The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning.ppt

1、The Effect of Generation and Interaction on Robust Learning,Robert G.M. Hausmann Kurt VanLehnPittsburgh Science of Learning Center Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburgh,Explaining Examples,Prompting Paraphrase Self-explain Example Type Complete Incomplete,The Generation H

2、ypothesis The Coverage Hypothesis,The Interaction Hypothesis The Coverage 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)

3、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,Learning should be equivalent for peers and solo learners, provided : Both for

4、ms 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 struc

5、tures but similar performance (Nokes & Ohlsson, 2005) If within ZPD, then dialog = monolog (VanLehn et al., in press),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: p

6、roblem 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,Participants Physics LearnLab United States Naval Academy (N=100) Materia

7、ls 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,Natural

8、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,Problem4: I

9、mmediate Posttest,Problem3: Intermed. Posttest,Problem2: Intermed. Posttest,Problem1: Warm-up Problem,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

10、Individual or jointly generated If individual, record speaker/listener (Hausmann, Chi, & Roy, 2004),Predicted Results,The Interaction Hypothesis,The Coverage Hypothesis,Learning event space,Process Line,How should prompting to explain affect path choice?,Read line (Solo) Explain Exit, with learning

11、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?,Re

12、ad 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,Accountability, so this decreases,Probability of having the right knowledge,How should inter

13、action 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, modera

14、te learning gains?,Questions/Feedback,Why might dyads choose the right paths more frequently than solos?,Collaborators may be more engaged than the solos: accountable? Responsible? The union of the collaborators knowledge has fewer gaps, so they more often finds explanations Heterogeneous groups out

15、perform homogeneous groups (Howe, Tolmie, & Rodgers, 1992) Diverse knowledge increases probability of taking good paths.,Learning-event Space: Solo,Read line Explain: Exit, with learning Not explain: Exit, without learning,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,