BookPDF Available

Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

During the past twenty-five years, researchers have made impressive advances in pinpointing effective learning strategies (i.e., activities the learner engages in during learning that are intended to improve learning). In Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies That Promote Understanding, Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer share eight evidence-based learning strategies that promote understanding: summarizing, mapping, drawing, imagining, self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and enacting. Each chapter describes and exemplifies a learning strategy, examines the underlying cognitive theory, evaluates strategy effectiveness by analyzing the latest research, pinpoints boundary conditions, and explores practical implications and future directions. Each learning strategy targets generative learning, in which learners actively make sense out of the material so they can apply their learning to new situations. This concise, accessible introduction to learning strategies will benefit students, researchers, and practitioners in educational psychology, as well as general readers interested in the important twenty-first-century skill of regulating one's own learning.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Summary
is book is based on the idea that meaningful learning is a generative
activity in which the learner actively seeks to make sense of the presented
material. e study of generative learning has implications for the sci-
ence of learning, the science of assessment, and the science of instruc-
tion. Concerning the science of learning, generative learning takes place
when the learner engages in appropriate cognitive processing during
learning, including attending to the relevant information (i.e., selecting),
mentally organizing incoming information into a coherent cognitive
structure (i.e., organizing), and integrating the cognitive structures with
each other and with relevant prior knowledge activated from long-term
memory (i.e., integrating). Concerning the science of assessment, gener-
ative learning is demonstrated when students who learn with generative
learning strategies or generative instructional methods perform better
on transfer tests than students who learn from standard instruction.
Concerning the science of instruction, generative learning can be
p r o m o t e d t h r o u g h instructional methods aimed at designing instruc-
tion that primes appropriate cognitive processing during learning or
through learning strategies a i m e d a t t e a c h i n g s t u d e n t s h o w a n d w h e n t o
engage in activities that require appropriate cognitive processing during
learning. is book focuses on eight generative learning strategies that
have been shown to improve student learning: summarizing, mapping,
drawing, imagining, self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and enacting.
e concept of generative learning has roots in the work of Wittrock and
others, continues as a dominant view of learning today, and shows prom-
ise of further development in the future.
1
Introduction to Learning as a Generative
Activity
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Learning as a Generative Activity
2
Chapter Outline
1. Getting Started
2. What Is Generative Learning?
3. Implications of Generative Learning for the Science of Learning
4. Implications of Generative eory for the Science of Assessment
5. Implications of Generative eory for the Science of Instruction
6. What Is the Past and Future of Generative Learning?
Getting Started
What Can You Do?
S u p p o s e y o u s i t d o w n t o r e a d a b o o k c h a p t e r, y o u a t t e n d a P o w e r P o i n t l e c -
ture, or you view an online multimedia presentation. You are pro cient at
reading and listening, so you can easily understand all the words. Yet, when
you are nished with the lesson, you are not able to apply what you have
learned to new situations or to use the material to solve problems. What
could you have done to help you understand the material rather than sim-
ply to process every word?
is book is concerned with exploring what the research evidence has
to say about answering this seemingly simple question. Our proposed
solution is that you could engage in generative learning strategies during
learning – activities that are intended to prime appropriate cognitive pro-
cessing during learning (such as paying attention to the relevant infor-
mation, mentally organizing it, and integrating it with your relevant prior
knowledge).
For example, you could try to summarize the material in your own words
(perhaps by taking summary notes), you could create a spatial summary of
the material as a matrix or network, you could make a drawing that depicts
the main ideas in the text, or you could just imagine a drawing. ese are all
ways of translating the lesson into another form of representation.
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , y o u c o u l d g i v e y o u r s e l f a p r a c t i c e t e s t o n t h e m a t e r i a l ( s u c h
as trying to answer some questions), you could explain the material aloud
to yourself during learning, you could explain the material to someone else,
or you could use concrete objects to act out the material in the lesson. ese
are all ways of elaborating on the material.
Exploring each of these eight kinds of generative learning strategies is
the primary goal of this book.
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Introduction 3
Try is
L e t s b e g i n w i t h a b r i e f a s s e s s m e n t o f y o u r v i e w o f l e a r n i n g . M o s t p e o p l e
have an implicit theory of learning, because we all have spent so much time
in school. Please place a check mark next to each item that corresponds
with your conception of how learning works.
Learning works by engaging in hands-on activity, so it is better for
you to learn by doing rather than by being told.
L e a r n i n g w o r k s b y b u i l d i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s , s o y o u s h o u l d p r a c t i c e
giving the right response over and over.
