Combining a Direct and Indirect Training Approach for Cross-Domain Competences: The Case of the Course “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists”

Abstract

In psychology programs, students should acquire both domain-specific knowledge and cross-domain competences important for later practice (e.g., multiple document literacy). Typically, such competences are trained directly in courses explicitly devoted to them or indirectly in courses on psychological topics that require them without systematically teaching and training them (e.g., when reading multiple texts about a topic). To exploit the advantages of both direct and indirect training approaches, we combined them in a new psychology course in which students were taught domain-specific knowledge on pedagogy and psychotherapy, and they were trained in the competence facets of (a) epistemic beliefs, (b) multiple document literacy, and (c) argumentative thinking. The direct training took a tried-and-tested example-based learning approach. A central element of the indirect training consisted of course assessments requiring the application of these three competences to the contents about pedagogy and psychotherapy. The combined training approach led to significant increases in declarative knowledge, advanced epistemic beliefs, and greater self-efficacy in implementing strategies relating to multiple document literacy and argumentative thinking. This approach can be adapted to accommodate different psychological content areas or different cross-domain competences.

Keywords

Cross-domain competences example-based learning direct and indirect training intervention

In psychology programs, as in other programs at university level, students should acquire domain-specific knowledge and cross-domain competences. For example, the German framework for qualifications in higher education (Kultusministerkonferenz; KMK, 2017) specifies that students should acquire discipline-specific knowledge, such as psychological theories, as well as more general, cross-domain competences, such as justifying decisions with theoretical knowledge, communicating, and cooperating with people outside their own field when solving problems, and taking into account diverging perspectives held by different stakeholders (KMK, 2017, p. 7). At the same time, such cross-domain competences should be grounded in and connected to domain-specific knowledge (e.g., justifying decisions with domain-specific theoretical knowledge; KMK, 2017).

However, it seems fair to say that the enhancement of students’ cross-domain competences is often less than optimally addressed. Two typical ways can be distinguished. First, a study program may aim to foster a number of cross-domain competences (e.g., critical thinking, multiple document literacy), but most are not addressed explicitly by certain courses or lessons within courses. It is (implicitly) assumed that practicing such competences while focusing on discipline-specific issues (e.g., critically discussing studies on cognitive processes in a seminar) will foster these competences. Such an approach is an indirect training approach (e.g., Dignath & Büttner, 2018; Schuster et al., 2020): A course provides opportunities to practice competences or even demands them, but there is no direct teaching. While learners are expected to acquire a competence, the principles of said competence are not explained by the instructor, and difficulties of applying the competence are usually not addressed. Counting just on indirect training is usually regarded as suboptimal, as practicing competences without explicit teaching will not suffice to foster the deliberate, self-directed use of the competences (Cartier et al., 2010; Dignath & Büttner, 2018; Schuster et al., 2020).

Second, in some programs, students are explicitly taught cross-domain competences, taking a fully direct teaching approach. There are courses particularly designed to teach such competences, often offered by special centers for students from different study programs, by experts in that area, not regular instructors (e.g., centers for further qualification or student support). Hence, there is no close connection to the discipline-specific knowledge. While the principles of a skill are addressed directly, these are not applied to course-specific contents. In this case, it is questionable whether the learned competences will transfer when students later qualify in their own subject specialty program (e.g., Onstenk & Brown, 2002). This transfer problem is partly due to the fact that the direct approach is not combined with an indirect approach (Dignath & Büttner, 2018; Schuster et al., 2020).

Considering the shortcomings of direct and indirect training approaches, combining both approaches could prove effective for fostering cross-domain competences and their application and transfer to domain-specific knowledge. Previous interventions taking an example-based approach have shown that cross-domain competences can be fostered effectively (e.g., Hefter et al., 2014, 2015, 2018). We therefore developed a course in which cross-domain competences were trained both directly and indirectly in combination with domain-specific knowledge. In this report, we focus on the direct intervention components because the direct training can also be integrated into courses with other subject contents.

