Content uploaded by Vera E. Woloshyn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vera E. Woloshyn on Oct 24, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Using elaborative interrogation to facilitate acquisition of factual information in cooperative learning settings: One good strategy deserves another
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether providing 6th-grade students with cooperative elaborative interrogation instruction would facilitate learning relative to providing them with cooperative learning, elaborative interrogation or reading-for-under-standing instructions. All students were presented with 36 factual statements about six animals. Cooperative elaborative interrogation students were instructed to work collaboratively and use their prior knowledge to state why each fact is true. Cooperative learning students were told to work collaboratively to learn target materials, while elaborative interrogation students were instructed to generate answers to the why questions on their own. Reading-control students were also on their own and instructed to read the animal facts for understanding. For immediate free recall and immediate associative matching tests, students in the experimental conditions outperformed those in the control condition. Cooperative elaborative interrogation and elaborative interrogation students maintained this advantage on a 30-day follow-up associative matching test, with elaborative interrogation students maintaining a significant advantage relative to reading controls on a 60-day associative matching follow-up. (There was also a strong trend favouring the cooperative elaborative interrogation condition on this 60-day measure.) The quality of the ‘why’ answer affected learning: Generating and listening to scientifically correct answers that used relevant prior knowledge to clarify target information was associated with better memory for facts than were other types of study responses. Students in this study learned the most when they were explicitly directed to activate relevant prior knowledge that supports and clarifies new information–processing that occurs following either small-group or individual elaborative interrogation instruction.
... Willoughby, Waller, Wood, and MacKinnon (1993), for instance, found the positive effect of elaborative interrogation on factual learning was still present when tested one month after study of the facts. Similarly, Kahl and Woloshyn (1994) found the advantage of elaborative interrogation group relative to reading controls was maintained in both 30-and 60-day follow-ups. Moreover, Woloshyn, Paivio and Pressley (1994) found elaborative interrogation effects to be present for up to 6 months after experimental sessions. ...
... Effects of elaborative interrogation on factual learning have been replicated under conditions that include variations in group sizes (e.g. Kahl & Woloshyn, 1994), individual versus collaborative learning contexts (e.g., Wood, Fler, & Willoughby, 1992), and use in special populations (e.g., Greene, Symons, & Richards, 1996). Researchers interested in examining the role of elaborative interrogation in higher-order learning (inference making, integration, coherence construction and problem-solving transfer), however, have found data patterns more complicated and mixed than findings on the learning of factual information. ...
Constructing quality argumentation to justify one’s own beliefs on a topic is important both for a thorough topic understanding and the development of argumentation writing skills. Also, one’s change or retention of topic beliefs should be based on quality argumentation, such that the belief can be considered rational. The purpose of this study was to test whether a cognitive strategy, elaborative interrogation, can improve the understanding of belief-inconsistent arguments on a controversial topic and then improve argumentation quality, as well as result in reflective belief change. Elaborative interrogation is a cognitive strategy which prompts individuals to answer “why” questions on the to-be-learned information. The present study also examined the role of individuals’ need for cognition in argumentation and its role in the relationship between using elaborative interrogation and quality of argumentation. This study used a mixed model pretest-posttest experimental design with random assignment to three experimental conditions (elaborative interrogation treatment condition, summary control condition, and no-processing control condition) to test three hypotheses on effects of elaborative interrogation and need for cognition. It was hypothesized individuals who used elaborative interrogation strategy when reading belief-inconsistent arguments would demonstrate improvement in quality of argumentation (Hypothesis 1) and reflective belief change (Hypothesis 2) after reading, whereas individuals who did not use this strategy would not. Argumentation quality and topic beliefs were measured before and after the experimental manipulation to examine pre-post changes, if any. It was also hypothesized high need for cognition would be associated with high quality of argumentation (Hypothesis 3). Based on the experimental results, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were confirmed. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. In the end, implications of the findings about each hypothesis are discussed, along with possible cognitive mechanisms underlying these findings. Contributions of this study also are summarized, highlighting the connection between the psychology literature on cognitive biases and the education literature on learning strategies. Finally, limitations of the study are discussed, followed by suggestions for future research. Advisor: Roger Bruning
... Three decades of research document that instructing students to use cooperative learning techniques improves both their academic and social performances (Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, & Vaasy, 1998;Blumfield, Marx, Soloway, & Krajcik, 1996;Kahl & Woloshyn, 1994;Shachar & Sharon, 1994;Sharon, 1994;Slavin, 1990Slavin, , 1995. It is also widely accepted that cooperative learning involves more than simply placing students into groups (Kagan, 1990;Natasi & Clements, 1991;Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 1994). ...