L e a r n i n g w o r k s b y a d d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o y o u r m e m o r y , s o y o u
should work hard to nd and memorize new material.
L e a r n i n g o c c u r s w h e n y o u t r y t o m a k e s e n s e o f m a t e r i a l y o u e n c o u n -
ter, so you should strive to relate new information with your prior
knowledge.
L e a r n i n g i s a s o c i a l a c t i v i t y , s o i t i s b e t t e r f o r y o u t o l e a r n w i t h o t h e r s
in a group than to learn alone.
If you checked the fourth item, your view of learning corresponds to the
conception of generative learning proposed in this book – which simply
shows you have the good common sense to agree with us. As you will see
in this book, the learner’s cognitive processing during learning is a major
contributor to what is learned.
I f y o u a r e l i k e m o s t p e o p l e , y o u m a d e s o m e o t h e r c h e c k m a r k s . e rst
item is appealing, but according to the generative learning view, it focuses
too much on behavioral activity and not enough on cognitive activity.
Doing things does not necessarily cause learning, but thinking about what
you are doing does cause learning. us, the rst item should be modi ed
to say, “Learning works by engaging in appropriate cognitive activity during
learning.
e second item also seems appealing and is consistent with the rst the-
ory of learning to emerge in psychology and education more than a century
ago – which can be called associative learning . However, according to the
generative learning view, learning by forming associations applies to a nar-
row band of learning situations – such as learning to give the right response
for a given stimulus. Associative learning is not wrong, but it is just too lim-
ited. It does not deal with learning by understanding, which allows people
to take what they have learned and apply it in new situations.
e third item may sound familiar because it seems consistent with some
common educational practices such as asking students to attend hours of
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Learning as a Generative Activity
4
lectures or read hundreds of textbook pages. What is wrong with this item,
however, is that humans do not work like computers. We do not simply take
in what was presented and put it into our memory. Instead, we interpret it,
we reorganize it, and we relate to what we already know, thereby changing
what is presented from information (which is objective) into knowledge
(which is personal).
F i n a l l y , t h e l a s t i t e m i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a n e m e r g i n g v i s i o n o f l e a r n -
ing based on the idea that generative learning occurs best within group
c o n t e x t s t h a t i s , w h e n y o u c a n i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r s d u r i n g t h e l e a r n -
ing process. However, research on group learning tends to show that all
group interactions are not equally helpful in promoting meaningful learn-
ing. us, generative learning theory indicated by the fourth item can
be expanded to include social activities that promote appropriate cogni-
tive processing during learning and to exclude social activities that do not.
Overall, the point of this little exercise is to help you understand how the
generative learning view is di erent from what might seem like some com-
mon-sense views of learning.
Turning Passive Learning Situations into Active
Learning Situations
S u p p o s e t h a t y o u a r e a b o u t t o r e a d a t e x t b o o k c h a p t e r o n t h e h i s t o r y o f
the U.S. postal service, attend a PowerPoint lecture on how a virus causes a
cold, or view an online narrated animation explaining how lightning storms
develop. Each of these activities reading a book, attending a lecture, or
viewing an online presentation – seems like a passive experience destined
to foster suboptimal learning.
Yo u m i g h t b e s u r p r i s e d t o l e a r n t h a t t h e r e a r e e ective techniques that
can be used to turn such seemingly passive learning situations into active
learning experiences that produce meaningful learning. is book presents
eight ways to help people learn based on a generative theory of learning –
the idea that meaningful learning occurs when people engage in generative
processing during learning. In particular, each of the techniques seeks to
encourage learners to relate the represented material to what they already
know, or reorganize the presented material into a coherent structure, or
distinguish what is important from what is not. In this chapter, we describe
what we mean by generative learning; explain how generative learning con-
tributes to the science of learning, the science of assessment, and the sci-
ence of instruction; and end with a brief review of the history of scholarship
on generative learning.
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Introduction 5
What Is generative Learning?
L e a r n i n g i s a g e n e r a t i v e a c t i v i t y . is statement embodies a vision of
learning in which learners actively try to make sense of the instructional
material presented to them. ey accomplish this goal by actively engag-
ing in generative processing during learning, including paying attention
to the relevant aspects of incoming material (which we call selecting ),
organizing it into a coherent cognitive structure in working memory
(which we call organizing ), and integrating cognitive structures with rel-
evant prior knowledge activated from long-term memory (which we call
integrating ).
A s y o u c a n s e e , t h e l e a r n e r s c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e i n
generative learning. Learning is not simply a process of adding information
to memory, as in a computer. Instead, learning depends both on what is
presented and on the learner’s cognitive processing during learning.
