Self-explanation: Meta-cognitive vs. justification prompts - Revision history

Bobhaus: /* Independent variables */

2008-10-10T17:36:38Z

Independent variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 10 October 2008
Line 50:		Line 50:

	[[Prompting]] for an explanation was intended to increase the probability that the individual or dyad will traverse a useful learning-event path. Meta-cognitive prompts were designed to increase the students' awareness of their developing knowledge. The justification-based prompts were designed to motivate students to explicitly articulate the principle needed to solve a particular problem. Finally, the attention-focusing prompts were designed as a set of control prompts. The purpose was to steer their attention to the examples that they are studying, without motivating any particular type of active cognitive processing.		[[Prompting]] for an explanation was intended to increase the probability that the individual or dyad will traverse a useful learning-event path. Meta-cognitive prompts were designed to increase the students' awareness of their developing knowledge. The justification-based prompts were designed to motivate students to explicitly articulate the principle needed to solve a particular problem. Finally, the attention-focusing prompts were designed as a set of control prompts. The purpose was to steer their attention to the examples that they are studying, without motivating any particular type of active cognitive processing.

			<b>Figure 1</b>. An example from the Justification-based condition<Br><Br>
			[[Image:JUST.JPG]]<Br>

			<b>Figure 2</b>. An example from the Meta-cognitive condition<Br><Br>
			[[Image:META.JPG]]<Br>

			<b>Figure 3</b>. An example from the Attention-focusing condition<Br><Br>
			[[Image:ATTN.JPG]]<Br>

	=== Hypothesis ===		=== Hypothesis ===

Bobhaus: /* Results */

2008-04-15T17:26:57Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 15 April 2008
Line 69:		Line 69:
	All of the participants were enrolled in a year-long, high-school physics course. The task domain, electrodynamics, was taught at the beginning of the Spring semester. Therefore, all of the students were familiar with the Andes physics tutor. They did not need any training in the interface. Unlike our previous [[Hausmann_Study2 \| lab experiment]], they did not solve a warm-up problem. Instead, they started the experiment with a fairly complex problem.		All of the participants were enrolled in a year-long, high-school physics course. The task domain, electrodynamics, was taught at the beginning of the Spring semester. Therefore, all of the students were familiar with the Andes physics tutor. They did not need any training in the interface. Unlike our previous [[Hausmann_Study2 \| lab experiment]], they did not solve a warm-up problem. Instead, they started the experiment with a fairly complex problem.

	Once they finished, participants then watched a video solving an ''isomorphic problem''. Note that this procedure is slightly different from previous research, which used examples presented before solving problems (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Exper. 2). The videos decomposed into steps, and students were prompted to explain each step. The cycle of explaining examples and solving problems repeated until either 4 problems were solved or ~~2 hours elapsed~~. The ~~first problem was used as a warm-up exercise, and the~~ problems ~~became~~ progressively more complex.		Once they finished, participants then watched a video solving an ''isomorphic problem''. Note that this procedure is slightly different from previous research, which used examples presented before solving problems (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Exper. 2). The videos decomposed into steps, and students were prompted to explain each step. The cycle of explaining examples and solving problems repeated until either 3 problems were solved or the class period was over. The problems were designed to become progressively more complex.

	The results reported below are from a median split conducted on the assistance score on the first problem. The students who were below the median are included in the analyses because the strong prior-knowledge students were unaffected by the different types of prompts.		The results reported below are from a median split conducted on the assistance score on the first problem. The students who were below the median are included in the analyses because the strong prior-knowledge students were unaffected by the different types of prompts.

Bobhaus: /* Hypothesis */

2008-03-26T19:19:46Z

Hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, 26 March 2008
Line 52:		Line 52:

	=== Hypothesis ===		=== Hypothesis ===
			This experiment implements the following instructional principle: [[Prompted Self-explanation]]

	=== Dependent variables ===		=== Dependent variables ===

Bobhaus: /* Results */

2008-03-26T18:39:05Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 26 March 2008
Line 70:		Line 70:

	Once they finished, participants then watched a video solving an ''isomorphic problem''. Note that this procedure is slightly different from previous research, which used examples presented before solving problems (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Exper. 2). The videos decomposed into steps, and students were prompted to explain each step. The cycle of explaining examples and solving problems repeated until either 4 problems were solved or 2 hours elapsed. The first problem was used as a warm-up exercise, and the problems became progressively more complex.		Once they finished, participants then watched a video solving an ''isomorphic problem''. Note that this procedure is slightly different from previous research, which used examples presented before solving problems (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Exper. 2). The videos decomposed into steps, and students were prompted to explain each step. The cycle of explaining examples and solving problems repeated until either 4 problems were solved or 2 hours elapsed. The first problem was used as a warm-up exercise, and the problems became progressively more complex.

			The results reported below are from a median split conducted on the assistance score on the first problem. The students who were below the median are included in the analyses because the strong prior-knowledge students were unaffected by the different types of prompts.

