Confrustion, a mix of confusion and frustration sometimes experienced while grappling with instructional materials, is not necessarily detrimental to learning. Prior research has shown that studying erroneous examples can increase students’ experiences of confrustion, while at the same time helping them learn and overcome their misconceptions. In the study reported in this paper, we examined students’ knowledge and misconceptions about decimal numbers before and after they interacted with an intelligent tutoring system presenting either erroneous examples targeting misconceptions (erroneous example condition) or practice problems targeting the same misconceptions (problem-solving condition). While students in both conditions significantly improved their performance from pretest to posttest, students in the problem-solving condition improved significantly more and experienced significantly less confrustion. When controlling for confrustion levels, there were no differences in performance. This study is interesting in that, unlike prior studies, the higher confrustion that resulted from studying erroneous examples was not associated with better learning outcomes; instead, it was associated with poorer learning. We propose several possible explanations for this different outcome and hypothesize that revisions to the explanation prompts to make them more expert-like may have also made them – and the erroneous examples that they targeted – less understandable and less effective. Whether prompted self-explanation options should be modeled after the shorter, less precise language students tend to use or the longer, more precise language of experts is an open question, and an important one both for understanding the mechanisms of self-explanation and for designing self-explanation options deployed in instructional materials.
more »
« less
Confrustion in Learning from Erroneous Examples: Does Type of Prompted Self-explanation Make a Difference?
Confrustion, a mix of confusion and frustration sometimes experienced while grappling with instructional materials, is not necessarily detrimental to learning. Prior research has shown that studying erroneous examples can increase students’ experiences of confrustion, while at the same time helping them learn and overcome their misconceptions. In the study reported in this paper, we examined students’ knowledge and misconceptions about decimal numbers before and after they interacted with an intelligent tutoring system presenting either erroneous examples targeting misconceptions (erroneous example condition) or practice problems targeting the same misconceptions (problem-solving condition). While students in both conditions significantly improved their performance from pretest to posttest, students in the problem-solving condition improved significantly more and experienced significantly less confrustion. When controlling for confrustion levels, there were no differences in performance. This study is interesting in that, unlike prior studies, the higher confrustion that resulted from studying erroneous examples was not associated with better learning outcomes; instead, it was associated with poorer learning. We propose several possible explanations for this different outcome and hypothesize that revisions to the explanation prompts to make them more expert-like may have also made them – and the erroneous examples that they targeted – less understandable and less effective. Whether prompted self-explanation options should be modeled after the shorter, less precise language students tend to use or the longer, more precise language of experts is an open question, and an important one both for understanding the mechanisms of self-explanation and for designing self-explanation options deployed in instructional materials.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10155532
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- S. Isotani et al. (Eds.): AIED 2019, LNAI 11625
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 445-457
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Prior studies have explored the potential of erroneous examples in helping students learn more effectively by correcting errors in solutions to decimal problems. One recent study found that while students experience more confusion and frustration (confrustion) when working with erroneous examples, they demonstrate better retention of decimal concepts. In this study, we investigated whether this finding could be replicated in a digital learning game. In the erroneous examples (ErrEx) version of the game, students saw a character play the games and make mistakes, and then they corrected the characters’ errors. In the problem solving (PS) version, students played the games by themselves. We found that confrustion was significantly, negatively correlated with performance in both pretest (r = -.62, p < .001) and posttest (r = -.68, p < .001) and so was gaming the system (pretest r = -.58, p < .001, posttest r = -.66, p < .001). Posthoc (Tukey) tests indicated that students who did not see any erroneous examples (PS-only) experienced significantly lower levels of confrustion (p < .001) and gaming (p < .001). While we did not find significant differences in post-test performance across conditions, our findings show that students working with erroneous examples experience consistently higher levels of confrustion in both game and non-game contexts.more » « less
-
As K-12 engineering education becomes more ubiquitous in the U.S, increased attention has been paid to preparing the heterogeneous group of in-service teachers who have taken on the challenge of teaching engineering. Standards have emerged for professional development along with research on teacher learning in engineering that call for teachers to facilitate and support engineering learning environments. Given that many teachers may not have experienced engineering practice calls have been made to engage teaches K-12 teachers in the “doing” of engineering as part of their preparation. However, there is a need for research studying more specific nature of the “doing” and the instructional implications for engaging teachers in “doing” engineering. In general, to date, limited time and constrained resources necessitate that many professional development programs for K-12 teachers to engage participants in the same engineering activities they will enact with their students. While this approach supports teachers’ familiarity with curriculum and ability to anticipate students’ ideas, there is reason to believe that these experiences may not be authentic enough to support teachers in developing a rich understanding of the “doing” of engineering. K-12 teachers are often familiar with the materials and curricular solutions, given their experiences as adults, which means that engaging in the same tasks as their students may not be challenging enough to develop their understandings about engineering. This can then be consequential for their pedagogy: In our prior work, we found that teachers’ linear conceptions of the engineering design process can limit them from