Training Background: The “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” Course

In 2020, the German government adopted a new law (“Psychotherapeutengesetz”) specifying a study program for psychology students that provides the option to obtain a license for psychotherapy (“Approbation”). Within this program, students complete coordinated Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Psychotherapy. At the Bachelor level, several courses are specified by the program as pre-requisites to qualify for the subsequent Master's degree. One of these is the course “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists,” which prescribes four content fields: (a) education and personality formation (“Erziehung und Bildung”), (b) social and cultural factors in educational processes, (c) educational interventions and intervention settings, and (d) legal as well as family and social policy regulations influencing educational and psychological interventions. In addition, these contents should be related to the field of psychotherapy (“Pedagogy for Psychotherapists”). To reach the goal of integrating different knowledge types, two research groups at the Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, cooperatively designed the course content and structure: the Educational and Developmental Psychology and the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy research groups. This course was designed for students at any stage in their Bachelor's degree, without needing prior knowledge about psychotherapy or any pre-requisite courses.

To integrate knowledge about the four content fields and about psychotherapy, we provided students with psychological case studies to be analyzed twice during the course. These case studies required integrating the different knowledge areas and, in particular, knowledge from the fields of education and psychotherapy. For example, students should decide on the best approach for an 18-year-old woman previously institutionalized because of suicidal tendencies and diagnosed with acute psychosis; but who wished to be discharged and needed help finding adequate housing and therapeutic support outside the hospital. The students needed to consider the perspectives of the patient, her psychotherapist, her separated parents, and her social worker to decide about which options to recommend to the patient. They needed to integrate their knowledge of different psychological theories, social policy regulations, and the influences of family-related processes in relation to that specific case study.

However, students find integrating knowledge from different areas quite challenging. First, to analyze their case studies, students have to integrate knowledge from the various documents they have studied during the course, which provide information about the four different content areas. Hence, it was beneficial if students had some multiple document literacy (MDL) for dealing with and integrating information from different sources (Saux et al., 2021; Stadtler & Bromme, 2013; Wineburg, 1991). Second, as these various types of knowledge or perspectives might not always suggest the same interpretations of the cases in question and the same therapeutic and educational actions, students should be able to consider and coordinate multiple perspectives when working on such case studies. This competence is often characterized as argumentative thinking (Iordanou et al., 2019; Kuhn, 1991). Third, advanced epistemic beliefs support the willingness to engage with multiple perspectives and multiple documents, and are an essential part of understanding how science works (Hefter et al., 2018; Kuhn et al., 2000). For example, it is important that students have understood (a) that knowledge needed to analyze complex case studies does not consist of a simple list of facts but of interconnected and not always entirely consistent information and (b) that there is often no one single correct perspective but rather different perspectives to consider and critically evaluate (e.g., Kuhn et al., 2000; Schommer, 1993; Stahl & Bromme, 2007). In a nutshell, for students’ learning in the course “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists,” it would help if students possessed the competences of MDL, argumentative thinking, and advanced epistemic beliefs.

Direct Training of Cross-Domain Competences: Example-Based Kick-Off-Interventions

Enhancing cross-domain competences is usually conceived as a long-term endeavor. Although we basically agree with this assumption (e.g., Kuhn, 2005), research has shown that kick-off training interventions based on the rationale of example-based learning can boost the initial development of cross-domain competences such as argumentative thinking (Hefter et al., 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019). These initial competences can also facilitate the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge (e.g., Iordanou et al., 2019).

Hefter et al. (2014, 2015, 2018, 2019) and Schworm and Renkl (2007) developed direct, example-based interventions to foster the development of cross-domain competences in a series of studies. Their interventions followed the same instructional principles (see Table 1). First, learners were given explicit learning goals. Then, the competence's key principles and cognitive steps were presented in a short theoretical introduction about the topic. This introduction aimed to enable learners to recognize characteristics and consequences of the competence shown in the worked examples. After the introduction, learners were given video examples showing the competence's application by a novice and an expert, where the expert made comments about the characteristics and consequences of the competence in question. The videos were segmented into three to four sections matching the components of the given competence, and learners were prompted to self-explain the principles shown in each section. In a subsequent self-regulated application phase, learners were asked to practice applying the competence without support, using content knowledge from a new example.

Table 1.

Instructional Components Used in the Interventions by Hefter et al.