Similarly, the learner’s prior knowledge plays a central role in genera-
tive learning. Prior knowledge includes schemas, categories, models, and
principles that can help guide what the learner selects for further process-
ing, how the learner organizes it, and how the learner links it with other
structurally similar knowledge. us, learning depends both on what the
instructor presents and what the learner brings to the learning situation.
is is why two learners can be exposed to the same learning scenario such
as attending the same lecture or viewing the same online presentation – and
come away with quite di erent learning outcomes.
As summarized in Table 1.1 , not all forms of learning are generative
learning – that is, learning by understanding, which results in meaningful
learning outcomes. Another common form of learning is rote learning
that is, learning by memorizing, which results in rote learning outcomes.
Finally, there is also associative learning t h a t i s , l e a r n i n g b y s t r e n g t h e n -
ing associations, which results in rapid responses to well-learned stimuli.
Although there are other forms of learning, in this book, we focus on
Table 1.1. ree kinds of learning situations
Learning situation What happens What is enabled
Generative learning Making sense of information Solving new problems
Rote learning Memorizing information Remembering what was
presented
Associative learning Building associations Giving a response for a
stimulus
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Learning as a Generative Activity
6
generative learning. In particular, we focus on ways to promote generative
learning because we are interested in helping students transfer what they
have learned to new situations.
O u r r a t i o n a l e f o r f o c u s i n g o n g e n e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g i s t h a t t h e t w e n t y - rst
century needs problem solvers and sense makers (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012 ) .
e need for rote learning and associative learning is somewhat reduced
because we now have access to databases that can store vast amounts of
information or give answers to simple questions. e world needs people
who can select, interpret, and use information to solve new problems they
have not encountered before. In short, today’s focus on twenty- rst-century
skills such as creative problem solving, critical thinking, adaptability, com-
plex communication, and constructing evidence-based arguments can be
seen as a call for generative learning that helps people develop “transferable
knowledge and skills” (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012 , p. 69).
Implications of Generative Learning
for the Science of Learning
e science of learning is the scienti c study of how people learn (Mayer,
2011 ) . is section examines the cognitive processes, memory stores, and
knowledge representations involved in generative learning, as well as the
motivational and metacognitive processes that support them.
Cognitive Processes in Generative Learning
H o w d o e s l e a r n i n g w o r k ? e basic premise of generative learning theories
is that learning occurs when learners apply appropriate cognitive processes
to incoming information. Figure 1.1 s u m m a r i z e s t h e SOI model of gen-
erative learning, w h i c h f o c u s e s o n t h r e e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n d i c a t e d b y
arrows – selecting, organizing, and integrating. As indicated by the arrow
from instruction t o sensory memory, i n s t r u c t i o n f r o m t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d
enters your cognitive system through your eyes and ears (or other senses)
and is brie y held in your sensory memory for a fraction of a second. If
you pay attention to some of this eeting information in sensory memory,
you transfer the attended material to working memory for further pro-
cessing (as indicated by the selecting a r r o w ) . I n w o r k i n g m e m o r y , y o u c a n
mentally reorganize the selected material into coherent mental representa-
tions (as indicated by the organizing a r r o w ) . Y o u c a n a l s o a c t i v a t e r e l e v a n t
prior knowledge from long-term memory and integrate it with incom-
ing material in working memory (as indicated by the integrating a r r o w ) .
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Introduction 7
e knowledge you build in working memory can be stored in long-term
memory for future use (as indicated by the arrow from working memory
to long-term memory ) a n d c a n b e u s e d t o s o l v e p r o b l e m s y o u e n c o u n t e r
in the outside world (as indicated by the arrow from working memory t o
performance ) .
A n i m p o r t a n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e S O I m o d e l i s t h a t t h e
instructor’s job is not only to present information but also to make sure his
or her students engage in appropriate processing during learning – including
selecting, organizing, and integrating. Similarly, the learners job is not to
memorize the information exactly as it is presented but to engage in appro-
priate cognitive processing during learning. Table 1.2 s u m m a r i z e s t h e t h r e e
cognitive processes in the SOI model of generative learning, which has been
continuously adapted to the study of learning strategies over the past thirty
SENSORY
MEMORY
WORKING
MEMORY
LONG-TERM
MEMORY
organizing
integrating
selecting
Instruction Performance
figure 1.1. e SOI Model of Generative Learning.
