Barbara Rončević Zubković Rosanda Pahljina-Reinić Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec University of Rijeka, Croatia 6 th biennial meeting of EARLI SIG METACOGNITON,

Barbara Rončević ZubkovićRosanda Pahljina-ReinićSvjetlana Kolić-VehovecUniversity of Rijeka, Croatia

6th biennial meeting of EARLI SIG METACOGNITON, 3-6 September 2014, Istanbul, Turkey

Students’ confidence in their misconceptions about operant

conditioning concepts: Do they change following

instruction?

CALIBRATION


Calibration – degree of fit between persons’ judgment of performance and their actual performance (Keren, 1991).

Learners’ calibration of their confidence and accuracy are key parts of metacognition and self-regulation (Hattie, 2013).

Without accurate monitoring and judging the efficiency of learning, learners might not spend enough time learning concepts they think they know, but actually have not yet learned.

Research on monitoring judgments during learning has shown that judgments tend to be inaccurate (Dunlosky, Rawson, & Middleton, 2005). There is a prevalence of overconfidence (Hattie, 2013).

PRECONCEPTIONS


Students' ability to learn scientific concepts is limited by their preconceptions that can be inaccurate.

Those pre-existed beliefs that are considered as misconceptions can arise from students’ efforts to make sense of what they experience (Vosniadou, 2008).

Inaccurate preconceptions are resistant to change, even after instruction (Taylor & Kowalski, 2004).

CONCEPTUAL CHANGE Conceptual change can occur either

through restructuring or integrating new information into existing shemata (Hewson, 1996).

Likelihood of conceptual change might depend on calibration accuracy: “Are learners able to assess their present understanding vis-a-vis the more scientific or expert models they are presented?” (Alexander, 2013, p.2)


METACOGNITIVE JUDGMENT AND CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

(MIS)CONCEPTIONS

LEARNING

CONCEPTUAL CHANGE?


METACOGNITIVE JUDGMENT

METACOGNITIVE JUDGMENT

Misconceptions about processes in operant conditioning can be often found in students (Lamal, 1995; Scheldon, 2002).

Accurate understanding of operant conditioning concepts is especially important for students enrolled in teacher education programs.


AIMS OF THE STUDY

To explore… how confident students are in their

(mis)conceptions about the principles of operant conditioning?

do misconceptions about operant conditioning diminish after students get acquainted with those concepts through Educational psychology course?

do students become more accurate in their calibration?


METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

105 students enrolled in Educational psychology course of teacher education program (F=85, M=20, age=22.8 years)

most of the students (70%) was enrolled in psychology course during their high-school education


METHOD

MEASURES Open-ended questions on similarities and differences

between pairs of concepts (0-6 points) reinforcement and reward positive and negative reinforcement negative reinforcement and punishment

Concurrent confidence judgment in accuracy of the answer (0-100%)

Examples of different processes in operant conditioning - positive and negative reinforcement, punishment Recognition task (0-4) Explanation of the answer (0-8) Concurrent confidence judgment in accuracy of the

answer (0-100%)6th biennial meeting of EARLI SIG METACOGNITON, 3-6 September 2014,

Istanbul, Turkey

METHODS

DESIGN

Before instruction– knowledge and confidence judgments

Instruction

After instruction– knowledge and confidence judgments


RESULTS

Before the instruction students had misconceptions about similarities and differences between concepts

Confidence in answers was rather high → overconfidence

e.g. negative reinforcement and punishment

“Both of them are bad; that is similar. However, punishment is used to punish a child, while negative reinforcement is rewarding to a child, even though the child was naughty. ”confidence judgment: 75%

“They are similar, as they are aimed at reprimanding a child, but they are different because punishment is used when there is no hope for improvement.” confidence judgment: 100%


RESULTS

Students were relatively successful in recognizing examples, but their explanations where inaccurate and incomplete (moral justification, desirability of behavior, intention)

Example: A boy was not prepared for the math exam, so he told his mother that his

tummy hurts. The mother allowed the boy to stay home. Since then, every time the boy is not ready for the exam he tells his mother that his tummy hurts.

Answer: negative reinforcement (correct recognition)confidence judgment: 90%

Explanation: “Because the boy is developing negative behavioral pattern.” (incorrect explanation)

confidence judgment: 70%


RESULTS

Task peformance before and after instruction

Task Range(max.res.

)

Before instructio

nM

(sd)

After instruction

M(sd)

t (1,80)

Similarities and differences

0 - 3 (6) 0.31(0.46)

2.64(0.73)

24.88***

Recognition of examples

0 - 4 (4) 1.85(0.71)

3.62(0.73)

14.77***

Explanations of answers

0 - 8 (8) 1.02(0.76)

4.22(1.91)

14.57******p<.001


RESULTS

Confidence judgments before and after instruction

Task RangeBefore

instructionM

(sd)

After instruction

M(sd)

t (1,80)


0 - 100 53.77(23.48)

83.82(16.81)

7.41***


0 - 100 62.80(22.08)

93.64(9.94)

10.04***


0 - 100 61.67(22.69)

91.45(15.21)

9.17******p<.001


RESULTS

Calibration: Bias indexes before and after the instruction

Task RangeBefore

instructionM

(sd)

After instruction

M(sd)

t (1,80)


-10 - 100 48.85(24.14)

40.38(21.66)

2.27*


-74 - 100 17.17(31.57)

0.94(13.57)

3.35**


-20 - 100 48.87(24.31)

38.32(22.30)

2.27**p<.05, **p<.01


RESULTS

There were no differences in performance, nor in confidence judgments between students who attended psychology classes in high-school and those that did not.


CONCLUSIONS

BEFORE INSTRUCTION


AFTER INSTRUCTION

IMPLICATIONS


Thank you!

Overconfidence → conceptual change not likely to occur

Instruction aimed at specific misconceptions → examples that contradict them

Importance of question type

Documents

Barbara Rončević Zubković Rosanda Pahljina-Reinić Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec University of Rijeka, Croatia 6 th biennial meeting of EARLI SIG METACOGNITON,