Instructional component	Example content from epistemic understanding intervention
Learning goals Theoretical introduction of key characteristics and consequences Video-based examples, showing interaction between novice and expert, segmented Self-explanation prompts (after each segment) Self-regulated application phase	Learning goal relating, for example, to knowing three levels of epistemic understanding Introduction of three levels of epistemic understanding (absolutism, multiplism, evaluativism) Novice showing lowest level of epistemic understanding, expert giving comments about characteristics and consequences of current level, novice reaching highest level at the end of interaction; video paused after each level modeled by novice Prompt relating to level of epistemic understanding being shown in video Video about two conflicting positions, followed by question to write argumentation and find own position

Instructional component

Example content from epistemic understanding intervention

Learning goals
Theoretical introduction of key characteristics and consequences
Video-based examples, showing interaction between novice and expert, segmented
Self-explanation prompts (after each segment)
Self-regulated application phase

Learning goal relating, for example, to knowing three levels of epistemic understanding
Introduction of three levels of epistemic understanding (absolutism, multiplism, evaluativism)
Novice showing lowest level of epistemic understanding, expert giving comments about characteristics and consequences of current level, novice reaching highest level at the end of interaction; video paused after each level modeled by novice
Prompt relating to level of epistemic understanding being shown in video
Video about two conflicting positions, followed by question to write argumentation and find own position

Note. Adapted from Hefter et al. (2014, p. 941).

This approach was taken to foster various aspects of epistemic beliefs and argumentation skills including declarative knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and skill application (Hefter et al., 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019; Schworm & Renkl, 2007). Schworm and Renkl (2007) found that self-explaining examples using prompts that direct attention to underlying principles can serve to teach both declarative knowledge and the skill of argumentation. Based on this finding, Hefter et al. (2014) found that their training intervention, including the explicit learning goals, theoretical introduction, and self-regulated application phase, foster declarative knowledge and different components of argumentation skills, such as evaluative knowledge and argument quality. In a subsequent study, the authors found that the same approach could be taken to foster precursors of epistemic understanding, intellectual values, and conceptual knowledge about these two concepts (Hefter et al., 2015). In a combined intervention, Hefter et al. (2018) succeeded in fostering components of argumentation and of epistemic understanding in particular via an intervention that focused initially on epistemic issues, shifting later to focus on argumentation. Lastly, these authors compared various presentation modes for the worked examples, demonstrating similar learning outcomes following video-based, text-based, and graphic novel-based examples (Hefter et al., 2019). Together, their series of studies shows that this training approach successfully fosters cross-domain competences.

While this form of direct training is an effective means of supporting cross-domain competences, they were applied to content knowledge not connected to a specific domain relevant to learners. We expanded upon this training method by including three interrelated cross-domain competences in the same training module and by incorporating this training module in the new “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course, which provided contents relevant to the learners’ study program. We will focus on the subjective learning outcomes in the form of students’ self-efficacy for the MDL and argumentative thinking components, and on the development of more advanced epistemic beliefs.

Development of a Direct Training Module to be Integrated Into “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists”

Training Concept and Pilot Test

This training concept focused on three cross-domain competences. Epistemic beliefs were taught, as students should understand that topics covered in the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course consist of interrelated concepts and not just a simple list of facts, and that this knowledge can change over time (e.g., on the basis of new evidence). Advanced epistemic beliefs also facilitate a fundamental understanding of science and the willingness to engage with different perspectives (Hefter et al., 2018; Kuhn et al., 2000). We taught MDL, as students had to learn to integrate different sources and different topics, as the course covered four different content areas of pedagogy as well as psychotherapy. MDL should also help students to view topics from different perspectives, and enable them to explore different options for future patients (Saux et al., 2021; Wineburg, 1991). Argumentative thinking was also taught, as students should be able to consider and coordinate different perspectives from different sources or in diverse content areas to help them analyze clinical case studies and draw well-founded conclusions (Iordanou et al., 2019; Kuhn, 1991).

Our training concept consisted of three parts relating to epistemic beliefs, MDL, and argumentative thinking, respectively (see Figure 1). Each part had three subsections, based on the instructional components used by Hefter et al.: first, the students were assigned explicit learning goals. Second, they were given an introductory learning text about the competence being taught. Third students received videos showing the competence's application using examples from domain-specific knowledge, which consisted of parts from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course. These videos were segmented according to each competence's main components to reduce potentially overwhelming cognitive load due to the transient nature of information from videos (Singh et al., 2012). Self-explanation prompts were provided after each segment to direct the learners’ focus on principles (see Appendix A). Different topics were chosen from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course for the domain-specific knowledge used in the worked examples (e.g., how violence-containing media and aggression interrelate). Immediately before and after the training session, students were asked to write a short argumentation (500 words each, example excerpts in Appendix B) in a self-regulated application phase, on a topic from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course, after reading three short texts about the topic (i.e., gender segregation and the legal status of homeschooling, respectively).