Table 1.2. ree cognitive processes in generative learning
Cognitive process Description Arrow in SOI Model
Selecting Attending to relevant material Arrow from sensory memory
to working memory
Organizing Mentally organizing incoming
material into a coherent
cognitive structure
Arrow from working
memory back to working
memory
Integrating Connecting cognitive structures
with each other and with
relevant material activated
from long-term memory
Arrow from long-tem
memory to working
memor y
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Learning as a Generative Activity
8
Table 1.3. ree memory stores in generative learning
Memory store Description Capacity Duration
Sensory memory Holds visual images and
sounds of what was presented
High Very short
Working memory Allows pictures and words to
be held and manipulated
Limited Short
Long-term memory Acts as permanent storehouse
of knowledge
High Lon g
years (Kiewra, 2005 ; M a y e r , 1988 , 1994 , 1996 , 2011 ; P e p e r & M a y e r, 1986 ;
Shrager & Mayer, 1989 ; Weinstein & Mayer, 1985 ) .
Memory Stores in Generative Learning
e SOI model of generative learning shown in Figure 1.1 contains three
memory stores, indicated by the boxes. Sensory memory h o l d s s e n s o r y c o p -
ies of the visual images you saw and the sounds you heard (and other input
from other senses) for a fraction of a second, so it has high capacity for
a very short duration. In working memory , p i e c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e
consciously held and manipulated, but the capacity of working memory is
quite limited so you can actively process only a few pieces of information
at any one time (and without active processing, information is lost within
about twenty seconds). Long-term memory i s y o u r p e r m a n e n t s t o r e h o u s e o f
knowledge, so it has high capacity and long duration.
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e S O I m o d e l s h o w n i n F i g u r e 1.1 , w o r k i n g m e m o r y i s a
sort of bottleneck in your cognitive system because it has limited processing
capacity (i.e., only a few elements can be actively processed at one time),
whereas sensory memory and long-term memory on either side of it each
have large capacities. An important instructional implication of this bot-
tleneck is that rapidly presenting a lot of information to a learner is likely
to overload the learner’s working memory and result in much of the infor-
mation being lost. e three memory stores in the SOI model of generative
learning are summarized in Table 1.3 .
Knowledge Representations in Generative Learning
I n a d d i t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e b o x e s a n d a r r o w s i n F i g u r e 1.1 , i t i s
worthwhile to consider the kinds of external and internal representations
involved in generative learning. For example, consider what happens when
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Introduction 9
you attend a narrated slideshow lecture. We begin with the instructional
presentation involving spoken words, printed words, and graphics , which
become visual images and auditory sounds i n y o u r s e n s o r y m e m o r y , spatial
and verbal representations t h a t c a n b e m a n i p u l a t e d i n w o r k i n g m e m o r y ,
and semantic knowledge s t o r e d i n l o n g - t e r m m e m o r y . e conversion of
presented information (i.e., the external representation) into constructed
knowledge (i.e., the internal representation) is what happens when learners
engage in generative learning. ree important steps in the development
of knowledge in working memory are to select the pieces of information
for further processing, to build internal connections among them so they
form a coherent representation, and to build external connections with
other representations in a systematic way. Table 1.4 l i s t s t h e p r o g r e s s i o n o f
representations in generative learning.
Metacognition and Motivation in Generative Learning
G e n e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g r e q u i r e s t h a t l e a r n e r s a p p l y a p p r o p r i a t e c o g n i t i v e p r o -
cesses during learning, but how do learners know which processes to apply
and when to apply them? How do you know which information to select,
what kind of organization to build, and which aspect of prior knowledge
to activate? Monitoring and controlling your cognitive processes during a
cognitive task (such as learning from a lecture or from a book) is called
metacognition. us, an important task of generative learning theories is to
understand the workings of metacognitive strategies – that is, strategies for
monitoring and controlling cognitive processes.
E v e n i f y o u a r e s k i l l e d i n u s i n g t h e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s o f s e l e c t i n g , o r g a -
nizing, and integrating, and even if you possess the metacognitive strate-
gies for orchestrating them, you may still not engage in generative learning
because you just don’t want to. What causes people to initiate and maintain
generative processing at a high level during learning? Motivation i s d e ned
a cognitive state that initiates, energizes, and maintains goal-directed
behavior. In short, motivation drives the cognitive system, so it is crucial
Table 1.4. External and internal representations in generative learning
Representation Type Location
Printed words, spoken words, graphics External Instruction
Visual images and sounds Internal Sensory memory
Spatial and verbal representations Internal Working memory
Knowledge Internal Long-term memor y
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
Learning as a Generative Activity
10
to incorporate motivational mechanisms into generative learning theory.
