Positive and negative transfer in analogical problem solving by 6-year-old children

Chen, Zhe; Daehler, Marvin W.

doi:10.1016/s0885-2014(89)90031-2

Cited by 79 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although rare, demonstrations of negative transfer in studies of problem solving and rule learning do exist (e.g., Chen & Daehler, 1989;Lee & Vakoch, 1996;Luchins, 1942;Novick, 1988;Woltz, Bell, Kyllonen, & Gardner, 1996;Woltz, Gardner, & Bell, 2000). In many of these studies, negative transfer of skilled learning is taken as an indication of overlearnt behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Osman¹

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined how self-regulatory processes influenced problem solving behavior under conditions in which people were either re-exposed to their prior learning, or experienced someone else's. In a series of four experiments, participants solved two complex control tasks that were identical in structure but varied in presentation format. Participants either learnt to solve the second task, based on their original learning phase from the first task, or learnt to solve the second task based on another participant's learning phase. Experiment 1 showed that, under conditions in which participants' learning phase was experienced twice, performance deteriorated in the second task compared to the first. In contrast, when the learning phases in the first and second task differed, performance improved in the second task.Experiment 2 introduced instructional manipulations that induced the same response patterns as Experiment 1, and Experiment 3 showed that participants differentially weighted the learning phase in the second task. In Experiment 4, judgments of selfefficacy were shown to track control performance. The implications of these findings for induction, self-regulation, and insight are discussed. examples share a precise goal that involves accurately and reliably controlling a complex dynamic control task (CDCT-i.e., the aircraft). Control behavior in this, and other types of CDCTs (e.g., air-traffic control, naval mine sweeping, car driving) depends on the development of expertise (e.g., Brehmer, 1992;Funke, 2001; Gonzalez, Lerch, & Lebiere, 2003;Kerstholt, 1996;Randel & Pugh, 1996;Sweller, 1988;.Expertise involves both monitoring-through self-evaluation of goal-directed actions (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Ericsson & Lehman, 1996;Karoly, 1993;Lerch & Harter, 2001;Rossano, 2003;VanLehn, 1996)-and control, or the generation and selection of goal-directed actions (e.g., Lerch & Harter, 2001; Locke & Latham, 2002;Rossano, 2003;Sweller, 1988;VanLehn, 1996;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996). 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.For instance, the critical difference between the examples above is that, in the first case, training (i.e., control performance) and assessment (i.e., monitoring) are based on self-generated behavior; whereas, in the second, assessment is based on comparing self-and other-generated training behavior. These types of training procedures are often used in educational (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;Pressley, & Ghatala, 1990;Zimmerman, 1990), clin...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Osman¹

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the focus was in solving algebraic equations and not on the subject matter within the different contexts, it was coded as math. Content considered to be within the domain of other ranged from solutions to physical problems (e.g., getting a bead out of a cylinder or solving a problem using the convergence solution; Chen &Daehler, 1989, andCatrambone &Holyoak, 1989, respectively), to the negotiation of contracts between disputing parties (Gentner et al, 2004, Experiment 1), to the perception of visual stimuli (Markman & Gentner, 1993).…”

Section: Variables Coded As Potential Moderatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analogies can also help students acquire a more abstract understanding of the to-be-learned content. Through analogical comparison, students can extract the features that are in common, and the resulting representation can then facilitate transfer to new examples and situations that share the same underlying structure but differ in the specific features (Chen & Daehler, 1989;Gentner et al, 2003;Gerjets, Scheiter, & Schuh, 2008;Gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983Richland & McDonough, 2010;Schuh, Gerjets, & Scheiter, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Through Case Comparisons: A Meta-Analytic Review

Alfieri¹,

Nokes‐Malach²,

Schunn³

2013

Educational Psychologist

249

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The experiments were conducted during April, September, October 2000, October 2004 and June 2005 using …rst year undergraduate students majoring in either economics, political science, law, medicine or humanities with no formal training in game theory at the University Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. 5 In an experimental session we had either ten, sixteen or eighteen students. Participants were …rst randomly matched into pairs in three of the four treatments.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full Info Treatment: In the Full Info treatment all players were informed about the other player's choice in the pair (n = 2) or all other players'choices in the group (n > 2). The experimenter wrote those choices as well as 2=3 of the mean and the obtained payo¤ either on the decision sheet in the case 5 All sessions run in 2005 only used non econ students and were computerized using zTree (Fischbacher, 1999). 6 The exact size of n was equal to the respective session size, i.e.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rational Reasoning or Adaptive Behavior? Evidence from Two-Person Beauty Contest Games

Grosskopf

Nagel

2001

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many experiments have shown that human subjects do not necessarily behave in line with game theoretic assumptions and solution concepts. The reasons for this non-conformity are multiple. In this paper we study the argument whether a deviation from game theory is because subjects are rational, but doubt that others are rational as well, compared to the argument that subjects, in general, are boundedly rational themselves. To distinguish these two hypotheses, we study behavior in repeated 2-person and many-person BeautyContest-Games which are strategically di¤erent from one another. We analyze four di¤erent treatments and observe that convergence toward equilibrium is driven by learning through the information about the other player's choice and adaptation rather than self-initiated rational reasoning.

show abstract

Positive and negative transfer in analogical problem solving by 6-year-old children

Cited by 79 publications

References 12 publications

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

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

Learning Through Case Comparisons: A Meta-Analytic Review

Rational Reasoning or Adaptive Behavior? Evidence from Two-Person Beauty Contest Games

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About