Collaborative Training With a More Experienced Partner: Remediating Low Pretraining Self-Efficacy in Complex Skill Acquisition

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the effectiveness of collaborative training for individuals with low pretraining self-efficacy versus individuals with high pretraining selfefficacy regarding the acquisition of a complex skill that involved strong cognitive and psychomotor demands. Background: Despite support for collaborative learning from the educational literature and the similarities between collaborative learning and interventions designed to remediate low self-efficacy, no research has addressed how selfefficacy and collaborative learning interact in contexts concerning complex skills and human-machine interactions. Method: One hundred fifty-five young male adults trained either individually or collaboratively with a more experienced partner on a complex computer task that simulated the demands of a dynamic aviation environment. Participants also completed a task-specific measure of self-efficacy before, during, and after training. Results: Collaborative training enhanced skill acquisition significantly more for individuals with low pretraining self-efficacy than for individuals with high pretraining self-efficacy. However, collaborative training did not bring the skill acquisition levels of those persons with low pretraining self-efficacy to the levels found for persons with high pretraining self-efficacy. Moreover, tests of mediation suggested that collaborative training may have enhanced appropriate skill development strategies without actually raising self-efficacy. Conclusion: Although collaborative training can facilitate the skill acquisition process for trainees with low self-efficacy, future research is needed that examines how the negative effects of low pretraining self-efficacy on complex skill acquisition can be more fully remediated. Application: The differential effects of collaborative training as a function of self-efficacy highlight the importance of person analysis and tailoring training to meet differing trainee needs.

Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition

“…Research in this area led to results quite similar to the ones in the context of CSCL, e.g., collaborative learning leads to greater skills acquisition for less self-efficacious participants than for more self-efficacious participants (Day et al, 2007), effective groups in collaborative learning tend to strive for mastery goals whereas not effective groups tend to strive for performance and entertainment goals (Hijzen, Boekaerts, & Vedder, 2007) and mastery goal orientation and performance goal orientation correlate negatively with high-level elaborations and performance (Veenman, Denessen, van den Akker, & van der Rijt, 2005). Again, also in this offline context, studies seldom take an integrative view of motivation, and again, their results are quite heterogeneous.…”

“…From research on distance education (e.g., Astleitner, 2000) we got hints that motivation might play an important role in this context. Studies covering collaborative learning (e.g., Day et al, 2007;Hijzen et al, 2007;Veenman et al, 2005) and individual learning with and without computers (e.g., also indicate that motivation might be of importance for learning activities and learning outcome. Therefore, further research on the impact of motivation in CSCL with an integrative view of motivation is necessary.…”

Enhancing academic self-efficacy and performance among fourth year psychology students: Findings from a short educational intervention

“…Enhancing academic self-efficacy through vicarious experience learning was achieved by having students share information and provide advice about a particular task that other students indicated having difficulties with, such as analyzing or interpreting statistical data (e.g., Day et al, 2007;Margolis & McCabe, 2006;Schunk, 2003). Video links showing how specific research tasks could be completed using relevant data-analysis packages, as well as written exemplars of sections relevant to student theses (e.g., Introduction, Method, Results, etc.)…”

A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of the Within‐Person Self‐Efficacy Domain: Is Self‐Efficacy a Product of Past Performance or a Driver of Future Performance?

“…Our first theoretical moderator is goal setting. It represents whether (e.g., Schmidt & DeShon, ) or not (e.g., Day et al, ) goals were set for the performance standard participants were striving to achieve. Studies comprising the goal setting category included those in which goals were self‐set by participants or set for participants by the researchers.…”

“…If a random effect was significant, we retained it in the analysis to account for variability across people in the predictor's effect. Further, three studies (Daniels, Kain, Gillespie, & Schmidt, ; Day et al, ; DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Weichmann, ) were excluded from the past performance and/or past self‐efficacy residualized analyses because the constructs were measured three times, precluding an analysis of time lagged effects.…”