1 / 52

PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE IN EDUCATION SELF-GENERATION, ERRORS, & FEEDBACK Janet Metcalfe

PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE IN EDUCATION SELF-GENERATION, ERRORS, & FEEDBACK Janet Metcalfe Columbia University. IES 2006. MS 143 and the Columbia University CASL project. Thanks go to IES for sponsoring this research. Thanks go especially to Lisa Son, Bridgid Finn and Nate Kornell.

rbryan
Download Presentation

PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE IN EDUCATION SELF-GENERATION, ERRORS, & FEEDBACK Janet Metcalfe

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE IN EDUCATION SELF-GENERATION, ERRORS, & FEEDBACK Janet Metcalfe Columbia University IES 2006

  2. MS 143 and the Columbia University CASL project Thanks go to IES for sponsoring this research.

  3. Thanks go especially to Lisa Son, Bridgid Finn and Nate Kornell

  4. THE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT IS TO USE PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM THAT CAN BE BROADLY USED TO HELP STUDENTS STUDY. Why do they need it? self study is vulnerable to metacognitive illusions (2) certain effective strategies are difficult to implement on one’s own

  5. BACKGROUND The Bronx project

  6. Spanish-speaking children learning English vocabulary

  7. Even Columbia students showed substantial gains, though not as high as the at-risk children.

  8. GOAL: TO ISOLATE COMPONENTS IN THE ORIGINAL TASK THAT ENHANCED OR HARMED LEARNING. Generation Errors Feedback

  9. SELF GENERATION

  10. To our surprise, we, several times, failed to find beneficial effects of self generation.

  11. There was no difference between the control condition and either generation condition.

  12. With Columbia students, there was also no generation effect.

  13. So, we tried again, with slight modifications.

  14. Bronx SIXTH GRADE children. NO GENERATION EFFECT

  15. Columbia students NO GENERATION EFFECT.

  16. WHY NO GENERTION EFFECT ? Our hypotheses were WE GAVE THE CUE FIRST ALONE WITH A 1 SECOND PAUSE WHICH ALLOWED PEOPLE TO GENERATE EVEN IN THE READ CONDITION. 2. THE GENERATE AND READ ITEMS WERE MIXED WITHIN LIST

  17. If we alter the conditions so people do not generate in the ‘read’ condition, we get a generation effect.

  18. GENERATE AND READ WERE NOW BETWEEN LIST, AND THE CUE AND TARGET WERE PRESENTED TOGETHER.

  19. THIS PRODUCED A LARGE GENERATE EFFECT

  20. SIMILARLY, WITH COLUMBIA STUDENTS LEARNING GRE WORDS

  21. WE FOUND A LARGE GENERATE EFFECT

  22. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS SELF-GENERATION OF ANSWERS PRODUCES LARGE LEARNING BENEFITS.

  23. IN A CLASSROOM SITUATION, WHERE ONE CAN’T HAVE EVERY STUDENT GENERATE ALL THE TIME, ONE CAN GET GENERATION BENEFITS BY DOING WHAT WE HAD DONE IN THE FIRST SET OF EXPERIMENTS: LEAVING A PAUSE BEFORE GIVING THE ANSWER AND (2) MIXING IN QUESTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS, WHO MUST THEN GENERATE THE ANSWERS THEMSELVES, FROM TIME TO TIME.

  24. ERRORS

  25. We observed no effect of whether we forced people to generate an answer (which resulted in a huge number of errors) or whether we allowed them to generate only if they felt confident in their answers (which resulted in few errors).

  26. NO EFFFECT OF ERRORS BRONX 6TH GRADE

  27. AGAIN, NO EFFECT OF MAKING ERRORS, COLUMBIA STUDENTS

  28. Bronx SIXTH GRADE AGAIN NO EFFECT OF ERRORS

  29. Columbia students: NO EFFECT OF ERRORS

  30. However, it seems like committing an error should be problematic. So we ran two more experiments directed at errors specifically.

  31. Bronx Children were either forced to generate--producing many errors or told to generate, but not to guess, producing few, in a between list design. They were given immediate feedback. Errors made no difference.

  32. Columbia The same experiment was run with more difficult materials. Again, there was no effect.

  33. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS We have no evidence to support the contention that making errors is harmful, as long as corrective feedback is given, even though we have now sought such evidence 6 times.

  34. FEEDBACK

  35. So far, I have shown results only when feedback was given. But, we also had no feedback conditions.

  36. IN EVERY CASE, FEEDBACK HELPED.

  37. In all three experiments, the effects of initial feedback also held up in the second test.

  38. In the final experiment we investigated the issue of how important it is to give immediate, as compared to delayed, feedback.

  39. There were five conditions: Immediate feedback immediate test No feedback immediate test Immediate feedback delayed test Delayed feedback delayed test No feedback delayed test

  40. The experiment was run over four days. On the fourth day we did the delayed test.

  41. The design of this experiment allowed us to look at the effect of immediate versus delayed feedback, holding constant feedback lag to test (by only using the middle sessions).

  42. WE HAVE DONE A REPLICATION STUDY WITH GRADE 6 CHILDREN AT THE SCHOOL AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND FOUND SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER FINAL TEST PERFORMANCE WHEN FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN AT A DELAY RATHER THAN IMMEDIATELY.

More Related