Figure 1.

Overview of the training components.

The training concept was pilot-tested online using a sample of 171 adults recruited via flyers and social media websites, to examine how participants perceived the learning materials. The participants completed only the MDL part to make the training intervention shorter. Content knowledge from a different domain was used for the pilot test (i.e., developing a COVID-19 vaccine), which was thought to be more relevant to and easier for the chosen sample, to reduce the difficulty associated with the worked examples (Hilbert et al., 2008; Renkl, in press). The use of MDL was broken down into two main steps (evaluating sources, integrating information across sources). Participants were randomly allocated to one of the two groups. One condition using the MDL learning materials (including two subgroups with either continuous, n = 57, or diminishing support, n = 55), was compared to a condition focusing on presentation skills (n = 59) to see whether participants rated the newly constructed learning materials positively in comparison. We chose the comparison group's topic, as presentation skills are considered relevant for most professions and therefore interesting for the sample used. The learning materials were rated using four subjective ratings: experienced difficulty, situational interest, effort needed, and effort expended. As the two MDL conditions revealed no differences, they were combined for analysis.

As expected, in the pilot test we found no significant difference between the MDL (M = 3.1, SD = 1.0) and presentation skills (M = 3.1, SD = 1.0) groups for effort needed (F(1,168) = 0.06, p = .809). Nor was there any significant difference between the MDL (M = 4.0, SD = 0.8) and presentation skills (M = 4.2, SD = 0.6) groups in effort expended (F(1,168) = 2.24, p = .137) on the learning materials. However, we observed significant differences in situational interest (F(1,168) = 17.14, p < .001, η²_p= .093) and difficulty (F(1,168) = 5.32, p = .022, η²_p = .031). The intervention groups rated their interest significantly lower (M = 3.2, SD = 0.9) than the control group (M = 3.8, SD = 0.8) and difficulty significantly higher (M = 2.8, SD = 0.9) than the control group (M = 2.5, SD = 0.9). These findings suggest that the MDL learning materials were not perceived as positively as the presentation skills materials.

In response to these findings, we adjusted the learning materials by structuring the MDL content in three rather than two sections (evaluating sources, identifying arguments within sources, integrating information across sources) to help students understand and organize the learning content more effectively. As parts of the domain-specific knowledge from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course were used for the worked examples in the main study, this approach was thought to increase the interest in the training module.

Implementation

The training intervention was implemented during the first two weeks of the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course (see Figure 2). All students participating in this course completed the training to prepare themselves for the rest of the course content. In this way, we combined direct and indirect training approaches.

Figure 2.

Overview of the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course and training components.

The students were informed that the three cross-domain competences introduced in the training would help them understand the domain-specific knowledge from the different fields in the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course. Students had to acquire the theoretical content knowledge in self-study of e-learning materials, which were divided into four sequences according to the four content fields. After each sequence, students applied their new knowledge to real-life questions and situations in one of the four course assessments. The cross-domain competences would also be important for these course assessments, for which students had to complete two written argumentations and two group discussions about case studies (see course syllabus in Appendix C).

Evaluation: Findings and Discussion

Forty-three undergraduate psychology students taking the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course at a German university gave informed consent (33 female, 10 male, mean age = 25.7 years, SD = 5.8). The course was offered to students at different levels, but participants in this study were mostly in their third year of studies. Participants worked on tests and filled in questionnaires to assess their pre-training and post-training competence levels, which were provided immediately before and after the learning materials. All measures showed acceptable reliabilities (for an overview of measures and the corresponding Cronbach's α values, see Appendix D). Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, how many years they had spent in education, and their high school Grade Point Average.

The students answered 15 true-or-false knowledge items to assess their declarative knowledge about each of the three cross-domain competences and the domain-specific knowledge from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course before completing the training (e.g., for MDL: “Your prior knowledge can help you decide whether an information source is credible.”). After the training, students were given the same items a second time. They received one point for each correct answer, resulting in a scale from 0 to 15 points. The corresponding scale reliabilities were acceptable to good (all αs ≥ .63, see Appendix D).

