Search for: All records

Individuals typically prefer the freedom to make their own decisions. Yet, people often trade their own decision control (procedural utility) to gain economic security (outcome utility). Decision science has not reconciled these observations. We examined how decision-makers’ efficacy and security perceptions influence when, why, and how individuals exchange procedural and outcome utility. Undergraduate adults ( N = 77; M age = 19.45 years; 73% female; 62% Caucasian, 13% African American) were recruited from the psychology participant pool at a midwestern U.S. metropolitan university. Participants made financial decisions in easy and hard versions of a paid card task resembling a standard gambling task, with a learning component. During half the trials, they made decisions with a No-Choice Manager who controlled their decisions, versus a Choice Manager who granted decision control. The hard task was designed to be too difficult for most participants, undermining their efficacy and security, and ensuring financial losses. The No-Choice Manager was designed to perform moderately well, ensuring financial gains. Participants felt greater outcome satisfaction (utility) for financial gains earned via Choice, but not losses. Participants (85%) preferred the Choice manager in the easy task but preferred the No-Choice Manager (56%) in the hard task. This change in preference for choice corresponded with self-efficacy and was mediated by perceived security. We used Decision Field Theory to develop potential cognitive models of these decisions. Preferences were best described by a model that assumed decision-makers initially prefer Choice, but update their preference based on loss-dependent attentional focus. When they earned losses (hard task), decision-makers focused more on economic payoffs (financial security), causing them to deemphasize procedural utility. Losses competed for attention, pulling attention toward economic survivability and away from the inherent value of choice. Decision-makers are more likely to sacrifice freedom of choice to leaders they perceive as efficacious to alleviate perceived threats to economic security. 

This study tested whether exploring with simulations before instruction offers the conceptual benefits of “productive failure,” compared to a more traditional lecture-then-practice method. Undergraduate students (N=218) in introductory chemistry courses completed an activity using an online simulation about atomic structure. Students either completed the simulation activity before (explore-first condition) or after (instruct-first condition) a lecture on the topic. Students in both conditions scored equally on an assessment of basic facts taught in the instruction. However, students in the explore-first condition scored significantly higher on assessments of conceptual understanding and transfer to a new concept, compared to students in the instruct-first condition. Students in the explore-first condition also reported experiencing greater competence and curiosity during the learning activities. A guided simulation activity prior to instruction can have both motivational benefits and deepen students’ understanding. 

This work in progress paper discusses preliminary research testing the causal effectiveness of exploratory learning in undergraduate STEM courses. Exploratory learning is an active-learning technique that has been shown to improve students’ conceptual understanding, and is therefore well suited for STEM education. This method reverses the order of traditional lecture-then practice methods, by having students explore a novel problem prior to instruction. Participants (N=150) were first-year engineering students enrolled in an introductory engineering calculus course. Students were taught about two-dimensional vectors in an online, asynchronous learning module. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the instruct-first condition, students viewed the instruction and then completed a Geogebra™ activity. In the explore-first condition, students completed the activity and then viewed the instruction. Thus, the exact same activities were given to students, allowing us to test the causal effectiveness of reversing the placement of the activity. Afterwards, all students completed an online quiz and a later Vector test. A number of students opened but did not complete the activity. Of those students, no effects of condition were found. For the students who completed the activity, those in the explore-first condition scored higher on the quiz than those in the instruct-first condition. Scores were trending in a similar direction on the vector test. These results demonstrate the potential of exploratory learning to improve understanding in engineering mathematics, and in an online module format. This research also suggests that Geogebra™ may be a useful tool for developing an exploration activity students can complete online.