Inducing germane load while reducing extraneous load by incrementally fading-in a worked example.

Inducing germane load while reducing extraneous load by incrementally fading-in a worked example. Florian Schmidt-Weigand & Martin Hänze University of Kassel

Preview 3 Studies comparing conventional worked examples (WE) with an incremental presentation procedure Incrementally fading-in prompts and solution steps of worked examples...... is beneficial for learning (success, cognitive load)... but does not lead to more invested effort (germane load). Cooperation does not induce germane load (Study 2) Fading-in alone does not necessarily lead to germane learning activities (Study 3) Learners (15 year old scholars) can distinguish between invested effort and perceived load...... but not between extraneous and intrinsic load. Slide 2/40

Will the rope resiste or break?

Will the rope resist or break? The father of Melina and Sascha has built a ropeway in the garden. He used a rope with a resilience of 2000 N. Melina claims that this is enough for the rope to carry her brother, Sascha, who weighs 80 kg. Is she right or wrong? Explain.

Worked examples Worked examples are common in student textbooks. (e.g. Zhu & Simon, 1987) reduce task difficulty, i.e. intrinsic cognitive load. (e.g. Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Paas, 1992) but... do not foster learning activities, i.e. germane cognitive load. (e.g. Renkl, 2002) may be less motivating than solving the problem by oneself. (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 2000) Slide 6/40

Prompt 1 Explain to each other the task in your own words. Clarify how you understood the task and discuss what is still vague to you.

Feedback For example: We have to find out if the ropeway will We have to find out if the ropeway will resist Sascha s weight.

Prompt 3 Remember: Forces always have a direction and a magnitude. Draw these forces into your sketch of the picture.

Feedback Forces act in both directions along the rope of the ropeway. Furthermore, gravity, which is a force, too, acts downwards.

Study 01 Do incremental worked examples foster learning more than conventional worked examples?

Design and hypotheses N = 60 middle-school students (9 th grade; 15.18 years, 39 female, 51 male) Physics problem ( Is the 5 Eurocent coin made of pure cupper? ) Cooperative problem solving in pairs Experimental conditions Incremental worked example (prompts & feedback) (n = 30) Conventional worked example (n = 30) Hypotheses: Incremental compared to conventional WE lead to a higher learning success, less (overall) cognitive load, but more invested effort (germane load). Slide 13/40

Measures Pre-experimental: Grades in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics Prior knowledge Reading comprehension General intelligence (figure analogies) Self-concept and goal-orientation Dependent: Learning outcome Retention of solution steps knowledge test Subjective ratings of cognitive load 6 items for overall, intrinsic, extraneous and germane load Slide 14/40

Learning outcome 100 F(1,30) = 10.33, p <.01, η p = 0.26 Ou tcome sco ores (in % of success s) 80 60 40 20 F(1,28), ) = 17.23, p <.001, η p = 0.38 Conventional WE Incremental WE 0 Retention Knowledge Slide 15/40

Subjective ratings of cognitive load 6 items, 5-point scales: The task was very easy... very difficult To solve this task my prior knowledge was very helpful... not at all helpful Such tasks are generally very easy... very difficult for me For such tasks I am very talented... not at all talented The learning material was very helpful l... not at all helpful for me TosolvethistaskImadeahigheffort task a high effort... loweffort Slide 16/40

Rationale scales Overall The task was very easy... very difficult Intrinsic To solve this task my prior knowledge was very helpful... not at all helpful Such tasks are generally very easy... very difficult for me For such tasks I am very talented... not at all talented Extraneous The learning material was very helpful... not at all helpful for me Germane To solve this task I made a low effort... high effort Slide 17/40

Statistical scale analyses Reliability 6 items: Cronbach s α =.70 5 items: Cronbach s α =.79 Slide 18/40

Rationale scales Overall The task was very easy... very difficult Intrinsic For such tasks I am very talented... not at all talented Such tasks are generally very easy... very difficult for me To solve this task my prior knowledge was very helpful... not at all helpful Extraneous The learning material was very helpful... not at all helpful for me Germane To solve this task I made a low effort... high effort Slide 19/40

Statistical scale analyses Reliability 6it items: Cronbach s α =.70 5 items: Cronbach s α =.79 Factor analysis Two factors solution Factor 1 (5 items): Perceived difficulties (i.e. intrinsic i i & extraneous load) Factor 2 (1 item): Invested effort (i.e. germane load) Slide 20/40

Perceived vs. invested F(1,30) = 7.53, p <.01, η p = 0.20 Overall CL (one item) F(1,30) = 27.76, p <.001, η p = 0.48 Perceived difficulties Incremental WE Conventional WE Invested effort n.s. low high Slide 21/40

Study 1: Summary and further questions Incremental WE foster learning effectively, reduce cognitive load, do not induce a higher effort (according to self-estimates) Further research questions: What is the functional part of the instructional setting? Cooperation (Study 2) Fading-in vs. prompts p (Study 3) Does cooperation induce germane load? Is the induction of germane load by prompts effective or even helpful? Slide 22/40

Study 02 Does cooperation induce germane load?