... Research also supports the importance of providing students with a "structure" or "format" for discussion while working cooperatively. For instance, Kahl and Woloshyn (1994) documented that students who received instruction in both question answering and cooperative learning prior to completing an academic activity demonstrated superior learning to students who received only question-answering or cooperative-learning instructions. Similarly, research carried out by Deering (1992, 1994) and Berg (1993) confirm that students' cooperative learning experiences can be enhanced when they are provided with specific training with respect to how to engage in effective cognitive processes. ...
In this study, we investigated whether providing 4 th and 5 th -grade students with explicit instruction in prerequisite cooperative-learning skills and techniques would enhance their academic performance and promote in them positive attitudes towards cooperative learning. Overall, students who received explicit training outperformed their peers on both the unit project and test and presented more favourable attitudes towards cooperative learning. The findings of this study support the use of explicitly instructing students about the components of cooperative learning prior to engaging in collaborative activities. Implications for teacher-education are discussed.
... Elaborative-interrogation effects have been consistently shown using either incidental or intentional learning instructions (although two studies have suggested stronger effects for incidental learning: Pressley et al., 1987;Woloshyn, Willoughby, Wood, & Pressley, 1990). Although most studies have involved individual learning, elaborative-interrogation effects have also been shown among students working in dyads or small groups (Kahl & Woloshyn, 1994;Woloshyn & Stockley, 1995). ...
... Results from the few studies that have used longer retention intervals are promising. Elaborative-interrogation effects have been shown after delays of 1-2 weeks (Scruggs et al., 1994;Woloshyn et al., 1994), 1-2 months (Kahl & Woloshyn, 1994;Willoughby, Waller, Wood, & MacKinnon, 1993;Woloshyn & Stockley, 1995), and even 75 and 180 days . In almost all of these studies, however, the delayed test was preceded by one or more criterion tests at shorter intervals, introducing the possibility that performance on the delayed test was contaminated by the practice provided by the preceding tests. ...
Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice.
To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension.
We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique? 2a. Learning conditions 2b. Student characteristics 2c. Materials 2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment
The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques.
To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students’ performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique.
Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students’ performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading).
Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research.
... Deep learning promotes integration and application of learnt material [17]. These strategies have been well-described for live teaching, and with some creativity can be adapted to boost learning effectiveness in the OLGT setting (Table 2) [18][19][20][21]. ...
Online large-group teaching (OLGT), employed to reach a large group of learners in separate physical locations, allows asynchronous learning and facilitates social distancing. While online large-groups can be a powerful and resource-lean means of health professions education, it has challenges and potential pitfalls that may affect the learning process and outcomes. Through a sociomateriality framework, this article describes strategies for effective online large-group teaching in health professions education in three key strands. Firstly, to optimize learning, OLGT sessions should match learning needs with appropriate OLGT platforms, incorporate strategies to sustain learner attention, and accommodate learners of different abilities. Secondly, to develop a learning culture, OLGT must not only focus on cognitive aspects of learning but also build a community of practice, nurture digital professionalism and professional identity. Thirdly, we discuss the avoidance of pitfalls such as cognitive overload of both tutors and learners, technical issues and security risks, mitigating inequities in access to online learning, and the use of program evaluation to plan for sustained improvements. We conclude with a case vignette that discusses the challenges of OLGT and the application of the above strategies in a teaching scenario.
... Elaborative processing can be fostered by having students question the material that they are studying; for instance, by asking them to produce their own explanations for why a fact is true, rather than just presenting them with a complete explanation (Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, & Ahmad, 1987). This elaboration technique is flexible enough to work in a variety of different learning situations (e.g., for students working alone or in groups, Kahl & Woloshyn, 1994). However, work on elaborative interrogation outside of the lab is just beginning (Smith, Holliday, and Austin, 2010) and we need stronger evidence from the classroom before we can confidently claim that this technique is helpful (Dunlosky et al., 2013). ...
