Showing papers by "Alexander Renkl published in 2020"

The Self-Regulation-View in Writing-to-Learn: Using Journal Writing to Optimize Cognitive Load in Self-Regulated Learning.

Abstract: We propose the self-regulation view in writing-to-learn as a promising theoretical perspective that draws on models of self-regulated learning theory and cognitive load theory. According to this theoretical perspective, writing has the potential to scaffold self-regulated learning due to the cognitive offloading written text generally offers as an external representation and memory aid, and due to the offloading, that specifically results from the genre-free principle in journal writing. However, to enable learners to optimally exploit this learning opportunity, the journal writing needs to be instructionally supported. Accordingly, we have set up a research program—the Freiburg Self-Regulated-Journal-Writing Approach—in which we developed and tested different instructional support methods to foster learning outcomes by optimizing cognitive load during self-regulated learning by journal writing. We will highlight the main insights of our research program which are synthesized from 16 experimental and 4 correlative studies published in 16 original papers. Accordingly, we present results on (1) the effects of prompting germane processing in journal writing, (2) the effects of providing worked examples and metacognitive information to support students in effectively exploiting prompted journal writing for self-regulated learning, (3) the effects of adapting and fading guidance in line with learners’ expertise in self-regulated learning, and (4) the effects of journal writing on learning motivation and motivation to write. The article closes with a discussion of several avenues of how the Freiburg Self-Regulated-Journal-Writing Approach can be developed further to advance research that integrates self-regulated learning with cognitive load theory.

Timing Matters! Explaining Between Study Phases Enhances Students’ Learning

Abstract: Previous research has shown that explaining is an effective activity to enhance learning. In prior studies, students were instructed to explain the contents after completing an entire learning phase. Explaining at the end of a learning phase, however, may be less apt to support comprehension monitoring and subsequent regulation activities. In 2 experiments, we investigated whether explaining in earlier phases of studying (i.e., in-between explaining) would foster learning more than explaining after the entire study phase (i.e., afterstudy explaining). In Experiment 1, university students (N = 91) read a text about combustion engines and either explained the contents between the study phases or at the end of the entire study phase. A third group recalled the learning contents aloud at the end of the study phase to control for retrieval-processes that may also be involved in explaining. Results showed no overall effect of explaining in comparison to retrieval practice. However, in-between explaining enhanced students’ conceptual knowledge as compared with afterstudy explaining. Verbal protocol analyses showed that this effect was due to students’ increased monitoring. Experiment 2 (N = 126), had a 2 × 2-factorial design with between-subjects factors timing (in-between vs. afterstudy) and learning activity (explaining vs. written retrieval practice). We found a cascaded trend: In-between learning activities were more effective than afterstudy learning activities, whereas explaining was more effective than written retrieval practice. These findings suggest that the timing of learning activities is crucial to improve learning. Additionally, our findings reveal that explaining is not simply a result of retrieval practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Self-management as a Bridge Between Cognitive Load and Self-regulated Learning: the Illustrative Case of Seductive Details

Abstract: The main goals of this paper are to exemplify and further elaborate on the theoretical connections between cognitive load and self-regulated learning. In an effort to achieve this, we integrate the concepts of self-control and self-management within the effort monitoring and regulation (EMR) framework laid out by de Bruin et al. (Educational Psychology Review this issue). More specifically, we argue that (1) cognitive load results from how the instruction is processed and not just from how it is designed (cf. self-management effect). (2) How instruction is processed by students (also) depends on their skill and will to self-control. For instance, high self-control may reflect compensatory processing of poorer instructional designs so that these designs may not lead to higher extraneous cognitive load. As soon as students’ willingness to self-control declines (e.g., with increasing study durations or previous demanding tasks), there is a closer link between (poorer) instructional designs and (higher) extraneous cognitive load in self-regulated learning tasks. Combining (1) and (2), we consider cognitive load to be influenced by self-control; (self-)control, in turn, is one central process of the monitoring-control cycle that characterizes self-regulated learning. We support these theoretical arguments by referring to empirical research in the domain of learning with multiple representations—with a particular focus on learning with and without seductive details during extended study episodes. We conclude with suggestions for further research.

