== A comparison of self-explanation to instructional explanation ==
''Robert Hausmann and Kurt VanLehn''

=== Abstract ===
This in vivo experiment compared the learning that results from either reading an explanation (instructional explanation) or generating it oneself (self explanation). Students studied a physics example line by line. For half the students, the example lines were incomplete (the explanations connecting some lines are missing) whereas for the other half, the example lines were complete. Crossed with this is an attempted manipulation of the student’s studying strategy. Half the students were instructed and prompted to self-explain the line, while the other half were prompted to paraphrase it, which has been shown in earlier work to suppress self-explanation.

Of the four conditions, one condition was key to testing our hypothesis: the condition where students viewed complete examples and were asked to paraphrase them. If the learning gains from this condition had been just as high as those from conditions were self-explanation was encouraged, then instructional explanation would have been just as effective as self-explanation. On the other hand, if the learning gains were just as low as those where instructional explanations were absent and self-explanation was suppressed via paraphrasing, then instructional explanation would have been just as ineffective as no explanation at all.

Preliminary results suggest that the latter case occurred, so instructional explanation were not as effective as self-explanations on tests of basic learning. Analyses are in progress on measures of robust learning.

=== Glossary ===
Forthcoming, but will probably include
* Physics example line
* Complete vs. incomplete example
* Instructional explanation

=== Research question ===
How is robust learning affected by self-explanation vs. instructional explanation?

=== Independent variables ===
Two variables were crossed:
* Did the example present an explanation with each line or present just the line?
* After each line (and its explanation, if any) was presented, students were prompted to either explain or paraphrase the line in their own words.

The condition where explanations were presented in the example and students were asked to paraphrase them is considered the “instructional explanation” condition. The two conditions where students were asked to self-explain the example lines are considered the “self-explanation” conditions. The remain condition, where students were asked to paraphrase examples that did not contain explainations, was considered the “no explanation” condition.

=== Hypothesis ===
For these well-prepared students, self-explanation should not too difficult. That is, the instruction should be below the students’ zone of proximal development. Thus, the learning-by-doing path (self-explanation) should elicit more robust learning than the alternative path (instructional explanation) wherein the student does less work.

As a manipulation check on the utility of the explanations in the complete examples, we hypothesize that instructional explanation condition should produce more robust learning than the no-explanation condition.

=== Dependent variables ===
* ''Near transfer, immediate'': During training, examples alternated with problems, and the problems were solved using Andes. Each problem was similar to the example that preceded it, so performance on it is a measure of normal learning (near transfer, immediate testing). The log data were analyzed and assistance scores (sum of errors and help requests) were calculated. This measure showed self-explanation was more effective than instructional explanation.

* ''Near transfer, retention'': On the student’s regular mid-term exam, one problem was similar to the training. Since this exam occurred a week after the training, and the training took place over 2 hours, the student’s performance on this problem is considered a test of retention. Results on the measure were mixed.

* ''Homework'': After training, students did their regular homework problems using Andes. Students did them whenever they wanted, but most completed them just before the exam. The homework problems were divided based on similarity to the training problems, and assistance scores were calculated. On both similar (near transfer) and dissimilar (far transfer) problems, the results are consistent with self-explanation being more effective than instructional explanation.

* ''Acceleration of future learning'': The training was on magnetic fields, and it was followed in the course by a unit on electrical fields. Log data from the electrical field homework was analyzed as a measure of acceleration of future learning. Both assistance scores and learning curves of the key principles support the hypothesis that self-explanation is more effective than instructional explanation.

=== Explanation ===
This study is part of the [[Interactive_Communication|Interactive Communication cluster]], and its hypothesis is a specialization of the IC cluster’s central hypothesis. The IC cluster’s hypothesis is that robust learning occurs when two conditions are met:

* The learning event space should have paths that are mostly learning-by-doing along with alternative paths were a second agent does most of the work. In this study, self-explanation comprises the learning-by-doing path and instructional explanations are ones where another agent (the author of the text) has done most of the work.

* The student takes the learning-by-doing path unless it becomes too difficult. This study tried (successfully, it appears) to control the student’s path choice. It showed that when students take the learning-by-doing path, they learned more than when they take the alternative path.

