Difference between revisions of "Refinement and Fluency"

From LearnLab
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Explicit instruction)
 
(149 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== The PSLC Refinement and Fluency cluster ==
+
= The PSLC Refinement and Fluency cluster =
  
=== Abstract ===
+
== Abstract ==
The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities that direct the learner’s attention to critical knowledge components. A general assumption of this cluster’s work is that these knowledge components can be acquired, strengthened, and refined more effectively through the analysis of learning tasks that identify the knowledge components in relation to the learners’ background knowledge. A corollary assumption is that under many circumstances, instruction is more effective when it directly instructs the knowledge components than when it is structured to allow only indirect learning. However, the cluster’s more general concern is that instruction needs to be based on considerations of the unique demands of the material to be learned and the learner’s relevant prior knowledge.
+
The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The research of the cluster addresses a series of core propositions, including but not limited to the following.
  
Our general hypothesis is that the structure of instructional activities, including practice, affects learning. A slightly more specific hypothesis is that structures that require the learner to attend to the valid features of a complex stimulus lead to more robust learning than structures that do not. In some situations, the knowledge components are supported by the learner’s prior knowledge; in other situations, the learner’s prior knowledge provides a hindrance to learning. However, in all situations, the effective structure of learning events requires an analysis of the domain to be learned, one that reveals the unique demands of the to-be-learned material (relative to a learner’s background) and highlights the critical knowledge components. Learning events are then organized that recognize the demands of the task and draw attention to these components.
+
1. cognitive task analysis or knowledge component analysis: Complex knowledge consists of smaller components that can be identified through analysis of knowledge-based task performance and tested in experiments. To design effective instruction, learning tasks are anlayzed into simpler task components.  
  
At the micro-level, this hypothesis can be rephrased in terms of the PSLC general hypothesis, which is that robust learning occurs when the learning event space is designed to include appropriate target paths, and when students are encouraged to take those paths.  In most of the studies in this cluster, few paths are available to the student and these are well structured to lead to the acquisition and refinement of knowledge components. However, in some cases, the analysis of the task leads to paths that are not obvious.
+
2. fluency from basics: For true fluency, higher level skills must be grounded on well-practiced lower level skills.
  
=== Glossary ===
+
3. scheduling of practice: [[Optimized scheduling]] of [[practice]] uses principles of memory to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.
Forthcoming.
+
  
=== Research question ===
+
4. [[explicit instruction]]: Explicit instruction, i.e. instruction that either directly asserts information ("facts") or  provides rules, facilitates the acquisition and refinement of specific skills. Rules are effective only when they are relatively simple.
How can analyses of task and learner’s knowledge lead to a structuring of instructional events that lead to robust learning?
+
  
=== Independent variables ===
+
5. [[implicit instruction]]: Implicit instruction, i.e. exposure to to-be-learned patterns, can foster the development of pattern familiarity and strengthen connections of these patterns to other patterns.  
Alternative structures of instructional events based on alternative analyses of task demands, relevant knowledge components, and learner background. Assessing the learner’s background is essentially part of the learning task analysis.
+
  
=== Dependent variables ===
+
6. immediacy of feedback: A corollary of the scheduling and explicit instruction propositions is that immediate feedback facilitates learning.
Measures of normal and robust learning.
+
  
=== Hypothesis ===
+
7. [[cue validity]]: In both explicit and implicit instruction, the validity of a cue for a knowledge component affects the learning of that knowledge component. (Cue validity is related to [[feature validity]].)
Robust learning is increased by instructional activities that require the learner to  attend to the relevant knowledge components of a learning task.
+
  
=== Explanation ===
+
8. [[focusing]]: Instruction that directs (focuses) the learner's attention to valid cues leads to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.
Attention to features of the task domain as a knowledge component is processed leads to associating those features with the knowledge component.  If the features are valid, then forming or strengthening such associations facilitates retrieval during subsequent assessment or instruction, and thus leads to more robust learning.
+
  
=== Descendents ===
+
9. learning to learn: The acquisition of skills and strategies that can generalize across learning tasks can promote new learning. Examples may be deep analysis, help-seeking, use of advance organizers, and, most generally, meta-cognitive strategies.
  