Students also completed an epistemic beliefs questionnaire before and after the training. Epistemic beliefs were assessed using the short version of the German Connotative Aspects of Epistemological Beliefs (CAEB; Stahl & Bromme, 2007). This questionnaire uses 17 pairs of oppositional adjectives. Students rated how much scientific knowledge could be described by different poles of the adjective pairs on a scale from 0 to 7. The CAEB is commonly found to have a two-factor structure, with the factors Texture and Variability (Kienhues et al., 2008; Trevors et al., 2016). Texture refers to the beliefs about the structure and accuracy of knowledge, which range “from beliefs that knowledge is exact and structured to beliefs that it is unstructured and vague” (Stahl & Bromme, 2007, p. 778). Variability includes beliefs about the stability and dynamics of knowledge, ranging “from beliefs that knowledge is dynamic and flexible to beliefs that it is stable and inflexible” (Stahl & Bromme, 2007, p. 779). Texture is assessed using the sum of scores of nine of the 17 adjective pairs, variability using the sum of eight adjective pairs of the CAEB. Acceptable reliabilities have been reported in previous studies for both CAEB factors, with Cronbach's α values between .68 and .81 (Rosman et al., 2017; Stahl & Bromme, 2007), and we found similar reliability estimates (all αs ≥ .68). Finally, we assessed students’ self-efficacy in using MDL and argumentative thinking via 12 questions (see Appendix E), where students were asked to indicate how confident they were in applying different strategies successfully, on an 11-point scale from “not at all confident” (0%) to “completely confident” (100%), as suggested by Bandura (2006). The self-efficacy scores showed very good reliabilities (both αs ≥ .95; see Appendix D).

Students scored higher on all four declarative knowledge tests (about epistemic beliefs, MDL, argumentative thinking, and domain-specific knowledge) after the training than they had before, with very high effect sizes (Table 2). They also exhibited greater self-efficacy in applying MDL and argumentative thinking after the training than before (Table 2). Finally, students showed higher scores for the Texture factor of epistemic beliefs, but not for the Variability, after the intervention. Overall, these findings suggest that participants increased their knowledge about and willingness and confidence in applying skill components.

Table 2.

Results of the Repeated-Measures ANOVAs Comparing Scores Before and After the Training.

Knowledge tests	Before the training		After the training		F	Model df	Error df	p	η²_p
Knowledge tests	M	SD	M	SD	F	Model df	Error df	p	η²_p
EB knowledge	7.13	3.47	11.13	2.56	50.76	1	23	<.001*	.688
MDL knowledge	10.09	3.61	12.50	2.43	19.18	1	33	<.001*	.368
AT knowledge	8.03	3.53	11.64	2.88	19.79	1	32	<.001*	.382
Domain- specific knowledge	8.24	3.07	11.50	3.09	23.98	1	33	<.001*	.421
Self-efficacy	63.56	20.79	75.86	14.98	21.83	1	36	<.001*	.377
EB: texture	23.18	7.15	25.53	7.39	4.95	1	39	.032*	.113
EB: variability	39.25	6.88	40.38	7.05	1.17	1	39	.286	.029

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; AT = argumentative thinking; EB = epistemic beliefs; MDL = multiple document literacy; SD = standard deviation; Self-efficacy = Self-efficacy for using MDL and argumentative thinking.

*p-value significant at α = .05 level.

Overall Discussion

We developed a new Bachelor's level course on “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” to meet one requirement in a combined Bachelor's and Master's degree study program qualifying students to become licensed to practice psychotherapy. In this course, students had to acquire both domain-specific knowledge from the field of psychology, and cross-domain competences that would help them process, weigh, and utilize information from different sources and perspectives. Against this background, we developed a brief direct training intervention to foster both the development of cross-domain competences and domain-specific knowledge. The three cross-domain competences were epistemic beliefs, MDL, and argumentative thinking, all of which can help students understand, process, and utilize information from the fields of study covered in the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course (Bråten et al., 2011; Britt et al., 2014). We wanted to achieve these goals by fostering the development of the cross-domain competences using worked examples and incorporating elements of domain-specific knowledge from the course within these examples. We conceived of this direct training approach to enable the three trained competences to be applied to the content knowledge needed to pass the course. The direct training approach was, thus, combined with indirect training elements, in particular, with four course assignments in which the three cross-domain competences were required.