Does an Option to Review Instructional Explanations Enhance Example-Based Learning? It Depends on Learners' Academic Self-Concept.

Abstract: Example-based learning often uses a design in which learners first receive basic instructional explanations of new principles and concepts and then examples thereof. In this sequence, it is crucial that learners self-explain by using the content of the basic instructional explanations to elaborate on the examples. Typically, learners are not provided with access to the basic instructional explanations while they engage in self-explaining. However, it is reasonable to assume that this established design is suboptimal to some extent. When learners cannot retrieve the required knowledge components of the instructional explanations from memory, they can hardly generate the crucial self-explanations. Against this background, we analyzed the effects of a potential remedy for this suboptimality. Specifically, in 2 experiments with high school students we tested the effects of providing learners with constrained access to the basic instructional explanations while they engaged in self-explaining. The constraints were that learners were instructed to review the instructional explanations only when they could not remember certain required knowledge components or when they needed to check their self-explanations. We found that the effects of the constrained review option depended on learners’ academic self-concept. Learners with low academic self-concepts benefitted from the review option, whereas learners with high academic self-concepts were even hindered by it. We conclude that the constrained review option should not be provided to learners with high academic self-concepts. On a more general level, we furthermore conclude that a high academic self-concept can be an obstacle rather than a beneficial resource in certain learning settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Providing worked examples for learning multiple principles

