panel on does knowing what you know improve study habits and learning?

Download Panel on  Does Knowing What You Know Improve Study Habits and Learning?

Post on 31-Dec-2015

14 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Self-regulated learning: Heuristics and illusions Robert A. Bjork University of California, Los Angeles. Panel on Does Knowing What You Know Improve Study Habits and Learning? Fifth Annual Research Conference Institute of Education Sciences National Harbor, Maryland June 28-30, 2010. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • Self-regulated learning: Heuristics and illusions

    Robert A. BjorkUniversity of California, Los AngelesPanel on Does Knowing What You Know Improve Study Habits and Learning? FIFTH ANNUAL RESEARCH CONFERENCEInstitute of Education SciencesNational Harbor, MarylandJune 28-30, 2010

  • Components of becoming metacognitively sophisticated as a learnerManaging (optimally) the conditions of ones own learningSpacing, variation, generation, retrieval practice, Organizing ones knowledge, using technology, engaging in cooperative learning, Judging (accurately) whether learning/comprehension that will support later recall/transfer has been achievedInterpreting the meaning and predictive value of objective and subjective indices of current performanceUnderstanding that changes from the study context to the test context will impact access to what has been learnedAvoiding foresight bias (Koriat & Bjork, 2005)Giving appropriate weight to the impact of retention interval and subsequent study opportunitiesAvoiding stability bias (Kornell & Bjork, 2009)

  • Interpreting (and misinterpreting) objective indices of performanceLearning versus performanceWhat we can observe is performance; What we must infer is learning;and the former is an unreliable guide to the latter.Conditions of instruction that make performance improve rapidly often fail to support long-term retention and transfer, whereasConditions of instruction that appear to create difficulties for the learner, slowing the rate of apparent learning, often optimize long-term retention and transferTeachers and learners alike can be fooled Teachers become susceptible to choosing poorer conditions of instruction over better conditions; and learners to preferring those poorer conditionsExamples

  • Generation Interleaving SpacingExamples of learners being fooled

  • Interpreting (and misinterpreting) subjective indices of performancePerceptual fluency or familiarityThe sense of ease in processing visual or auditory informationRetrieval fluencyHow readily information comes to mindFluency of inductionThe sense of ease in noticing the commonalities across exemplars of a category or concept

  • Perceptual fluency or familiarityHeuristic valueMisattributions and illusionsMisinterpreting the cause of perceptual fluencyMisinterpreting the meaning of perceptual fluencyIllusions of competenceExample: Reder (1987, 1988)

  • (Reder, 1987, 1988)What is the term in golf for scoring one under par?

  • Retrieval fluencyHeuristic valueMisattributions and illusionsInterpreting performance as learning; illusions of competenceEgocentrism in instruction and social communicationIncomplete/faulty models of ourselves as learners/remembersExample: Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz (1998)

  • Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz (1998)Phase 1: 20 (easy) general-knowledge questionsE. g., Who was the first president of the United States?Participants asked to:(a) hit ENTER as soon as the answer came to mind (latency recorded);(b) say the answer;(c) predict the likelihood they would be able--at the end of the experiment--to free-recall having given that answer.Phase 2: Distracting activity (spatial/map task)Phase 3: Final testFree recall: Write down as many of the 20 answers you gave earlier as you can;(Original questions were not shown again)

  • Interpreting fluency of induction(Kornell & Bjork, 2008)The ability to generalize concepts and categories through exposure to multiple exemplars.

  • Spacing is the friend of recall but the enemy of induction.-Ernst Rothkopf

  • M S S M M S S M M S S M

  • FeedbackTest

  • ResultsActualResponses

  • A qualificationSubjective experience is not always misleading, it is sometimes even the best basis for judgments

    Example: Jacoby and Kelley (1987)

  • Jacoby & Kelley (1987)FSCAR ?????

    vs.

    FSCAR SCARF

  • Jacoby, Bjork, & Kelley (1994)

    Subjective experience, like the public media, is unavoidable, serves useful functions, and is not to be fully trusted

  • Why is performance a poor guide to learning?Performance is heavily influenced by local conditionscues, predictability, recencywhich can serve as crutches that prop up performance, but will not be there later at the time of testPredictions of future recall are, for example, subject to a foresight bias (Koriat & Bjork, 2005, 2006)

  • Foresight bias: an illustrationLikelihood the second word will be given as a free associate to the first?Lamp: LightFind: SeekSell: BuyCheese: CheddarCitizen: Tax

  • Foresight bias: an illustrationLikelihood the second word will be given as a free associate to the first?Lamp: Light (.71)Find: Seek (.03)Sell: Buy (.56)Cheese: Cheddar (.03)Citizen: Tax (.00)