Our findings suggest that over the course of the training, students increased their declarative knowledge about the three cross-domain competences and about the domain-specific knowledge from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course. Students also showed more advanced epistemic beliefs and greater self-efficacy in using MDL and argumentative thinking after the training than before. The training can therefore be assumed as helpful in fostering the development of cross-domain competences and content knowledge taking a direct and an indirect training approach.

Students showed more advanced epistemic beliefs about the structure and accuracy of knowledge, as shown by the significant change in the Texture factor. However, we detected no increase in the Variability factor, that is, students did not seem to develop a more sophisticated view regarding the stability and dynamics of knowledge. These findings may be attributable to the topics chosen from the course content knowledge in the worked examples. Several of these topics, such as the influence of violence-containing media on aggression, have been debated for a long time and have not changed much over the years. This pattern may have created the impression that knowledge in these fields does not change substantially over time, reducing the influence of the training on epistemic beliefs. An updated training component about epistemic beliefs should focus more closely on the stability and dynamics of knowledge, and an exemplary topic should be chosen that does not suggest stability (e.g., the influence of homeschooling on learning during the Corona pandemic).

During the course, students reported a high workload associated with completing the training and working through the learning materials provided as part of the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course (informal observation). For the future, we plan to redistribute the learning tasks and provide more support for students at the beginning of the semester. We plan to continue to provide this training without the assessment components (CAEB, self-efficacy questions, and declarative knowledge questions) to students taking this course in the future.

As all students had to acquire the domain-specific knowledge and the cross-domain competences to pass the course, we did not experimentally vary any factors, as that might have put some students at a disadvantage. However, to further develop our training approach, it would help to measure students’ competences at the beginning and end of the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course and then compare students who had undergone the direct training to those who only experienced the indirect training component (either the training at the beginning of the semester or the four course assignments that required the competences).

Our pilot test allowed us to adjust our learning materials before implementing them with our students. We utilized different topics as content knowledge for the examples; the topics were chosen to be interesting and relevant for the specific target group. For the pilot test during the first lockdown in 2020 with adults from the general population, we chose the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. For our course participants, we chose topics from the course they had to pass for their degree. As the topics were so different, they could have influenced learners’ interest, and subsequently their learning outcomes. Generally speaking, the content knowledge of worked examples should not interfere with the learning outcomes of the competence being taught, as long as it does not require high levels of prior knowledge or cognitive load (Renkl et al., 2009). However, if learners are more interested, they may invest more effort into learning tasks, increasing the learning outcomes (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Consequently, a measure of the interest should be included in future studies, to control for situational and individual interest in the content knowledge.

Our results show that students increased both their domain-specific knowledge and fundamental knowledge about the cross-domain competences simultaneously. It would be interesting to see whether having only one learning goal at a time, either the cross-domain competences or the domain-specific knowledge, would substantially influence learning outcomes. As our goal was to teach both components to students as part of the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course, and students needed both components to pass this course, we did not include a control group with a single learning goal. Further research might investigate whether other options of integrating content knowledge and cross-domain competences would result in even better learning outcomes. For example, using concept maps to organize content knowledge from the marketing field was effective in teaching both content knowledge and the competence of concept mapping (Hilbert & Renkl, 2009). Working on argumentations about moral problems in genetics led to improved argumentation skills and content knowledge of genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Other studies show that using computers to learn about content knowledge can increase content knowledge, but computer use does not seem to improve media skills simultaneously (Schaumburg, 2006; Wecker et al., 2016). Therefore, integrating cross-domain competences and domain-specific knowledge may depend on the targeted competences and their fit to the content knowledge, or vice versa.

