Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving

Abstract

Previous research has found that having a nonspecific goal (NSG) leads to better problem solving and transfer than having a specific goal (SG). To distinguish between the various explanations of this effect requires direct evidence showing how a NSG affects a participant's behaviour. Therefore we collected verbal protocols from participants learning to control a linear system consisting of 3 outputs by manipulating 3 inputs. This system was simpler than the one we had used previously, so in Exp. 1 we generalized our earlier goal specificity findings to this system. In Exp. 2 protocol analysis confirmed our prediction (based on dual-space theories of problem solving) that NSG participants focused on hypothesis testing whereas SG participants focused on the goal. However, this difference only emerged over time. We also replicated the goal specificity effect on performance and showed that giving participants a hypothesis to test improved performance.

Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills.

“…CDCTs have been a popular task environment for examining many phenomena, including motivational and affective processes in complex decision making (Earley, Connolly, & Ekegren, 1989;Locke & Latham, 2002;Vancouver, 1997), skill learning in naturalistic decision making (Brehmer, 1992;Kerstholt, 1996;Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu, & Salas, 2001), memory and attentional processes in problem solving (Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;Miller et al, 1999;Vollmeyer et al, 1996), and implicit learning (Berry, 1991;Berry & Broadbent, 1988;Dienes & Fahey, 1995, 1998. Their popularity and range make them ideal for studying the acquisition and transfer of skill-based knowledge in a variety of complex interactive environments (Campbell, 1988;Cañas, Quesada, Antoli, & Fajardo, 2003;Funke, 2001).…”

“…A typical CDCT includes several inputs connected to several outputs via a complex causal structure or rule (See Figure 1). The CDCT in Figure 1 is from Burns and Vollmeyer's (2002) task, which was based on a water tank purification plant, and will be used in the present study.…”

“…The second research history concerns the effects of two related features of goal setting in CDCTs: goal-specificity (e.g., Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;Owen & Sweller, 1985;Sweller & Levine, 1982;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996), and goal-difficulty (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989;Kanfer, Ackerman, Murtha, & Nelson, 1994). In studies of the goal specificity effect, participants are either instructed to first learn about a complex control system by controlling it to a criterion (SG: Specific Goal), or are simply told to explore the system (NSG: Non-Specific Goal).…”

“…The effect of varying the specificity and difficulty of reaching a goal on control performance was first examined by Sweller (Sweller & Levine, 1982;Sweller, Mawer, & Ward, 1983), and has since been replicated (e.g., Berry & Broadbent, 1984;Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;Geddes & Stevenson, 1997;Miller, Lehman, & Koedinger, 1999;Owen & Sweller, 1985;Trumpower, Goldsmith, & Guynn, 2004;Vollmeyer et al, 1996). Burns and Vollmeyer's (2002) recent account of the phenomena develops on Dual-Space theory (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988;Simon & Lea, 1974).…”

“…Both behaviors are also interrelated (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996). However, studies of skill learning in CDCTs have overlooked this relationship, particularly how it influences the transferability of expertise (e.g., Berry, 1991;Berry & Broadbent, 1988;Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002). Without an Anti-Learning 5 understanding of how individuals monitor their behavior, little can be said about how evaluative processes are employed when transferring learnt skills to achieve unpracticed goals.…”