The IC cluster’s hypothesis actually predicts an attribute-treatment interaction here. If some students were under-prepared and thus would find the self-explanation path too difficult, then those students would learn more on the instructional-explanation path. ATI analyzes have not yet been completed.

=== Annotated bibliography ===
* Presentation to the NSF Site Visitors, June, 2006

2006-09-12T12:56:37Z

Pslc:

Coordinative Learning

2006-09-12T12:55:44Z

Pslc:

== The PSLC Coordinative Learning cluster ==

=== Abstract ===
The studies in the Coordinative Learning cluster tend to focus on varying the types of information available to learning or on the instructional methods that they employ. In particular, the studies focus on the impact of having learners coordinate two or more types. Given that the student has two sources/methods available, the factors that might impact learning are:

*What is the relationship between the content in the two sources or the content generated by the two methods? Our hypothesis is that robust learning occurs whenever a knowledge component is difficult to understand or absent in one, is should be present and easy to understand in the other.
*When and how does the student coordinate between the two sources or methods? Our hypothesis is that students should be encouraged to compare the two, perhaps by putting them close together in space or time. This is a form of engagement.

At the micro-level, the overall hypothesis is that robust learning occurs when the learning event space has target paths whose sense-making difficulties complement each other (as expressed in the first bullet above) and the students make path choices that take advantage of these complementary paths (as in the second bullet, above). This hypothesis is just a specialization of the general PSLC hypothesis to this cluster.

=== Glossary ===
Forthcoming, but will probably include:
*Sources
*Co-training
*Complementary

=== Research question ===

How can instructional activities that involve two sources of instructional information increase robust learning?
Independent variables

*The content of the sources,
*and the instructional activities designed to engage students in using both of them.

=== Dependent variables ===
Measures of normal and robust learning.

=== Hypotheses ===
When students are given sources whose sense-making difficulties are complementary, and they are engaged in coordinating the sources, then their learning will be more robust than it would otherwise be.

=== Explanation ===

There are both sense-making and foundational skill-building explanations. From the sense-making perspective, if the sources/methods yield complementary content and the student is engaged in coordinating them, then the student is more likely to successfully understand the instruction because whenever student fails to understand one of the sources/methods, then the student is likely to understand the other. From a foundational skill-building perspective, attending to both sources/methods simultaneously associates features from both with the learned knowledge components, thus increasing feature validity and hence robust learning.

=== Descendents ===

*Visual-verbal learning in geometry (Aleven & Butcher)
*Handwriting in algebra learning (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger)
*Note-taking technologies (Bauer & Koedinger)
*Knowledge component construction vs. recall (Booth, Siegler, Koedinger & Rittle-Johnson)
*Adding diagrams of acid-base solutions (Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger)
*Co-training of Chinese characters (Liu, Perfetti, Mitchell & Wang)
*Personalization and example studying in chemistry (McLaren, Koedinger & Yaron)
*Implicit vs. explicit instruction on word meanings (Juffs & Eskenazi) [Was in Fluency]
*Video vs. audio-only training of pronunciation (Liu, Perfetti & Wang) [Was in Fluency]
*Visual enhancement of Chinese tone learning (Wang, Lui and Perfetti) [Was in Fluency]

=== Annotated Bibliography ===
Forthcoming

Main Page

2006-09-12T12:49:36Z

Pslc:

== The PSLC Theoretical Hierarchy ==

Although the PSLC does not espouse a single theory of learning, it does encourage its researchers to maximize the overlap between each other’s theories. That is, to the maximum extent possible, a PSLC researcher’s explanation should use the same terminology and hypotheses as other PSLC researcher’s explanations

In order to display the integration achieved by this form of collaboration, the PSLC maintains a theoretical hierarchy. When a set of explanations share many terms and hypotheses, we make a node for each explanation, make a node for their common features, and link the nodes so that the common-feature node is the parent of each explanation node. Although in many cases a node is a single wiki page, we use the term traditional term “node” to refer to it so that there will be no confusion when a node corresponds to several wiki pages