* Using syntactic priming to increase robust learning (de Jong, Perfetti, DeKeyser)
+
10. [[transfer]]: A learner's earlier knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while inhibiting others.
  
* Basic skills training (MacWhinney)
+
The overall hypothesis is that instruction that systematically reflects the complex [[features]] of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. The principle is that the gap between targeted knowledge and existing knowledge needs to be directly reflected in the organization of instructional events. This organization includes the structure of knowledge components selected for instruction, the scheduling of learning events, practice, recall opportunities, explicit and implicit presentations, and other activities.
  
* First language effects on second language grammar acquisition (Mitamura)
+
This hypothesis can be rephrased in terms of the PSLC general hypothesis, which is that [[robust learning]] occurs when the [[learning event space]] is designed to include appropriate target paths, and when students are encouraged to take those paths.  The studies in this cluster focus on the formulation of well specified target paths with highly predictable learning outcomes.
  
* Optimizing the practice schedule (Pavlik)
+
<br><center>[[Image:Rf.JPG]]</center>
  
* Semantic grouping during vocabulary training (Tokowicz)
+
==Significance==
 +
A core theme in this cluster is that instruction in basic skills can facilitate the acquisition and refinement of knowledge and prepare the learner for [[fluency]]-enhancing practice. Instruction that provides practice and feedback for basic skills on a schedule that closely matches observed student abilities is important for this goal, and can be effectively delivered by computer. In the area of second language learning, the strengths of computerized instruction are matched by certain weaknesses. In particular, computerized tutors are not yet good at speech recognition, making it difficult to assess student production. Moreover, contact with a human teacher can increase the breadth of language usage, as well as motivation. Therefore, an optimal environment for language learning would combine the strengths of computerized instruction with those of classroom instruction. It is possible that a similar analysis will apply to science and math.
  
* Mental rotations during vocabulary training (Tokowicz)
+
== Glossary ==
 +
[[:Category:Refinement and Fluency|Refinement and Fluency]] glossary.
  
=== Annotated bibliography ===
+
== Research question ==
 +
The overall research question is how can instruction optimally support the acquisition, refinement, and fluent use of complex targeted knowledge, taking into account the learner’s existing knowledge in relation to the knowledge demands of the target domain? In examining this general question, the studies focus on features of the learning situation, including the following: the cognitive demands of targeted knowledge components, the scheduling of practice, the timing and extent of explicit [[instructional method|instructional events]] relative to implicit learning opportunities, and the role of feedback.
 +
 
 +
== Independent variables ==
 +
At a general level, the research varies the organization of instructional events. This organization variable is typically  based on alternative analyses of task demands, relevant knowledge components, and learner background.
 +
 
 +
== Dependent variables ==
 +
The dependent variables in these studies assess learner performance during learning events and following learning. Typical measures are percentage correct and number of learning trials or time to reach a given standard of performance. Response times are also measured in some cases.
 +
 
 +
== Hypotheses ==
 +
Instruction that systematically reflects the complex features of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. More specifically, the initial acquisition of knowledge and its refinement benefit from instructional activities that require the learner to attend to and encode [[valid features]] of the learning content. The fluency corollary: Fluency builds on the knowledge components acquired and refined in learning, strengthening and integrating these components through practice.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Specific hypotheses about the organization of instruction derive from task analyzes of specific domain knowledge and the existing knowledge of  the learner. A background assumption for most studies is that fluency is grounded in well-practiced lower level skills. A few examples of specific hypotheses are as follows:
 +
 +
1. Scheduling of practice hypothesis: The optimal scheduling of practice uses principles of memory consolidation to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.
 +
 
 +
2. Resonance hypothesis: The acquisition of knowledge components can be facilitated by evoking associations between divergent coding systems. (This hypothesis is similar or perhaps the same as [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis or [[co-training]] more specifically whereby "divergent coding systems" here may be the same as "multiple input sources" in co-training.)
 +
 
 +
3. [[Explicit instruction]] hypothesis: Explicit rule-based instruction facilitates the acquisition of specific skills, but only if the rules are simple.
 +
 
 +
4. [[Implicit instruction]] hypothesis: Implicit instruction or exposure serves to foster the development of initial familiarity with larger patterns.
 +
 
