Difference between revisions of "Path effects"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
## The entry is correct Exit, with little learning | ## The entry is correct Exit, with little learning | ||
## The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start | ## The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start | ||
| − | # The student tries to apply a deep strategy (and the tutor requires typed, abstract | + | # The student tries to apply a deep strategy (and the tutor requires typed, abstract directions): |
| − | directions): | ||
## The entry is correct Exit, with learning | ## The entry is correct Exit, with learning | ||
## The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start | ## The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start | ||
| − | # The student tries to apply a deep strategy (and the tutor requires drawn, concrete | + | # The student tries to apply a deep strategy (and the tutor requires drawn, concrete directions): |
| − | directions): | ||
## The entry is correct Exit, with learning | ## The entry is correct Exit, with learning | ||
## The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start | ## The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start | ||
| Line 21: | Line 19: | ||
The learning that occurs via path 2.1 involves typing the important concept “opposite to the motion/velocity.” This may strengthen the student’s memory of the knowledge component. On the other hand, the learning that occurs via path 3.1 involves a visual-motor instantiation of the conceptual knowledge, namely the drawing of a concrete vector. This dual coding may strengthen the student’s memory of the knowledge component. It is not clear which path produces more robust learning of | The learning that occurs via path 2.1 involves typing the important concept “opposite to the motion/velocity.” This may strengthen the student’s memory of the knowledge component. On the other hand, the learning that occurs via path 3.1 involves a visual-motor instantiation of the conceptual knowledge, namely the drawing of a concrete vector. This dual coding may strengthen the student’s memory of the knowledge component. It is not clear which path produces more robust learning of | ||
the knowledge component. It would be interesting to find out. | the knowledge component. It would be interesting to find out. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Glossary]] | ||
| + | [[Category:PSLC General]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Interactive Communication]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:59, 27 March 2007
Path effects. Given that a student has gone down a particular path, what are the effects on the student’s knowledge? Does this path tend to cause immediately detectable gains? Robust learning? Does this tell us anything in general about what kinds of paths are effective?
Example:
Start
- Student applies a shallow strategy, e.g., guessing or copying from a hint.
- The entry is correct Exit, with little learning
- The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start
- The student tries to apply a deep strategy (and the tutor requires typed, abstract directions):
- The entry is correct Exit, with learning
- The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start
- The student tries to apply a deep strategy (and the tutor requires drawn, concrete directions):
- The entry is correct Exit, with learning
- The entry is incorrect and the tutor gives a hint => Start
The learning that occurs via path 2.1 involves typing the important concept “opposite to the motion/velocity.” This may strengthen the student’s memory of the knowledge component. On the other hand, the learning that occurs via path 3.1 involves a visual-motor instantiation of the conceptual knowledge, namely the drawing of a concrete vector. This dual coding may strengthen the student’s memory of the knowledge component. It is not clear which path produces more robust learning of the knowledge component. It would be interesting to find out.
