Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High levels of cognitive and motivational contingency with increasing task complexity results in higher performance

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An individual’s learning is determined by cognition, motivation, and social context. Taking these aspects into account, we assessed scaffolding in tutoring situations via contingency to determine how successful and unsuccessful teacher–student interactions are shaped. We aimed to find out how the problem-solving process in successful tutoring situations differs from that in unsuccessful tutoring situations with regard to cognition, motivation and increasing task complexity. Therefore, using a qualitatively oriented multi-method approach, we analyzed 26 tutoring situations involving an algebraic word problem in middle schools. Specifically, we analyzed, first, the tutee’s independent performance in a transfer task, and second, the tutee’s active participation, the activation of participation by the tutor, the impact of errors and the motivational support by the tutor in the tutoring situation. Connecting the results, we composed process graphs and narrative descriptions which revealed three types of successful and three types of unsuccessful teacher–student interaction, depending on the level of the tutee’s participation and uncovered cognitive activity (i.e., reactive, collaborative, self-responsible). In successful tutoring situations, the graphs showed high levels of cognitive and motivational support with increasing task complexity. However, in the type reactive participation, motivational support was low. Thus, contingent support should be adapted to the learner’s current understanding and task complexity, and motivational support should be administered plausibly for the learner. With this research, we offer a tool to assess contingency regarding cognitive and motivational support in a task-solving process. The results are discussed in relation to the Interactive–Constructive-Active–Passive framework and Cognitive Load Theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aebli, H. (1987). Grundlagen des Lehrens: Eine allgemeine Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage [Basics of teaching: General didactics on based on psychology]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R., & Reeve, J. (2018). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293.

  • Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. F. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borromeo Ferri, R. (2010). On the influence of mathematical thinking styles on learners’ modeling behavior. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, N., Besselink, E., & Oosterheert, I. (2017). The power of video feedback with structured viewing guides. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 301–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students´ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 363–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S.-A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R.-G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (2005). Studying the development of learning and task motivation. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M., & Boucher, A. R. (2015). Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt, U. (1995). Typenbildung [Construction of Types]. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardoof, H. Keupp, L. v. Rosenstiehl, & S. Wolff (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Konzepte, Methoden und Anwendungen [Handbook on qualitative research. Principles, concepts, methods and applications] (pp. 435–439). Weinheim: Beltz PVU.

  • Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research, 36(3), 647–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, K., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision: KFT 4-12 + R [Cognitive ability test for 4th to 12th grades, revision: KFT 4-12 + R]. Göttingen: Beltz Test.

  • Hermkes, R., Mach, H., & Minnameier, G. (2018). Interaction-based coding of scaffolding processes. Learning and Instruction, 54, 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2014). Addressing knowledge deficits in tutoring and the role of teaching experience: Benefits for learning and summative assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 934–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2016). Expertise amiss: Interactivity fosters learning but expert tutors are less interactive than novice tutors. Instructional Science, 44(3), 205–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin Bogards, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries - Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, D.C.: National Centre for Education Statistics.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Lepper, R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 169–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung [From individual case to type. Case comparison and case contrasting in qualitative social research]. Wiesbaden: Springer.

  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleine Staarman, J., & Mercer, N. (2010). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk between teachers and students. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psycholgoy in education (pp. 75–104). Emerald: Bingley.

  • Kleinknecht, M., & Gröschner, A. (2016). Fostering preservice teachers’ noticing with structured video feedback: Results of an online- and video-based intervention study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, S. (1999). Empirisch begründete Typenbildung [Empirically based typology]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuckartz, U. (2010). Typenbildung [Typification]. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie [Handbook on qualitative research in psychology]. Heidelberg: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O’Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Advances in learning & teaching. Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA, US: Brookline Books.

  • Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J. L. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malka, A., & Covington, M. V. (2005). Perceiving school performance as instrumental to future goal attainment: Effects on graded performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D.-C., Reiser, B.-J., Merrill, S.-K., & Landes, S. (1995). Tutoring: Guided learning by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 315–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. School Field, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oser, F., & Spychiger, M. (2005). Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Zur Theorie des negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur [Learning is painful. On the theory of negative knowledge and an error culture]. Weinheim: Beltz.