 +
5. Feedback hypothesis: Instruction that provides immediate, diagnostic feedback will be superior to instruction that does not.
 +
 
 +
6. Cue validity hypothesis: In both explicit and implicit instruction, cue validity plays a central role in determining ease of learning of knowledge components. See also [[feature validity]].
 +
 
 +
7. [[Focusing]] hypothesis: Instruction that focuses the learner's attention on valid cues will lead to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.
 +
 
 +
8. Learning to learn hypothesis: The acquisition of certain skills in one context support future learning in other contexts. Such skills include  problem analysis, help-seeking, or advance organizers.
 +
 
 +
9. Learner knowledge hypothesis: A learner's existing knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while blocking others.
 +
 
 +
10.  Active learning hypothesis: Even in simple tasks, learning is more robust when the learner actively engages in the learning material.
 +
 
 +
== Explanation ==
 +
All knowledge involves content and procedures that are specific to a domain. An analysis of the domain reveals the complexities that a learner of a given background will face and the knowledge components that are part of the overall complexity. Accordingly, the organization of instruction is critical in allowing the learner to attend to the critical valid features of knowledge components and to integrated them in authentic performance. Acquiring valid features and strengthening their associations facilitates retrieval during subsequent assessment and instruction, leading to more robust learning. Additionally, robust learning is increased by the scheduling of learning events that promotes the [[long-term retention]] of the associations.
 +
 
 +
== Descendents ==
 +
 
 +
=== Explicit instruction ===
 +
'''A. Explicit vs Implicit.''' These projects typically compare a more explicit form of instruction with a more implicit form 
 +
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]] (Liu et al.)
 +
* [[Basic skills training|French dictation training]] (MacWhinney)
 +
* [[Providing optimal support for robust learning of syntactic constructions in ESL]] (Levin, Frishkoff, De Jong, Pavlik)
 +
* [[Extending the Self-Explanation Effect to Second Language Grammar Learning]] (Wylie, Koedinger, Mitamura)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
'''B. Explicit attention manipulations''' studies typically vary features available to learner
 +
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] (Zhang-MacWhinney)
 +
* [[Learning a tonal language: Chinese]] (Wang, Perfetti, Liu) [Also Coordinative learning]
 +
* [[French gender cues | French grammatical gender cue learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
 +
** [[Learning French gender cues with prototypes | Instruction of French gender cues]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
 +
**[[French gender prototypes | Lab study of grammar learning contrasting explicit and implicit instruction and prototype usage]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
 +
**[[French gender attention | Lab study of effects of time pressure and explicitness on gender learning]] (Presson, MacWhinney)
 +
 
 +
'''C. Explicit instruction: Practice and Scheduling''' Typical studies control practice events and provide feedback
 +
* [[Optimizing the practice schedule]] (Pavlik et al.) [[Applying optimal scheduling of practice in the Chinese Learnlab|1]]
 +
* [[Japanese fluency]] (Yoshimura-MacWhinney)
 +
* [[Fostering fluency in second language learning]] (De Jong, Halderman, Perfetti)
 +
* [[Using learning curves to optimize problem assignment]] (Cen & Koedinger)
 +
* [[Learning ESL Vocabulary with Context and Definitions:  Order Effects and Self-Generation]] (Balass, Nelson, Perfetti)
 +
 
 +
=== Knowledge accessibility ===
 +
'''A. Background knowledge''' These projects directly study effects of learners' background knowledge
 +
* [[Intelligent_Writing_Tutor | First language effects on second language grammar acquisition]] (Mitamura, Wylie)
 +
* [[Assistance_Dilemma_English_Articles | The Assistance Dilemma and the English Article System]] (Wylie, Mitamura, Koedinger)
 +
* [[The_Help_Tutor__Roll_Aleven_McLaren|Tutoring a meta-cognitive skill: Help-seeking (Roll, Aleven & McLaren)]] [Also in Interactive Communication]
 +
* [[The Impact of Native Writing Systems on 2nd Language Reading]] (Einikis, Ben-Yehudah, Fiez)
 +
 
