UCLA Psych 133F Final

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were they trying to do?

Examine the role of Gaze Aversion in 5 year olds

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were their goals/research questions for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2?

Experiment 1:

1. Can the children (the 5 year olds) be taught gaze aversion? If so, how does it improve their performance?

Experiment 2:

1. How much does spontaneous Gaze Aversion develop in the first year of school? (If you don't teach it, does it come about naturally?)

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; Was this an experimental study, observational study, or a literature review?

Experimental study

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; Who were the subjects?

5 year olds

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the procedures for Experiment 1?

1. Experimenters randomly assigned the children to the treatment or control groups

2. Children went through a training phase in which they were either encouraged to look away from the experimenter's face or weren't told to do anything

3. Children were then given a posttest with half verbal and half arithmetic questions in which half were easy and half were moderately difficult

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the results for the Time in Gaze Aversion condition in terms of verbal and arithmetic items?

1. No difference in time for verbal and arithmetic items in Gaze Aversion

2. No difference in accuracy

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the results for the Time in Gaze Aversion condition in terms of Moderately difficult vs. Easy items?

There was more time in Gaze Aversion for Moderately Difficult items than easy ones (more gaze aversion for questions that required higher cognitive load)

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the results from the Time in Gaze Aversion condition in terms of the Treatment vs. Control conditions?

There was more Gaze Aversion for the Treatment group (supports that Gaze Aversion can be trained even among 5 year olds)

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the results for accuracy?

There was a higher rate of accuracy among the treatment group compared to the control group

1. The treatment group (gaze aversion encouraged) scored higher on both easy and moderately difficult items in the VERBAL condition than the control group (better across the board for verbal condition)

2. The treatment group scored higher only on moderately difficult questions in the ARITHMETIC condition

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What is the conclusion from Experiment 1?

You can teach Gaze Aversion to 5 year olds and if you do, it improves performance

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; Who were the subjects for Experiment 2?

3 groups of children in their "primary year"

1. Students in early kindergarten

2. Kids 6 months into kindergarten

3. Kids at the end of kindergarten

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the procedures for Experiment 2?

Experimenters gave the children verbal and arithmetic questions in which half were easy and half were moderately difficult (no training so none of them were encouraged to look away)

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; What were the results for Experiment 2?

1. Verbal and Arithmetic questions had equal levels of Gaze Aversion (students averted gaze in as much amount of time depending on what they were working on)

2. There was more Gaze aversion for hard questions

3. There was substantial acquisition of spontaneous Gaze Aversion during kindergarten

4. Levels of Gaze Aversion at the end of kindergarten were still far lower than among 8 year olds

(Phelps 2006) Helping Children Think: Gaze Aversion; Why should we care?

1. Gaze aversion is a simple way to improve a child's performance (on challenging tasks)

2. Gaze aversion can be used as a cue of a child's cognitive involvement (could mean that they are cognitively involved but look away because the task is hard)

(Rowe 1986) Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up; What kind of study is this? Experimental, observational, or a literature review?

A literature review

(Rowe 1986) Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up; What is the connection to retrieval practice?

Answering too quickly hinders the retrieval process

(Rowe 1986) Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up; What happens to students when you increase wait time?

1. Variety of students participating increases

2. The length of student responses increases

3. The number of questions asked by students increases

4. The incidence of speculative thinking increases

5. More inferences are supported by evidence and logical argument

6. More student to student exchanges/dialogue increases (they listen to each other more and they respond to each others thinking more)

7. Achievement on cognitively complex measures improves

8. Student confidence increases

(Rowe 1986) Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up; What happens to teachers when you increase wait time?

1. The number and kind of questions asked by teachers change

2. Expectations for the performance of certain students seem to improve

(Rowe 1986) Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up; What are the wait times defined as?

1. Wait time 1: pausing after asking a question

2. Wait time 2: pausing after a student response

Both kinds of wait times typically last less than one second

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What is the research question?

Which is better? Teaching concepts/procedures before solving problems (DIRECT INSTRUCTION) or solving problems, then failing, then teaching concepts and procedures (PRODUCTIVE FAILURE)?

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What is productive about Productive Failure/what does it help students do?

the process is productive in preparing students to learn better from subsequent discussion (productive struggle)

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What are the benefits of Direct Instruction?

