Aggregation in memory of episodic influences on rule-guided decisions.

Rothkopf, Ernst Z.; Dashen, Monica; Kim, Teft

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.5.983

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include, for example, content structure and redundancy (Bryan and Harter 1899;Anderson 1983), distinctions between nominal stimulation and internal representations (Fechner 1860, Hull 1943Rothkopf 1957;Underwood 1963), the consequences of active engagement (Gates 1917;Hovland et al 1949), techniques to foster attention and engagement (Rothkopf and Bloom 1970;Hyde and Jenkins 1973;Scardamalia et al 1984), the interval between instructive events (e.g., Ebbinghaus 1885; Smith and Rothkopf 1984;Dempster 1996;Pashler and Bayliss 1991;Pashler et al 2003), evocation schedules (Bjork 1988), sequence of presentation in induction (e.g., Detambel and Stolurow 1956;Rothkopf 1958), the role of surface context (Ross 1984;Rothkopf et al 2002), as well as a number of others. The literature is very large, and its interpretation and use for practical applications in teaching designs allows for many possibilities.…”

Section: Goals Of Instructional Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reflections on the Field: Aspirations of Learning Science and the Practical Logic of Instructional Enterprises

Rothkopf

2008

Educ Psychol Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 100 years of learning and cognition research have had only modest cumulative impact on teaching, while many other practical domains such as agriculture have shown a steady growth in widely accepted, research-informed practices. Several reasons have been advanced for the painfully slow adoption of science-based instructional procedures. One important but not widely recognized obstacle is proposed here, namely, that the aims of fundamental learning and teaching research do not mesh well with the practical logic of schools. Basic learning research tends to focus on efficiency, i.e., how much can be learned from a given amount of effort or time but teaching efficiency is not a strong concern for schools. This is because they generally focus on global year-end results while the efforts required at the tactical lesson level are only loosely monitored. School administrators tend to reckon costs in terms of the number of engaged teachers and not in the difficulty of each teacher's job. For these reasons, schools can be expected to have only nominal interests in science-informed, close management of tactical pedagogic units. Psychological work on labor saving possibilities, such as research-based instructive products, is more likely to be readily welcomed than improvements in lesson efficiency, especially in middle and high schools. Instructional enterprises in which the cost and the benefits of instruction are borne by the same agency, such as industrial training, are the most likely consumers of efficiency-related basic cognitive research. PrologueAfter participating for 55 years in instruction-related psychological research, I am left with the somewhat distressing conclusion that, while learning science has made some progress Educ Psychol Rev (

show abstract

Section: Goals Of Instructional Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reflections on the Field: Aspirations of Learning Science and the Practical Logic of Instructional Enterprises

Rothkopf

2008

Educ Psychol Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They assume that practice allows trainees to fine-tune decision rules and hence that performance will improve in situations where prior examples are not available (Erickson & Kruschke, 1998). However, they also assume that when prior examples are available, people will continue to use them, even if they have access to a well-learned rule (Logan, 1988;Rothkopf, Dashen, & Teft, 2002;Vokey & Brooks, 1992;Whittlesea et al, 1994).…”

Section: Training Design and Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

An examination of learning processes during critical incident training: Implications for the development of adaptable trainees.

Neal¹,

Godley²,

Kirkpatrick³

et al. 2006

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments are reported that examined the process by which trainees learn decision-making skills during a critical incident training program. Formal theories of category learning were used to identify two processes that may be responsible for the acquisition of decision-making skills: rule learning and exemplar learning. Experiments 1 and 2 used the process dissociation procedure (L. L. Jacoby, 1998) to evaluate the contribution of these processes to performance. The results suggest that trainees used a mixture of rule and exemplar learning. Furthermore, these learning processes were influenced by different aspects of training structure and design. The goal of Experiment 3 was to develop training techniques that enable trainees to use a rule adaptively. Trainees were tested on cases that represented exceptions to the rule. Unexpectedly, the results suggest that providing general instruction regarding the kinds of conditions in which a decision rule does not apply caused them to fixate on the specific conditions mentioned and impaired their ability to identify other conditions in which the rule might not apply. The theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the results are discussed.

show abstract