Less to produce and less to consume: the advantage of pure question-based learning

References

• Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives : complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/18824.
   Google Scholar
• Andraszek, D. (2023). Enhancing learning outcomes with pure question-based learning : A study on the effectiveness of the method in a Primary School Environment (Dissertation). https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-337054.
   Google Scholar
• Bälter, O., Glassey, R., Jemstedt, A., Bosk, D., & Viberg, O. (2024). Pure question-based learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2018). Digcomp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2760/38842
   Google Scholar
• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chacon, S., & Straub, B. (2014). Pro git. Apress.
   Google Scholar
• Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102(6), 460. https://doi.org/10.1511/2014.111.460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gogus, A. (2012). Active learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 77–80). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_489
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, W. M., Spruill, S. E., & Komaroff, E. (2019). A proposed hybrid effect size plus p-value criterion: Empirical evidence supporting its use. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1564697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidet, P., Morgan, R. O., O’malley, K., Moran, B. J., & Richards, B. F. (2004). A controlled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group setting. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000012213.62043.45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del R´ıo, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., … Oliphant, T. E. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J., Ryan, R., Thille, C., & Bier, N. (2013). Open learning initiative courses in community colleges: Evidence on use and effectiveness. Mellon University. https://hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CCOLI_Report_Final_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Koedinger, K. R., Kim, J., Jia, J. Z., McLaughlin, E. A., & Bier, N. L. (2015). Learning is not a spectator sport: Doing is better than watching for learning from a MOOC. Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 111–120). https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2724681.
   Google Scholar
• Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin, E. A., Jia, J. Z., & Bier, N. L. (2016). Is the doer effect a causal relationship? How can we tell and why it’s important. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 388–397). https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883957
   Google Scholar
• Koedinger, K., Scheines, R., & Schaldenbrand, P. (2018, July 1). Is the doer effect robust across multiple data sets? Educational Data Mining. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Is-the-Doer-Effect-Robust-Across-Multiple-Data-Sets-Koedinger-Scheines/dca7fb177fe4e5d8cc796b6fedd3967b88c4f851.
   Google Scholar
• Little, J., & Bjork, E. (2011). Pretesting with multiple-choice questions facilitates learning. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Presentation at Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, USA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265883438_Pretesting_with_Multiple-choice_Questions_Facilitates_Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Little, J., & Bjork, E. (2016). Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information. Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0621-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovett, M., Meyer, O., & Thille, C. (2008). The open learning initiative: Measuring the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2008(1), Art. 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/2008-14
   Google Scholar
• Mannerfelt, S. (2022). Rent frågebaserat lärande som metod i utbildningsmaterial (Master’s thesis). KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McKinney, W. (2010). Data structures for statistical computing in python. In S. van der Walt & J. Millman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Python in science conference (pp. 56–61). https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a
   Google Scholar
• Michel, N., Cater III, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez, F., & Granger, B. E. (2007). IPython: A system for interactive scientific computing. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Punie, Y., Ferrari, A., & Brečko, B. (2013). DIGCOMP : a framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe (Y. Punie & B. Brečko, Eds.). Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2788/52966
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, S., Kaufman, J., Greenhouse, J., She, R., & Shi, J. (2016). The effectiveness of blended online learning courses at the community college level. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1044584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D., & Smith, K. (2015). Case for ‘passive’ learning – The ‘silent’ community of online learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17(2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0021
   Google Scholar
• Székely, L. (1950). Productive processes in learning and thinking. Acta Psychologica, 7, 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(50)90026-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Campenhout, R., Johnson, B., & Olsen, J. (2021). The doer effect: Replicating findings that doing causes learning. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning. IARIA, France (pp. 1–6).
   Google Scholar
• Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2009). Python 3 reference manual. CreateSpace.
   Google Scholar
• Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., … SciPy 1.0 Contributors (2020). Scipy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society (pp. 79–91). Harvard University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.11
   Google Scholar
• Yarnall, L., Means, B., & Wetzel, T. (2016). Lessons Learned From Early Implementations of Adaptive Courseware. SRI International.
   Google Scholar