A right way to explain? Function, mechanism, and the order of explanations

Subjective Understanding is Reduced by Mechanistic Framing

People often believe that they have a good understanding of how devices work (e.g., how a ballpoint pen works), despite having poor knowledge of their internal mechanics. We hypothesized that this bias occurs in part because people conflate mechanistic understanding with functional understanding of how devices work (e.g., how to operate a ballpoint pen). In two experiments, we found that increasing the salience of mechanistic information led to lower judgments of understanding for how devices work. In Experiment 1, we did this by showing participants either the internal parts of a device or an external, whole-object view of that same device. Those who saw the internal parts rated their understanding as less than those who saw a whole-object view. In Experiment 2, we removed the pictures and instead tested participants (without feedback) on their mechanistic or functional knowledge using true-or-false questions. Those who were tested on mechanistic knowledge rated their understanding of devices as less than those who were tested on functional knowledge.

Adults' learning of complex explanations violates their intuitions about optimal explanatory order

Should you first teach about the purpose of a microwave or about how it heats food? Adults strongly prefer explanations to present function before mechanism and information about a whole to precede information about its component parts. Here we replicate those preferences (Study 1). Using the same stimuli, we then ask whether those pedagogical preferences reflect ease of learning of labels, function, or mechanism. Surprisingly, explanations that accord with function-before-mechanism and whole-before-part structure show no learning benefits to participants compared to other participants who see lessons that violate one or both intuitions (Study 2). Even when potential scaffolds are removed (i.e., diagrams) the preferred pedagogical order does not predict better learning (Study 3). Finally, explanatory order has only modest effects on experiential outcomes (e.g., curiosity, frustration; Study 4). In all cases, all orders of presentation support learning in comparison to controls and are not constrained by either ceiling or floor effects. Reasons for the clash between intuitions about learning and actual outcomes are explored.