In particular, the learning strategies suggested in this book are intended
to motivate learners to engage in productive cognitive processing during
learning.
W e r e f e r t o m e t a c o g n i t i o n a n d m o t i v a t i o n a s t h e Mighty M’s because they
power the SOI model of generative learning shown in Figure 1.1 . W i t h o u t
the motivation to make sense of a lesson, generative learning would not be
initiated. Without the metacognitive skills to control cognitive processing
during learning, attempts at generative learning would not be e ective.
Implications of Generative Theory for the
Science of Assessment
e science of assessment is the scienti c study of how to determine what
people know (Anderson et al., 2001 ; M a yer, 2011 ; P e l l e g r i n o , C h u d o w s k y , &
Glaser, 2001 ) . I n t h i s s e c t i o n , w e d e s c r i b e t w o k i n d s o f t e s t i t e m s a n d t h r e e
kinds of learning outcomes.
Two Kinds of Test Items
T a b l e 1.5 s u m m a r i z e s t w o k i n d s o f t e s t i t e m s t h a t c a n b e u s e d t o a s s e s s
what students have learned, based on the classic distinction between reten-
tion a n d transfer . R e t e n t i o n i s t h e a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l o r r e c o g n i z e w h a t w a s
presented. us, retention items are used when the goal is to assess how
much of the presented material can be remembered. Transfer is the abil-
ity to apply what was learned to solve new problems. us, transfer items
are used when the goal is to assess how well someone understands the
presented material.
If we asked you to de ne retention , you could simply reproduce the sec-
ond sentence of the preceding paragraph, which is an example of a retention
Table 1.5. Two kinds of test items
Item Target Description Example
Retention Remembering Ability to recall or recognize
what was presented
What is the de nition
of retention?
Transfer Understanding Ability to apply what was
presented to solve new
problems
Create a transfer item
for this lesso n.
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-06991-6 - Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning
Strategies that Promote Understanding
Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer
Excerpt
More information
... It lasted four minutes and nine seconds. In a meta-analysis, Bisra et al. (2018) found that self-explanation prompts are particularly effective when the learners have little prior knowledge, the prompts are specific rather than nonspecific, and the self-explanations require learners to draw inferences (see also Berthold et al., 2009;Fiorella & Mayer, 2015). Accordingly, specific self-explanation prompts were designed that consisted of two parts. ...
... Self-explanation prompts did not improve learning either. This is the case even though the prompts were designed and used in a way that, based on previous research (see Bisra et al., 2018;Fiorella & Mayer, 2015), proved to be particularly advantageous: learners with little prior knowledge, acquisition of conceptual knowledge, focused prompts, and prompts that required drawing inferences. In addition, as with the navigation features, learners were informed about how self-explanation can support learning and encouraged to explain the learning content to themselves. ...
... This could be due to a lack of prior knowledge as well as a lack of practice in generating self-explanations (cf. Dunlosky et al., 2013;Fiorella & Mayer, 2015). Second, as Fonseca and Chi (2011) pointed out, the need to type self-explanations may have a negative impact on their quality compared to verbal expression. ...
Article
Full-text available
Recent research has shown that enhancing instructional videos with questions, such as self-explanation prompts, and thus shifting the process from receptive to constructive learning, is beneficial to learning. However, the inclusion of questions is often confounded with the implementation of learner pacing through navigation features. Furthermore, previous studies have often not controlled for learning time. To address these shortcomings, an experiment (N = 128) was conducted. Participants watched an instructional video about cloud formation and lightning, with learning time controlled. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, navigation features (learner pacing vs. system pacing) and self-explanation prompts (prompts vs. no prompts) were manipulated. The results showed no effects of navigation features and self-explanation prompts on learning performance. While navigation features did not affect cognitive load, self-explanation prompts increased both intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. Overall, the quality of responses to prompts was low but positively related to comprehension. The results are discussed in terms of the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive framework and Cognitive Load Theory. They highlight the importance of boundary conditions when investigating the effects of interactive features in instructional videos.
... However, recent studies have demonstrated specific advantages of video-based learning, such as [53] that multimedia learning, combining images and auditory narrations, significantly improves information retention and knowledge transfer. Also, [54] students who watch educational videos perform better in comprehension assessments and long-term memory. Furthermore, [55] it shows that interactive videos better capture students' attention and facilitate a deeper understanding of content than textbased chat platforms. ...
... This study did not find statistically significant differences in programming learning between students using generative artificial intelligence and those employing active learning through videos. Both groups showed no differences in pre-test, posttest, or learning differences, suggesting that the use of AI is comparable and at least as competitive as the use of videos for computer programming learning, aligning with recent studies on the effectiveness of multimedia learning [53], [54], [55]. While both methods proved to be effective, there is a need for more research to understand better their differences and potential synergies in university programming education. ...