	* [[Normal post-test]]		* [[Normal post-test]]

Bobhaus: /* Explanation */

2008-03-26T18:37:03Z

Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 26 March 2008
Line 81:		Line 81:

	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===
	Data analyses are preliminary and ongoing. Thus, the results reported above are speculative at this point. However, the trends suggest that justification prompting for physics may provide a learning advantage for later, more complex and difficult problems. One reason for the superiority of justification-based prompting is related to the match between the instructional materials and the cognitive task demands. That is, there are two sequential learning events that occur during the experiment. The first is learning from problem solving. In this case, the student must search the problem space in order to arrive at a fully specified solution. In so doing, he or she will most likely access and apply principles from physics. There are multiple competing features in the environment that cue the retrieval of these principles. The valid features that signal the correct application of a principle are called the "applicability conditions." During example studying, the student is released from the task of accessing the principles and is instead asked to generation the conditions of applicability.		Data analyses are preliminary and ongoing. Thus, the results reported above are speculative at this point. However, the trends suggest that justification prompting for physics may provide a learning advantage for later, more complex and difficult problems. One reason for the superiority of justification-based prompting is related to the match between the instructional materials and the cognitive task demands. That is, there are two sequential learning events that occur during the experiment. The first is learning from problem solving. In this case, the student must search the problem space in order to arrive at a fully specified solution. In so doing, he or she will most likely access and apply principles from physics. There are multiple competing features in the environment that cue the retrieval of these principles. The valid features that signal the correct application of a principle are called the "applicability conditions." During example studying, the student is released from the task of accessing the principles and is instead asked to generation the conditions of applicability. Generating the justification for a problem-solving action is commensurate with this task.

			Prompting for meta-cognitive reflection and evaluation, however, may not fit the task as well. Instead, students who do not have strong prior knowledge may find the lack of structure unhelpful. Weaker students may need a more structured learning environment.

			The attention prompts are ambiguous because 2 of them may inspire the student to self-explain. A close analysis of the audio portions of the data that were collected during the example-studying phase may allow for a direct test of this hypothesis.

	=== Further Information ===		=== Further Information ===

Bobhaus: /* Explanation */

2008-03-26T18:33:17Z

Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 26 March 2008
Line 81:		Line 81:

	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===
	Data analyses are preliminary and ongoing. Thus, the results reported above are speculative at this point. However, the trends suggest that justification prompting for physics may provide a learning advantage for later, more complex and difficult problems. One reason for the superiority of justification-based prompting is related to the match between the instructional materials and the cognitive task demands. That is,		Data analyses are preliminary and ongoing. Thus, the results reported above are speculative at this point. However, the trends suggest that justification prompting for physics may provide a learning advantage for later, more complex and difficult problems. One reason for the superiority of justification-based prompting is related to the match between the instructional materials and the cognitive task demands. That is, there are two sequential learning events that occur during the experiment. The first is learning from problem solving. In this case, the student must search the problem space in order to arrive at a fully specified solution. In so doing, he or she will most likely access and apply principles from physics. There are multiple competing features in the environment that cue the retrieval of these principles. The valid features that signal the correct application of a principle are called the "applicability conditions." During example studying, the student is released from the task of accessing the principles and is instead asked to generation the conditions of applicability.

	=== Further Information ===		=== Further Information ===

Bobhaus: /* Explanation */

2008-03-26T18:20:53Z

Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 26 March 2008
Line 81:		Line 81:

	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===
			Data analyses are preliminary and ongoing. Thus, the results reported above are speculative at this point. However, the trends suggest that justification prompting for physics may provide a learning advantage for later, more complex and difficult problems. One reason for the superiority of justification-based prompting is related to the match between the instructional materials and the cognitive task demands. That is,

	=== Further Information ===		=== Further Information ===

Bobhaus: /* Results */

2008-03-26T18:18:11Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 26 March 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:
	** ''Near [[transfer]], immediate'': The prompting for justifications demonstrating lower normalized assistance scores for later problems than the other two conditions. <center>[[Image:assist_results.JPG]]</center>		** ''Near [[transfer]], immediate'': The prompting for justifications demonstrating lower normalized assistance scores for later problems than the other two conditions. <center>[[Image:assist_results.JPG]]</center>
	** In addition, the justification-based prompting condition demonstrated faster solution times than the other two conditions for the last problem. <center>[[Image:time_results.JPG]]</center>		** In addition, the justification-based prompting condition demonstrated faster solution times than the other two conditions for the last problem. <center>[[Image:time_results.JPG]]</center>

			* [[Robust learning]]
			** ''Near transfer, retention'': to be collected and analyzed.
			** ''Near and far transfer'': to be collected and analyzed.
			** ''[[Accelerated future learning]]'': to be collected and analyzed.

	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===

Bobhaus: /* Results */

2008-03-26T18:15:28Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 26 March 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:
	* [[Normal post-test]]		* [[Normal post-test]]
	** ''Near [[transfer]], immediate'': The prompting for justifications demonstrating lower normalized assistance scores for later problems than the other two conditions. <center>[[Image:assist_results.JPG]]</center>		** ''Near [[transfer]], immediate'': The prompting for justifications demonstrating lower normalized assistance scores for later problems than the other two conditions. <center>[[Image:assist_results.JPG]]</center>
			** In addition, the justification-based prompting condition demonstrated faster solution times than the other two conditions for the last problem. <center>[[Image:time_results.JPG]]</center>

	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===

Bobhaus: /* Results */

2008-03-26T18:14:01Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 26 March 2008
Line 70:		Line 70:

	Once they finished, participants then watched a video solving an ''isomorphic problem''. Note that this procedure is slightly different from previous research, which used examples presented before solving problems (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Exper. 2). The videos decomposed into steps, and students were prompted to explain each step. The cycle of explaining examples and solving problems repeated until either 4 problems were solved or 2 hours elapsed. The first problem was used as a warm-up exercise, and the problems became progressively more complex.		Once they finished, participants then watched a video solving an ''isomorphic problem''. Note that this procedure is slightly different from previous research, which used examples presented before solving problems (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Exper. 2). The videos decomposed into steps, and students were prompted to explain each step. The cycle of explaining examples and solving problems repeated until either 4 problems were solved or 2 hours elapsed. The first problem was used as a warm-up exercise, and the problems became progressively more complex.

			* [[Normal post-test]]
			** ''Near [[transfer]], immediate'': The prompting for justifications demonstrating lower normalized assistance scores for later problems than the other two conditions. <center>[[Image:assist_results.JPG]]</center>

	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===