Abstract: Worked examples support learning. However, if they introduce easy-to-confuse concepts or principles, specific ways of providing worked examples may influence their effectiveness. Multiple worked examples can be introduced blocked (i.e., several for the same principle) or interleaved (i.e., switching between principles), and can be presented sequentially or simultaneously. Crossing these two factors provides four ways of presenting worked examples: blocked/sequential, interleaved/sequential, blocked/simultaneous, and interleaved/simultaneous. In an experiment with university students (N = 174), we investigated how the two factors influence the acquisition of procedural and conceptual knowledge about different, but closely related (thus, easy-to-confuse) stochastic principles. Additionally, we assessed the ability of students to discriminate between principles with verification tasks. Simultaneous presentation benefitted procedural knowledge whereas interleaved presentation benefitted conceptual knowledge. No significant differences were found for verification tasks. The results suggest that it is worthwhile to adapt the presentation of the worked examples to the learning goals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. WORKED EXAMPLES FOR MULTIPLE PRINCIPLES Providing Worked Examples for Learning Multiple Principles Example-based learning is a well-known, widely used, and effective approach to introduce learners to new content (e.g., Renkl, 2014; van Gog & Rummel, 2010). This approach follows a typical instructional design. In the first step, learners receive instructional explanations explicating basic declarative knowledge regarding new principles and concepts. In the second step, learners study worked examples, which instantiate the to-be-learned principles or concepts in a specific context and which include a solution (e.g., Berthold & Renkl, 2009; Foster et al., 2018; Roelle et al., 2017; van Gog et al., 2008). For learning from worked examples to be effective (e.g., in comparison to problem solving), it is essential that learners focus on the structural features of the examples and relate them to the previously received instructional explanations. As not all learners engage in such self-explanation activities of their own accord (e.g., Chi et al., 1989; Renkl, 1997), combining worked examples with specific self-explanation prompts has been well established. These prompts should direct learners’ attention to the relevant aspects, engage them in generating self-explanations, and help them process the examples with the focus intended by the instructor (e.g., Atkinson et al., 2003; Gerjets et al., 2008; Roelle & Renkl, 2020). A combination of instructional explanations, worked examples, and self-explanation prompts has repeatedly been shown to be more effective than both unguided and guided problem solving (for overviews see, Renkl, 2014; Renkl & Eitel, 2019). Its implementation is relatively straightforward if learners study a single principle or concept. In this case, after having read the basic instructional explanations, learners receive multiple worked examples that instantiate the respective principle or concept. However, in educational practice, instructors often introduce several different but closely-related principles and concepts within one lesson. For This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. WORKED EXAMPLES FOR MULTIPLE PRINCIPLES example, physics teachers may present the three Newtonian laws of motion in a lesson (and then, of course, continue their instruction on these laws for some time), or mathematics teachers may present the stochastic principles of relevance of order and replacement in a mathematics lesson. If students have to learn several related, but different principles, sets of worked examples that support students in recognizing and understanding the important structural features of those principles are needed (e.g., Quilici & Mayer, 1996; Renkl, 2014). However, how these sets of worked examples should be provided to optimally support learning is not yet clear. Specifically, both the question of how the examples should be ordered and the question as to whether multiple examples should be provided simultaneously have received relatively scarce attention in research on worked examples. Order of Examples: Blocked vs. Interleaved One important design decision in providing sets of examples to introduce different principles relates to the order of the examples. More specifically, examples can be blocked or interleaved. Providing examples in a blocked order means that an educator would first present all examples for Principle_X, then all examples for Principle_Y, then all examples for Principle_Z, and so on. By contrast, in an interleaved order an educator would first present one worked example for Principle_X, then one for Principle_Y, then one for Principle_Z, then again one for Principle_X, one for Principle_Y, etc. From a theoretical view, a major advantage of a blocked order is that it allows for withincategory comparisons (e.g., Gerjets et al., 2008). That is, when processing several worked examples one after another, with all examples instantiating the same principle, this sequence might help learners to notice those common structural features or relations that are constitutive for the This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. WORKED EXAMPLES FOR MULTIPLE PRINCIPLES principle. This noticing sets the stage for schema abstraction (Gentner, 2010; Goldwater & Schalk, 2016; Quilici & Mayer, 1996), which enables solving novel tasks based on the same principle (i.e., knowledge transfer). A disadvantage, however, is that blocked examples scarcely engage learners in between-category comparisons (e.g., Gerjets et al., 2008), which would foster learners’ ability to actively discriminate between principles. Not understanding the differences between principles is detrimental with respect to learning outcomes because learners may fail to understand when a principle does not apply. A further potential drawback of not having to decide which principle to choose could be that it might actually fool students because learning seems simple. The students know (or figure out quickly) which principle to apply for given problems and thus the experience of fluency increases (Rohrer et al., 2019) and the subjective cognitive load decreases. The literature on meta-comprehension suggests that the experience of fluency is used as a cue to judge the effectiveness of learning (Alter et al., 2007). However, fluency is not of a high diagnostic value for sustainable learning (e.g., Kornell et al., 2011). Hence, blocked orders of examples might trigger illusions of understanding, which lure learners into abandoning deep processing of the worked examples too early. The outlined advantages and disadvantages of providing examples in a blocked order are reversed for providing worked examples in an interleaved order. Specifically, through enhancing between-category comparisons, an interleaved order of examples fosters learners’ ability to discriminate between different principles in, for example, mathematics (for a meta-analysis, see Brunmair & Richter, 2019). In comparison to blocked examples, learners should experience less fluency and increased cognitive load when processing interleaved examples. Thus, given that learners must decide which principle to apply for each example, illusions of understanding may decrease. This notion is supported by the results of Paas and van Merriënboer (1994), who This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. WORKED EXAMPLES FOR MULTIPLE PRINCIPLES showed that learners studying highly variable worked examples (i.e., strong variation in surface features) compared to low variability worked examples reported higher cognitive load on a mental effort scale. A disadvantage, however, could be that in comparison to blocked examples learners receive less support in finding commonalities and similarities across worked examples that require application of the same principle, which could detrimentally affect schema abstraction and thus learning outcomes. When the examples are provided sequentially—that is, when one example is presented after the other (a discussion of the potential role of simultaneity follows in the next section)— empirical findings indicate that blocked orders are inferior to interleaved orders in most contexts (Brunmair & Richter, 2019), although learners seem to prefer blocked orders. More specifically, in a study by Carvalho, Braithwaite, de Leeuw, Motz, and Goldstone (2016), students in an Introductory Psychology course could choose their own study sequence. They preferred blocked orders and performed better on the final exam compared to students who had to follow other sequences. A recent meta-analysis by Brunmair and Richter (2019) indicates that this advantage of blocking probably only holds for learning with expository texts or for word learning, and that interleaved order shows benefits for learning with visual materials and in mathematics education (see also Rohrer, 2012; Rohrer et al., 2019). Most of these results are based on empirical studies in which the examples are provided sequentially, one after another. Yet, when multiple principles and concepts are to be learned, the provision of several worked examples simultaneously is also a viable option. Simultaneity of Examples: Sequential vs. Simultaneous This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. WORKED EXAMPLES FOR MULTIPLE PRINCIPLES When more than one worked example per principle is provided, instructors must decide—in addition to deciding the order of examples—whether they provide worked examples sequentially or simultaneously. When two or more examples are provided simultaneously, learners see several worked examples that instantiate the same principle (blocked order) or different principles (interleaved order) at once. For exam