... Elaborative processing can be fostered by having students question the material that they are studying; for instance, by asking them to produce their own explanations for why a fact is true, rather than just presenting them with a complete explanation (Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, & Ahmad, 1987). This elaboration technique is flexible enough to work in a variety of different learning situations (e.g., for students working alone or in groups, Kahl & Woloshyn, 1994). However, work on elaborative interrogation outside of the lab is just beginning (Smith, Holliday, and Austin, 2010) and we need stronger evidence from the classroom before we can confidently claim that this technique is helpful (Dunlosky et al., 2013). ...
Psychological scientists have made significant advances in applying cognitive research to education. Here, we provide a concise, teacher-ready overview of four evidence-based teaching strategies: (1) providing visual examples; (2) teaching students to explain and to do; (3) spaced practice; and (4) frequent quizzing. Converging evidence from controlled laboratory studies and classroom research support their use to enhance student learning. We briefly describe the science behind the strategies and provide examples for use in the classroom.
Purpose:
Despite advances in learning sciences that highlight the efficacy of elaborative interrogation, in which students explain and elaborate on concepts in their own words, assessment techniques in medical education have commonly employed multiple-choice questions (MCQs). Educators' reluctance to consider alternatives such as open-ended questions (OEQs) stems from practical advantages of MCQs and the lack of empirical data on the predictability of OEQs for performance on other high-stakes assessments. In this study, the authors compared the predictive value of pre-clerkship assessments using OEQs for the outcomes of clerkship examinations and UMSLE Step 1.
Method:
The authors compared outcomes of two assessment formats using multi-year performance data on pre-clerkship MCQ versus OEQ examinations for predicting students' subsequent performance on six clerkship examinations and USMLE Step 1. The authors conducted a regression analysis to compare the predictability of MCQs and OEQs by using clerkship exam scores and Step 1 scores as dependent variables and performance on MCQs and OEQs as predictors in the models.
Results:
Regression models with OEQs were consistently higher for predicting clerkship exam (NBME shelf-exam) scores except for one clerkship compared to models using MCQs. For Step-1, R-square using MCQs was higher with 59% of the variance explained compared to 46% with OEQs, but OEQ cohort scored significantly higher on Step 1.
Conclusions:
OEQ examinations predict performance on subsequent high stakes MCQ examinations. Given the predictive value and closer alignment with scientific principles of effective learning, OEQ examinations are an examination format worthy of consideration in pre-clerkship medical education programs.
Emphasizing the developmental need for positive peer relationships, in this study the authors tested a social-contextual view of the mechanisms and processes by which early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships may be promoted simultaneously. Meta-analysis was used to review 148 independent studies comparing the relative effectiveness of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures in promoting early adolescents' achievement and positive peer relationships. These studies represented over 8 decades of research on over 17,000 early adolescents from 11 countries and 4 multinational samples. As predicted by social interdependence theory, results indicate that higher achievement and more positive peer relationships were associated with cooperative rather than competitive or individualistic goal structures. Also as predicted, results show that cooperative goal structures were associated with a positive relation between achievement and positive peer relationships. Implications for theory and application are discussed.
A meta-analytic review of group comparison design studies evaluating peer-assisted learning (PAL) interventions with elementary school students produced positive effect sizes (ESs) indicating increases in achievement (unweighted mean ES = 0.59, SD = 0.90; weighted ES, d = 0.33, p < .0001, 95% confidence interval = 0.29-0.37). PAL interventions were most effective with younger, urban, low-income, and minority students. Interventions that used interdependent reward contingencies, ipsative evaluation procedures, and provided students with more autonomy had higher ESs. Adequate descriptive information was missing in many studies. Researchers are encouraged to develop PAL interventions in collaboration with practitioners to maximize those interventions' use and effectiveness and to include more detailed information about students, schools, and intervention components in their reports. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
In this article, we illustrate the theoretical and empirical basis of cognitive strategy instruction and compare this basis to major principles of constructivism. In particular, we address the recent argument that cognitive strategy instruction precludes active construction of knowledge; and we discuss the nature of good cognitive strategy instruction and its contribution to the education of students with learning problems. Illustrations of self-instructional and other cognitive strategy instruction models are presented in the areas of reading comprehension, written language, and memory. Other issues are discussed, including maintenance, generalization, and teacher implementation of strategy instructional approaches. We conclude that both, teachers and students are constructing important new knowledge during strategy instruction, and that cognitive strategy instruction is a viable and exciting direction in special education research and practice.
