An interesting new paper has appeared in the online journal PLoS One, authored by Thomas Pfeiffer and Robert Hoffman. To access the article, just click on the title below. The abstract of the article is reprinted below.
===================================================
Large-Scale Assessment of the Effect of Popularity on the Reliability of Research
Based on theoretical reasoning it has been suggested that the reliability of findings published in the scientific literature decreases with the popularity of a research field. Here we provide empirical support for this prediction. We evaluate published statements on protein interactions with data from high-throughput experiments. We find evidence for two distinctive effects. First, with increasing popularity of the interaction partners, individual statements in the literature become more erroneous. Second, the overall evidence on an interaction becomes increasingly distorted by multiple independent testing. We therefore argue that for increasing the reliability of research it is essential to assess the negative effects of popularity and develop approaches to diminish these effects.
===================================================
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Friday, 19 June 2009
Sleeping on a complex decision may be a bad choice - life - 19 June 2009 - New Scientist
Further evidence against the idea that unconscious thinking benefits decision making:
Sleeping on a complex decision may be a bad choice - life - 19 June 2009 - New Scientist
Shared via AddThis
Sleeping on a complex decision may be a bad choice - life - 19 June 2009 - New Scientist
Shared via AddThis
The experience of boredom in universities
New research by Sandi Mann and Andrew Robinson has found that boredom during classes may be a regular experience for most university students, and one which is exacerbated in lectures by the use of PowerPoint presentations.
Most previous research into the experience of boredom in education has focused on schoolchildren. This shows that some people are more prone to boredom than others, but also that unstimulating teaching methods can exacerbate the experience of boredom. Being bored increases the likelihood of skipping classes, and this can become a slippery slope, with boredom being associated with poorer grades.
To extend the earlier work to university students, Mann and Robinson surveyed 211 students from various courses at a univerity in the North-West of England. Based on previous research into lecturers' use of PowerPoint slides, they expected this mode of presentation to be one of the main causes of boredom.
Thirty-nine percent of students said 'some' of their lectures were boring, 29% said 'half' were boring, and another 30% said 'most' or 'all' their lectures were boring. Both boredom proneness and the use of PowerPoint were associated with boredom in lectures, and higher levels of boredom were associated with an increased number of missed classes. However, there was no association between boredom and skipping classes once individual differences in boredom proneness were controlled for. Boredom-prone students were more likely to engage in daydreaming, doodling, "switching off", colouring in letters on the handout, and so on.
Surprisingly, the classes that were associated with the highest levels of boredom were ones in which the students were engaged in tasks: laboratory classes and computer classes. However, the authors note that the mere fact of something being a 'doing' activity is not enough to prevent it from being boring. Lab classes are often controlled environments intended to simply verify something that is already known, and this predictability may detract from the level of interest. Likewise, computer classes may include tasks that are not very interesting, and boredom may also result if there are not enough computers for everyone present or if there are not enough staff to assist students in a timely fashion.
Online lecture notes, copying overheads in class, and the use of PowerPoint without handouts, were the next factors most associated with boredom. However, PowerPoint presentations with handouts were not so strongly associated with boredom. Presumably this combination allows students to focus more on what is being said rather than trying to write everything down.
There are some limitations to the study that the authors discuss. These include the use of self-report methods for assessing the frequency of boring classes. Could boredom-prone students be more likely remember more classes as being boring than was actually the case? But overall, the study indicates the importance of adopting stimulating teaching methods and not assuming that 'interactive' classes will automatically be interesting.
Reference
Mann, S., and Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35 (2), 243-258.
Most previous research into the experience of boredom in education has focused on schoolchildren. This shows that some people are more prone to boredom than others, but also that unstimulating teaching methods can exacerbate the experience of boredom. Being bored increases the likelihood of skipping classes, and this can become a slippery slope, with boredom being associated with poorer grades.
To extend the earlier work to university students, Mann and Robinson surveyed 211 students from various courses at a univerity in the North-West of England. Based on previous research into lecturers' use of PowerPoint slides, they expected this mode of presentation to be one of the main causes of boredom.