Does cooperation induce germane load? Fac ctor 2: Coop peration Single learners Learning pairs Factor 1: Instructional support Incremental Conventional WE WE n = 34 n = 36 n = 36 n = 36 Two-factorial design Conventional vs. incremental WE Single learners vs. learning pairs Hypotheses Incremental WE > Conventional WE Learning pairs > Single learners Incremental WE + learning pairs > all others Slide 24/40

Learning outcome 100 No main effect for Incremental WE Main effect for Incremental WE (F(1,135) = 2.76, p =.099) (F(1,133) = 6.69, p <.05, η p =.05) No main effect for cooperation, no No main effect for cooperation, no interaction (p >.20) interaction 80 (p >.50) Outcome sc cores (in % of success s) 60 40 20 Conventional WE single Conventional WE pair Incremental WE single Incremental WE pair 0 Retention Knowledge Slide 25/40

Statistical scale analyses Reliability 6it items: Cronbach s α =.74 5 items: Cronbach s α =.83 Factor analysis Two factors solution Factor 1 (5 items): Perceived difficulties (i.e. intrinsic i i & extraneous load) Factor 2 (1 item): Invested effort (i.e. germane load) Slide 26/40

Cognitive load Main effect for Incremental WE (F(1,130) = 4.84, p <.05, η p =.04) No main effect for cooperation, no interaction (ps >.20) Overall CL (one item) Perceived difficulties Main effect for Incremental WE (F(1,130) = 7.39, p <.01, η p =.05) No main effect for cooperation, no interaction (p >.40) No main effect for Incremental WE No main effect for cooperation No interaction All ps >.30 Invested effort low high 1 2 3 4 5 Incremental WE pair Conventional WE pair Incremental WE single Conventional WE single Slide 27/40

Study 2: Summary Confirms results of Study 1 in terms of Learning success (retention) Estimates of CL (Scale analyses) Perceived difficulties Invested effort Cooperation is not necessary for incremental WEs to be effective Cooperation does not influence perceived diffuculties or invested effort Slide 28/40

Study 03 Is the induction of germane load by prompts effective or even necessary?

Step 1 We have to find out if the ropeway will resist Sascha s weight.

Step 3 Forces act in both directions along the rope of the ropeway. Furthermore, gravity, which is a force, too, acts downwards.

Are metacognitive prompts necessary for incremental worked examples? One-factorial design (N = 92; 8 th grade; 14.27 years, 46 female, 46 male): U N I K A S S E L EG 1: Conventional WE (cf. study 01 & 02, n = 28) EG 2: Incremental WE prompts p (new, n = 32) EG 3: Incremental WE + prompts (cf. study 01 & 02, n = 32) Problem solving task: Ropeway Hypotheses: EG 3 > EG 1 (Replication of studies 01 & 02) EG 2 >/= EG 1 (Fading-in is sufficient/or not) EG 3 >/= EG 2 (Additive) effect of prompts? p Slide 33/40

Learning outcome 100 F(2,46) = 11.05, p <.01, η2 η =.32 Outcome scores (in % of succes ss) Only incremental WE + prompts higher than both WE without prompts 80 60 40 20 n.s. Conventional WE Incremental WE - prompts p Incremental WE + prompts 0 Retention Knowledge Slide 34/40

Subjective ratings of cognitive load 2 Items: The task was very easy... very difficult To solve this task I made a high effort... low effort Slide 35/40

Cognitive load F(2,44) = 4.16, p <.05, η 2 =.16 Cognitive load (overall) n.s. Invested effort low 0 1 2 3 4 Incremental WE + prompts Incremental WE - prompts Conventional WE highh Slide 36/40

Correlations (Study 3) Basic needs Learning outcomes Cognitive load Competence Autonomy Social relatedness Retention Transfer Cognitive load (overall) Invested effort Competence -,383 **,286 **,129,114 -,545 **,234 * Autonomy -,209 * -,045 -,006 -,092 -,136 Social relatedness -,229 * -,025 -,045 -,244 * Retention -,020 -,056,101 Transfer - -,032,171 Cognitive load (overall) - -,228 * Slide 37/40

Study 3: Summary Confirms results of Studies 1 & 2 in terms of Learning success (retention) Perceived difficulties Invested effort Prompts do not increase perceived difficulties or invested effort Fading-in alone is not sufficient to evoke the effects Slide 38/40

Conclusions Incrementally fading-in prompts and solution steps of worked examples...... is beneficial for learning (success, cognitive load)... but does not lead to more invested effort (germane load). Cooperation does not induce germane load (Study 2) Fading-in alone does not necessarily lead to germane learning activities (Study 3) Learners (15 year old scholars) can distinguish i between invested effort and perceived load...... but not between extraneous and intrinsic load. Slide 39/40

Discussion and outlook How to induce germane load in WE? Prompts without fading-in? How to measure germane load? learning success vs. effort ratings vs. process observation vs.??? How do aspects of cognitive load relate to... motivational aspects (e.g. basic needs)? attributions of learning success? Slide 40/40