the effect of generation and interaction on robust learning n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 133 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning. Robert G.M. Hausmann Kurt VanLehn Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburgh. Experiment 1. Interaction Individual (solo) Collaborative (dyad) Prompting Natural

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the effect of generation and interaction on robust learning

The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning

Robert G.M. Hausmann

Kurt VanLehn

Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center

Learning Research and Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

explaining examples

Experiment 1

  • Interaction
    • Individual (solo)
    • Collaborative (dyad)
  • Prompting
    • Natural
    • Explain

Experiment 2

Explaining Examples
  • Prompting
    • Paraphrase
    • Self-explain
  • Example Type
    • Complete
    • Incomplete
  • The Generation Hypothesis
  • The Coverage Hypothesis
  • The Interaction Hypothesis
  • The Coverage Hypothesis
the interaction hypothesis
The Interaction Hypothesis
  • The interaction itself increases learning gains, even if the set of learning events covered by dyads and solos is exactly the same.
  • Potential Explanations of the hypothesis (Rogoff, 1998)
    • Process of negotiating meaning with a peer
    • Appropriating part of the peers’ perspective
    • Building and maintaining common ground
    • Articulating their knowledge
    • Clarifying it when the peer misunderstands
the coverage hypothesis
The Coverage Hypothesis
  • Learning should be equivalent for peers and solo learners, provided :
    • Both forms of instruction must cover the same information.
    • The student must attend to that information.
  • Similar proposals
    • Transfer performance depends on mastery, not path (i.e., direct instruction vs. discovery learning) (Klahr & Nigam, 2004)
    • Different types of instruction lead to different knowledge structures but similar performance (Nokes & Ohlsson, 2005)
    • If within ZPD, then dialog = monolog (VanLehn et al., in press)
studies of dyad vs solo
Studies of Dyad vs. Solo
  • Chi & Roy (in press) example study + problem solving
    • Dyad > solo when both solving and watching a video of a tutor/tutee pair solving the same problem.
  • Many: problem solving
    • Self- vs. interactive explanations (Ploetzner, Dillenbourg, Praier, & Traum, 1999)
    • Newtonian Physics (Kneser & Ploetzner, 2001)
    • Conceptual Engineering (Hausmann, 2006)
    • Hundreds more…
  • None: example studying
method
Method
  • Participants
    • Physics LearnLab
    • United States Naval Academy (N=100)
  • Materials
    • Andes homework system
    • Domain: electrodynamics (electric & magnetic fields)
  • Robust Learning Measures
    • Duration: immediate (experiment), short delay (chapter exam), long delay (final exam)
    • Transfer: chapter & final exam isomorphic problems
    • Preparation for learning: magnetism homework
design
Design
  • Natural Solo: prompts to keep working, but no processing advice (control for Hawthorn effects).
  • Explain Solo: prompts to self-explain
  • Natural Dyads: prompts to keep working together, but no collaborative processing advice.
  • Explain Dyads: prompts to generate joint explanations

Prompting

procedure

Example1

Example2

Example3

Solo

Explain

Solo

Explain

Solo

Explain

Solo

Natural

Solo

Natural

Solo

Natural

Dyad

Explain

Dyad

Explain

Dyad

Explain

Dyad

Natural

Dyad

Natural

Dyad

Natural

Procedure

Problem1:

Warm-up

Problem

Problem2:

Intermed.

Posttest

Problem3:

Intermed.

Posttest

Problem4:

Immediate

Posttest

data sources
Data Sources
  • Andes log files: Homework (before & after)
  • Andes log files: Experiment
  • On-screen activities: Experiment
  • Coded interactions (McGregor & Chi, 2002):
    • Novel or Repeated knowledge component
    • Individual or jointly generated
    • If individual, record speaker/listener (Hausmann, Chi, & Roy, 2004)
predicted results
Predicted Results

The Interaction Hypothesis

The Coverage Hypothesis

learning event space

Solo

Dyad

Prompted

Natural

Prompted

Explain

PromptedNatural

PromptedExplain

~Explain

Explain

Neither

Explain

A Explains;

B Listens

Jointly

Explain

B ~Comprehend

B Comprehends

Little

Learning

Little

Learning

Learning

Learning

Learning event space

Process Line

how should prompting to explain affect path choice

Increase?

Increase?

How should prompting to explain affect path choice?
  • Read line (Solo)
    • Explain  Exit, with learning
    • Not explain  Exit, without learning
  • Read line (Dyad)
    • Neither explains  Exit, with little learning
    • A (B) explains
      • B (A) comprehends  Exit, both learn
      • B (A) fails to comprehend  Exit, A (B) learns
    • A & B co-construct an explanation  Exit, both learning

Increase?

how should interaction affect path choice
How should interaction affect path choice?

Accountability, so this decreases

  • Read line (Dyad)
    • Neither explains  Exit, with little learning
    • A (B) explains
      • B (A) comprehends  Exit, both learn
      • B (A) fails to comprehend  Exit, A (B) learns
    • A & B co-construct an explanation  Exit, both learning

Probability of having the right knowledge

how should interaction affect path effects
How should interaction affect path effects?
  • Read line (Dyad)
    • Neither explains  Exit, with little learning
    • A (B) explains
      • B (A) comprehends  Exit, both learn
      • B (A) fails to comprehend  Exit, A (B) learns
    • A & B co-construct an explanation  Exit, both learning

Less feature validity

Partner not present at post-test,  moderate learning gains?

why might dyads choose the right paths more frequently than solos
Why might dyads choose the right paths more frequently than solos?
  • Collaborators may be more engaged than the solos:
    • <social psych?> accountable? Responsible?
  • The union of the collaborators’ knowledge has fewer gaps, so they more often finds explanations
    • Heterogeneous groups outperform homogeneous groups (Howe, Tolmie, & Rodgers, 1992)
    • Diverse knowledge increases probability of taking good paths.
learning event space solo
Learning-event Space: Solo
  • Read line
    • Explain: Exit, with learning
    • Not explain: Exit, without learning
learning event space dyad
Learning-event Space: Dyad
  • Read line
    • Neither explains: Exit, with little learning
    • A (B) explains
      • B (A) comprehends: Exit, both learn
      • B (A) fails to comprehend: Exit, A (B) learns
    • A & B co-construct an explanation: Exit, both learning