Julia Waldeyer, Tino Endres, Julian Roelle, Martine Baars, Alexander Renkl
{"title":"从工作实例中学习认知技能时,如何优化自我评估的准确性","authors":"Julia Waldeyer, Tino Endres, Julian Roelle, Martine Baars, Alexander Renkl","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09944-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The present study was designed to understand and optimize self-assessment accuracy in cognitive skill acquisition through example-based learning. We focused on the initial problem-solving phase, which follows after studying worked examples. At the end of this phase, it is important that learners are aware whether they have already understood the solution procedure. In Experiment 1, we tested whether self-assessment accuracy depended on whether learners were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation-based cues (ability to explain the problems’ solutions) or from performance-based cues (problem-solving performance) and on whether learners were informed about the to-be-monitored cue before or only after the problem-solving phase. We found that performance-based cues resulted in better self-assessment accuracy and that informing learners about the to-be-monitored cue before problem-solving enhanced self-assessment accuracy. In Experiment 2, we again tested whether self-assessment accuracy depended on whether learners were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation- or performance-based cues. We furthermore varied whether learners received instruction on criteria for interpreting the cues and whether learners were prompted to self-explain during problem-solving. When learners received no further instructional support, like in Experiment 1, performance-based cues yielded better self-assessment accuracy. Only when learners who were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation-based cues received both cue criteria instruction and prompts to engage in self-explaining during problem-solving did they show similar self-assessment accuracy as learners who utilized performance-based cues. Overall, we conclude that it is more efficient to prompt learners to monitor performance-based rather than explanation-based cues in the initial problem-solving phase.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"102 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Optimize Self-Assessment Accuracy in Cognitive Skill Acquisition When Learning from Worked Examples\",\"authors\":\"Julia Waldeyer, Tino Endres, Julian Roelle, Martine Baars, Alexander Renkl\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09944-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The present study was designed to understand and optimize self-assessment accuracy in cognitive skill acquisition through example-based learning. We focused on the initial problem-solving phase, which follows after studying worked examples. At the end of this phase, it is important that learners are aware whether they have already understood the solution procedure. In Experiment 1, we tested whether self-assessment accuracy depended on whether learners were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation-based cues (ability to explain the problems’ solutions) or from performance-based cues (problem-solving performance) and on whether learners were informed about the to-be-monitored cue before or only after the problem-solving phase. We found that performance-based cues resulted in better self-assessment accuracy and that informing learners about the to-be-monitored cue before problem-solving enhanced self-assessment accuracy. In Experiment 2, we again tested whether self-assessment accuracy depended on whether learners were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation- or performance-based cues. We furthermore varied whether learners received instruction on criteria for interpreting the cues and whether learners were prompted to self-explain during problem-solving. When learners received no further instructional support, like in Experiment 1, performance-based cues yielded better self-assessment accuracy. Only when learners who were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation-based cues received both cue criteria instruction and prompts to engage in self-explaining during problem-solving did they show similar self-assessment accuracy as learners who utilized performance-based cues. Overall, we conclude that it is more efficient to prompt learners to monitor performance-based rather than explanation-based cues in the initial problem-solving phase.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09944-4\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09944-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
How to Optimize Self-Assessment Accuracy in Cognitive Skill Acquisition When Learning from Worked Examples
The present study was designed to understand and optimize self-assessment accuracy in cognitive skill acquisition through example-based learning. We focused on the initial problem-solving phase, which follows after studying worked examples. At the end of this phase, it is important that learners are aware whether they have already understood the solution procedure. In Experiment 1, we tested whether self-assessment accuracy depended on whether learners were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation-based cues (ability to explain the problems’ solutions) or from performance-based cues (problem-solving performance) and on whether learners were informed about the to-be-monitored cue before or only after the problem-solving phase. We found that performance-based cues resulted in better self-assessment accuracy and that informing learners about the to-be-monitored cue before problem-solving enhanced self-assessment accuracy. In Experiment 2, we again tested whether self-assessment accuracy depended on whether learners were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation- or performance-based cues. We furthermore varied whether learners received instruction on criteria for interpreting the cues and whether learners were prompted to self-explain during problem-solving. When learners received no further instructional support, like in Experiment 1, performance-based cues yielded better self-assessment accuracy. Only when learners who were prompted to infer their self-assessments from explanation-based cues received both cue criteria instruction and prompts to engage in self-explaining during problem-solving did they show similar self-assessment accuracy as learners who utilized performance-based cues. Overall, we conclude that it is more efficient to prompt learners to monitor performance-based rather than explanation-based cues in the initial problem-solving phase.
期刊介绍:
Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.