The direct training approach modeled here could be integrated into other courses in psychology programs, especially when they involve multiple perspectives. For example, developmental psychology courses often focus on different theories to explain the development of cognitive abilities in children, such as Piagetian, Vygotskian, and information processing perspectives. In clinical psychology courses, students often learn about various therapeutic approaches like those from cognitive-behavioral therapy, family-based psychotherapy, or psychodynamic approaches. In educational psychology courses, students may be exposed to cognitive-behavioral perspectives, cognitive-constructive approaches, and situated-learning approaches. In each of these examples, students are taught about different approaches or perspectives with evidence presented that supports or refutes each perspective, without completely rejecting any of them. Students need to understand how the approaches are related (i.e., similarities, how they complement each other, and contradictions), what advantages and disadvantages they have, and which perspective they want to take in a specific case. The three cross-domain competences trained in the current project would encourage such understanding. Training these competences should be more firmly implemented in university courses to reach important learning goals as specified by the German framework for qualifications in higher education (KMK, 2017).

Our training intervention seems to have been effective in supporting the development of three interconnected cross-domain competences that are appropriate for the contents of the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course. In other courses, the training approach taken here could be adapted to cross-domain competences needed to teach specific content. For example, in one of our course assessments, students had to discuss a case study by adopting the roles of different stakeholders: patient, psychotherapist, mother, father, and social worker. Students had been trained to process different perspectives and weigh evidence when making decisions. However, drawing the same conclusion in group discussions may be facilitated by training students in discussion techniques and strategies for communicating and cooperating with others, especially with people from various fields or with different interests (e.g., Rummel et al., 2009). In other courses, such a competence could also be useful. For example, in courses on occupational or business psychology, students should gain this skill for discussions with employers, employees, and other stakeholders involved. Psychology students planning an academic career need to learn how to communicate with different cooperation partners, funding bodies, participants, and publishers. Psychology students who have already developed more fundamental competences, such as advanced epistemic beliefs and multiple document literacy may benefit from taking a combined direct and indirect training approach that incorporates communication and cooperation training. The training method described here could then be adapted to include the additional competences needed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have developed a combined direct and indirect training approach after which students showed advanced epistemic beliefs, higher self-efficacy in using MDL and argumentative thinking, and more domain-specific knowledge from the “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course. This training can take place at the start of the semester to prepare students to acquire psychological knowledge and for their later practice when they will have to make choices about options for patients. This training was implemented as part of a new “Pedagogy for Psychotherapists” course required in the new German Bachelor's degree in Psychotherapy qualifying students for a Master in Psychotherapy. We believe that such an intervention can also be adapted to other psychology courses to help students deal with multiple perspectives.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

Special thanks to Professor Dr. Brunna Tuschen-Caffier for her assistance with the development of the training and her feedback on this manuscript and to Kathrin Kölling for her assistance with the implementation of this project and data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

The project received ethical approval from the University Ethics Committee (Approval Code 274/20).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Student Council of the University of Freiburg and the Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft Freiburg.

ORCID iD

Nina Udvardi-Lakos

Author Note

Data collected and analyzed in this project is available in the Open Science Framework repository, via this link: [].

Author Biographies

Nina Udvardi-Lakos is a PhD candidate at the Department of Educational and Developmental Psychology at the University of Freiburg, Germany. Her research interests include example-based learning, teaching of competences, and instructional design.

Marlene Weirich is a psychologist and licensed child and youth psychotherapist (CBT), research assistant and lecturer at the Institute for Daily Culture, Movement and Health at the College of Education Freiburg, Germany. Her main interests include the treatment of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders, and innovative approaches to teaching, with a special focus on clinical psychology and learning/teaching as a process of (co-)constructive alignment.

Kim Lützenburger is a licensed child and youth psychotherapist (CBT), research assistant and lecturer at the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at the University of Freiburg, Germany. Her main interests include the treatment of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders.

Julia Asbrand is a professor of Clinical Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence at Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Germany. Her research focuses on biopsychosocial etiological and maintenance mechanisms in child anxiety. She further promotes novel approaches to learning basic and advanced techniques of clinical psychology. The didactics focus on application of competences as well as a theoretical background of evidence-based interventions.

Alexander Renkl is a professor of Educational and Developmental Psychology at the University of Freiburg, Germany. His main research interests refer to example-based learning, instructional explanations and self-explanations, learning from multiple representations (multimedia learning), learning strategies, learning by journal writing, and teachers’ pedagogical and psychological knowledge.

Appendix A

Self-Explanation Prompts Provided During the Training and Examples of Typical Responses

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Measures Used and Their Reliabilities

Appendix E

References

Bandura

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares

Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.

