Download here

IDDEAS: Introducing Desirable
Difficulties for Educational
Applications in Science
Classroom studies of
desirable difficulties
implemented in
astronomy curricula
Britte Haugan Cheng
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley
IDDEAS
• Collaboration between UC, Berkeley and UCLA
(M. Linn and R. Bjork)
• Complementary lab and classroom studies
investigate the role of Desirable Difficulties in
learning (cf. Bjork)
• Desirable Difficulties are aspects of training or
instruction that may initially hamper learning but
produce improved learning versus a control group
over the long-term (e.g. spacing between training
or learning events, generation of information (vs.
recall), interleaved instruction (vs. blocked), etc.)
Research Questions
• Study One: Examining
Instruction and Reflection
– Will blocked or interleaved
sequence of instruction better
support student learning?
– Will reflection prompts that
address single concepts or those
that integrate multiple concepts
better support student learning?
• Study Two: Examining
Reflection in Depth
– Will reflection prompts that
address single concepts or those
that integrate multiple concepts
better support student learning?
– Will animated visualizations or
static visualizations presented as
part of reflection prompts better
support students’ learning?
Research Settings
Study One
• Bay Area urban public
school
• ~140 8th grade students
– Large range of reading
ability
– Large range of SES
• Teacher has over 10 years
experience (new to
WISE)
Study Two
• Bay Area suburban
public school
• ~185 8th grade students
– Some range of reading
ability
– Some range of SES
• Teacher’s second year
teaching (and second
year teaching WISE)
Timelines
Study One: Fall Semester
Study Two: Spring Semester
Pre-Test
Pre-Test
WISE Activity
(4-5 days)
Revised WISE Activity
(4-5 days)
Modeling Activity
(3 days)
Post-Test One
Post-Test
Modeling Activity
(3 days)
Post-Test Two
Participant Conditions
Study Two
Study One
Nonintegrated
Prompts
Blocked
Interleaved
Instruction Instruction
Recallbased
Prompts
Integrated
Prompts
Period 6
Period 2
Static visual
Prompts
Per: 1a, 2a, Per: 1b,
3a
2b, 3b
Reasoning- Period 4
based
Prompts
Period 3
Animated- Per: 4a, 5a, Per: 4b,
visual
6a
5b, 6b
Prompts
Stimuli: WISE Environment
• In both studies, instruction
was delivered via WISE
(Web-based Inquiry
Science Environment)
• Using WISE, it was
possible to carefully
control:
• instructional delivery
(sequence and wording)
• Reflection prompts
• Visual stimuli
Stimuli: WISE Activities
Students are introduced to
basic physics principles in
the context of the search
for life on planets outside
our solar system:
– Planetary characteristics
– properties of mutual
gravitation
– astronomical measurement
and scale
Stimuli: Blocking vs.
Interleaving
Blocking
Interleaving
Mass: Planet composition
Mass: Planet composition
Mass: Mutual gravitation
Distance: Planet composition
Distance: Planet Composition
Mass: Mutual gravitation
Distance: Mutual Gravitation
Distance: Mutual Gravitation
Stimuli: Example Integration
Prompts (Study One)
• Blocked Presentation Order:
– Planets with very little mass will most likely not have an
atmosphere which helps keeps the surface of the planet
warm enough for liquid water to exist.
– Venus has less mass than Earth, but smaller objects do not
always have less mass than larger objects.
• Interleaved Presentation Order:
– In our solar system, the rocky or terrestrial planets are
closest to the sun which means that these planets have a
warmer temperature.
– In our solar system, there are no jovian or gas-based planets
within the habitable zone.
Bold = term to be filled-in by the student
Stimuli: Example Static-visual
Prompt (Study Two)
*Static visuals are screen shots of animated visuals.
Students in the animated
condition will see a moving version of static prompts.
Stimuli: The Modeling Task
•
Assessing the habitability and detectability of planets, students…
–
–
–
–
–
Examine models and data of the familiar 9 sol-system planets
Make and justify qualitative (i.e. yes/no) predictions for each of 5 fictitious extrasolar planets
Model each extrasolar planet and test their predictions
Explain why none of the planets detected by scientists are habitable
Determine if it is possible for a planet to be both habitable and detectible.
