iddeas: introducing desirable difficulties for educational applications in science classroom studies...

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)

TimelinesStudy One: Fall Semester

Post-Test

Modeling Activity(3 days)

WISE Activity(4-5 days)

Pre-Test

Study Two: Spring Semester

Post-Test Two

Modeling Activity(3 days)

Post-Test One

Revised WISE Activity(4-5 days)

Pre-Test

Participant Conditions

Study One Study Two

Non-integrated

Prompts

Integrated

Prompts

Static -visual Prompts

Per: 1a, 2a, 3a

Per: 1b, 2b, 3b

Animated-visual Prompts

Per: 4a, 5a, 6a

Per: 4b, 5b, 6b

Blocked Instruction

Interleaved Instruction

Recall-based Prompts

Period 6 Period 2

Reasoning-based Prompts

Period 4 Period 3

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

Distance: Mutual Gravitation

Distance: Planet Composition

Mass: Mutual gravitation

Mass: Planet composition

Interleaving

Distance: Mutual Gravitation

Mass: Mutual gravitation

Distance: Planet composition

Mass: Planet composition

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

• 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.”

• 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.”

Stimuli: Example Test Items

Sun

1.5 AUs

1/2 AU

Sun A

Planet A

Sun B

Planet B

Results: Study One Pre/Post Scores on Recall Items

0

5

10

15

20

Reflection Prompt (Integrated vs. Non-

integrated)

Order of Instruction(Interleaved vs. Blocked)

Desirable Difficulty

No Desirable Difficulty

Reflection Prompt: F (1,115) = 7.168 , p =.009

Order of Instruction: F (1,115)= 3.599, p = .06

Results: Study OneOpen-ended items (Post-test)

Reflection Prompt: F (1,115) = 18.769 , p = .000

Order of Instruction: F (1,115) = 1.989, p = .16



0

5

10

15

20

25

Integrated(n=58)

Non-integrated

(n=59)

Interleaved(n=57)

Blocked(n=60)

Prompt Order

Results: Study OneModeling Task Scores

0

5

10

15

20

25

Integrated(n=50)

Non-integrated

(n=46)

Interleaved(n=43)

Blocked(n=53)


Order of Instruction: F (1,94) = 6.010, p = .016



Prompt Order

Results: Study Two Post-Test

0

5

10

15

20

25

Integrated(n=86)

Non-integrated

(n=88)

Animated(n=83)

Static (n=91)


Visualization: F (1,172) = 1.134, p = .288



Prompt Visual

Results: Study TwoModeling Task Scores

0

5

10

15

20

25

Integrated(n=90)

Non-integrated

(n=91)

Animated(n=87)

Static (n=94)


Visualization: F (1,180) = 0, p = .992



Prompt Visual

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

iddeas: introducing desirable difficulties for educational applications in science classroom studies...

Documents

wise study

berkeley slide

scale slide

interleaving slide

year teaching wise slide

improved learning

wise environment

visual stimuli