↓ Skip to main content

Preparing learners with partly incorrect intuitive prior knowledge for learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preparing learners with partly incorrect intuitive prior knowledge for learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00664
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Ohst, Béatrice M. E. Fondu, Inga Glogger, Matthias Nückles, Alexander Renkl

Abstract

Learners sometimes have incoherent and fragmented intuitive prior knowledge that is (partly) "incompatible" with the to-be-learned contents. Such knowledge in pieces can cause conceptual disorientation and cognitive overload while learning. We hypothesized that a pre-training intervention providing a generalized schema as a structuring framework for such knowledge in pieces would support (re)organizing-processes of prior knowledge and thus reduce unnecessary cognitive load during subsequent learning. Fifty-six student teachers participated in the experiment. A framework group underwent a pre-training intervention providing a generalized, categorical schema for categorizing primary learning strategies and related but different strategies as a cognitive framework for (re-)organizing their prior knowledge. Our control group received comparable factual information but no framework. Afterwards, all participants learned about primary learning strategies. The framework group claimed to possess higher levels of interest and self-efficacy, achieved higher learning outcomes, and learned more efficiently. Hence, providing a categorical framework can help overcome the barrier of incorrect prior knowledge in pieces.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 20%
Social Sciences 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Computer Science 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,723,043
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,341
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,928
of 227,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#327
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.