Abstract:

The objective of the research is to examine two different ways to present new content and engage students in active interaction with this content that will contribute to learning and improve students’ performance when teaching humanities.

Theoretical framework:
One of the theoretical frameworks used to consider general differences in instructional sequences is inductive and deductive approach. Deductive learning adopts the typical way of presenting new content, where explicit information precedes other learning activities, as it proceeds from general information to specific examples and problems. Inductive sequence on the contrary involves working from concrete problems to more abstract information, problem-solving tasks are presented in the beginning of the instructional sequence before all other activities. There is a controversial opinion about the efficiency of both of these instructional methods (Kirschner et al, 2006; Sinha & Kapur, 2021).
Deductive sequence provides learners with explicit information about new topics gradually introducing new elements and slowly increasing their interactivity, not leading to cognitive overload (Chen & Kalyuga, 2020). Inductive sequence introduces new concepts through a problem that needs to be solved. Arguments in favor of the efficiency of inductive methods include prior knowledge activation, rising awareness of the knowledge gaps and discovering deeper features of the content (Loibl et al, 2017).

Methodology:
The experiment consisted in randomly assigning the participants (sample = 87 law students) to one of the experimental groups: the control group received instruction in a deductive sequence, the experimental group received an inductive sequence of instruction. The materials were identical and covered the concept of personal data in data protection law.

Findings:
The findings show that the experimental group performed better than the control group. The results of the study suggest that supported problem-solving first sequence improves performance. This is in line with previous research showing the effectiveness of inductive sequences when there is enough instructional support during problem-solving phase.

Conclusion:
To conclude, there is a significant input of this study from theoretical and practical point of view. The study shows that inductive sequences are beneficial for novice learners, as it enables them to activate their prior knowledge and better prepare for future instruction that follows the problem-solving task. The study provides practitioners with clear guidelines how to structure a class effectively.

References:
[1] Chen, O., Kalyuga, S. (2020) Exploring factors influencing the effectiveness of explicit instruction first and problem-solving first approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35, 607–624.
[2] Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 75-86
[3] Loibl, K., Roll, I. & Rummel, N. Towards a Theory of When and How Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Supports Learning. Educational Psychology Review 29, 693–715 (2017).
[4] Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91, 761-798.

Keywords:

Cognitive load, problem-based learning, instructional sequencing, worked examples, performance.