Article
Full-text available
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is emerging as a transformative technology in higher education, particularly in programming instruction. However, its impact on learning, motivation, and the educational environment must still be fully understood. This study aims to determine the capacity of GenAI to generate effective computer programming learning in STEM university students, comparing it with active learning methods based on video. An experiment was conducted with 40 computer engineering students divided into two groups: one using GenAI (Google Gemini 1.5) and another employing educational videos. Pre- and post-tests of knowledge and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) were applied to evaluate learning, intrinsic motivation, and the learning environment. No significant differences in learning were found between the groups. However, GenAI significantly increased perceived autonomy and reduced perceived effort and pressure, while video-based learning significantly improved perceived competence. These findings suggest that both methods seem to motivate in diverse ways and that they could complement each other in an integrated teaching approach, offering new perspectives for designing programming learning environments in higher education.
... Specifically, we use generative learning theory (Fiorella, 2023;Fiorella & Mayer, 2016) to design a GenAI educational application that supports human-AI collaboration in promoting generative processing. Generative learning activities (GLAs) are learner-driven actions that foster the active construction of knowledge as they prime key cognitive processes such as selecting, organizing, and integrating knowledge (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015Mayer, 1996;Wittrock & Farley, 2010). By aligning GLAs with the capabilities of GenAI, we explore how integrating human and machine intelligence can enhance learning outcomes, augmenting rather than replacing human abilities (Molenaar, 2022). ...
... In ChatTutor this is implemented by linking directly to the texts and slides from the course., or by asking the LLM to provide simpler alternative explanations such as summaries or explanations. This is relevant because lower-knowledge students often benefit more from GLAs than higher-knowledge students (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015). This is because higher-knowledge learners are more likely to engage in sense-making spontaneously (Lombrozo, 2006). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has emerged as a transformative tool in education, offering scalable, individualized learning experiences. However, there is a notable lack of theoretically informed and methodologically rigorous research on how GenAI can effectively augment learning. This study addresses this gap by investigating the potential of a theoretically informed GenAI chatbot, ChatTutor, to facilitate generative sense-making, leveraging principles from generative learning theory. The study had two primary goals: first, to build on theory to propose how GenAI could be used to support generative sense-making; and second, to empirically test its impact on conceptual knowledge, self-efficacy, and trust immediately after the intervention, as well as on conceptual knowledge, enjoyment, and behavioral intentions in a follow-up test four weeks later. Conducted in an authentic university course, the pre-registered experiment with 175 students compared ChatTutor to a generic GenAI system (ChatGPT) and a teaching-as-usual condition. Results show that ChatTutor significantly enhanced trust, enjoyment, and behavioral intentions but not self-efficacy. While ChatTutor improved conceptual knowledge over ChatGPT immediately after the intervention, it did not outperform teaching-as-usual. Four weeks later, ChatTutor significantly outperformed teaching-as-usual but not ChatGPT in conceptual knowledge. The manuscript underscores the importance of integrating human-centered design and educational psychology theories into GenAI applications to optimize learning outcomes and proposes future research and practical implications.
... The goal of this framework is to understand the role of different kinds of student activities that encourage generative learning. Generative learning theory posits that there are three primary cognitive processes needed for meaningful learning to occur; these include selecting relevant incoming information, organizing this information into coherent mental representations in working memory, and integrating new knowledge with prior knowledge stored in long-term memory (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015Mayer, 2021Mayer, , 2022Mayer, , 2024Wittrock, 1989). Students may need to be prompted and guided to engage in sense-making via generative learning activities (e.g., self-explaining, self-testing, drawing). ...
... There is a large literature base that explores the impact of student participation in class activities on learning (referred to as active learning; Freeman et al., 2014;Kozanitis & Nenciovici, 2023;Martella & Schneider, 2024). Activities can positively impact student performance, particularly when these activities encourage students to engage in generative learning (i.e., learning aimed at making sense of the material; Fiorella & Mayer, 2015. ...
... This finding is commonly described as the testing effect (Karpicke, 2017), which is accompanied by extensive research reinforcing its powerful way to improve adults learning. Whilst the relevance of retrieval practice has been also increasingly stressed for classroom learning Fiorella & Mayer, 2015;Karpicke & Grimaldi, 2012;Roediger et al., 2011b;Roediger & Pyc, 2012), only little research has directly examined retrieval-based learning in children (Fazio & Marsh, 2019). The rather small but growing number of studies demonstrating children benefiting from retrieval-based learning used rather simple learning materials. ...