The utilization of cognitive psychological theory and findings from research to inform the design of instruction is illustrated in this paper. Physics learning studies demonstrate that students' pre‐instructional world knowledge is often logically antagonistic to the principles of Newtonian mechanics taught in introductory physics. Under these conditions psychological theory predicts that learning will be inhibited, a prediction consistent with both the experiences of physics teachers and the results of empirical investigation. Informed by cognitive research on problem solving, semantic memory, and knowledge acquisition, instruction has been designed to encourage the reconciliation of world knowledge and physics content among beginning physics students.
Debates about the relative roles of strategies and the nonstrategic knowledge base in mediating proficient cognition have raged during this decade (e.g., Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Schneider & Pressley, 1989, especially chapters 3 and 4); these controversies are detailed in several chapters of this volume. The position assumed in this chapter is that the simple effects of strategies and nonstrategic prior knowledge alone are often inadequate to produce proficient performance. We believe that strategies and prior knowledge often complement each other to produce competent performance and specifically that efficient cognition can be engineered by promoting use of strategies and prior knowledge. Evidence produced in our laboratory at the University of Western Ontario substantiates that executing strategies to access relevant prior knowledge can dramatically affect learning. (See Pressley et al. [1987] and Schneider & Pressley [1989, especially chapters 3, 4, 6, & 7] for consideration of other interactive relations between strategies and prior knowledge.)
Four lines of evidence, proceeding from correlational outcomes to findings from true experiments, are reviewed as preliminary support for the hypothesis that learning is increased when students attempt to construct explanatory answers to questions about to-be-learned content (i.e., answers requiring inferential transformation of questioned material). The lines of evidence are as follows: (a) When students generate explanatory answers to questions as part of learning in a group, better learning occurs for students doing the explaining. (b) Manipulations that increase student generation of explanations to questions during group interaction increase learning. (e) Attempting: to predict the content of upcoming text by responding to prequestions (including explanatory justifications for predicted answers) increases learning of prequestioned content. (d) Attempting to explain the significance of to-be-learned facts increases learning of those facts. Requiring learners to construct explanatory answers about new content probably improves learning because students do not spontaneously attempt to explain to themselves the significance of to-be-learned content. We hypothesize that attempting an explanation induces the learner to relate the new material to prior knowledge. Potential directions for future research are emphasized.
When two people study cooperatively, their expectations, roles, and prior exposure to the information to be discussed can potentially affect retention. In addition, a cooperative experience has the potential to facilitate subsequent individual study. Four cooperativestudy scripts were employed to test their effects on initial recall and on transfer to an individual task. As partners, students read and studied two passages. In Group 1, partners each read one passage only and then taught the material to each other. They did not expect to be able to read their partner's passage, although they were later given time to do so. Group 2 was identical to Group 1, except that partners in Group 2 expected the extra reading time. In Group 3, partners cooperated in reading both passages by alternating summarizer and listener roles four times within each passage. In Group 4, partners played summarizer and listener roles only once, at the end of each passage. All participants later studied a third passage individually (the trbsfer task). Recall tests revealed that those using a teaching script (Groups 1 and 2) outperformed those using a cooperative learning script (Groups 3 and 4) on the initial task but not on the transfer task. Furthermore, playing a teacher role significantly improved recall. Frequency of summarization and expectancy manipulations were not found to be significant factors.
Strategies enhance learning. However, children and adults often fail to invoke strategic behaviors. In this article, five reasons for failure to use strategies are discussed: (a) poor cognitive monitoring, (b) primitive routines that yield a product, (c) a meager knowledge base, (d) attributions and classroom goals that do not support strategy use, and (e) minimal transfer. I argue that use and failure to use strategies are not fruitfully studied without consideration of setting. A theory of settings reminds us that, when context varies, the nature of strategic activity often varies as well.
Strategies enhance learning. However, children and adults often fail to invoke strategic behaviors. In this article, five reasons for failure to use strategies are discussed: (a) poor cognitive monitoring, (b) primitive routines that yield a product, (c) a meager knowledge base, (d) attributions and classroom goals that do not support strategy use, and (e) minimal transfer. I argue that use and failure to use strategies are not fruitfully studied without consideration of setting. A theory of settings reminds us that, when context varies, the nature of strategic activity often varies as well.