  • Foresight bias: an illustrationLikelihood the second word will be given as a free associate to the first?Lamp: Light (.71)Forward pairFind: Seek (.03)Backward pairSell: Buy (.56)Forward pairCheese: Cheddar (.03)Backward pairCitizen: Tax (.00)Purely a-posteriori pair

  • Chart1

    0.58.392.332.33

    4.462.09000015262.652.65

    23.920000076378.31999969482.722.72

    Actual

    Predicted

    Associative Level

    Percent Response

    KBS0A

    KBS0A

    PredictedActualstdP

    Zero8.390.502.33

    Low62.094.402.65

    High78.3223.922.72

    KBS0A

    002.332.33

    002.652.65

    002.722.72

    Actual

    Predicted

    Associative Level

    Percentage Response

    KBS1B

    ActualPredicted ControlPredicted ExperimentalstdCstdE

    U0.508.147.762.101.93

    B2.0164.0347.074.245.13

    F59.9381.0880.011.863.37

    kbs1b - ACROSS type (B - F-U)

    SameDifferentsemSameDifferent

    Actual58.458.16Predicted6.447.2

    Predicted84.9431.55Actual2.141.42

    KBS1B

    0002.12.11.931.93

    0004.244.245.135.13

    0001.861.863.373.37

    Actual

    Predicted Control

    Predicted Experimental

    Associative Direction

    Percent Response

    KBS1D2_D1

    006.446.442.142.14

    007.27.21.421.42

    Actual

    Predicted

    Response

    Percent Response

    kbs1d1_B(C)

    ActualPredicted Experiment 6Predicted Experiment 7stdE6stdE7

    U0.505.698.631.421.50

    B2.0144.0455.834.303.14

    F59.9387.2682.572.082.32

    kbs1d1_B(C)

    0002.12.11.51.5

    0004.244.243.143.14

    0001.861.862.322.32

    Actual

    Predicted Experiment 6

    Predicted Experiment 7

    Associative Direction

    Percent Response

    ActualPredicted ControlPredicted ExperimentalstdCstdE

    U0.508.145.692.101.42

    B2.0164.0344.044.244.30

    F59.9381.0887.261.862.08

    0002.12.11.931.93

    0004.244.245.135.13

    0001.861.863.373.37

    Actual

    Predicted Control

    Predicted Experimental

    Associative Direction

    Percent Response

  • Foresight bias: DynamicsJudgments of learning are made in the presence of information that will be absent, but solicited, on a subsequent testThe targets in cue-target pairs (e.g., Cheese: cheddar); or the answers to questions (e.g, the Capital of Australia is Canberra)We are unable to anticipate the test situation, when the cue/question alone will trigger other associationsCheese ___?____ will trigger other strong associates, such as mouse, bread, wine, etc., which will compete with cheddar.Capital of Australia?will trigger Sydney, Melbourne,

  • Finally, the impact of intervening events: Predicting ones own forgetting and learningWe are subject to what Kornell and Bjork (2009) have labeled a stability bias: The tendency to think that a memory representation, once formed, will remain stableThis bias leads to both Overestimating remembering (i.e., underestimating forgetting); andUnderestimating learning.

  • Predicting ones own forgetting (Koriat, Bjork, Sheffer, & Bar, 2004)Experiment 1 (of 9):60 paired associates30 related;30 unrelatedParticipants judge, pair by pair, the likelihood they will remember that pair on a later cued-recall testRetention interval to the final test (between-subjects):Immediately after the study phase;One day;One week

  • Koriat, Bjork, Sheffer, & Bar (2004)

  • Experiment 7:Predicting ones own learning 24 paired associates12 related (Hill-Valley)12 unrelated (Clemency-Idiom)Number of study/test cycles (within-subjects):STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTDuring the first study trial, participants judged, pair by pair, the likelihood they would remember that pair on either the first, second, third, or fourth cued-recall test cycleWithin-subjects Response panel insured that participants predicted for the designated test

  • Actual EasyActual HardPredicted HardPredicted Easy

  • Concluding comment:People believe, in general, that forgetting happens over time and that studying fosters learning, That is, they have a theory of forgetting and a theory of learningbut they do not appear to believe that access to a given item in memory will be lost over a retention interval or increased by further study.

  • The end, probably

  • Final comment, if there is time, on our subjective experience as teachersEgocentrism in social communication

    Newton (1990) as a parable of teaching;

    Piaget (1962) quote

  • Piaget (1962)Every beginning instructor discovers sooner or later that his first lectures were incomprehensible because he was talking to himself, so to say, mindful only of his point of view. He realizes only gradually and with difficulty that it is not easy to place ones self in the shoes of students who do not yet know about the subject matter of the course.

  • The end (for sure)

  • Koriat et al. (2004) conclusions