1. Reduces the probability of encoding of errors/misconceptions

2. Without instruction, students may not discover knowledge on their own

3. If working memory (WM) is occupied with the search for correct solutions, working memory is less available to learn new info

4. Might reduce frustration

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What are the benefits of Productive Failure?

1. Good for activation prior knowledge

2. Difficulty might aid encoding and prepare students to learn

3. Improved sense of agency

4. Good for metacognition (can see the limits of own knowledge)

5. Opportunity to compare student generated solutions

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What is study 1 comparing?

Comparing Direct Instruction with Productive Failure

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; Who were the subjects in study 1?

9th graders in India

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the procedures for Study 1?

1. 9th graders were randomly assigned to the Direct Instruction (1 hour of instruction, then 1 hour of problem solving) condition or the Productive Failure (1 hour of problem solving, then 1 hour of instruction)

2. Same instructor in both conditions

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What happened in the Problem Solving condition?

Math problems were written in a way where there were multiple solutions for them and students worked to generate as many solutions as possible without help from their peers; the number of solutions they offered served as a measure of prior knowledge activation

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What happened in the Direct Instruction condition?

Students were given 3 problems in which they went through a cycle of instruction, practice, and feedback and problem 4 was then used as a measure of learning

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What did the posttest target?

Procedural knowledge, conceptual understanding, and transfer task

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the results for the Problem Solving phase?

1. Students in the Productive Failure condition reported exerting more MENTAL EFFORT than students in the Direct Instruction condition in each phase

2. ENGAGEMENT was non significant

3. MATH ABILITY was non significant

4. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE (pretest) was nonsignificant

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the results for posttest scores?

1. Productive failure students and Direct Instruction students performed equally well

2. Productive failure students scored significantly higher than Direct Instruction students on conceptual understanding

3. Productive failure students did significantly better than the Direct Instruction students on the transfer task

4. Within the Productive Failure condition, students who came up with a lot of problem solutions did better on the posttest than students who came up with fewer problem solutions

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What is a recap of all of the findings/results of Study 1?

1. Productive Failure students outperformed Direct Instruction students on conceptual understanding and transfer without compromising procedural knowledge

2. Productive Failure students' number of solutions was correlated with conceptual understanding and transfer performance

3. Productive Failure activated prior knowledge and prepared them to learn

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the research questions for Study 2?

Must students generate their OWN solutions, or can they simply study others'? Can they learn from Vicarious Failure?

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What are the benefits of Productive Failure over Vicarious Failure?

1. Students could understand their OWN solution better than someone else's

2. Generation process may lead to a greater sense of agency

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What are the benefits of Vicarious Failure over Productive Failure?

1. Not having to generate solutions could free up working memory for encoding

2. Neither Productive Failure or Vicarious Failure group has the necessary domain knowledge to solve a problem so vicarious failure students may benefit more from evaluating than Productive Failure students

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; Who were the subjects for Study 2?

9th graders in India

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the procedures for Study 2?

9th graders were randomly assigned to three conditions:

1. Productive Failure

2. Direct Instruction

3. Vicarious Failure (in which the problem solving phase was replaced with evaluation phase and were given an hour to evaluate student generated solutions from Study 1)

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the results for Study 1 and 2 in the Problem Solving phase?

1. Productive Failure students produced more solutions than Direct Instruction Students

2. All Directive Instruction students produced canonical solutions whereas productive failure students did not (being taught the solutions limits/restrains creativity)

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the results for Study 2 in the Instruction Phase?

1. In the problem solving/evaluation phase, Productive Failure students showed more mental effort than the Vicarious Failure students AND the Direct Instruction students

2. Productive failure students in the Instruction Phase reported having more mental effort than the Vicarious Failure phase who reported having more mental effort than the Direct Instruction phase

3. ENGAGEMENT was non significant

4. MATH ABILITY was non significant

5. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE was non significant

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What were the results for Study 2 in the Posttest Scores?

