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

Abstract

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...

Spontaneous Causal Learning While Controlling A Dynamic System

“…What are the conditions that enable and support such learning? Generally, it has been argued that the lack of evidence for causal learning found in previous studies results from methodological rather than psychological factors [18]. This argument also receives empirical support.…”

“…(1b). than psychological factors may explain the dissociation [18], and many have reported findings in which there is a close correspondence between structural knowledge and control performance [18,19]. For example, by regularly probing knowledge of structural relations during learning, people show insight into the relations that govern the behavior of the system.…”

Seeing is as Good as Doing

“…Second, consistent with previous studies (Osman 2008a(Osman , 2008b, there was no advantage of active-based learning over observation-based learning in both measures of performance. Third, also consistent with previous studies (Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;Osman 2008aOsman , 2008bSanderson, 1989), the present study revealed an association between the accuracy of participants' knowledge of the structure of the system they were controlling, and their ability to control it. Fourth, posttest questions indicated that when identifying the learning trials they experienced during the learning phase from two others, participants were more accurate in conditions in which the learning phase generated instance and rule-based knowledge compared with instance only conditions.…”

“…The fi ndings from this study converge with previous evidence suggesting that instructions designed to encourage hypothesis testing and other similar meta-cognitive processes (e.g., monitoring-tracking one's online goal-directed behaviors) do not interfere with the uptake of skilled knowledge, as some have claimed, but instead enhance skilled performance (Berardi-Coletta et al, 1995;Osman, 2008aOsman, , 2008b. Thus, the present study shows that hypothesis testing, rather than the active engagement with a procedural task, is necessary for the successful uptake of knowledge and its application to mastering a complex control system.…”

“…Others, however, have suggested that successful skill acquisition depends on a combination of rule-based and instance-based knowledge, which develops through hypothesis testing (Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;Osman, 2008aOsman, , 2008bSweller, 1988;Vollmeyer, Burns, & Holyoak, 1996). By exploring the task and formulating rules about how it operates, learners are able to update their rule-based knowledge through the instances that they have generated to test them.…”