Article
Full-text available
Testing has been proven to be a powerful tool to enhance meaningful learning, but little research has directly examined retrieval-based learning in children. Two experiments investigated through a transfer test whether retrieval practice can facilitate the acquisition of high-level cognitive skills, focusing on the control-of-variables strategy. In two experiments, children of grade 5 and 6 (n = 165/217) initially received a lesson based on a textbook chapter on the control-of-variables strategy. In Experiment 1, we compared the effects of retrieval practice (free recall) and restudy. In Experiment 2, we compared effects of retrieval practice (cued recall), restudy and practically performing an experiment. The results indicate an important limit of retrieval practice in children, as in both studies restudy outperformed the other learning activities. Participants' metacognitive predictions are in contrast to the actual findings, as they predicted performing an experiment as the most effective learning activity.
Article
Full-text available
A primary goal of teacher education programs is to equip teacher candidates with the necessary skills to navigate the social and cultural realities and complexities of the classroom while seamlessly integrating theory and practice. As our classrooms become more socially, economically, and culturally diverse it is important for teachers to evolve into developmentally and culturally responsive individuals who can incorporate a variety of teaching strategies to meet the unique needs of each student. However, novice teachers often face challenges in meeting the individual needs of students due to their lack of experience, classroom management challenges, time constraints, the complexity of curriculum planning, and a novice understanding of the impact student differences can have upon learning. In response to this challenge, we have developed a project known as "Invent-a Kid". This project, grounded in research that promotes constructivist learning principles, reflective practice, and the use of case studies, aims to guide teacher candidates in the practical application of theory and content while fostering appropriately responsive teaching. This paper will summarize the origins and theoretical foundation of the project, offer models of implementation, and provide several suggestions for teacher educators to consider when implementing the Invent-a-Kid project in their course.
Article
There is some evidence that the best strategy for remembering text-based information is drawing when using a mixed list design where participants both draw and write in the same list. There is also some evidence that the memory benefits of drawing are reduced when using a pure list design where participants draw or write in separate lists. In this study ( n = 91), we compared three encoding strategies for recalling a list of scientific terms and their definitions: drawing, paraphrasing, and writing the definitions, and randomly assigned participants to a condition. We also examined individual difference factors that might impact these encoding strategies. We found no difference across conditions. Instead, drawing abilities, working memory, and familiarity for what was to be remembered predicted recall performance. We conclude that more research is needed before declaring a “drawing effect,” since the effect is reduced when using a pure list design.
Article
Many applied field research articles that have been published in the Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology have reported the development of classroom-based psychoeducational programs aimed at fostering students' non-academic competence (e.g., social and emotional competence) and have examined the effectiveness of those programs. However, being classroom-based may create serious challenges for the evaluation of program effectiveness. Based on a hypothetical model of the association between classes at school and intervention programs, the present article describes some possible challenges from the following perspectives: (a) whether the primary effects of an intervention program and their mediational influence on the secondary effects were verified, (b) whether student-level observations within each intervention class were independent of each other, (c) whether fidelity of implementation was assessed, and (d) whether the issue of the demand characteristics of the intervention was addressed. The present review of 22 applied field research articles published in the Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology from 2009 to 2022 revealed that the majority of them were lacking in relation to these perspectives. The discussion suggests limitations of the present review and future directions for applied field research.
Article
Full-text available
Three forms of summarization instruction comprised the treatment and control conditions explored in this study of sixth graders. The two treatment groups received direct instruction in either a rule-governed approach to summarization or an intuitive approach. A control group simply received advice to find main ideas with no explicit modeling. Two dependent measures were used to judge the efficacy of the three instructional approaches to summarization: (a) a paragraph summary writing task and (b) a standardized test of paragraph comprehension. On both measures, treatment groups significantly outperformed the control group. The results are discussed from the perspective of a combined textlinguistic and direct instruction model of learning.
Article
Full-text available
The effects of student-generated prequestions and summaries were compared as reading study strategies for college-age subjects. Eighty-seven freshmen and sophomores from several sections of a developmental reading course were trained to use one of two study approaches: (a) phrasing and answering higher level questions while reading or (b) constructing and checking summary statements while reading. An additional number of students from the same population served as members of a control group. The results of three post-treatment tests–free recall, an objective test, and an essay test–were used as dependent measures. The results indicated that training in summary generation as an adjunct study activity significantly increased college students' free recall as well as performance on the objective test and, especially, on the essay test. Training in the interspersed prequestioning significantly facilitated students' performance on the objective test recall but not on free recall or the essay test. It was concluded that college students benefited from engaging in encoding strategies during reading and that specific strategies may be strongly related to posttest measures.
