill Development
Task performance
Teaching methods
Thinking Skills
Transfer of Training
title Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T02%3A57%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Enhancing%20students%E2%80%99%20critical%20thinking%20skills:%20is%20comparing%20correct%20and%20erroneous%20examples%20beneficial?&rft.jtitle=Instructional%20science&rft.au=van%20Peppen,%20Lara%20M.&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=747&rft.epage=777&rft.pages=747-777&rft.issn=0020-4277&rft.eissn=1573-1952&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48700269%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2595305347&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1316790&rft_jstor_id=48700269&rfr_iscdi=true