Thirty-nine percent of students said 'some' of their lectures were boring, 29% said 'half' were boring, and another 30% said 'most' or 'all' their lectures were boring. Both boredom proneness and the use of PowerPoint were associated with boredom in lectures, and higher levels of boredom were associated with an increased number of missed classes. However, there was no association between boredom and skipping classes once individual differences in boredom proneness were controlled for. Boredom-prone students were more likely to engage in daydreaming, doodling, "switching off", colouring in letters on the handout, and so on.
Surprisingly, the classes that were associated with the highest levels of boredom were ones in which the students were engaged in tasks: laboratory classes and computer classes. However, the authors note that the mere fact of something being a 'doing' activity is not enough to prevent it from being boring. Lab classes are often controlled environments intended to simply verify something that is already known, and this predictability may detract from the level of interest. Likewise, computer classes may include tasks that are not very interesting, and boredom may also result if there are not enough computers for everyone present or if there are not enough staff to assist students in a timely fashion.
Online lecture notes, copying overheads in class, and the use of PowerPoint without handouts, were the next factors most associated with boredom. However, PowerPoint presentations with handouts were not so strongly associated with boredom. Presumably this combination allows students to focus more on what is being said rather than trying to write everything down.
There are some limitations to the study that the authors discuss. These include the use of self-report methods for assessing the frequency of boring classes. Could boredom-prone students be more likely remember more classes as being boring than was actually the case? But overall, the study indicates the importance of adopting stimulating teaching methods and not assuming that 'interactive' classes will automatically be interesting.
Reference
Mann, S., and Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35 (2), 243-258.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Evolution and learning
A couple of days ago I put a link to an article, on another blog site, which briefly reported a paper by David Geary concerning evolution and education. This has actually been reported on several blogs, but the reports are all very similar and appear to be based on a press release. David Geary has actually published several pieces on evolution and education, but the recent blogs are based on a target article that appeared in Educational Psychologist (issue for October - December 2008). This article was followed by some commentaries and a response by Geary.
I've now read the original article and found it very interesting and thought-provoking. It is not, in fact, an empirical study. Rather, David Geary uses evolutionary theory to make predictions about the nature of learning and to explain the findings of previously-published research. At the most basic level, Geary argues that children find it much easier to learn about the things that would have been important for survival throughout most of human (and pre-human) history, as compared to many of the topics we try to teach in schools and universities. The former kind of learning is what he refers to as "primary learning".
Primary learning falls into the categories of folk psychology, folk, biology, and folk physics. Examples of folk psychology include learning and thinking about oneself, about others (e.g. the meaning of facial expressions, understanding language, etc.), and about groups (who is kin, who is part of your in-group or out-group). Folk biology includes learning about plants, prey, and predators. Folk physics involves understanding the ecology, including learning to navigate and to construct basic tools. Much of the learning and reasoning in these domains is fast, unconscious, and automatic, because the mind has evolved over millions of years to respond to these problems.
However, the human mind has also evolved a degree of plasticity; that is, it has evolved a capacity to engage with novel problems that are encountered in the environment. This is what Geary calls "secondary learning". Novel problems require people to construct internal models of the environment that they then manipulate in an attempt to reach solutions or decisions. This kind of thinking is slower, more controlled, and conscious, although sufficient practice in a domain can lead to processes becoming automatic (as with reading and writing). It is this kind of thinking where we would expect to find the most variation between individuals.
As Geary notes, throughout most children's development language is quickly learned, as is the ability to understand the expressions of others, one's own status within a group, and so on. Consistent with this evolutionary perspective on learning, children are most happy when chatting with friends and engaging in sporting activities (in-group/out-group competition), and least happy when engaged in school activities (lessons, homework, etc.). Furthermore, between childhood and adulthood the best predictor of global self-esteem is not performance at school, but one's perceived physical attractiveness.
One implication of this perspective is that we should not rely on children's "natural curiosity" to guide their secondary learning. Indeed, we should not assume a smooth transition between primary learning and secondary learning. Children themselves need to be taught that the topics of secondary learning will not be learned as effortlessly as the topics of primary learning. If they do not realise this, then the inevitable failures that occur when children engage in secondary learning may lead to disengagement. This is often the case in mathematics, where children frequently believe (and are encouraged by parents to believe) that unless you have innate talent then you can't do maths.