In order to more clearly display the integration, each node contains:
<ol>
<li>An abstract that briefly describes the research encompassed by the node;</li>
<li>A glossary that defines terms used elsewhere in this node but not defined in the nodes that are parents, grandparents, etc. of this node;<li>
<li>The research question stated as concisely as possible, usually in a single sentence;</li>
<li>The dependent variables, which are observable and typically measure competence, motivation, interaction, meta-learning, or some other pedagogically desirable outcome;</li>
<li>The independent variables, which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language;</li>
<li>The hypothesis, which is a concise statement of the relationship among the variables that answers the research question;</li>
<li>An explanation, which is short (a paragraph or two) and typically mentions unobservable, hypothetical attributes of the students (e.g., the students’ knowledge or motivation) and cognitive or social processes that affect them;</li>
<li>The descendents, which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any;</li>
<li>An annotated bibliography, which lists documents (as hyper links and/or references in APA format) and indicates briefly their relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document reports the node in full detail, or describe the design of a study that has not yet been run, or describes a similar study that is not quite the same as the one described by the node, etc.).</li>
</ol>

Experience suggests that the glossaries carry much of the load in explaining the research, and that carefully defining and exemplifying terms often pays off later in reducing confusion and facilitating collaboration. Consequently, the glossaries are sometimes so long that they are spit off as separate wiki pages.

The [[Root_node|root node of the hierarchy]] represents the research question addressed by the PSLC as a whole. It is necessarily abstract and is not the sort of question that can actually be tested by a single decisive experiment. This node is maintained by the PSLC co-directors.

The immediate descendents of the root node are three nodes representing the research questions address by each of the PSLC research clusters. That is, there are nodes for each of Coordinative Learning, Interactive Communication and Refinement and Fluency. These present somewhat more concrete research questions. They are specializations to the center’s overarching questions, and form a bridge to testable hypotheses posed by individual research projects. These 3 nodes are maintained by their respective clusters.

The leaves of the hierarchy (i.e., nodes with no descendents) represent individual research projects [PSLC members: Should these nodes be studies instead of projects?]. Each is maintained by its project’s leader.

Between the cluster nodes and the leaves, there may be some intervening nodes. For instance, if a group of Coordinative Learning studies all address a similar research question (e.g., how to use verbal and visual instruction together effectively), then a node may be created to summarize their shared aspects. Its parent is the Coordinative Learning cluster node, and its descendents are the relevant project nodes. These sub-cluster nodes are maintained by the cluster members.

At present, the hierarchy is a tree. That is, every node has at most one parent. If this parsimonious structure impedes theoretical development, we may relax the restriction and allow nodes to have multiple parents.
[[Link title]]

Root node

2006-09-12T12:47:56Z

Pslc:

== PSLC theoretical hierarchy’s Root node ==

=== Abstract ===
PSLC research is primarily concerned with finding out what instructional environments, methods or activities causes students’ learning to be robust. Although normal learning can be measured with immediate, near-transfer post-tests, we measure robustness with three addition measures: retention, far transfer and preparation for learning.

=== Glossary ===
The current glossary is here, but it has not yet been updated to reflect recent work by the clusters on their glossaries

=== Research question ===
What instructional activities or methods cause students’ learning to be robust?

=== Dependent variables ===
Measures of basic learning (an immediate, near-transfer post-test) and measures of robust learning (retention, far-transfer and preparation for future learning)

=== Independent variables ===
Instructional activities and methods.

=== Hypotheses ===
Learning will be robust if the instructional activities are designed to include appropriate paths, and the students tend to follow those paths during instruction.

=== Explanation ===
Instructional activities influence the depth and generality of the students’ acquired knowledge components, the knowledge components’ strength and feature validity, and the student’s motivation. These in turn influence the students’ performance on measures of robust learning. That is, we take a cognitive stance, rather than a radically distributed or situated stance.

