Proposal view
| Proposal Type: | Individual Paper |
|---|---|
| Domain: | Teaching and Instructional Design |
| SIG: | Instructional Design |
| Type | Submitted Paper |
| Equipment |
PC and projector |
| Paper Details |
|---|
| Title | Are Guided Cognition Learning Advantages the Result of Novelty? |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Our focus is on learning in unsupervised environments (represented by most homework). Guided Cognition structures study tasks to guide the learner to engage in specific, observable cognitive events. These events are hypothesized to elicit underlying theoretical cognitive processes that have been shown to improve learning. Initial Guided Cognition experiments found performance on an unexpected, three-day delayed quiz to be 21 and 18 percentage points better after Guided Cognition (GC) homework than after Traditional (T) homework, for average and advanced English literature students, respectively (Whitten, Whitten, & Rabinowitz, 2006). Subsequent experiments determined this advantage was due neither to differences in time spent on the two forms of homework, nor to teaching that preceded the homework (Whitten, W. B., II, Rabinowitz M., and Whitten, S. E., 2006a, 2006b). The current experiments were performed to determine whether the Guided Cognition learning advantage was durable, or whether it was due to novelty and would fade with repeated exposure. Average and advanced ability high school English literature students read Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Five T homework questions and five corresponding GC homework questions were prepared for each of Acts III and IV. The cognitive events used in the GC homework questions were: relate to prior experience; illustrate visually; consider divergent answers; role play; conceptualize, theorize, and brainstorm. A quiz was constructed to test the Act III and IV content and was given without prior announcement after a three-day delay. Results of average and advanced ability students showed a consistent advantage for Guided Cognition after repeated exposure, thus ruling out an explanation that the effect is due to novelty. These results imply that Guided Cognition can be used frequently without loss of effectiveness. |
| Summary | Our focus is on learning in unsupervised environments (represented by most homework). Guided Cognition structures study tasks to guide the learner to engage in specific, observable cognitive events. These events are hypothesized to elicit underlying theoretical cognitive processes that have been shown to improve learning. Guided Cognition contrasts with two previously researched methods for improving unsupervised learning--specific skills training, and content design--because it neither teaches specific learning strategies, nor relies on inherent information organization to improve learning. Guided Cognition focuses the student’s cognitive efforts through the design of study questions and tasks. Initial Guided Cognition experiments found performance on an unexpected three-day delayed quiz to be 21 and 18 percentage points better after Guided Cognition (GC) homework than after Traditional (T) homework, for average and advanced English literature students, respectively (Whitten, Whitten, & Rabinowitz, 2006). Subsequent experiments determined this advantage was due neither to differences in time spent on the two forms of homework, nor to teaching that preceded the homework (Whitten, W. B., II, Rabinowitz M., and Whitten, S. E., 2006a, 2006b). The current experiments were performed to determine whether the Guided Cognition learning advantage was durable, or whether it was due to novelty and would fade with repeated exposure. Method Since Guided Cognition (GC) questions are different from Traditional (T) questions, it is possible that their novelty could influence students to focus more intensely on, and consequently to better encode, the studied content. If so, we would expect repeated exposure to the Guided Cognition tasks to reduce their learning effectiveness. Participants and Materials. In Experiment 1 (with low-to-average ability students) and Experiment 2 (with advanced ability students), high school English literature students read Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Five cognitive events were chosen from those previously identified and reported in Whitten, Whitten, & Rabinowitz (2006). These events were: relate to prior experience; illustrate visually; consider divergent answers; role play; conceptualize, theorize, and brainstorm. Five T homework questions and five corresponding GC homework questions were prepared for each of Acts III and IV. A three-day delayed quiz was constructed to test this content. The quiz used a standard format that included short answers, sentence completions, and fill-in-the-blanks. Design. Act III of Macbeth was taught on Monday and Tuesday with related homework assigned for Tuesday evening and collected on Wednesday. Act IV was taught on Wednesday and Thursday with related homework assigned for Thursday evening and collected on Friday. Homework for half of the students in each class consisted of five Traditional questions for each of Acts III and IV. Homework for the other students in each class consisted of five Guided Cognition questions for each of Acts III and IV. An unannounced quiz was given on the following Monday. Students were given 20 minutes to answer questions on each Act. Results Experiment 1. Quiz performance on Act III was 64% for GC and 45% for T, and quiz performance on Act IV was 53% for GC and 33% for T. An ANOVA with homework (GC vs. T) as a between-subject variable and Act (III vs. IV) as a within-subject variable was conducted and confirmed a significant effect of homework, F(1.39) = 22.55, p < .001, and a significant effect of Act, F(1,39) = 17.64, p < .001. The interaction between these two variables was not significant, F(1,39) = .007, p > .05. Clearly, the GC homework was more effective, and the gain was not diminished by experience with the GC style questions. (Lower overall performance on Act IV is likely a content effect, i.e., the material was more difficult.) Experiment 2. Quiz performance on Act III was 80% for GC and 71% for T, and quiz performance on Act IV was 71% for GC and 65% for T. An ANOVA with homework (GC vs. T) as a between-subject variable and Act (III vs. IV) as a within-subject variable was conducted and confirmed a significant effect of homework, F(1.70) = 8.89, p < .005, and a significant effect of Act, F(1,70) = 27.49, p < .001. As in Experiment 1, there was no interaction between these variables, F(1,70) = .98, p > .05. Thus, the pattern of results found with advanced ability students follows exactly that of the low-to-average ability students in Experiment 1. In both experiments the lack of interaction between type of homework and acts of the play clearly shows that the benefits of Guided Cognition homework are not due to novelty. Summary Important practical implications from these experiments and from our previously reported work on Guided Cognition include: Guiding cognition through wording of homework questions can significantly increase the effectiveness of homework. Homework effectiveness is not a simple function of time spent on the questions and tasks, but is a function of the kind of cognitive events (and their corresponding cognitive processes) that students engage while studying. Gains from Guided Cognition homework are found when there is no antecedent teaching and when there is antecedent teaching, so the homework itself is a valuable part of the total learning effort. Benefits from Guided Cognition homework are not due to novelty. This implies that this homework can be used frequently without loss of effectiveness. Guided Cognition homework appears to be a very cost-effective intervention that will not require extensive task analysis, new technology, new textbooks, or extensive training to employ. References Whitten, W. B., II, Rabinowitz, M., and Whitten, S. E. (2006b). Guided cognition of unsupervised learning: Designing effective homework. Presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston, TX, November 18, 2006. Whitten, W. B., II, Rabinowitz M., and Whitten, S. E. (2006a). Enhancing unsupervised learning through guided cognition. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY, May 26, 2006. Whitten, W. B., II, Whitten, S. E., and Rabinowitz, M. (2006). Guided cognition of unsupervised learning. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 10, 2006. |
| Keywords | Academic learning Instructional design/development Instructional strategies |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| William B. | Whitten II | Fordham University | United States | whitten@fordham.edu | ||
| Mitchell | Rabinowitz | Fordham University | United States | mrabinowitz@fordham.edu | * | |
| Sandra E. | Whitten | Fordham University | United States | whitten@fordham.edu | ||
