Untitled

Wildmon, Mark E.; Skinner, Christopher H.; McDade, Ashley

doi:10.1023/a:1022823314635

Cited by 68 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These procedural differences may have influenced students’ motivation to pay attention and learn the material, resulting in different benefits from mixed quizzing in the two experiments. Prior research indicates that students prefer learning activities that vary in terms of item difficulty, particularly in mathematics (Skinner, Fletcher, Wildmon, & Belfiore, 1996; Wildmon, Skinner, & McDade, 1998). Recent research also indicates that students adjust their learning strategies based on expectancy for different types of tests (Agarwal, D’Antonio, Roediger, McDermott, & McDaniel, 2014; Agarwal & Roediger, 2011; Jensen et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior research indicates that students prefer learning activities that vary in terms of item difficulty, particularly in mathematics (Skinner, Fletcher, Wildmon, & Belfiore, 1996;Wildmon, Skinner, & McDade, 1998). Recent research also indicates that students adjust their learning strategies based on expectancy for different types of tests Jensen et al, 2014).…”

Section: Mixed Quizzes Enhance Higher Order Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning?

Agarwal

2019

Journal of Educational Psychology

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of students' higher order learning is a critical component of education. For decades, educators and scientists have engaged in an ongoing debate about whether higher order learning can only be enhanced by building a base of factual knowledge (analogous to Bloom's taxonomy) or whether higher order learning can be enhanced directly by engaging in complex questioning and materials. The relationship between fact learning and higher order learning is often speculated, but empirically unknown. In this study, middle school students and college students engaged in retrieval practice with fact questions, higher order questions, or a mix of question types to examine the optimal type of retrieval practice for enhancing higher order learning. In laboratory and K-12 settings, retrieval practice consistently increased delayed test performance, compared with rereading or no quizzes. Critically, higher order and mixed quizzes improved higher order test performance, but fact quizzes did not. Contrary to popular intuition about higher order learning and Bloom's taxonomy, building a foundation of knowledge via fact-based retrieval practice may be less potent than engaging in higher order retrieval practice, a key finding for future research and classroom application. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThis study demonstrates that students' higher order learning increases most from higher order retrieval practice, or no-stakes quizzes with complex materials that engage students in bringing what they know to mind. Although fact quizzes were beneficial for fact learning, they did not facilitate higher order learning, contrary to popular intuition based on Bloom's taxonomy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mixed Quizzes Enhance Higher Order Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning?

Agarwal

2019

Journal of Educational Psychology

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both of the above investigations (i.e., Skinner, Fletcher et al, 1996;Skinner, Robinson et al, 1996) provided the impetus for a host of further research in the area of math interspersing and choice with both university and school-aged students (e.g., Billington, Skinner, Hutchins et al, 2002;Cates, & Skinner, 2000;Johns, Skinner, & Nail, 2000;Logan, & Skinner, 1998;Robinson, & Skinner, 2002;Skinner et al, 1999;Skinner et al, 2002;Wildmon et al, 1998;. These studies continued to investigate and support theory of the increased reinforcing properties of math interspersing procedures and the matching law.…”

Section: Mathematics Interspersingmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Reinforcement rates. Math interspersing research has been plentiful since the mid-1990s (Billington & Skinner, 2002;Billington, & Skinner, 2006;Billington, Skinner, & Cruchon, 2004;Billington, Skinner, Hutchins et al, 2004;Calderhead, Filter, & Albin, 2006;Cates & Dalenberg, 2005;Cates & Skinner, 2000;Clark & Rhymer, 2003;Hawkins et al, 2005;Jaspers, Skinner, Williams, & Saecker, 2007;Johns, Skinner, & Nail, 2000;Logan & Skinner, 1998;McCurdy, Skinner, Grantham, Watson, & Hindman, 2001;McDonald & Ardoin, 2007;Montarello & Martens, 2005;Rhymer & Cates, 2006;Rhymer & Morgan, 2005;Robinson & Skinner, 2002;Skinner, 2002;Skinner, Fletcher, Wildmon, & Belfiore, 1996;Skinner, Hurst, Teeple, & Meadows, 2002;Skinner, Pappas, & Davis, 2005;Skinner, Robinson et al, 1996;Wildmon, Skinner, McCurdy, & Sims, 1999;Wildmon, Skinner, & McDade, 1998;Wildmon et al, 2004;see Cates, 2005 for a review). These procedures typically include presenting students with one or more math assignment pairs,…”

Section: Mathematics Interspersingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of manipulating problem completion rates on assignment choice and preference consistency

Bliss¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A procedure known as mathematics interspersing provides students with additional opportunities (i.e., brief math problems) to complete math problems within an assignment by embedding brief additional problems among longer target problems.Previous research (e.g., Cates & Dalenberg, 2005) found that the more problems completed on an assignment with interspersing, the higher the likelihood the student chooses that assignment relative to an assignment without interspersing. Some students, however, choose assignments without interspersing.The purpose of this investigation was to focus on students who do not choose assignments (i.e., non-choosers) with interspersing relative to assignments without interspersing and replicate and extend previous research (e.g., Cates & Dalenberg, 2005) by manipulating relative problem completion rates at various fixed ratios (FR) (i.e., 0:1 [no interspersing relative to every longer problem], 1:3 [short problem following every three longer problems], and 2:1 [two short problems prior to every longer problem]).Further, students were given a choice between assignments with and without interspersing to determine choice consistency and whether a richer schedule of interspersing (i.e., 2:1) could influence students to choose assignment with interspersing.Participant information regarding reinforcement histories for completing mathematics assignments was also gathered.Results showed that participants, overall, chose and completed more problems on assignments with interspersing relative to those without interspersing. Choice remained consistent for choosers, but the richest interspersing ratio caused non-choosers to choose assignments with interspersing. Non-choosers completed more total problems on assignments with interspersing for both the 1:3 and 2:1 assignment pairs. Relative problem completion rates increased for choosers and non-choosers as interspersing ratios increased. Regarding past reinforcement history, participants reported receiving positive reinforcement most often after completing math assignments in the past. The discussion focuses on potential explanations and interpretations of results, and current limitations, future research endeavors, and applied functions of interspersing are also discussed.

show abstract

Getting remedial mathematics students to prefer homework with 20% and 40% more problems: An investigation of the strength of the interspersing procedure

Cates

Skinner

2000

Psychol. Schs.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High school students in remedial mathematics classes were exposed to three pairs of mathematics computation assignments. Three of the assignments served as control assignments and contained 15 target problems (i.e., three-digit by two-digit multiplication problems). Students were also exposed to three paired experimental assignments that contained either 15 (0% more), 18 (20% more), or 21 (40% more) equivalent target problems. Each experimental assignment was also lengthened by interspersing additional one-digit by one-digit problems following every third target problem. After exposure to each pair of assignments, students reported which of the two assignments (control or experimental) would require the most time and effort to finish, which was most difficult, and which assignment they would prefer to do for homework. Across all three assignment pairs, significantly more students rated the experimental assignment more favorably for time, effort, and difficulty and chose the experimental assignment for homework. These results extend previous research on interspersing additional brief tasks by showing that this procedure has sufficient strength to get students to prefer homework assignments with 20% and 40% more target problems.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 68 publications

References 18 publications

Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning?

Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning?

The effects of manipulating problem completion rates on assignment choice and preference consistency

Getting remedial mathematics students to prefer homework with 20% and 40% more problems: An investigation of the strength of the interspersing procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About