Comparing two equivalence‐based instruction protocols and self‐study for teaching logical fallacies to college students

Gallant and team asked 60 college students to learn 12 logical fallacies. They split the students into three groups. One group used match-to-sample cards. One group used yes-no stimulus pairing. The last group just read a handout on their own.

After two short lessons everyone took the same computer test. The test checked if the students could spot new examples of each fallacy.

Both match-to-sample and yes-no pairing beat self-study by a wide margin. The two teaching methods scored almost the same, so neither came out on top.

Students who studied alone got about half the items right. Students who got equivalence training got about four-fifths right.

Foti et al. (2015) showed that select-control match-to-sample builds stronger classes than reject-control. Gallant used only select-control, so the strong results line up.

Walker & Rehfeldt (2012) found that once classes form, learners like transitive links best. Gallant’s test used new transitive examples, so the high scores match that preference.

Carr & Acuña (2021) saw brain-wave “meaning” signals only when classes held pronounceable words. Gallant used fallacy names like “straw man,” so the quick learning may owe to those meaningful cues, just as Fields et al. (2018) predicted.

If you teach concepts, you now have two solid choices: match-to-sample decks or simple yes-no pairing slides. Both take minutes, need no fancy gear, and beat giving clients a handout to read alone. Try swapping one of your lecture sheets for either method next week and track how many new examples your learners can spot.