Peer-Assisted Learning Is More Effective at Higher Task Complexity and Difficulty.

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Topics in Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-10 DOI:10.1111/tops.12708
Jarean Carson, Ion Juvina, Kevin O'Neill, Chi Hang Wong, Preston Menke, Kristin M Kindell, Erin Harmon
{"title":"Peer-Assisted Learning Is More Effective at Higher Task Complexity and Difficulty.","authors":"Jarean Carson, Ion Juvina, Kevin O'Neill, Chi Hang Wong, Preston Menke, Kristin M Kindell, Erin Harmon","doi":"10.1111/tops.12708","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper presents two studies in which a peer-assisted learning condition was compared to an individual learning condition. The first study used the paired-associates learning task and the second study used an incrementally more complex task-the remote associate test. Participants in the peer-assisted learning condition worked in groups of four. They had to solve a given problem individually and give a first answer before being able to request to see their peers' solutions; then, a second answer was issued. After six sessions of peer-assisted practice, a final individual test was administered. Peer interaction was found to benefit learning in both studies but the benefit transferred to the final test only in the second study. Fine-grained behavioral analyses and computational modeling suggested that the benefits of peer interaction were (partially) offset by its costs, particularly increased cognitive load and error exposure. Overall, the superiority of peer-assisted learning over individual learning was more pronounced in the more complex task and for the more difficult problems in that task.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":"129-153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","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.12708","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents two studies in which a peer-assisted learning condition was compared to an individual learning condition. The first study used the paired-associates learning task and the second study used an incrementally more complex task-the remote associate test. Participants in the peer-assisted learning condition worked in groups of four. They had to solve a given problem individually and give a first answer before being able to request to see their peers' solutions; then, a second answer was issued. After six sessions of peer-assisted practice, a final individual test was administered. Peer interaction was found to benefit learning in both studies but the benefit transferred to the final test only in the second study. Fine-grained behavioral analyses and computational modeling suggested that the benefits of peer interaction were (partially) offset by its costs, particularly increased cognitive load and error exposure. Overall, the superiority of peer-assisted learning over individual learning was more pronounced in the more complex task and for the more difficult problems in that task.

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
同伴辅助学习在任务复杂度和难度较高的情况下更有效。
本文介绍了两项研究,将同伴辅助学习条件与个人学习条件进行了比较。第一项研究使用配对联想学习任务,第二项研究使用递增的更复杂的任务——远程联想测试。同伴辅助学习条件下的参与者以四人为一组进行工作。他们必须单独解决给定的问题,并给出第一个答案,然后才能要求查看同行的解决方案;然后,又给出了第二个答案。经过六次同伴辅助练习后,进行了最后一次个人测试。两项研究都发现同伴互动有利于学习,但只有在第二项研究中,这种益处才转移到最终测试中。细粒度的行为分析和计算建模表明,同伴互动的好处(部分)被其成本所抵消,尤其是增加的认知负荷和错误暴露。总体而言,同伴辅助学习相对于个人学习的优势在更复杂的任务和该任务中更困难的问题中更为明显。
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
Distributional Semantics: Meaning Through Culture and Interaction. Metaphors and the Invention of Writing. Moral Association Graph: A Cognitive Model for Automated Moral Inference. Processing Fluency and Predictive Processing: How the Predictive Mind Becomes Aware of its Cognitive Limitations. Language Production and Prediction in a Parallel Activation Model.
×
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