Cooperative learning and elaborative interrogation: effects on children's learning

This experimental study examined the effects of cooperative learning and a question-answering strategy called elaborative interrogation ("Why is this fact true?") on the learning of factual information about familiar animals. Retention gains were compared across four study conditions: elaborative-interrogation-plus-cooperative learning, cooperative-learning, elaborative-interrogation, and reading-control. Sixth-grade students (n=68) were randomly assigned to the four conditions. All participants were given initial training and practice in cooperative learning procedures via three 45-minute sessions. After studying 36 facts about six animals, students' retention gains were measured via immediate free recall, immediate matched association, 30-day, and GO-day matched association tests. A priori comparisons were made to analyze the data. For immediate free recall and immediate matched association, significant differences were found between students in the three experimental conditions versus those in the control condition. Elaborative-interrogation and elaborativeinterrogation- plus-cooperative-learning also promoted longterm retention (measured via 30-day matched association) of the material relative to repetitive reading with elaborative-interrogation promoting the most durable gains (measured via GO-day matched association). The relationship between the types of elaborative responses and probability of subsequent retention was also examined. Even when students were unable to provide adequate answers to the why questions, learning was facilitated more so than repetitive reading. In general, generation of adequate elaborations was associated with greater probability of recall than was provision of inadequate answers. The findings of the study demonstrate that cooperative learning and the use of elaborative interrogation, both individually and collaboratively, are effective classroom procedures for facilitating children's learning of new information.

Elaborative interrogation as a learning technique for students with learning disabilities

This study examined whether or not students with learning disabilities could effectively use a question and answer strategy known as elaborative interrogation. This technique involved students answering why they thought facts based on familiar animal stories were true. Thirty students from a provincial demonstration high school (for students with learning disabilities) were assigned to one of two study conditions, (a) elaborative interrogation or (b) reading for understanding. Three students, one from the experimental condition and two from the control did not complete the study. Both conditions required that the students learn 36 facts concerning six familiar animals. Immediately following the study session the students completed a free-recall test, a matched association test and a questionnaire regarding their perceived difficulty of the animal stories. After 30 days a matched association test was completed. The oneway ANOVA, 2 x 2 split plot ANOVA and Tukey's Honestly Significant Test were used to determine significance. There was no significant difference in the two conditions for free recall retention. There were significant differences in the elaborative interrogation condition for the immediate matched association test and for the 30-day matched association test. The probability of the students' responses in the elaborative interrogation were measured to determine the effects of adequate responses on long-term retention. It was found that the adequate responses were more likely to promote retention than inadequate responses. In conclusion, long-term retention of factual information was significantly better in the elaborative interrogation condition in comparison to the reading for understanding control. For future research, the dependent measure, free recall should be given both verbally and in written format. In addition, extra time should be allowed for processing of the new information to occur.

Interrogation of Prisoner - Heaquarters 1st Division, American Expeditionary Forces, 27 May 1918

A prisoner interrogation report dated 27 May 1918. The report reads: "I. PRISONER X. 1st. Battalion, 272 Res. Rogt., 82d Res. 1. CIRCUMSTANCES OF CAPTURE; Captured, while attempting to raid our trenches, at point 1719 at about 7A.M. 2. INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM PRISONER (a) Between point 1814 and point 175242 the German trenches appear to be held by three companies, each numbering 3 platoons, each platoon numbering about 40 men. Each company has 4 light machine guns in the first lines, these machine guns distributed along the first trench (one of them in particular is located at bond in hostile trench at point 17215 and another at about 17245. Each company, furthermore, has one platoon (weak in numbers) in support in the ravine north of Cantigny. These platoons are in dugouts dug into the side of the hill approximately between points 28215 and 2223. Each of these support platoons has two light machine guns at its disposal. Company commanders dugout is at some point along the line of dugouts occupied by the support platoons. Another company commander's dugout (Co.3) is at point 1815 about 15 meters behind the German trench which runs along the edge of the town of Cantigny. There is a communication trench between the cemetery at 2018 and the front line at 18179. It is believed that there is a machine gun at point 17245 kept in a dugout dug under the road. The reserve battalion is believed to be at a fairly great distance from the front (near Bouillancourt). The prisoner, on the other hand, states that it may have been moved up."

Collaborative reflection : supporting one practitioner's development of online learning communities /

This is a study of one participant's reflective practice as she worked to develop online communities in a face-to-face science course. Her process of reflective practice was examined in order to address factors that influenced her learning path, and the benefits and challenges of collaborative action research. These research goals were pursued using a collaborative action research methodology, initially chosen for its close match with Schon's (1983) model of reflective practice. The participant's learning fit vnth Mezirow's (1991) model of transformative learning. She began with beliefs that matched her goals, and she demonstrated significant learning in three areas. First, she demonstrated instrumental learning around the constraints of workload and time, and achieving online learning community indicators. Second, she demonstrated communicative learning that helped her to see her own needs for feedback and communication more clearly, and how other process partners had been a support to her. Third, her emancipatory learning saw her revisiting and questioning her goals. It was through the reflective conversation during the planned meetings and the researcher's reframing and interrogation of that reflection that the participant was able to clarify and extend her thinking, and in so doing, critically reflect on her practice as she worked to develop online learning communities. In this way, the collaborative action research methodology was an embodiment of co-constructivism through collaborative reflective practice. Schon's (1983) model of reflective practice positions a lone practitioners moving through cycles ofplan-act-observe-reflect. The results fi"om this study suggest that collaboration is an important piece of the reflective practice model.