Article
Before and after testing on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) over a four month period assessed gains for student tutors and their pupils in a rural school system. 13 tutored pupils (grades 2 to 5) showed a mean net growth advantage of from 3 to 5 months on WRAT subtests over 14 comparable control untutored pupils. 10 student tutors (grades 8 to 12) showed a mean 9 month edge over controls, a gain of 13 months achieve-over 10 comparable control non-tutors. On the three WRAT subtests all experimental means exceeded control means, but only the reading subtest was significant at the 5% level (tutors held a mean 9 month edge over controls, a gain of 13 months achievement in 4 months). Implications discussed include suggesting a much more institutionalized role reversal between teacher and student, student tutoring, and an educational cooperative with graduated salaries and personal involvement for all participants.
Article
Twenty-four undergraduate students were asked to read a 167-word expository text about Dutch elm disease and to write a summary of the text. Five days later, they were asked to complete a sentence-recognition task and to verbalize components of a successful text summary. Efficiency of summarization (a proportion of number of judged-important ideas to total number of words) was assessed, and high-efficient and low-efficient summarizers were compared on recognition and verbalization performance. An important finding of the study was that high-efficient students "recognized" true-to-text synthesis statements, which did not appear in the original text, far more frequently than low-efficient students, but also failed to strongly reject statements inconsistent with low-importance, in-text information. It appeared, within the study, that these students not only summarized efficiently, but also stored information in memory efficiently (i.e., in a highly streamlined, condensed manner).
Article
The purpose of this study was to increase the learning of economics among lower socioeconomic level public high school students by teaching them to use generative comprehension procedures in their economics classes’ cooperative learning groups. In a randomly assigned two-treatment design, it was predicted and found that generative learning procedures in cooperative learning classes increased (p < . 0001) the learning of economics by sizable amounts compared with a control procedure that used only cooperative learning methods and that produced smaller increases. Students’ confidence in the correctness of their answers increased (p < . 0001), and the level of misinformation decreased (p < . 0001) as a result of generative teaching procedures. These facilitative effects of generative teaching occurred for both males and females.
Article
Many reading comprehension strategies have been proposed, but only some have proven potent with elementary school children. Strategies that are supported by research evidence are discussed, and, thus, a fairly small set of strategies is recommended. The research on summarization, representational- and mnemonic-imagery, story-grammar, question-generation, question-answering, and prior-knowledge activation strategies is reviewed here. Effective teaching of these strategies is also discussed, with particular emphasis on direct explanation approaches to strategy instruction. Thorough teaching of a few effective reading strategies can be defended based on available research evidence; this approach can be incorporated into ongoing content-based instruction, with development of reading comprehension strategies occurring throughout the school day and across the curriculum.
Article
This study reports the effects of metacognitive strategy training in summarization on the ability of foreign language learners to comprehend and summarize expository texts. Results indicated that students made substantial progress after the training: they included significantly more ideas units in their recall protocols, improved their ability to use the summarization rules, included significantly more important information in their summaries and expressed it in a more succinct manner. The improved summary performance was maintained three weeks after instruction ended. These results suggest that explicit instruction in the rules of summarization is an effective tool for improving comprehension and summarization of foreign language texts.
Article
Three studies were conducted to examine the extent to which mapping strategies used in conjunction with basal reader stories enhanced the comprehension and writing performance of fifth-grade students. In Experiment 1, significant differences on a reading comprehension measure were found in favor of a group receiving key concept mapping strategies when compared to a control group, but no differences were found in the overall quality of compositions produced (N =30). The key-concept mapping strategy was found to work particularly well for those types of reading selections that were factual/informative in nature. Experiment 2 expanded the previous study to 80 subjects drawn from eight classrooms. In this study, the stories mapped were restricted to factual/informative type selections. A detailed scoring guide was developed in an attempt to pick up any differences in writing produced by the students. Again, significant differences were found on the reading comprehension measure, but no differences were found in the compositions produced. Experiment 3 was designed to test the effectiveness of literary mapping strategies when used with narrative type reading selections. No differences were found between the mapping group and control group on either reading comprehension or writing produced. Conclusions are that key concept mapping is a particularly powerful tool for enhancing reading comprehension of factual/informative reading selections; literary mapping strategies may present a viable alternative to inject variety into the reading lesson; and, any improvement in writing performance may require more long term intervention or direct instruction.