  • Pintrich, P.-R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T. (1987). Mathematics knowledge for understanding and problem solving. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 687–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C. L., & King, K. D. (2000). Locating starting points in differential equations: A realistic mathematics education approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(2), 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2006). Extrinsic rewards and inner motivations. In C. Weinstein & T. L. Good (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 645–664). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K. (1990). From text to situation to equation: cognitive simulation of understanding and solving mathematical word problems. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 477–498). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K. (2001). Co-constructivism in educational theory and practice. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclpedia of the social behavior sciences (pp. 2058–2062). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B., & Toma, C. (1997). Shared thinking: Community and institutional variations. Discourse processes, 23(3), 471–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspecitve. In E. L. Deci & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester: Rochester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2012). Problematizing the didactic triangle. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(5), 587–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T. (2005). Coding manual—Surface structures: Organization of teaching activities. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study. Waxmann: Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (2006). On the integration of formative assessment in teaching and learning with implications for teacher education. Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory and the University of Hawaii Curriculum Research and Development Group. Retrieved from 27, 2011, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/Reports_Papers/Paper.htm.

  • Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siler, S. A., & VanLehn, K. (2015). Investigating microadaptation in one-to-one human tutoring. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 344–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, F., Reusser, K. (1995). The role of presentational structures in understanding and solving mathematical word problems. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 285–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, E., & Lehrndorfer, A. (1992). The role of situational context in solving word problems. Cognitive Development, 7(2), 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, W. J., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2016). Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P. L., Kalyuga, S., & Chandler, P. A. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, R. E., Van Lieshout, E. C., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Gender-related effects of contemporary math instruction for low performers on problem-solving behavior. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiryakian, E. A. (1968). Typologies. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 77–186). New York: The Macmillan Company & Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulis, M. (2013). Error management behavior in classrooms: Teachers´ responses to student mistakes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Pol, J. (2012). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: Exploring, measuring, promoting and evaluating scaffolding. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Institute, Research Institute Child Development and Education (CDE).

  • van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychological Review, 22(3), 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small-group work: An intervention study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 600–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31(1), 3–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W.-B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., et al. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008). Does extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals’ learning and performance? An experimental test of the match perspective versus self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkoe, J. (2015). Exploring teacher noticing of student algebraic thinking in a video club. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9289-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159–183). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy—value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, M. A., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. [Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Methods for determination and improvement of reliability of ratings with category systems and rating scales.]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

  • Wischgoll, A. (2011). Algebraische Textaufgaben verstehen und erfolgreich lösen. Analysen in tutoriellen Situationen zu zwei verschiedenen Lösungswegen (unveröffentlichte Lizentiatsarbeit) [Understanding and successfully resolving algebraic word problems. Analyses in tutoring situations on two different solution paths (unpublished Master's thesis)]. Zürich: Pädagogisches Institut, Universität Zürich.

  • Wischgoll, A. (2017). Improving undergraduates’ and postgraduates’ academic writing skills with strategy training and feedback. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wischgoll, A., Pauli, C., Reusser, K. (2015). Scaffolding—How can contingency lead to successful learning when dealing with errors? ZDM, 47(7), 1147–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wischgoll, A., Schmid, M., Zimmermann, M., Moser, M., Reusser, K., & Pauli, C. (in preparation). Fostering quality of students’ contributions in math classroom discussions.

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(2), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the thoughtful comments from the anonymous reviewers. We would like to thank Dorothea Baumgartner for assisting as a second coder and Sarah Mannion for proof-reading.

Funding

The work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Grant Number 100013-113971/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Teacher Education, University of Fribourg, Rue Faucigny 2, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Anke Wischgoll & Christine Pauli

  2. Institute of Education, University of Zurich, Freiestrasse 36, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland

    Kurt Reusser

Authors
  1. Anke Wischgoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Pauli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurt Reusser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anke Wischgoll.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethic approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the German Psychological Society (DGPs) ethical guidelines (2004, CIII) as well as APA ethical standards. According to the German Psychological Society’s ethical commission, approval from an institutional research board only needs to be obtained, if funding is subject to ethical approval by an Institutional Review Board. This research was reviewed and approved by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), which did not require additional Institutional Review Board approval.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wischgoll, A., Pauli, C. & Reusser, K. High levels of cognitive and motivational contingency with increasing task complexity results in higher performance. Instr Sci 47, 319–352 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09485-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09485-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation