# Difference between revisions of "Understanding encoding inhibition, retrieval inhibition and destructive interference effects of errors during practice"

PhilPavlik (Talk | contribs) |
PhilPavlik (Talk | contribs) |
||

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||

Line 17: | Line 17: | ||

|- | |- | ||

! Number of participants | ! Number of participants | ||

− | | | + | | 80 (71 complete data) |

|- | |- | ||

! Total Participant Hours | ! Total Participant Hours | ||

− | | | + | | 100 |

|- | |- | ||

! Datashop? | ! Datashop? | ||

− | | | + | | No |

|} | |} | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Abstract === | ||

+ | The hypothesis is that errors during learning reduce performance through causing some sort of interference effect. Essentially the question is if you get item A wrong at time t, does that effect the chance of getting B wrong at time t+1. If such effects occur then the model of practice used for [[optimized scheduling]] will need to be revised to be more accurate. Such an improvement in accuracy should then translate to increased gains for students that have practice controlled by the model. | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Glossary === | ||

+ | * [[Encoding inhibition]] | ||

+ | * [[Retrieval inhibition]] | ||

+ | * [[Destructive interference]] | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Research question === | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Background and significance === | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Dependent variables === | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Independent variables === | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Hypothesis === | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Findings === | ||

+ | Results contradict the hypotheses. There were no specific effects of errors. This indicates that any effect of errors on reducing performance is more likely to be a non-specific effect, perhaps related to subejct motivation. | ||

+ | |||

+ | However, this experiment also manipualted the intertrial interval between drill trials and set it at either 0ms, 400ms, or 1200ms. This comparison was significant with average performance 61.0%, 62.6%, 64.6%. The result was significant despite the small effect size because of the extremely high within-subject power of this test. Unfortunately, it seems that this difference has a little practical significance because an extra 1.2 seconds per trial is unlikely to be worth a 3.6% increase in performance. | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Explanation === | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Descendants === | ||

+ | |||

+ | [[Optimizing the practice schedule]] | ||

+ | |||

+ | === Annotated bibliography === | ||

+ | Forthcoming | ||

+ | |||

+ | [[Category:Study]] |

## Latest revision as of 11:45, 3 December 2007

PIs | Pavlik, Koedinger |
---|---|

Faculty | Koedinger |

Postdocs | Pavlik |

Others with > 160 hours | n/a |

Learnlab | None (stimuli from Chinese learnlab) |

Number of participants | 80 (71 complete data) |

Total Participant Hours | 100 |

Datashop? | No |

## Contents

### Abstract

The hypothesis is that errors during learning reduce performance through causing some sort of interference effect. Essentially the question is if you get item A wrong at time t, does that effect the chance of getting B wrong at time t+1. If such effects occur then the model of practice used for optimized scheduling will need to be revised to be more accurate. Such an improvement in accuracy should then translate to increased gains for students that have practice controlled by the model.

### Glossary

### Research question

### Background and significance

### Dependent variables

### Independent variables

### Hypothesis

### Findings

Results contradict the hypotheses. There were no specific effects of errors. This indicates that any effect of errors on reducing performance is more likely to be a non-specific effect, perhaps related to subejct motivation.

However, this experiment also manipualted the intertrial interval between drill trials and set it at either 0ms, 400ms, or 1200ms. This comparison was significant with average performance 61.0%, 62.6%, 64.6%. The result was significant despite the small effect size because of the extremely high within-subject power of this test. Unfortunately, it seems that this difference has a little practical significance because an extra 1.2 seconds per trial is unlikely to be worth a 3.6% increase in performance.

### Explanation

### Descendants

Optimizing the practice schedule

### Annotated bibliography

Forthcoming