Geary also cautions against uncritical acceptance of currently-popular social constructivist approaches to learning, which emphasise group learning over individual learning. The fact that children learn a great deal of social knowledge through their participation in groups does not mean that group participation will have the same effect for secondary learning. This is an area where more research is needed, as was noted by the American National Mathematics Advisory Panel (cited in Geary's response to commentaries):
"All-encompassing recommendations that instruction should be entirely "child-centred" or "teacher-directed" are not supported by research. If such recommendations exist, they should be rescinded. If they are being considered, they should be avoided. High-quality research does not support the exclusive use of either approach".
Although Geary talks about school age children through his paper, for those of us teaching in higher education the evolutionary perspective must still be salient. Many of our students are still in their teenage years, are still learning about themselves, learning about new people and groups that they encounter, and about their position within those groups. It is not always clear that students appreciate the effort that must be made in order to learn much of the material that is encountered, and some topics are percieved as harder than others. In addition, there is much pressure to move towards a "student-centred" model of teaching, just as schools have been encouraged to use "child-centred" teaching. But as Geary shows us, on the basis of current evidence it is far from clear whether one model is superior to the other, or should be used to the exclusion of the other.
Addendum, June 12th
In relation to group learning, I should have also made reference to my posting about "The Apprentice" on June 9th. There I referred to the research on brainstorming, which has found that it is more effective for members of a group to generate their ideas individually rather than within the context of a group. Along similar lines, research into group decision making has found that people in groups tend to share information that is already known to all members, whilst information that is unique to a given member often goes unshared. Thus groups may fail to take advantage of any diversity among their members (one qualification here is that the research to date is largely based on groups created by the researchers, rather than long-standing groups whose members are familiar to each other and who may feel more at ease sharing). I talk about this work in my textbook Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives.
However, it may be that using the new social media applications (blogs, wikis, Twitter, etc.) may overcome some of the limitations of traditional group interaction. Just as electronic brainstorming has been found to work better than face-to-face brainstorming, so asynchronous electronic communication may allow for a more beneficial exchange of information; for example, by allowing students to consider what they want to say before posting a message, as opposed to feeling pressurised to provide a fast response in a face-to-face situation. Clearly this is an area where more research is needed.
Reference
Geary, D.C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43 (4), 179-195.
Geary, D.C. (2008). Whither evolutionary educational psychology? Educational Psychologist, 43 (4), 217-226.
I've now read the original article and found it very interesting and thought-provoking. It is not, in fact, an empirical study. Rather, David Geary uses evolutionary theory to make predictions about the nature of learning and to explain the findings of previously-published research. At the most basic level, Geary argues that children find it much easier to learn about the things that would have been important for survival throughout most of human (and pre-human) history, as compared to many of the topics we try to teach in schools and universities. The former kind of learning is what he refers to as "primary learning".
Primary learning falls into the categories of folk psychology, folk, biology, and folk physics. Examples of folk psychology include learning and thinking about oneself, about others (e.g. the meaning of facial expressions, understanding language, etc.), and about groups (who is kin, who is part of your in-group or out-group). Folk biology includes learning about plants, prey, and predators. Folk physics involves understanding the ecology, including learning to navigate and to construct basic tools. Much of the learning and reasoning in these domains is fast, unconscious, and automatic, because the mind has evolved over millions of years to respond to these problems.
However, the human mind has also evolved a degree of plasticity; that is, it has evolved a capacity to engage with novel problems that are encountered in the environment. This is what Geary calls "secondary learning". Novel problems require people to construct internal models of the environment that they then manipulate in an attempt to reach solutions or decisions. This kind of thinking is slower, more controlled, and conscious, although sufficient practice in a domain can lead to processes becoming automatic (as with reading and writing). It is this kind of thinking where we would expect to find the most variation between individuals.
As Geary notes, throughout most children's development language is quickly learned, as is the ability to understand the expressions of others, one's own status within a group, and so on. Consistent with this evolutionary perspective on learning, children are most happy when chatting with friends and engaging in sporting activities (in-group/out-group competition), and least happy when engaged in school activities (lessons, homework, etc.). Furthermore, between childhood and adulthood the best predictor of global self-esteem is not performance at school, but one's perceived physical attractiveness.
