Cognitive Prerequisites for Generative Learning: Why Some Learning Strategies Are More Effective Than Others

21Citations
Citations of this article
77Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This study examined age-related differences in the effectiveness of two generative learning strategies (GLSs). Twenty-five children aged 9–11 and 25 university students aged 17–29 performed a facts learning task in which they had to generate either a prediction or an example before seeing the correct result. We found a significant Age × Learning Strategy interaction, with children remembering more facts after generating predictions rather than examples, whereas both strategies were similarly effective in adults. Pupillary data indicated that predictions stimulated surprise, whereas the effectiveness of example-based learning correlated with children’s analogical reasoning abilities. These findings suggest that there are different cognitive prerequisites for different GLSs, which results in varying degrees of strategy effectiveness by age.

References Powered by Scopus

Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses

22727Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Executive functions

8776Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

PsychoPy-Psychophysics software in Python

3355Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Developing Personalized Education: A Dynamic Framework

109Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age?

76Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Making Sense of Generative Learning

36Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Breitwieser, J., & Brod, G. (2021). Cognitive Prerequisites for Generative Learning: Why Some Learning Strategies Are More Effective Than Others. Child Development, 92(1), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13393

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2508162432

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 23

79%

Researcher 3

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

7%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 10

43%

Social Sciences 8

35%

Linguistics 3

13%

Chemical Engineering 2

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0