recognizing and supporting student engagement in productive design practices. Research on the development of engineering design practices with adults in undergraduate and professional engineering settings has shown significant differences in how adults approach and understand problems. Therefore, we conjectured that engaging teachers in more rigorous engineering challenges designed for adult engineering novices would more readily support their developing rich understandings of the ways in which professional engineers move through the design process. We term this approach meaningful engineering for teachers, and it is informed by work in science education that highlights the importance of learning environments creating a need for learners to develop and engage in disciplinary practices. We explored this approach to teachers’ professional learning experiences in doing engineering in an online graduate program for in-service teachers in engineering education at Tufts University entitled the Teacher Engineering Education Program (teep.tufts.edu). In this exploratory study, we asked: 1. How did teachers respond to engaging in meaningful engineering for teachers in the TEEP program? 2. What did teachers identify as important things they learned about engineering content and pedagogy? This paper focuses on one theme that emerged from teachers’ reflections. Our analysis found that teachers reported that meaningful engineering supported their development of epistemic empathy (“the act of understanding and appreciating someone's cognitive and emotional experience within an epistemic activity”) as a result of their own affective experiences in doing engineering that required significant iteration as well as using novel robotic materials. We consider how epistemic empathy may be an important aspect of teacher learning in K-12 engineering education and the potential implications for designing engineering teacher education.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)We present in this paper the results of a randomized control trial experiment that compared the effectiveness of two instructional strategies that scaffold learners' code comprehension processes: eliciting Free Self-Explanation and a Socratic Method. Code comprehension, i.e., understanding source code, is a critical skill for both learners and professionals. Improving learners' code comprehension skills should result in improved learning which in turn should help with retention in intro-to-programming courses which are notorious for suffering from very high attrition rates due to the complexity of programming topics. To this end, the reported experiment is meant to explore the effectiveness of various strategies to elicit self-explanation as a way to improve comprehension and learning during complex code comprehension and learning activities in intro-to-programming courses. The experiment showed pre-/post-test learning gains of 30% (M = 0.30, SD = 0.47) for the Free Self-Explanation condition and learning gains of 59% (M = 0.59,SD = 0.39) for the Socratic method. Furthermore, we investigated the behavior of the two strategies as a function of students' prior knowledge which was measured using learners' pretest score. For the Free Self-Explanation condition, there was no significant difference in mean learning gains for low vs. high knowledge students. The magnitude of the difference in performance (mean difference= 0.02,95% CI: -0.34 to 0.39) was very small (eta squared = 0.006). Likewise, the Socratic method showed no significant difference in mean learning gains between low vs. high performing students. The magnitude of the performance difference (mean difference =-0.24,95% CI: -0.534 to 0.03) was large (eta squared = 0.10). These findings suggest that eliciting self-explanations can be used as an effective strategy and that guided self-explanations as in the Socratic method condition is more effective at inducing learning gains.more » « less
-
Practice plays a critical role in learning engineering dynamics. Typical practice in a dynamics course involves solving textbook problems. These problems can impose great cognitive load on underprepared students because they have not mastered constituent knowledge and skills required for solving whole problems. For these students, learning can be improved by being engaged in deliberate practice. Deliberate practice refers to a type of practice aimed at improving specific constituent knowledge or skills. Compared to solving whole problems requiring the simultaneous use of multiple constituent skills, deliberate practice is usually focused on one component skill at a time, which results in less cognitive load and more specificity. Contemporary theories of expertise development have highlighted the influence of deliberate practice (DP) on achieving exceptional performance in sports, music, and various professional fields. Concurrently, there is an emerging method for improving learning efficiency of novices by combining deliberate practice with cognitive load theory (CLT), a cognitive-architecture-based theory for instructional design. Mechanics is a foundation for most branches of engineering. It serves to develop problem-solving skills and consolidate understanding of other subjects, such as applied mathematics and physics. Mechanics has been a challenging subject. Students need to understand governing principles to gain conceptual knowledge and acquire procedural knowledge to apply these principles to solve problems. Due to the difficulty in developing conceptual and procedural knowledge, mechanics courses are among those that receive high DFW rates (percentage of students receiving a grade of D or F or Withdrawing from a course), and students are more likely to leave engineering after taking mechanics courses. Deliberate practice can help novices develop good representations of the knowledge needed to produce superior problem solving performance. The goal of the present study is to develop deliberate practice techniques to improve learning effectiveness and to reduce cognitive load. Our pilot study results revealed that the student mental effort scores were negatively correlated with their knowledge test scores with r = -.29 (p < .05) after using deliberate practice strategies. This supports the claim that deliberate practice can improve student learning while reducing cognitive load. In addition, the higher the students’ knowledge test scores, the lower their mental effort was when taking the tests. In other words, the students who used deliberate practice strategies had better learning results with less cognitive load. To design deliberate practice, we often need to analyze students’ persistent problems caused by faulty mental models, also referred to as an intuitive mental model, and misconceptions. In this study, we continue to conduct an in-depth diagnostic process to identify students’ common mistakes and associated intuitive mental models. We then use the results to develop deliberate practice problems aimed at changing students’ cognitive strategies and mental models.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_37