One implication of this perspective is that we should not rely on children's "natural curiosity" to guide their secondary learning. Indeed, we should not assume a smooth transition between primary learning and secondary learning. Children themselves need to be taught that the topics of secondary learning will not be learned as effortlessly as the topics of primary learning. If they do not realise this, then the inevitable failures that occur when children engage in secondary learning may lead to disengagement. This is often the case in mathematics, where children frequently believe (and are encouraged by parents to believe) that unless you have innate talent then you can't do maths.
Geary also cautions against uncritical acceptance of currently-popular social constructivist approaches to learning, which emphasise group learning over individual learning. The fact that children learn a great deal of social knowledge through their participation in groups does not mean that group participation will have the same effect for secondary learning. This is an area where more research is needed, as was noted by the American National Mathematics Advisory Panel (cited in Geary's response to commentaries):
"All-encompassing recommendations that instruction should be entirely "child-centred" or "teacher-directed" are not supported by research. If such recommendations exist, they should be rescinded. If they are being considered, they should be avoided. High-quality research does not support the exclusive use of either approach".
Although Geary talks about school age children through his paper, for those of us teaching in higher education the evolutionary perspective must still be salient. Many of our students are still in their teenage years, are still learning about themselves, learning about new people and groups that they encounter, and about their position within those groups. It is not always clear that students appreciate the effort that must be made in order to learn much of the material that is encountered, and some topics are percieved as harder than others. In addition, there is much pressure to move towards a "student-centred" model of teaching, just as schools have been encouraged to use "child-centred" teaching. But as Geary shows us, on the basis of current evidence it is far from clear whether one model is superior to the other, or should be used to the exclusion of the other.
Addendum, June 12th
In relation to group learning, I should have also made reference to my posting about "The Apprentice" on June 9th. There I referred to the research on brainstorming, which has found that it is more effective for members of a group to generate their ideas individually rather than within the context of a group. Along similar lines, research into group decision making has found that people in groups tend to share information that is already known to all members, whilst information that is unique to a given member often goes unshared. Thus groups may fail to take advantage of any diversity among their members (one qualification here is that the research to date is largely based on groups created by the researchers, rather than long-standing groups whose members are familiar to each other and who may feel more at ease sharing). I talk about this work in my textbook Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives.
However, it may be that using the new social media applications (blogs, wikis, Twitter, etc.) may overcome some of the limitations of traditional group interaction. Just as electronic brainstorming has been found to work better than face-to-face brainstorming, so asynchronous electronic communication may allow for a more beneficial exchange of information; for example, by allowing students to consider what they want to say before posting a message, as opposed to feeling pressurised to provide a fast response in a face-to-face situation. Clearly this is an area where more research is needed.
Reference
Geary, D.C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43 (4), 179-195.
Geary, D.C. (2008). Whither evolutionary educational psychology? Educational Psychologist, 43 (4), 217-226.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Reflections on "The Apprentice"
I have been meaning to try and write an essay about The Apprentice, the TV show that has just reached the end of its fifth run in the UK. However, the pressures of the university exam period have somewhat scuppered that, so here are a few quick thoughts...
The one part of every series that really drives me crazy is the interviews just prior to the final of the show. These interviews have always seemed to have no purpose other than to make the candidates squirm as much as possible. But this time, the cat has been let out of the bag, when one of the interviewers appeared on The Apprentice - Your Fired and admitted that you would never interview like that in real life. In other words, they are just trying to make fun telly. However, even when interviewers are trying to do a sensible job, the psychological research indicates that interviews are a pretty dismal way of trying to predict how well someone will perform in any kind of future situation (and I don't mean just job interviews, but interviews for university places, parole board interviews, etc.). A recent enquiry to the mailing list of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making asked whether there was anything positive to be said for interviews. Nobody did have anything positive to say. Nonetheless, we all still use interviews, presumably for want of reliable evidence and because people still have misgivings about psychometric testing. Also, many interviewers will regard themselves as amateur psychologists, giving themselves a pat on the back for their ability to understand people and identify talent (see note below on overconfidence).
