Predicting Learning: Understanding the Role of Executive Functions in Children's Belief Revision Using Bayesian Models.

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Topics in Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1111/tops.12749
Joseph A Colantonio, Igor Bascandziev, Maria Theobald, Garvin Brod, Elizabeth Bonawitz
{"title":"Predicting Learning: Understanding the Role of Executive Functions in Children's Belief Revision Using Bayesian Models.","authors":"Joseph A Colantonio, Igor Bascandziev, Maria Theobald, Garvin Brod, Elizabeth Bonawitz","doi":"10.1111/tops.12749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent studies suggest that learners who are asked to predict the outcome of an event learn more than learners who are asked to evaluate it retrospectively or not at all. One possible explanation for this \"prediction boost\" is that it helps learners engage metacognitive reasoning skills that may not be spontaneously leveraged, especially for individuals with still-developing executive functions. In this paper, we combined multiple analytic approaches to investigate the potential role of executive functions in elementary school-aged children's science learning. We performed an experiment that investigates children's science learning during a water displacement task where a \"prediction boost\" had previously been observed-children either made an explicit prediction or evaluated an event post hoc (i.e., postdiction). We then considered the relation of executive function measures and learning, which were collected following the main experiment. Via mixed effects regression models, we found that stronger executive function skills (i.e., stronger inhibition and switching scores) were associated with higher accuracy in Postdiction but not in the Prediction Condition. Using a theory-based Bayesian model, we simulated children's individual performance on the learning task (capturing \"belief flexibility\"), and compared this \"flexibility\" to the other measures to understand the relationship between belief revision, executive function, and prediction. Children in the Prediction Condition showed near-ceiling \"belief flexibility\" scores, which were significantly higher than among children in the Postdiction Condition. We also found a significant correlation between children's executive function measures to our \"belief flexibility\" parameter, but only for children in the Postdiction Condition. These results indicate that when children provided responses post hoc, they may have required stronger executive function capacities to navigate the learning task. Additionally, these results suggest that the \"prediction boost\" in children's science learning could be explained by increased metacognitive flexibility in the belief revision process.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12749","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that learners who are asked to predict the outcome of an event learn more than learners who are asked to evaluate it retrospectively or not at all. One possible explanation for this "prediction boost" is that it helps learners engage metacognitive reasoning skills that may not be spontaneously leveraged, especially for individuals with still-developing executive functions. In this paper, we combined multiple analytic approaches to investigate the potential role of executive functions in elementary school-aged children's science learning. We performed an experiment that investigates children's science learning during a water displacement task where a "prediction boost" had previously been observed-children either made an explicit prediction or evaluated an event post hoc (i.e., postdiction). We then considered the relation of executive function measures and learning, which were collected following the main experiment. Via mixed effects regression models, we found that stronger executive function skills (i.e., stronger inhibition and switching scores) were associated with higher accuracy in Postdiction but not in the Prediction Condition. Using a theory-based Bayesian model, we simulated children's individual performance on the learning task (capturing "belief flexibility"), and compared this "flexibility" to the other measures to understand the relationship between belief revision, executive function, and prediction. Children in the Prediction Condition showed near-ceiling "belief flexibility" scores, which were significantly higher than among children in the Postdiction Condition. We also found a significant correlation between children's executive function measures to our "belief flexibility" parameter, but only for children in the Postdiction Condition. These results indicate that when children provided responses post hoc, they may have required stronger executive function capacities to navigate the learning task. Additionally, these results suggest that the "prediction boost" in children's science learning could be explained by increased metacognitive flexibility in the belief revision process.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测学习:利用贝叶斯模型了解执行功能在儿童信念修正中的作用。
最近的研究表明,要求学习者预测事件结果的学习者,比要求学习者回顾性评价或根本不评价事件结果的学习者学习得更多。对这种 "预测促进 "的一种可能解释是,它有助于学习者运用元认知推理技能,而这些技能可能不会自发地被利用,特别是对于执行功能仍在发展的个体而言。在本文中,我们结合多种分析方法,研究了执行功能在小学生科学学习中的潜在作用。我们进行了一项实验,调查了儿童在水上位移任务中的科学学习情况,在这项任务中,我们观察到了 "预测促进"--儿童要么做出了明确的预测,要么对事件进行了事后评估(即事后预测)。然后,我们考虑了执行功能测量与学习的关系,这些测量是在主要实验之后收集的。通过混合效应回归模型,我们发现较强的执行功能技能(即较强的抑制和转换得分)与较高的预测后准确率相关,但与预测条件无关。我们使用基于理论的贝叶斯模型模拟了儿童在学习任务中的个人表现(捕捉 "信念灵活性"),并将这种 "灵活性 "与其他测量指标进行比较,以了解信念修正、执行功能和预测之间的关系。预测条件下的儿童显示出接近上限的 "信念灵活性 "得分,明显高于预测后条件下的儿童。我们还发现,儿童的执行功能测量结果与 "信念灵活性 "参数之间存在明显的相关性,但这只针对预测后状态的儿童。这些结果表明,当儿童在事后做出反应时,他们可能需要更强的执行功能来完成学习任务。此外,这些结果表明,儿童科学学习中的 "预测促进 "可以用信念修正过程中元认知灵活性的提高来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
期刊最新文献
Play in Cognitive Development: From Rational Constructivism to Predictive Processing. Validating Silent Gesture Lab Studies in a Naturally Emerging Sign Language: How Order is Used to Describe Intensional Versus Extensional Events in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Independent Effects of Age, Education, Verbal Working Memory, Motor Speed of Processing, Locality, and Morphosyntactic Category on Verb-Related Morphosyntactic Production: Evidence From Healthy Aging. Predicting Learning: Understanding the Role of Executive Functions in Children's Belief Revision Using Bayesian Models. Comprehension of English for-adverbials: The Nature of Lexical Meanings and the Neurocognitive Architecture of Language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1