Not a One-Way Street: Bidirectional Relations Between Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge (with the comparison-studies line and its scale-up null)
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015); Rittle-Johnson & Star (2007-2012); Star et al. (2015 scale-up) · 2015
grade Creviewdeveloper-involvedfailed
Sample
Review + RCT series (N=70-236 per study; scale-up 141 teachers)
Population
Math learners, mostly middle/high school algebra.
Design
Authoritative review by researchers from both 'sides,' plus the compare-solution-methods experimental line.
Key findings
Demolishes concepts-first sequencing dogma: teach concepts and procedures ITERATIVELY. The comparison-methods line is a worked-examples variant with the same prior-knowledge boundary (novices need sequential study first) and a sobering lab-to-field null.
Genetic confound
Experimental.
Replication notes
The concepts-first belief 'has essentially no supporting evidence' — only concepts+procedures beats procedures-alone.
DOI / URL
10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concepts-first dogma | verdict | NO experimental warrant: relations bidirectional; direct sequencing experiments favor ITERATING concepts<->procedures over concepts-first blocks | researcher-designed | n/a | active-alternative | not-applicable | domain-skill |
| Comparing worked solution methods | pattern | builds procedural flexibility — but NOVICES learn LESS from comparison than sequential study (clean cognitive-load ATI); year-long scale-up null on ITT (teachers barely used it) | mixed | end of treatment | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Word problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural questionmoderate supportconf: highgc: low