Something that happens on almost every episode of The Apprentice is the group brainstorming session, where the teams throw around ideas, a process which leads to the occasional tantrum or sulk as personalities clash and people don't get their own way. Again, there has been a lot of research into brainstorming and it points in one direction: It is more effective for people to generate ideas individually before engaging in evaluation than it is to do so in a group. Even when groups brainstorm properly (i.e. avoid poo-pooing ideas that are proposed), some people may be afraid of exposing their ideas to public scrutiny, they may be unable to get a productive train of thought going whilst listening to other people, they may forget what they were going to say because of what someone else is saying, they may slack off and let others do the work, or they may just match their individual level of productivity to what they perceive as the norm.
Some ways have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of brainstorming, such as having trained facilitators guide a session or alternating between private and group sessions. This also wouldn't be such good television, of course.
Finally, the thing I love about The Apprentice, and what makes it such compulsive viewing, is the incredible overconfidence of the candidates. Of course, you don't know to what extent the programme-makers gee them up to say the boastful things they do, but one of the great pleasures is watching people with apparently huge egos making a big mess of things. I fully appreciate that the tasks involved are difficult, that there is great time pressure, and so on, but that's all the more reason the candidates shouldn't be so cocky! Not that they will always admit to having made mistakes; the usual attitude, to quote the title of a book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, is "Mistakes were made (but not by me)". And as this book title suggests, research into both experts and laypeople indicates not just a widespread tendency towards overconfidence, but also a tendency to believe that failures were somebody else's fault.
On the other hand, the candidates are perhaps in something of a dilemma. Admitting to having made a mistake is clearly seen as a risky thing to do. It's often hard for Sir Alan Sugar (in the UK version) to decide who should go, and admitting to a mistake obviously provides a clear reason for why you should be fired. At the same time, candidates are supposed to show that they can learn from experience! So, presumably the best strategy is to say that someone else made a mistake and you have learned from it...
Anyway, here's looking forward to the next series.
The one part of every series that really drives me crazy is the interviews just prior to the final of the show. These interviews have always seemed to have no purpose other than to make the candidates squirm as much as possible. But this time, the cat has been let out of the bag, when one of the interviewers appeared on The Apprentice - Your Fired and admitted that you would never interview like that in real life. In other words, they are just trying to make fun telly. However, even when interviewers are trying to do a sensible job, the psychological research indicates that interviews are a pretty dismal way of trying to predict how well someone will perform in any kind of future situation (and I don't mean just job interviews, but interviews for university places, parole board interviews, etc.). A recent enquiry to the mailing list of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making asked whether there was anything positive to be said for interviews. Nobody did have anything positive to say. Nonetheless, we all still use interviews, presumably for want of reliable evidence and because people still have misgivings about psychometric testing. Also, many interviewers will regard themselves as amateur psychologists, giving themselves a pat on the back for their ability to understand people and identify talent (see note below on overconfidence).
Something that happens on almost every episode of The Apprentice is the group brainstorming session, where the teams throw around ideas, a process which leads to the occasional tantrum or sulk as personalities clash and people don't get their own way. Again, there has been a lot of research into brainstorming and it points in one direction: It is more effective for people to generate ideas individually before engaging in evaluation than it is to do so in a group. Even when groups brainstorm properly (i.e. avoid poo-pooing ideas that are proposed), some people may be afraid of exposing their ideas to public scrutiny, they may be unable to get a productive train of thought going whilst listening to other people, they may forget what they were going to say because of what someone else is saying, they may slack off and let others do the work, or they may just match their individual level of productivity to what they perceive as the norm.
Some ways have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of brainstorming, such as having trained facilitators guide a session or alternating between private and group sessions. This also wouldn't be such good television, of course.
Finally, the thing I love about The Apprentice, and what makes it such compulsive viewing, is the incredible overconfidence of the candidates. Of course, you don't know to what extent the programme-makers gee them up to say the boastful things they do, but one of the great pleasures is watching people with apparently huge egos making a big mess of things. I fully appreciate that the tasks involved are difficult, that there is great time pressure, and so on, but that's all the more reason the candidates shouldn't be so cocky! Not that they will always admit to having made mistakes; the usual attitude, to quote the title of a book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, is "Mistakes were made (but not by me)". And as this book title suggests, research into both experts and laypeople indicates not just a widespread tendency towards overconfidence, but also a tendency to believe that failures were somebody else's fault.