*View laptop below for demo of environment
Stimuli: Example Test Items
•
Recall
“A planet that has a _______ shaped orbit could be within the ___________
_______ for part of the orbit and outside of it for the rest of the time.”
•
Open-ended/Integration
“ In the drawing below, there are 5 planets orbiting a sun that is much like our own
sun. Two arrows indicate the average distance between the sun and the planet
the arrow is pointing to. Circle the planet you think is most habitable. Explain
why you think the planet you chose is the most habitable.”
Sun
•
1/2
AU
1.5 AUs
Transfer (S2 only)
“Which planet would be more detectable? Both planets are the same mass and are 1
AU from their companion star. Explain your answer.”
Sun A
Planet A
Sun B
Planet B
Results: Study One
Pre/Post Scores on Recall Items
20
Desirable
Difficulty
15
No Desirable
Difficulty
10
5
0
Reflection Prompt
(Integrated vs. Nonintegrated)
Order of Instruction
(Interleaved vs. Block ed)
Reflection Prompt:
F (1,115) = 7.168 , p =.009
Order of Instruction:
(1,115)= 3.599, p = .06
F
Results: Study One
Open-ended items (Post-test)
25
20
Prompt
Order
Desirable
Difficulty
No Desirable
Difficulty
15
10
5
0
Integrated
(n=58)
Nonintegrated
(n=59)
Interleaved
(n=57)
Reflection Prompt:
F (1,115) = 18.769 , p = .000
Blocked
(n=60)
Order of Instruction:
(1,115) = 1.989, p = .16
F
Results: Study One
Modeling Task Scores
25
20
Prompt
Order
Desirable
Difficulty
No Desirable
Difficulty
15
10
5
0
Integrated
(n=50)
Nonintegrated
(n=46)
Interleaved
(n=43)
Reflection Prompt:
F (1,94) = 12.422 , p = .001
Blocked
(n=53)
Order of Instruction:
(1,94) = 6.010, p = .016
F
Results: Study Two
Post-Test
25
20
Prompt
Visual
Desirable
Difficulty
No Desirable
Difficulty
15
10
5
0
Integrated
(n=86)
Nonintegrated
(n=88)
Animated
(n=83)
Reflection Prompt:
F (1,172) = 3.946 , p = .049
Static
(n=91)
Visualization:
F (1,172) = 1.134, p = .288
Results: Study Two
Modeling Task Scores
25
Prompt
Visual
20
Desirable
Difficulty
No Desirable
Difficulty
15
10
5
0
Integrated
(n=90)
Nonintegrated
(n=91)
Animated
(n=87)
Reflection Prompt:
F (1,180) = 2.418 , p = .122
Static
(n=94)
Visualization:
F (1,180) = 0, p = .992
Conclusions
• Study One:
– Interleaving was beneficial for student learning.
– Reflection opportunities that prompted students to
integrate concepts was even more beneficial than
interleaving
• Study Two:
– Opportunities for students to integrate information are
essential whether in the form of reflection prompts or
instructional design
– Animation nominally supported students learning in
both prompt condition
– Long-term effects may take longer to appear in
classroom settings
Implications for future research
• Future studies in both the lab and in classrooms
could build from this work to closely examine:
– reflection prompts that ask participants to integrate
specific concepts in order to determine whether there
are ideal sets of concepts that when integrated
maximally support student learning in this domain
– visual stimuli to determine whether animations of
particular concepts are more effective than those in
Study Two in supporting student learning
Spring ‘04 IDDEAS Studies
• UCB:
– Examine two versions of visualization
• Animations vs. Mathematical/graphic representation
(analogous)
– Continue examination of interleaving
• Habitability and detectability (similar level of
analysis/structure as visualizations and other pivotal materials)
• UCLA:
– Examine complex vs. simple generation
• Companion to completed classroom studies
– Examine the role of analogic structure of two domains
• genetics