At the macro-level, instruction produces robust learning if it increases the frequency of:
<ul>
<li>sense-making processes: rederivation, adaptation and self-supervised learning</li>
<li>and foundational skill-building processes: strengthening, deep feature perception and cognitive headroom.</li>
</ul>

At the micro-level, instruction produces robust learning if:
<ul>
<li>The instruction is designed so that the learning event space has some target paths that would cause an ideal student to acquire knowledge that is deep, general, strong and retrieval-feature-valid.</li>
<li>Most students follow a target path most of the time. There are many factors outside the easy control of the experimenter or instructor, such as motivation and recall, that affect whether students actually follow the target paths designed into the instruction.</li>

=== Descendents ===
<li>Interactive communication.</li>
<li>Coordinative learning.</li>
<li>Refinement and fluency.</li>

=== Annotated bibliograph y===

Forthcoming.

Main Page

2006-09-11T21:00:28Z

Pslc:

== The PSLC Theoretical Hierarchy ==

Although the PSLC does not espouse a single theory of learning, it does encourage its researchers to maximize the overlap between each other’s theories. That is, to the maximum extent possible, a PSLC researcher’s explanation should use the same terminology and hypotheses as other PSLC researcher’s explanations

In order to display the integration achieved by this form of collaboration, the PSLC maintains a theoretical hierarchy. When a set of explanations share many terms and hypotheses, we make a node for each explanation, make a node for their common features, and link the nodes so that the common-feature node is the parent of each explanation node. Although in many cases a node is a single wiki page, we use the term traditional term “node” to refer to it so that there will be no confusion when a node corresponds to several wiki pages

In order to more clearly display the integration, each node contains:
<ol>
<li>An abstract that briefly describes the research encompassed by the node;</li>
<li>A glossary that defines terms used elsewhere in this node but not defined in the nodes that are parents, grandparents, etc. of this node;<li>
<li>The research question stated as concisely as possible, usually in a single sentence;</li>
<li>The dependent variables, which are observable and typically measure competence, motivation, interaction, meta-learning, or some other pedagogically desirable outcome;</li>
<li>The independent variables, which are typically include instructional environment, activity or method, and perhaps some student characteristics, such as gender or first language;</li>
<li>The hypothesis, which is a concise statement of the relationship among the variables that answers the research question;</li>
<li>An explanation, which is short (a paragraph or two) and typically mentions unobservable, hypothetical attributes of the students (e.g., the students’ knowledge or motivation) and cognitive or social processes that affect them;</li>
<li>The descendents, which lists links to descendent nodes of this one, if there are any;</li>
<li>An annotated bibliography, which lists documents (as hyper links and/or references in APA format) and indicates briefly their relationship to the node (e.g., whether the document reports the node in full detail, or describe the design of a study that has not yet been run, or describes a similar study that is not quite the same as the one described by the node, etc.).</li>
</ol>

Experience suggests that the glossaries carry much of the load in explaining the research, and that carefully defining and exemplifying terms often pays off later in reducing confusion and facilitating collaboration. Consequently, the glossaries are sometimes so long that they are spit off as separate wiki pages.

The root node of the hierarchy represents the research question addressed by the PSLC as a whole. It is necessarily abstract and is not the sort of question that can actually be tested by a single decisive experiment. This node is maintained by the PSLC co-directors.

The immediate descendents of the root node are three nodes representing the research questions address by each of the PSLC research clusters. That is, there are nodes for each of Coordinative Learning, Interactive Communication and Refinement and Fluency. These present somewhat more concrete research questions. They are specializations to the center’s overarching questions, and form a bridge to testable hypotheses posed by individual research projects. These 3 nodes are maintained by their respective clusters.

The leaves of the hierarchy (i.e., nodes with no descendents) represent individual research projects [PSLC members: Should these nodes be studies instead of projects?]. Each is maintained by its project’s leader.

Between the cluster nodes and the leaves, there may be some intervening nodes. For instance, if a group of Coordinative Learning studies all address a similar research question (e.g., how to use verbal and visual instruction together effectively), then a node may be created to summarize their shared aspects. Its parent is the Coordinative Learning cluster node, and its descendents are the relevant project nodes. These sub-cluster nodes are maintained by the cluster members.

At present, the hierarchy is a tree. That is, every node has at most one parent. If this parsimonious structure impedes theoretical development, we may relax the restriction and allow nodes to have multiple parents.