Towards a Growth Mindset Culture in the Classroom: Implementation of a Lesson-Integrated Mindset Training

Abstract: A mindset training aims to strengthen the belief that abilities are malleable (growth mindset), which has proven to be beneficial for learning. Teachers can support the effects of such a training by establishing a classroom culture in line with the growth mindset idea. Yet, previous training programs have mostly been detached from regular lessons. In this study, a physics teacher implemented a mindset training that consisted of explicit training sessions and implicit training phases. In these implicit phases, the teacher enriched ordinary lessons with growth mindset feedback. We investigated the overall effect of this lesson-integrated training on students’ beliefs and motivation. Students from two seventh-grade courses participated in the quasi-experimental study (N = 59). One course received the mindset training; the other course served as control. We measured growth mindsets about physics abilities, self-beliefs, and motivation before and after the training and six months later. The results indicate that there was a positive and stable training effect on growth mindsets, but no effect on self-beliefs. Regarding motivation, the training buffered the demotivation that occurred without training. We conclude that a mindset training is important when introducing a new and difficult school subject. Furthermore, we consider teachers’ involvement as a promising approach to optimize mindset interventions and to encourage a sustained change of instructional practices.

It matters how to recall – task differences in retrieval practice

Abstract: The type of a recall task may substantially influence the effects of learning by retrieval practice. In a within-subject design, 54 university students studied two expository texts, followed by retrieval practice with either short-answer tasks (targeted retrieval) or a free-recall task (holistic retrieval). Concerning the direct effects of retrieval practice, short-answer tasks led to increased retention of directly retrieved targeted information from the learning contents, whereas free-recall tasks led to better retention of further information from the learning contents. Concerning indirect effects, short-answer tasks improved metacognitive calibration; free-recall tasks increased self-efficacy and situational interest. These findings confirm the assumption that the effects of retrieval practice depend on the type of recall task: short-answer tasks help us remember targeted information units and foster metacognitive calibration. Free-recall tasks help us remember a broader spectrum of information, and they foster motivational factors.

Förderung von unterrichtsbegleitendem Diagnostizieren von Schülervorstellungen durch Video- und Textvignetten

Abstract: Fachlich wenig anschlussfahige Schulervorstellungen konnen den Aufbau fachlich gultiger okologischer Konzepte im Biologieunterricht beeintrachtigen, wenn Lehrkrafte diese im Unterrichtsverlauf nicht diagnostizieren und angemessen darauf reagieren. Unterrichtsbegleitende Diagnosen von Auserungen der Schulerinnen und Schuler mussen haufig spontan („on-the-fly“) erfolgen. Es ware wunschenswert, bereits angehende Lehrkrafte auf diese herausfordernde Aufgabe vorbereiten zu konnen. In einem experimentellen Pra-Posttest-Design (N = 36) wurden in dieser Studie Einflusse auf den Erwerb von Fertigkeiten zur Diagnose von Schulervorstellungen untersucht. Hierfur wurden verschiedene Merkmale fallbasierter Lernsettings systematisch variiert (Video vs. Text/unterschiedliche Arten von Schulervorstellungen). Ein Training an Fallmedien erwies sich fur bestimmte Diagnoseinhalte als effektiv im Vergleich zu einer Vermittlung diagnostischen Wissens ohne fallbasiertes Training. Unerheblich schien zu sein, ob als Fallmedium Video- oder Textvignetten verwendet wurden. Daruber hinaus zeigte sich, dass die Fertigkeiten zur Diagnose im Wesentlichen inhaltsspezifisch erworben werden. Die Ergebnisse werden hinsichtlich der Entwicklung von Fordermasnahmen in der Lehrerbildung diskutiert.