 +
'''B. Availability of knowledge during learning'''
 +
* [[Optimizing the practice schedule]] (Pavlik et al.) [[Understanding paired associate transfer effects based on shared stimulus components|2]], [[Applying optimal scheduling of practice in the Chinese Learnlab|1]], [[Understanding encoding inhibition, retrieval inhibition and destructive interference effects of errors during practice|3]]
 +
* [[Using syntactic priming to increase robust learning]] (De Jong, Perfetti, DeKeyser)
 +
* [[Composition_Effect__Kao_Roll|What is difficult about composite problems? (Kao, Roll)]]
 +
* [[Arithmetical fluency project]] (Fiez)
 +
* [[A word-experience model of Chinese character learning]] (Reichle, Perfetti, & Liu)
 +
* [[Integrated Learning of Chinese]] (Liu, Perfetti, Wang, Wu)
 +
* [[Integration of reading, writing and typing in learning Chinese words]] (Liu, Perfetti, Guan, Wu, Wang)
 +
 
 +
=== Active processing ===
 +
These projects also include some addressing issues of learner control
 +
* [[Mental rotations during vocabulary training]] (Tokowicz-Degani)
 +
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]] [Also in Coordinative Learning]
 +
**[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]] (completed)
 +
**[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]] (planned)
 +
**[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]] (planned)
 +
*[[Handwriting Algebra Tutor]] (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger) [Also in Coordinative Learning]
 +
**[[Lab study proof-of-concept for handwriting vs typing input for learning algebra equation-solving]] (completed)
 +
**[[In vivo comparison of Cognitive Tutor Algebra using handwriting vs typing input]] (in progress)
 +
 
 +
===Other===
 +
 
 +
* [[Development of a Novel Writing System]] (Greene, Durisko, Ciuca, Fiez)
 +
 
 +
== Annotated bibliography ==
 
Forthcoming
 
Forthcoming
  
 
[[Category:Cluster]]
 
[[Category:Cluster]]

Latest revision as of 21:50, 1 February 2010

The PSLC Refinement and Fluency cluster

Abstract

The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, refinement, and fluent control of critical knowledge components. The research of the cluster addresses a series of core propositions, including but not limited to the following.

1. cognitive task analysis or knowledge component analysis: Complex knowledge consists of smaller components that can be identified through analysis of knowledge-based task performance and tested in experiments. To design effective instruction, learning tasks are anlayzed into simpler task components.

2. fluency from basics: For true fluency, higher level skills must be grounded on well-practiced lower level skills.

3. scheduling of practice: Optimized scheduling of practice uses principles of memory to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.

4. explicit instruction: Explicit instruction, i.e. instruction that either directly asserts information ("facts") or provides rules, facilitates the acquisition and refinement of specific skills. Rules are effective only when they are relatively simple.

5. implicit instruction: Implicit instruction, i.e. exposure to to-be-learned patterns, can foster the development of pattern familiarity and strengthen connections of these patterns to other patterns.

6. immediacy of feedback: A corollary of the scheduling and explicit instruction propositions is that immediate feedback facilitates learning.

7. cue validity: In both explicit and implicit instruction, the validity of a cue for a knowledge component affects the learning of that knowledge component. (Cue validity is related to feature validity.)

8. focusing: Instruction that directs (focuses) the learner's attention to valid cues leads to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.

9. learning to learn: The acquisition of skills and strategies that can generalize across learning tasks can promote new learning. Examples may be deep analysis, help-seeking, use of advance organizers, and, most generally, meta-cognitive strategies.

10. transfer: A learner's earlier knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while inhibiting others.

The overall hypothesis is that instruction that systematically reflects the complex features of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. The principle is that the gap between targeted knowledge and existing knowledge needs to be directly reflected in the organization of instructional events. This organization includes the structure of knowledge components selected for instruction, the scheduling of learning events, practice, recall opportunities, explicit and implicit presentations, and other activities.

This hypothesis can be rephrased in terms of the PSLC general hypothesis, which is that robust learning occurs when the learning event space is designed to include appropriate target paths, and when students are encouraged to take those paths. The studies in this cluster focus on the formulation of well specified target paths with highly predictable learning outcomes.


