1 / 16

Targeting points of high working memory load: Expertise reversal effects

Targeting points of high working memory load: Expertise reversal effects. Paul Ayres (p.ayres@unsw.edu.au) School of Education, University of New South Wales 3rd International CLT Conference Heerlen, NL 2 March 2009. The trouble with brackets. Ayres (2001) -3(-4 - 5x) - 3(-3x - 4)

anila
Download Presentation

Targeting points of high working memory load: Expertise reversal effects

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. Targeting points of high working memory load: Expertise reversal effects Paul Ayres(p.ayres@unsw.edu.au)School of Education, University of New South Wales3rd International CLT Conference Heerlen, NL 2 March 2009

  2. The trouble with brackets Ayres (2001) • -3(-4 - 5x) - 3(-3x - 4) • Op 1Op 2Op 3Op 4 –3(–4) -3(–5x) -3(-3x) -3(-4) • Op-2 > Op-1, Op-4 > Op-3, Br-2 > Br-1

  3. Evidence of WM load causing errors • Verbal protocols (Ayres, 2001) • Dual tasks (Ayres, 2001) • Subjective measures within problems (Ayres, 2006: L & I)

  4. What would be helpful instruction? • For novices this is fairly complex domain- high in element interactivity • Need to deal with Intrinsic CL • Isolating elements (Pollock, Chandler & Sweller, 2002) • Pollock et al. proposed a two stage learning experience. During the first phase, learning is conducted element-by-element, leading to some partial schemas being acquired.

  5. Ayres (2006 Appl. Cog. Psych.) • Complete Group 5 (3x - 4) - 2 (4x - 7) = 5 * 3x + 5 * -4 - 2 * 4x - 2 * -7 = 15 x - 20 - 8x + 14 • Single (isolated) Group -5 (3x - 4) - 2 (4x - 7) = -5 * 3x = - 15x

  6. Results • Expertise reversal effect • For students with below mathematical ability the isolated strategy was effective. • For students with above average mathematical ability it was not effective- CL measures suggested low engagement. • However, the error profiles remained • Hypothesis: extra practice at points of greatest WM load will lead to greater learning.

  7. The present study: Targeting strategy • 90 grade 8 students: 47 above average in math ability, 43 below average. • Equal group:Isolatedsingle calculations equally distributed over four operations during acquisition • Targeted group: Isolatedsingle calculations : three times as many on operations 2 and 4 compared with 1 and 3. Design • Acquisition phase: 4 pairs of worked examples (16 calculations). Study one- complete one alternation. • A nine-point self-rating scale (see van Gog & Paas, 2008) • Test phase: 8 complete bracket expansion tasks.

  8. Means from Exp. 1

  9. Statistical tests Acquisition: Ability F < 1 ; Strategy: F < 1 • Interaction: F= 4.0, p < 0.05; no simple effects CL measures: All F < 1 Test scores: Ability F=5.0, p < 0.03; Strategy F < 1 Interaction F = 4.4, p < 0.04 Simple effects High ability t < 1; Low ability t = 1.97, p = 0.055 Efficiency: All F < 1

  10. Summary • Expertise reversal effects present again • Students with above average mathematical ability benefited from a targeting approach, but students below average didn’t. • For the latter it is plausible that the targeting format was too far removed from the full problems to be meaningful.

  11. Exp 2 • Exact test of relevant mathematical ability (2 groups) • Full worked example group added (3 x 2 Design) • Transfer questions • Same design • Acquisition • CL measures (Difficulty- see van Gog & Paas) • Test • Transfer

  12. Means from Exp. 2

  13. Analysis Acquisition: Strategy F < 1 ; Interaction: F < 1 • Ability: F= 15.5, p < 0.001 CL measures: Ability F = 15.6, p <0.001 Strategy: F = 3.7, p < 0.05, Full WE > Isolated groups Interaction, F < 1. Test scores: Ability F = 22.4, p < 0.001; Strategy F < 1 Interaction F < 1

  14. Transfer Ability F = 42.7, p < 0.001 Strategy: F < 1 Interaction F = 4.0, p < 0.05, Simple Effects • High Ability, F < 1.5 • Low Ability; Isolated > Targeted • Efficiency (transfer) Ability; F = 29.5, p < 0.001 High > Low Strategy: F = 3.3, p < 0.05, Combined ability: Targeted > Total worked example Interaction, F < 1

  15. Efficiency (Test) Ability; F = 19.0, p < 0.001 High > Low Strategy: F = 4.3, p < 0.02, Combined ability: Targeted > Total worked example Interaction, F < 1

  16. Summary • Low ability students • Single isolated > targeted on test scores (Exp. 1) • Single isolated > targeted on transfer scores (Exp. 2) • High Ability Students • No differences between groups • Overall ability effects • CL measures: full worked examples had greatest CL measures • Both efficiency measures (Targeted > full worked examples)

More Related