Exploring How Teachers Diagnose Student Conceptions about the Cycle of Matter

Abstract: Students need an understanding of ecosystem properties and functions to face global issues related to ecological crises and to grasp the challenges and necessary actions associated with the Sustainable Development Goals 12–15. When addressing complex ecological constructs, such as material cycles, diagnosing students’ pre-existing conceptions about such matters is crucial for making decisions about appropriate teaching strategies. In this study, we explored pre-service teachers’ (n = 63) and in-service teachers’ (n = 14) diagnostic skills in the context of education for sustainable development. To assess diagnostic skills, we showed teachers video-based clips from science lessons in which students express their alternative conceptions about material cycles. We found that teachers are generally able to notice students’ comments indicating their conceptions about ecological concepts that are relevant for sustainable development. However, the teachers had difficulties in interpreting the students’ comments correctly. This difficulty is a barrier to create effective lessons. Moreover, we identified teacher characteristics that could influence diagnostic skills. Our findings are discussed in the context of the role of diagnostic skills when teaching sustainable development goals. Finally, we present considerations on how teachers’ diagnostic skills could be promoted.

Die Vorlesung – nur schlecht, wenn schlecht vorgelesen: Warum eine gut gemachte Vorlesung einen Platz im Methodenrepertoire verdient

Abstract: Die Vorlesung wird immer wieder als veraltete Lehr-Lern-Methode kritisiert, bei der die Studierenden nur passiv den Ausfuhrungen folgen oder sich sogar mit stofffremden Dingen beschaftigen, etwa Facebook oder Tagtraumen. Als Alternativen werden Lehr-Lern-Methoden vorgeschlagen, bei denen Studierende aktiver und selbstgesteuerter lernen. Bei dieser Kritik werden jedoch wesentliche Punkte ubersehen, so etwa dass es beim Lernen nicht auf die sichtbare Aktivitat, sondern auf die kognitive Aktivitat ankommt; diese kann auch in einer (guten) Vorlesung hoch sein. Zudem ist eine Vorlesung eine geeignete Methode, Studierenden Grundwissen in einem Bereich zu vermitteln; dieses Grundwissen ist eine wichtige Voraussetzung dafur, dass Studierende von kunftigen Lehrveranstaltungen, in denen sie selbstgesteuerter lernen (z. B. problemorientierte Veranstaltungen), profitieren konnen. Schlieslich hangt die Effektivitat von Lehr-Lern-Methoden, wie etwa der Vorlesung, ganz wesentlich von der Qualitat ihrer Umsetzung ab; eine gute Vorlesung tritt den potenziellen Nachteilen typischer Vorlesungen entgegen, etwa eingeschrankter Aktivierung von Vorwissen, Uberforderung der Informationsverarbeitungskapazitaten, oberflachlicher Verarbeitung des Prasentierten, eingeschrankter Nachbereitung des Vorlesungsstoffes und Fokus der Studierenden auf kurzfristigem Behalten von Fakten. Dieses Entgegentreten kann durch unterschiedliche instruktionale Elemente erfolgen, etwa durch Advance Organizer als Einstieg (Vorwissensaktivierung), sinnvolle Gestaltung und Nutzung von Folien (Reduktion der Anforderungen an Informationsverarbeitung), zwischengestreute Fragen, die Studierende per Smartphone beantworten (tiefere Verarbeitung des Prasentierten), Lerntagebucher zur Vertiefung des Stoffs (Nachbereitung) oder verstandnisorientierte Prufungsformen (Fokussierung auf Verstehen statt Faktenlernen). Die Realisierung von guten Vorlesungen erfordert jedoch didaktisches Wissen, welches viele Lehrende erst in entsprechenden Weiterbildungen erwerben mussten. Zusammenfassend gesehen ist eine gut gestaltete Vorlesung eine geeignete Methode, um wichtige Lernziele zu erreichen. Sie aus dem Werkzeugkasten der im Studium zu verwendenden Lehr-Lern-Methoden zu streichen wurde zu einer wenig sinnvollen Einschrankung im Methodenrepertoire fuhren.