1. All did equally well on procedural knowledge

2. On conceptual understanding and the transfer task, Productive Failure students performed better than Vicarious Failure and Direct Instruction students

3. Vicarious Failure students did better on conceptual understanding than Direct Instruction students, but not on the transfer task

4. The number of solutions generated by Productive Failure students during problem solving was correlated with their pretest score on conceptual understanding and transfer items

(Kapur 2014) Productive Failure in Learning Math; What is the overall recap from both of the studies/the article?

1. Both Productive Failure and Vicarious Failure are better than Direct Instruction (struggle is good)

2. Productive Failure is better than Vicarious Failure (generating is better than evaluating; it is better to fail yourself than to earn profit from someone else)

3. Instruction may constrain the search for new solutions

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; What is social belonging?

A sense of having positive relationships with others

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; What were the researchers looking to find and what was their basis for this?

If uncertainties in belonging lead to lower intellectual performance and lower subjective well being. African Americans may be more uncertain than other groups about their belonging in academic settings.

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; what was the intervention designed to do?

People's subjective interpretations of their relationships strongly affects their well being more than the objective number of attributes of those relationships so the intervention was designed to encourage nonthreatening interpretations of adversity (change the interpretation of adversity they were studying)

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; Who were the subjects for Study 1?

African American and Euro American Stanford Students

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; What was the procedure for Study 1?

Students were randomly assigned to two conditions, the Belonging Intervention or No Intervention.

1. Students in the Belonging Intervention had to read a narrative that frames social adversity as shared and short lived and write an essay about how their own experiences echoed the report (see self as benefactor, not beneficiary)

2. Students in the Control condition did the same thing but did not report on belongingness

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; What were the results of Study 1?

1. The GPA gap between African Americans and Euro Americans closed by 79%

2. The intervention tripled the percentage of African Americans earning GPAs in the top 25% of their class

3. Students in the control conditions' feelings rose and fell with the degree of recent adversity (link between adversity and belongingness)

4. African American students in the treatment conditions' sense of belonging was unrelated to daily hardship

At the end of college,

1. Euro Americans did not differ by condition on any measure

2. African American students reported greater ability in and less uncertainty about belonging in school; reported being healthier and visiting the doctor less frequently; reported having a higher subjective sense of happiness

At the end of senior year?

1. People weren't aware of the effects of the treatment

2. Most did not remember the key content that they read

(Walton & Cohen 2011) Social Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes for Minority Students; Why should we care?

1. Psychological interventions can mitigate concerns and improve academic performance and health

2. REMEMBER: the researchers did NOT make adversity go away

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What are the popular myths that encompass this article?

1. Success in science depends on exceptional talent (innate)

2. Scientists are geniuses who don't have to work hard

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What is the Attribution Theory and what are Ability Attributes and Effort Attributes?

Attribution Theory: judgements about the causes of success and failure affect motivation/behavior

Ability Attributions: stable and uncontrollable

Effort Attributions: malleable and controllable

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What problem were the researchers looking to address?

If you think that science requires innate talent and believe that you don't have talent/specific ability, then you won't pursue STEM/sciences

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; Who were the subjects of the study?

9th and 10th graders

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What were the independent variables/procedures for this study?

Students were assigned to read stories of eminent scientists (Einstein, Curie, Faraday) that were either stories where the scientists struggled intellectually (ISS-intellectual struggle stories), struggled in their personal life (LSS-life struggle stories), or made great discoveries (AS-achievement stories)

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What were the dependent variables/procedures for this study?

Science class grades, Motivation (beliefs about intelligence, beliefs about effort, goal orientations, attributions about failure) and feelings of connection to stories and to scientists

(Sielger et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What were the results in terms of grades?

1. No difference in pretest across groups

2. Both Life Struggle and Intellectual struggle stories led to higher post tests relative to the control

3. When crossed with pre intervention grades, the intervention was beneficial for students with low pre intervention grades and the intervention did not have an effect on students with high pre intervention grades

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; What were the results in terms of Feeling of Connection?

1. Students in the control condition (achievement stories) felt less connected than students in EITHER struggle condition

(Siegler et al. 2016) Even Einstein Struggled; Why should we care?

The myth that scientists don't struggle (which is reinforced by the way that textbooks emphasize their success) may prevent some students from pursuing science

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; Gesture is another way to...?

Share information, especially information we have a hard time articulating

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; Why do we gesture?

