IMPACT OF SELF-EXPLANATION AND ANALOGICAL COMPARISON SUPPORT ON LEARNING PROCESSES, MOTIVATION, METACOGNITION, AND TRANSFER

Research examining analogical comparison and self-explanation has produced a robust set of findings about learning and transfer supported by each instructional technique. However, it is unclear how the types of knowledge generated through each technique differ, which has important implications for cognitive theory as well as instructional practice. I conducted a pair of experiments to directly compare the effects of instructional prompts supporting self-explanation, analogical comparison, and the study of instructional explanations across a number of fine-grained learning process, motivation, metacognition, and transfer measures. Experiment 1 explored these questions using sequence extrapolation problems, and results showed no differences between self-explanation and analogical comparison support conditions on any measure. Experiment 2 explored the same questions in a science domain. I evaluated condition effects on transfer outcomes; self-reported self-explanation, analogical comparison, and metacognitive processes; and achievement goals. I also examined relations between transfer and self-reported processes and goals. Receiving materials with analogical comparison support and reporting greater levels of analogical comparison were both associated with worse transfer performance, while reporting greater levels of self-explanation was associated with better performance. Learners’ self-reports of self-explanation and analogical comparison were not related to condition assignment, suggesting that the questionnaires did not measure the same processes promoted by the intervention, or that individual differences in processing are robust even when learners are instructed to engage in self-explanation or analogical comparison