Completion strategy or emphasis manipulation? Task support for teaching information problem solving

While most students seem to solve information problems effortlessly, research shows that the cognitive skills for effective information problem solving are often underdeveloped. Students manage to find information and formulate solutions, but the quality of their process and product is questionable. It is therefore important to develop instruction for fostering these skills. In this research, a 2-h online intervention was presented to first-year university students with the goal to improve their information problem solving skills while investigating effects of different types of built-in task support. A training design containing completion tasks was compared to a design using emphasis manipulation. A third variant of the training combined both approaches. In two experiments, these conditions were compared to a control condition receiving conventional tasks without built-in task support. Results of both experiments show that students' information problem solving skills are underdeveloped, which underlines the necessity for formal training. While the intervention improved students’ skills, no differences were found between conditions. The authors hypothesize that the effective presentation of supportive information in the form of a modeling example at the start of the training caused a strong learning effect, which masked effects of task support. Limitations and directions for future research are presented.

Testing After Worked Example Study Does Not Enhance Delayed Problem-Solving Performance Compared to Restudy

Four experiments investigated whether the testing effect also applies to the acquisition of problem-solving skills from worked examples. Experiment 1 (n=120) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of isomorphic problem solving or example recall on final test performance, which consisted of isomorphic problem solving, compared to continued study of isomorphic examples. Experiment 2 (n=124) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of identical problem solving compared to restudying an identical example. Interestingly, participants who took both an immediate and a delayed final test outperformed those taking only a delayed test. This finding suggested that testing might become beneficial for retention but only after a certain level of schema acquisition has taken place through restudying several examples. However, experiment 2 had no control condition restudying examples instead of taking the immediate test. Experiment 3 (n=129) included such a restudy condition, and there was no evidence that testing after studying four examples was more effective for final delayed test performance than restudying, regardless of whether restudied/tested problems were isomorphic or identical. Experiment 4 (n=75) used a similar design as experiment 3 (i.e., testing/restudy after four examples), but with examples on a different topic and with a different participant population. Again, no evidence of a testing effect was found. Thus, across four experiments, with different types of initial tests, different problem-solving domains, and different participant populations, we found no evidence that testing enhanced delayed test performance compared to restudy. These findings suggest that the testing effect might not apply to acquiring problem-solving skills from worked examples

Learning for self-regulation: Improving instructional benefits for pupils, teachers, parents, schools, and society at large

Compulsory education laws oblige primary and secondary schools to give each pupil positive encouragement in, for example, social, emotional, cognitive, creative, and ethical respects. This is a fairly smooth process for most pupils, but it is not as easy to achieve with others. A pattern of pupil, home or family, and school variables turns out to be responsible for a long-term process that may lead to a pupil’s dropping out of education. A systemic approach will do much to introduce more clarity into the diagnosis, potential reduction and possible prevention of some persistent educational problems that express themselves in related phenomena, for example low school motivation and achievement; forced underachievement of high ability pupils; concentration of bullying and violent behaviour in and around some types of classes and schools; and drop-out percentages that are relatively constant across time. Such problems have a negative effect on pupils, teachers, parents, schools, and society alike. In this address, I would therefore like to clarify some of the systemic causes and processes that we have identified between specific educational and pupil characteristics. Both theory and practice can assist in developing, implementing, and checking better learning methods and coaching procedures, particularly for pupils at risk. This development approach will take time and require co-ordination, but it will result in much better processes and outcomes than we are used to. First, I will diagnose some systemic aspects of education that do not seem to optimise the learning processes and school careers of some types of pupils in particular. Second, I will specify cognitive, social, motivational, and self-regulative aspects of learning tasks and relate corresponding learning processes to relevant instructional and wider educational contexts. I will elaborate these theoretical notions into an educational design with systemic instructional guidelines and multilevel procedures that may improve learning processes for different types of pupils. Internet-based Information and Communication Technology, or ICT, also plays a major role here. Third, I will report on concrete developments made in prototype research and trials. The development process concerns ICT-based differentiation of learning materials and procedures, and ICT-based strategies to improve pupil development and learning. Fourth, I will focus on the experience gained in primary and secondary educational practice with respect to implementation. We can learn much from such practical experience, in particular about the conditions for developing and implementing the necessary changes in and around schools. Finally, I will propose future research. As I hope to make clear, theory-based development and implementation research can join forces with systemic innovation and differentiated assessment in educational practice, to pave the way for optimal “learning for self-regulation” for pupils, teachers, parents, schools, and society at large.