Bråten

Britt

M. A.

Strømsø

H. I.

Rouet

J. F.

(2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647

Britt

M. A.

Richter

Rouet

J. F.

(2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed Reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916217

Cartier

S. C.

Butler

D. L.

Bouchard

(2010). Teachers working together to foster self-regulated learning through reading by students in an elementary school located in a disadvantaged area. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4), 382–418.

Dignath

Büttner

(2018). Teachers’ direct and indirect promotion of self-regulated learning in primary and secondary school mathematics classes – insights from video-based classroom observations and teacher interviews. Metacognition Learning, 13, 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9181-x

Hefter

M. H.

Berthold

Renkl

Riess

Schmid

Fries

(2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42(6), 929–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9320-y

Hefter

M. H.

Renkl

Riess

Schmid

Fries

Berthold

(2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction, 39, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.002

Hefter

M. H.

ten Hagen

Krense

Berthold

Renkl

(2019). Effective and efficient acquisition of argumentation knowledge by self-explaining examples: Videos, texts, or graphic novels? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1396–1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000350

Hefter

M. H.

Renkl

Riess

Schmid

Fries

Berthold

(2018). Training interventions to foster skill and will of argumentative thinking. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1363689

10.

Hidi

Renninger

K. A.

(2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

11.

Hilbert

T. S.

Renkl

(2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: Self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.006

12.

Hilbert

T. S.

Renkl

Kessler

Reiss

(2008). Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.008

13.

Iordanou

Kuhn

Matos

Shi

Hemberger

(2019). Learning by arguing. Learning and Instruction, 63, 101207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.004

14.

Kienhues

Bromme

Stahl

(2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X268589

15.

KMK (2017). Qualifikationsrahmen für deutsche Hochschulabschlüsse. Kultusministerkonferenz.

16.

Kuhn

(1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Kuhn

(2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.

18.

Kuhn

Cheney

Weinstock

(2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7

19.

Onstenk

Brown

(2002). A Dutch approach to promoting key qualifications: Reflections on “core problems” as a support for curriculum development. In Kämäräinen

Attwell

Brown

(Eds.), Transformation of learning and training: Key qualifications revisited (pp. 87–104). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

20.

Renkl

(in press). Using worked examples for ill-structured learning content. In Overson

C. E.

Hakala

C. M.

Kordonowy

L. L.

Benassi

V. A.

(Eds.), In their own words: What scholars want you to know about why and how to apply the science of learning in your academic setting. Society for the Teaching of Psychology (APA, Division 2).

21.

Renkl

Hilbert

Schworm

(2009). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: A cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9093-4

22.

Rosman

Mayer

A. K.

Kerwer

Krampen

(2017). The differential development of epistemic beliefs in psychology and computer science students: A four-wave longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 49, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.006

23.

Rummel

Spada

Hauser

(2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-0954-4

24.

Saux

Britt

M. A.

Vibert

Rouet

J. F.

(2021). Building mental models from multiple texts: How readers construct coherence from inconsistent sources. Language and Linguistics Compass, 15(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12409

25.

Schaumburg

(2006). Elektronische Textverarbeitung und Aufsatzleistung. Empirische Ergebnisse zur Nutzung mobiler Computer als Schreibwerkzeug in der Schule. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 34(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:5508

26.

Schommer

(1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.406

27.

Schuster

Stebner

Leutner

Wirth

(2020). Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: An experimental training study. Metacognition and Learning, 15, 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09237-5

28.

Schworm

Renkl

(2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285

29.

Singh

A. M.

Marcus

Ayres

(2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 848–853. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2885

30.

Stadtler

Bromme

(2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.771106

31.

Stahl

Bromme

(2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.016

32.

Trevors

Feyzi-Behnagh

Azevedo

Bouchet

(2016). Self-regulated learning processes vary as a function of epistemic beliefs and contexts: Mixed method evidence from eye tracking and concurrent and retrospective reports. Learning and Instruction, 42, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.11.003

33.

Wecker

Hetmanek

Fischer

(2016). Zwei Fliegen mit einer Klappe? Fachwissen und fächerübergreifende Kompetenzen gemeinsam fördern. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 44(3), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.3262/uw1603226

34.

Wineburg

S. S.

(1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73

35.

Zohar

Nemet

(2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008