Rf.JPG

Significance

A core theme in this cluster is that instruction in basic skills can facilitate the acquisition and refinement of knowledge and prepare the learner for fluency-enhancing practice. Instruction that provides practice and feedback for basic skills on a schedule that closely matches observed student abilities is important for this goal, and can be effectively delivered by computer. In the area of second language learning, the strengths of computerized instruction are matched by certain weaknesses. In particular, computerized tutors are not yet good at speech recognition, making it difficult to assess student production. Moreover, contact with a human teacher can increase the breadth of language usage, as well as motivation. Therefore, an optimal environment for language learning would combine the strengths of computerized instruction with those of classroom instruction. It is possible that a similar analysis will apply to science and math.

Glossary

Refinement and Fluency glossary.

Research question

The overall research question is how can instruction optimally support the acquisition, refinement, and fluent use of complex targeted knowledge, taking into account the learner’s existing knowledge in relation to the knowledge demands of the target domain? In examining this general question, the studies focus on features of the learning situation, including the following: the cognitive demands of targeted knowledge components, the scheduling of practice, the timing and extent of explicit instructional events relative to implicit learning opportunities, and the role of feedback.

Independent variables

At a general level, the research varies the organization of instructional events. This organization variable is typically based on alternative analyses of task demands, relevant knowledge components, and learner background.

Dependent variables

The dependent variables in these studies assess learner performance during learning events and following learning. Typical measures are percentage correct and number of learning trials or time to reach a given standard of performance. Response times are also measured in some cases.

Hypotheses

Instruction that systematically reflects the complex features of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. More specifically, the initial acquisition of knowledge and its refinement benefit from instructional activities that require the learner to attend to and encode valid features of the learning content. The fluency corollary: Fluency builds on the knowledge components acquired and refined in learning, strengthening and integrating these components through practice.


Specific hypotheses about the organization of instruction derive from task analyzes of specific domain knowledge and the existing knowledge of the learner. A background assumption for most studies is that fluency is grounded in well-practiced lower level skills. A few examples of specific hypotheses are as follows:

1. Scheduling of practice hypothesis: The optimal scheduling of practice uses principles of memory consolidation to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.

2. Resonance hypothesis: The acquisition of knowledge components can be facilitated by evoking associations between divergent coding systems. (This hypothesis is similar or perhaps the same as Coordinative Learning hypothesis or co-training more specifically whereby "divergent coding systems" here may be the same as "multiple input sources" in co-training.)

3. Explicit instruction hypothesis: Explicit rule-based instruction facilitates the acquisition of specific skills, but only if the rules are simple.

4. Implicit instruction hypothesis: Implicit instruction or exposure serves to foster the development of initial familiarity with larger patterns.

5. Feedback hypothesis: Instruction that provides immediate, diagnostic feedback will be superior to instruction that does not.

6. Cue validity hypothesis: In both explicit and implicit instruction, cue validity plays a central role in determining ease of learning of knowledge components. See also feature validity.

7. Focusing hypothesis: Instruction that focuses the learner's attention on valid cues will lead to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.

8. Learning to learn hypothesis: The acquisition of certain skills in one context support future learning in other contexts. Such skills include problem analysis, help-seeking, or advance organizers.

9. Learner knowledge hypothesis: A learner's existing knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while blocking others.

10. Active learning hypothesis: Even in simple tasks, learning is more robust when the learner actively engages in the learning material.

Explanation

All knowledge involves content and procedures that are specific to a domain. An analysis of the domain reveals the complexities that a learner of a given background will face and the knowledge components that are part of the overall complexity. Accordingly, the organization of instruction is critical in allowing the learner to attend to the critical valid features of knowledge components and to integrated them in authentic performance. Acquiring valid features and strengthening their associations facilitates retrieval during subsequent assessment and instruction, leading to more robust learning. Additionally, robust learning is increased by the scheduling of learning events that promotes the long-term retention of the associations.

Descendents

Explicit instruction

A. Explicit vs Implicit. These projects typically compare a more explicit form of instruction with a more implicit form


B. Explicit attention manipulations studies typically vary features available to learner

C. Explicit instruction: Practice and Scheduling Typical studies control practice events and provide feedback

Knowledge accessibility

A. Background knowledge These projects directly study effects of learners' background knowledge

B. Availability of knowledge during learning

Active processing

These projects also include some addressing issues of learner control

Other

Annotated bibliography

Forthcoming