The effectiveness of propositional manipulation as a lecturing method in the statistics knowledge domain

Instructional Science

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1127-1140

  Leppink, Jimmie ^a   Broers, Nick J ^a   Imbos, Tjaart ^a   van der Vleuten, Cees P M ^a   Berger, Martijn P F ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Conceptual understanding of statistics; Guided self explanation; Motivation to learn statistics; Propositional manipulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886720180     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9268-3     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147-179.
2. Broers, N. J. (2002). Selection and use of propositional knowledge in statistical problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 12, 323-344.
3. Broers, N. J. (2008). Helping students to build a conceptual understanding of elementary statistics. The American Statistician, 62, 1-6.
4. Broers, N. J. (2009). Using propositions for the assessment of structural knowledge. Journal of Statistics Education, 17, 1-19.
5. Broers, N. J., & Imbos, Tj. (2005). Charting and manipulating propositions as methods to promote self-explanation in the study of statistics. Learning and Instruction, 15, 517-538.
6. Broers, N. J., Mur, M. C., & Bude, L. (2005). Directed self-explanation in the study of statistics. In G. Burrill & M. Camden (Eds.), Curricular development in statistics education (pp. 21-35). Voorburg: International statistical institute.
7. Bruinsma, M. (2003). Leidt hogere motivatie tot betere prestaties? Motivatie, informatieverwerking, en studievoortgang in het hoger onderwijs. [Does higher motivation result in higher achievement? Motivation, cognitive processing and achievement in higher education]. Pedagogische Studien, 80, 226-238.
8. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
9. Fischer, F. (2002). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion: Theoretische und methodologische Aspekte [Joint knowledge construction: theoretical and methodological aspects]. Psychologische Rundschau, 53, 119-134.
10. Huberty, C. J., Dresden, J., & Bak, B. (1993). Relations among dimensions of statistical knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 523-532.
11. Hulsizer, M. R., & Woolf, L. M. (2009). A guide to teaching statistics: innovations and best practices. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
12. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.
13. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: a cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19, 402-410.
14. Kalyuga, S., & Hanham, J. (2010). Instructing in generalized knowledge structures to develop flexible problem solving skills. Computers in Human Behavior (2010). doi: 10. 101G/j. cnb. 2010. 05. 024.
15. Knipfer, K., Mayr, E., Zahn, C., Schwan, S., & Hesse, F. W. (2009). Computer support for knowledge communication in science exhibitions: novel perspectives from research on collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 4, 196-209.
16. Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach in motivation and self-regulation: the dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego: Academic Press.
17. Leppink, J. (2010). Adjusting cognitive load to the student's level of expertise for increasing motivation to learn, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics [Conference paper]. Slovenia: Ljubljana.
18. Leppink, J. (2011). Zelfverklaring door middel van argumentatie: de invloed van voorkennis [Self-explanation by means of argumentation: the influence of prior knowledge], Onderwijs Research Dagen 2011 [Conference paper]. The Netherlands: Maastricht.
19. Leppink, J. (2012). Propositional knowledge for conceptual understanding of statistics. PhD Dissertation. Maastricht: Maastricht University.
20. Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, Tj, van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Berger, M. P. F. (2011). Exploring task-and student-related factors in the method of propositional manipulation (MPM). Journal of Statistics Education, 19, 1-23.
21. Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, Tj, van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Berger, M. P. F. (2012a). Self-explanation in the domain of statistics: an expertise reversal effect. Higher Education, 63, 771-785.
22. Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, Tj, van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Berger, M. P. F. (2012b). Prior knowledge moderates instructional effects on conceptual understanding of statistics. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18, 37-51.
23. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: a comparative study based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68-84.
24. Markland, D., & Hardy, L. (1997). On the factorial and construct validity of the intrinsic motivation inventory: conceptual and operational concerns. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 68, 20-32.
25. Martens, R. L., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 368-376.
26. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
27. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Learning, 548-571.
28. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
29. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
30. Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence: when free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.
31. Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.
32. Tsigilis, N., & Theodosiou, A. (2003). Temporal stability of the intrinsic motivation inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 271-280.
33. van Buuren, J. A. (2008). van vakgericht naar competentiegericht statistiekonderwijs: een interventiestudie in een opleiding psychologie [From subject-oriented to competence-based statistics education: an intervention study in a school of psychology] PhD Dissertation, Open University of the Netherlands. Voerendaal: Schrijen Lippertz Huntjens.