Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
What’s so Special about Stories? A Review of the Relevant Cognition Literature Russell J. Branaghan Department of Applied Psychology Arizona State University Mesa, AZ [email protected] Purpose of the Presentation • Review the existing cognitive psychology literature to suggest some possible sources of storytelling’s advantages in learning • Discuss some ways to evaluate each of these suggestions Story Based Instruction • Case Based – Uses examples of specific situations in real world context to tell a relevant, timely story – Often includes quotes from the characters – Student actively, and often collaboratively, solves a problem • Discussion of related problems, leading to generalization • Provides practice in problem solving and analysis • Conflict creates emotional engagement – Instructor facilitates Story Based Instruction • Scenario Based – Learning takes place within a context, including a social context – Learning occurs as a component of authentic activities • Problem Based – Problems are selected so learners gain appropriate knowledge, strategies, and team participation skills. – The goal is to replicate the problem solving that one achieves in their career – The instructor facilitates, becoming a resource, tutor, and evaluator Story Based Instruction • Narrative Based Learning – Student may be as the main character in a story, and presented with problems to solve • Situated Learning – Knowledge needs to be presented in an authentic context, (i.e., settings and problems that would involve that knowledge) – Learning is often unintentional rather than deliberate – Emphasizes active perception over concepts and representation – Emphasizes social interaction and collaboration. Commonalities Relationships Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X Attention • Attention is limited and selective • Monitor stimuli continuously – Cocktail party effect – Obligatory cues • Selective attention cues – – – – Tone Pace of speech Volume Semantics Attention • The semantic context may guide attention • Activity and collaboration may increase vigilance • Engagement is maintained through story pacing and pausing. This may direct attention to the salience of key points Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X Emotion • The memories that stay with us are those that were experienced in a state of emotional excitement – Excitement is caused by a surge of excitatory neurotransmitters and brain activity – Evolutionarily very useful • Emotions that are elicited in stories may assist in encoding Emotion • Emotions – – – – – – – – Anticipation Anger Joy Relief Surprise Sadness Disgust Fear • Active engagement facilitates these emotions and storage • Context and collaboration can make the stories personal Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X Levels of Processing • Stimuli can be processed in various ways – Physical characteristics (sensory processes) – Semantic characteristics (previous knowledge) • Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggested a continuum of deeper and deeper processing – As the analysis and processing goes deeper it requires more background information to carry out – For example, it requires more background knowledge to carry out a semantic analysis of a word than an acoustic analysis of that word Levels of Processing • Implications (Craik, 1979) – Semantic analysis yields deeper processing – Deeper processing yields more durable memory – Memory durability is largely independent of processing time • Some evidence (Jacoby, Craik & Begg, 1979) – Showed Ss pairs of common nouns (e.g. horse goat) and were told to evaluate the difference in their sizes on a 1 to 10 scale. – An unexpected memory test showed and inverse relationship between the size of the difference of the nouns and the likelihood of their recall. – Ss were likely to recall the pair when the size difference was small. Levels of Processing • Increased real-world context may yield deeper semantic analysis • Collaboration and explaining to others via analogy, etc. may yield deeper processing • Activity and engagement may yield more elaboration Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X Context • Context refers to the other stimuli that have been presented in more or less the same time frame. • It sets the stage for top-down processing • Light and Carter-Sobell (1970) showed Ss sentences in which certain word pairs were emphasized (e.g. the boy earned a GOOD GRADE on the test) • Then they were given a test asking them to recognize the emphasized noun but not the adjective. Same context Different context Same Adjective Different Adjective (e.g. Good GRADE) (e.g. Bad GRADE) 64% = X (e.g. Steep GRADE) 27% Context • State dependent learning - people show less forgetting if retrieval and learning occur in the same physiological state. This effect holds particularly true for recall (Eich, 1980) • Encoding specificity (Tulving, 1979) - a cue aids retrieval when it provides information that had been processed during the encoding • Mood congruent memory (Bower, 1981) - people are better at recalling information when they are in the same mood as when they learned it • Intrinsic and extrinsic context (Baddeley, 1982) Context • Effects of titles on understanding – Bransford and Johnson showed Ss an ambiguous passage of text. In one condition the text was preceded with a clarifying cartoon. In another condition the cartoon was shown after reading the text – Ss who saw the cartoon before hand outperformed those who saw it after – Also those who saw the clarifying cartoon after reading the text performed no better than Ss who saw no cartoon at all. Context • Maybe active engagement produces similar conditions between learning context and retrieval (performance) context • This would illustrate encoding specificity • Story context may be similar to performance context thus improving performance • Maybe context aids in getting the gist Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X Knowledge Structures / Mental Models • Organizing structures or representations of reality that people use to understand the world • These models provide predictive and explanatory power for understanding the interaction (Norman, in Gentner & Stevens, 1983) • Basic structure of cognition - "It is now plausible to suppose that mental models play a central and unifying role in representing objects, states of affairs, sequences of events, the way the world is, and the social and psychological actions of daily life." (Johnson-Laird, 1983). • Schumacher & Czerwinski (1992) point out that they: – – – – Are incomplete and constantly evolving Are usually not accurate, containing errors and contradictions Are parsimonious, providing simplified explanations Often contain measures of uncertainty about their validity Knowledge Structures / Mental Models • Bartlett proposed the schemas after asking Ss to recall stories. Subjects made intrusion errors, adding details that were not actually present • He suggested that memory uses a mental framework for understanding and remembering • Bransford & Franks (1971) showed Ss pictures and asked them questions about what the story depicted. People remembered different details depending upon the nature of the picture. • Basis for elaboration theory (Reigeluth, 1992). Knowledge Structures / Mental Models • The context of stories likely guide our selection of knowledge structures for interpretation • We have pre-made scripts and schemas with which to interpret stories and guide our knowledge acquisition Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X So, What’s so Special about Stories? So, What’s so Special about Stories? • The likely suspects • Fruitful lines of investigation – Is there a story superiority effect involved in comprehension? – Effects of expectation – Are there negative aspects to story telling? • Distortion • Confusion with other stories? • Jumping to conclusions? • Focus on surface characteristics? Context Activity Engagement Collaboration Attention X X X X Emotion X X X X Levels of Processing X X X X Context X X X Knowledge Structures X X X References • • • • • • • • • • Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Domains of recollection. Psychological Review, 89, 708-729. Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartlett, F.C. (1958). Thinking. New York: Basic Books. Bower, G. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148. Bransford, J.D. & Franks, J.J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726. Craik, F.I.M. (1979). Human memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 63-102. Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. Eich, J. E. (1980). The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 8, 7-73. Gentner, D. & Stevens, A.(1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. References • • • • • • Jacoby, L. L., Craik, F.I.M., & Begg, I. (1979). Effects of decision difficulty on recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 585-600. Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Kelly, G. (1995). Principles of Personal Construct Psychology. Norton. Light, L., & Carter-Sobell, L. (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 1-11. Reigeluth, C. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40 (3), 80-86 Schumacher, R. & Czerwinski, M. (1992). Mental models and the acquisition of expert knowledge. In R. Hoffman (ed.), The psychology of expertise. New York: SpringerVerlag. Tulving, E (1979). Relation between encoding specificity and levels of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.