On the other hand, the candidates are perhaps in something of a dilemma. Admitting to having made a mistake is clearly seen as a risky thing to do. It's often hard for Sir Alan Sugar (in the UK version) to decide who should go, and admitting to a mistake obviously provides a clear reason for why you should be fired. At the same time, candidates are supposed to show that they can learn from experience! So, presumably the best strategy is to say that someone else made a mistake and you have learned from it...
Anyway, here's looking forward to the next series.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Do multimedia presentations improve understanding?
A new study by Stefan Münzer and colleagues in Germany suggests that the benefits of animations in presentations are not restricted to subgroups of viewers, such as those with superior visual-spatial processing abilities or those with weaker prior knowledge.
Although animations are widely believed to enhance the learning of dynamic processes, research has not decisively found an advantage for animations over static images. One suggestion is that animations require the use of the viewer's visual-spatial processes, and thus benefit those who have stronger visual-spatial abilities but not necessarily those who are weaker in this kind of processing. Another suggestion is that animations benefit mainly those who have lower prior knowledge about the area being taught.
An alternative view of visual-spatial thinking is that this is more important for comprehending static images that are intended to convey some process. This is because the viewer must animate the static image in his or her head, a procedure which certainly does require visual-spatial processes.
Münzer and colleagues examined the effectiveness of animations in the comprehension of ATP structure and synthesis (ATP is a kind of enzyme). Thirty-four students were shown an animation of ATP structure and process, 31 were shown static images, and 34 were shown enriched static images containing arrows and representations of intermediate states that illustrated the motion of particular elements. All participants were tested for their prior knowledge and for their spatial abilities. Following the presentation, the participants completed a computer-based test that assessed recall, comprehension, and transfer, using a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
On the questions about ATP structure, there was no effect of presentation mode and no effect of spatial ability. However, students with higher prior knowledge did better on the test.
On the questions about ATP processes, both animations and enriched static images led to better test performance than the ordinary static images. Spatial abilities did not predict performance in the animation condition, nor - unexpectedly - did they predict performance in the ordinary static images condition. The authors suggest that this last presentation mode may have just been too hard for everyone. However, stronger spatial ability was associated with better performance after seeing the enriched spatial images, suggesting that high spatial performers are better able to construct an internal model of a process when a diagram contains cues to motion.
Prior knowledge also predicted performance on the process questions, but did not interact with any of the other factors.
In sum, this study suggests that animations may indeed benefit the comprehension of process information, and that this is not dependent on the spatial abilities of the viewer. One factor that was not reported in the study, however, was whether animations benefited each individual component of the final test (i.e. recall, comprehension, and transfer).
Reference
Münzer, S., Seufert, T., and Brünken, R. Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences (2009), doi:101016/j.indif.2009.05.001.
Although animations are widely believed to enhance the learning of dynamic processes, research has not decisively found an advantage for animations over static images. One suggestion is that animations require the use of the viewer's visual-spatial processes, and thus benefit those who have stronger visual-spatial abilities but not necessarily those who are weaker in this kind of processing. Another suggestion is that animations benefit mainly those who have lower prior knowledge about the area being taught.
An alternative view of visual-spatial thinking is that this is more important for comprehending static images that are intended to convey some process. This is because the viewer must animate the static image in his or her head, a procedure which certainly does require visual-spatial processes.
Münzer and colleagues examined the effectiveness of animations in the comprehension of ATP structure and synthesis (ATP is a kind of enzyme). Thirty-four students were shown an animation of ATP structure and process, 31 were shown static images, and 34 were shown enriched static images containing arrows and representations of intermediate states that illustrated the motion of particular elements. All participants were tested for their prior knowledge and for their spatial abilities. Following the presentation, the participants completed a computer-based test that assessed recall, comprehension, and transfer, using a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
On the questions about ATP structure, there was no effect of presentation mode and no effect of spatial ability. However, students with higher prior knowledge did better on the test.
On the questions about ATP processes, both animations and enriched static images led to better test performance than the ordinary static images. Spatial abilities did not predict performance in the animation condition, nor - unexpectedly - did they predict performance in the ordinary static images condition. The authors suggest that this last presentation mode may have just been too hard for everyone. However, stronger spatial ability was associated with better performance after seeing the enriched spatial images, suggesting that high spatial performers are better able to construct an internal model of a process when a diagram contains cues to motion.
