CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 763Statistics Education and MethodologiesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Inventing to prepare for future learning: the hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction

Schwartz, Daniel L., Martin, Taylor·2004·Cognition and Instruction
DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Activities that promote student invention can appear inefficient, because students do not generate canonical solutions, and therefore the students may perform badly on standard assessments. Two studies on teaching descriptive statistics to 9th-grade students examined whether invention activities may prepare students to learn. Study 1 found that invention activities, when coupled with subsequent learning resources like lectures, led to strong gains in procedural skills, insight into formulas, and abilities to evaluate data from an argument. Additionally, an embedded assessment experiment crossed the factors of instructional method by type of transfer test, with 1 test including resources for learning and 1 not. A "tell-and-practice" instructional condition led to the same transfer results as an invention condition when there was no learning resource, but the invention condition did better than the tell-and-practice condition when there was a learning resource. This demonstrates the value of invention activities for future learning from resources, and the value of assessments that include opportunities to learn during a test. In Study 2, classroom teachers implemented the instruction and replicated the results. The studies demonstrate that intuitively compelling student-centered activities can be both pedagogically tractable and effective at preparing students to learn.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior knowledge activation is a key strategy for mitigating extraneous cognitive load and optimizing learning efficiency.

    “Prior knowledge activation – the process of prompting learners to retrieve and apply relevant knowledge before engaging with new instructional content – is a key strategy for mitigating ECL and optimizing learning efficiency (Glogger-Frey et al., 2022; Schwartz and Martin, 2004).”

    From Rethinking pre-training: cognitive load implications for learners with varying prior knowledge (2025) · cites this paper as Schwartz and Martin, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Cognition and Instruction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-06
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
129-184
ISSN
  • 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-690X
DOI
10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
OpenAlex
W2022837716
Cited by
763
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 45
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cognition and Instruction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
student inventions, statistics instruction, descriptive statistics, transfer of learning, embedded assessment, learning resources, procedural skills, student-centered learning, ninth grade students, assessment-based learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review