Reflection Principle: Difference between revisions
Cuddlefish64 (talk | contribs) |
Cuddlefish64 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=== Design Implications === | === Design Implications === | ||
Methods of reflections will typically not lead to generative processing of the learning material when reflections organized pictorially into mental maps, tables, graphic organizers, etc. do not provide anchorage to the learning content just covered. A situation like this can be found in | Methods of reflections will typically not lead to generative processing of the learning material when reflections organized pictorially into mental maps, tables, graphic organizers, etc. do not provide anchorage to the learning content just covered. A situation like this can be found in Hank Green’s Crash Course Psychology lecture, Perceiving is Believing. The video is already filled with distracting (extraneous) animations, taking up cognitive resources that should be prioritized for the learning material. However the video further fails to meet effective design standards by relying on several bullet points to list the sub topics covered in the video solely by their name in the review ending segment (fig 1.). Additionally, Hank makes no point to verbally anchor relevant knowledge of the key components of perception, beyond reciting the names of the subtopics. If Green decided to end the video by asking questions to the audience that were relevant and meaningful to the material discussed in the video, he might be able to muster some generative processing through internal reflection from his audience, but unfortunately he makes no such effort. [[File:Screenshot 2022-12-16 102416.png|thumb|170x170px|'''Figure 1''']] | ||
=== Challenges === | === Challenges === | ||
Latest revision as of 00:27, 17 December 2022
Overview[edit | edit source]
The educational reformer John Dewey referred to reflective thought as, “Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (1932). The benefits of reflection pointed out by Dewey, has paved the way for educational psychologists like Roxana Moreno and Richard Mayer (2010) to consider reflection as a principle that could promote generative processing ( CTML Generative Processing Assumption). There are several types of methods of reflection. For instance, Elaborative Interrogation is a type of reflective process where students are prompted to answer “why” questions about material they had just read (Moreno et al., 2001; Seifert, 1993). Another type of reflective process, Self-Explanations, involves prompting learners to explain their answers to problems while they learn (Chi, de Leeuwenhoek, Chou & La Vancher, 1994). One important idea of the reflection principle is that learners who interact with multimedia environments intended to utilize the Feedback and Guided Activity principle will vary in their generation of deep learning based on how they manage their cognitive resources through reflecting on their actions and feedback (Moreno & Mayer, 2010). In addition, the reflection principle predicts that forms of instruction that encourage students to reflect on correct solutions will likely lead to more meaningful learning than non-interactive forms of instruction that do not promote reflection.
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Moreno (2009) found that teachers and students had higher scores on a transfer test when prompted verbally to analyze and reflect on the connections between classroom animations and learned principles. To add, teachers and students who participated in the study displayed higher motivation to learn and took less time to observe animations than participants in the control group who were not prompted. Bannert (2006) found that students had higher scores on a transfer test when they were asked to explain why they had chosen each navigation step in a hypermedia system than students that were not prompted to reflect through the self explanation principle.
Design Implications[edit | edit source]
Methods of reflections will typically not lead to generative processing of the learning material when reflections organized pictorially into mental maps, tables, graphic organizers, etc. do not provide anchorage to the learning content just covered. A situation like this can be found in Hank Green’s Crash Course Psychology lecture, Perceiving is Believing. The video is already filled with distracting (extraneous) animations, taking up cognitive resources that should be prioritized for the learning material. However the video further fails to meet effective design standards by relying on several bullet points to list the sub topics covered in the video solely by their name in the review ending segment (fig 1.). Additionally, Hank makes no point to verbally anchor relevant knowledge of the key components of perception, beyond reciting the names of the subtopics. If Green decided to end the video by asking questions to the audience that were relevant and meaningful to the material discussed in the video, he might be able to muster some generative processing through internal reflection from his audience, but unfortunately he makes no such effort.
Challenges[edit | edit source]
Bruning, et al. (2004) theorizes that the reflection principle will not apply to learners who already have the necessary skills of planning, monitoring, and evaluating their performance (self-regulated learners). In this case, they hypothesize that reflection prompts could actually get in the way of learning by providing an extra extraneous cognitive load. Further research on how self regulation, reflection, and the three types of cognitive loads work with each-other could provide fresh insight into this concern.
References[edit | edit source]
Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 359–375.
Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J., Norby, M.M., & Ronning, R.R.(2004).Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Crashcourse, H. G. (2014, March 17). Perceiving is believing: Crash course psychology #7. YouTube. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n46umYA_4dM
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477
Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. The Riverside Press. pg. (6) https://archive.org/details/HowWeThink/page/n11/mode/2up
Moreno, R. (2009). Learning from animated classroom exemplars: The case for guiding student teachers’ observations with metacognitive prompts. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 487–501
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Techniques that increase generative processing in multimedia learning: Open questions for cognitive load research. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 153–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 642–651.