Revising Learner Misconceptions Without Feedback: Prompting for Reflection on Anomalies

The Internet has enabled learning at scale, from Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to Wikipedia. But online learners may become passive, instead of actively constructing knowledge and revising their beliefs in light of new facts. Instructors cannot directly diagnose thousands of learners' misconceptions and provide remedial tutoring. This paper investigates how instructors can prompt learners to reflect on facts that are anomalies with respect to their existing misconceptions, and how to choose these anomalies and prompts to guide learners to revise incorrect beliefs without any feedback. We conducted two randomized experiments with online crowd workers learning statistics. Results show that prompts to explain why these anomalies are true drive revision towards correct beliefs. But prompts to simply articulate thoughts about anomalies have no effect on learning. Furthermore, we find that explaining multiple anomalies is more effective than explaining only one, but the anomalies should rule out multiple misconceptions simultaneously.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[2]  William F. Brewer,et al.  The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction , 1993 .

[3]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  M. Beeth Facilitating Conceptual Change Learning: The Need for Teachers to Support Metacognition , 1998 .

[5]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Toward Computer-Based Support of Meta-Cognitive Skills: a Computational Framework to Coach Self-Explanation , 2000 .

[6]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction , 2004 .

[8]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Tutorial Dialogue System for Self-Explanation , 2004, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[9]  T. Lombrozo The structure and function of explanations , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Joseph Jay Williams,et al.  The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: evidence from category learning , 2010, ICLS.

[11]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Bootstrapping the Mind: Analogical Processes and Symbol Systems , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[13]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2012 .

[14]  Joseph Jay Williams,et al.  Explaining increases belief revision in the face of (many) anomalies , 2012, CogSci.

[15]  T. Lombrozo Explanation and Abductive Inference , 2012 .

[16]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Collaboration in cognitive tutor use in latin America: field study and design recommendations , 2012, CHI.

[17]  Kristina Höök,et al.  CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2012, CHI 2012.

[18]  J. J. Williams,et al.  Explanation and prior knowledge interact to guide learning , 2013, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  J. J. Williams,et al.  The hazards of explanation: overgeneralization in the face of exceptions. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  T. Griffiths,et al.  Why are people bad at detecting randomness? A statistical argument. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Justin Cheng,et al.  Peer and self assessment in massive online classes , 2013, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[22]  Joseph Jay Williams,et al.  Learning online via prompts to explain , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[23]  A. Graesser,et al.  Confusion can be beneficial for learning. , 2014 .

[24]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Providing Adaptive Support in an Interactive Simulation for Learning: An Experimental Evaluation , 2015, CHI.