Prior knowledge also predicted performance on the process questions, but did not interact with any of the other factors.
In sum, this study suggests that animations may indeed benefit the comprehension of process information, and that this is not dependent on the spatial abilities of the viewer. One factor that was not reported in the study, however, was whether animations benefited each individual component of the final test (i.e. recall, comprehension, and transfer).
Reference
Münzer, S., Seufert, T., and Brünken, R. Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences (2009), doi:101016/j.indif.2009.05.001.
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Why is it so hard to do my work?
In the modern workplace people are often required to work on multiple projects, often under time pressure and with changing priorities. The media often talk about "multi-tasking", in which people engage in more than one activity at the same time, yet much workplace activity involves moving from one task to another sequentially. New research by Sophie Leroy at the University of Minnesota shows that performance on a task can be detrimentally affected by having worked on a different task just before. Leroy proposes that this is due to attention residue, whereby a person is still thinking about the earlier task whilst working on the current one. More strikingly, the detrimental effect of attention residue does not only occur when the earlier task was left unfinished, but also when it was completed.
In Leroy's first study, 84 students were told that they would be doing two apparently different studies. The first involved attempting word problems and the second was said to be a study of how people evaluate job candidates but, having completed the first task the students were not actually asked to do the evaluation task. Instead, they were presented with a task specifically designed to measure the extent to which they were still thinking about the previous task. For the first task, involving the word problems, the students were allocated to one of four different conditions, whereby it was either possible or impossible to complete the task, and there was either high or low time pressure. Leroy reasoned that tasks that are finished under high time pressure should lead to less attention residue, because time pressure inhibits the ability to explore possibilities so there is less to reflect back on later.
This is exactly what she found. After having engaged on the word task, participants were asked to decide whether various letter strings shown on a computer screen were real words or not. Some of the letter strings shown were not words, some were "target" words that related to the first task, and some were "neutral" words (that served as a baseline measure).
The fastest response times occurred for the target words, except for the participants who had finished the first task under high time pressure. This indicates that in the other conditions the target words were already active in participants' minds, as would be expected if they were still thinking about the first task. By contrast, neutral words were identified more slowly.
In a second study Leroy had 78 students complete the job evaluation task straight after the initial word problems task, but without doing the lexical decision task. In the the job evaluation task the students were given 5 minutes to read four resumes (CVs). Then they were asked to recall as much as they could about each resume.
As predicted, the students recalled more about the resumes when they had previously completed the word problems task under high time pressure.
Leroy notes that in a real work context it will not always be possible to improve task performance simply by setting a deadline; a deadline needs to be a realistic one.
Further research should also examine a range of other factors, such as the degree of initial task completion (rather than simply completed vs. non-completed) and the individual's state of mind at the time of transitioning from one task to another (e.g. is the person at the peak of their concentration, fatigued, or in some other state).
Reference
Friday, 5 June 2009
Keeping the libel law out of scientific disputes
The British Chiropractic Association has taken out a libel action against scientist and best-selling author Simon Singh. The organisation Sense About Science is collecting signatures of those opposed to the use of the libel laws to settle essentially scientific disputes. Their statement and a link to the petition is here.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
MMR and autism
Earlier this week, a former chairman of the British Medical Association, Sir Sandy Macara, proposed that children should not be allowed to attend school unless they had been innoculated with the MMR vaccine (the BBC's report is here). I have just been watching BBC television's Question Time programme, where most panellists - not all, sadly - supported the MMR vaccine, but declined to support Macara's position on the grounds that it was not fair to "take it out on the children". What none of them ventured to say was whether it would be fair on the other children in school to be exposed to a life-threatening contagious illness from an unvaccinated child.
The NHS has a very helpful vaccination website, where two particularly salient facts are given:
- In the year before the vaccine was introduced in the UK, 86,000 children caught measles and 16 died.
- Because of the MMR vaccine, no child has died from acute measles in the UK since 1992.
The graph to the right shows how measles cases have been rising since the media started printing scare stories about MMR. If we can ban smokers from pubs on the grounds that their smoke endangers the health of other patrons, why can't we ban unvaccinated children from school on the grounds that they are similarly endangering the health and life of their peers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Google Analytics
Posts