So we can show what is on the learner's "cutting edge"

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; What does a mismatch between speech and gesture seem to show?

Readiness to learn

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; What does encouraging students to gesture do?

Improves learning and encourages them to test out new ideas

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; What helps children to learn concepts such as those seen in math (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4)?

Mismatching speech and gesture; redundancy/matching speech and gesture does not help

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; Does seeing gesture help as well?

Yes, even if the gesture is not being taught, seeing gesture helps BUT the benefit goes away if speech and gesture are separated

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; When does gesture appear in young children and what does it predict?

In young children, gesture appears before words and predicts learning development

(Novack & Meadow 2015) Learning from Gesture; What does teaching gesture increase in children?

It increases child gesture and later vocabulary

(Rueckert 2017) Gesture Enhances Learning of a Complex Statistical Concept; What is the research question/what are the researchers trying to find?

Does gesture help older students learn more complex ideas, like ANOVA?

(Rueckert 2017) Gesture Enhances Learning of a Complex Statistical Concept; What were the procedures?

Participants were given a pre experiment test on the ANOVA, were randomly assigned to either be shown a video with someone gesturing or someone not gesturing, and then were given a post experiment test on the ANOVA that was the same as the pre experiment test

(Rueckert 2017) Gesture Enhances Learning of a Complex Statistical Concept; What were the results of the study?

They were looking for a CHANGE for the no gesture condition and the gesture condition; The difference between the improvement on the gesture condition and the improvement on the no gesture condition isn't significant; there was significantly better improvement in the gesture condition than the no gesture condition

(Rueckert 2017) Gesture Enhances Learning of a Complex Statistical Concept; What were the limitations of this study?

1. There was only one faculty member (have more difficulty talking about more instructors in general because of this)

2. The experiment consisted of a scripted lecture video rather than a real life lecture so it didn't entirely capture what goes on in lectures in general

3. The sample majority were urban students from non STEM fields

4. The study didn't tell us about the EFFECTS of gesture (didn't look at what about gesture makes a difference)

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; What is the TIMSS and what does it do?

The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) monitors student achievement and students' home, school, and classroom contexts

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; Do countries need to follow the Japanese way of teaching?

Nope

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; Who were the subjects in this study?

4th and 8th graders at the end of primary and middle school

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; Which countries were high achieving and which countries were low achieving?

High achieving: Czech Republic, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland

Low achieving: Australia and US

(Hubert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; How was this measured?

Across the school year

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; What were the coding goals of this study?

1. Develop a reliable way of analyzing the lessons that would capture both the similarities and differences, especially those that might influence students' mathematics learning

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; What were the major findings of this study?

1. All countries share number of teaching features (math is taught by working on problems, teachers did the most talking, most lessons included both whole class and individual work)

2. High achieving countries teach mathematics in different ways (Japanese spend longer on problems and don't focus as much on real life connections unlike the Netherlands)

3. High achieving countries share a few, potentially important features (spent more time working on new content than reviewing old content; When teachers present problems that suggest connections will be made, they very frequently follow through on that and actually make the connections)

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; What were the types of problems in this study and what was found about them?

1. Stating concepts

2. Using procedures

3. Making connections (the cognitive demand of making connections for problems is much higher than it is for using procedures and the math that you can use/understand for it is often much easier)

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; How were multiple connections problem worked on?

1. When given a making connection problem to work on, they keep working on it (cognitive demand is kept high)

2. Using procedures was higher as in there were more problems done (less time spent on each)

(Hiebert et al. 2003) Understanding and Improving Mathematics Teaching - TIMSS; Why should we care?

1. US students' scores could use improvement because they're very low

2. US teaching practices might also profit from improvement

3. High achieving countries are a source of ideas (spend less time reviewing, spend more time making connections)

(Mazur 2009) Farewell Lecture?; In regards to this article, is the information sent out by teachers and circulated to students about the pedagogy or the technology (the clicker)?

Pedagogy

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; What is the research question for this study?

Can questioning be used to foster generative learning in a large lecture class?

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; What is the mechanism for this study? How do questions/feedback activate cognitive processing?

1. Before answering, students may be more attentive

2. While answering, students may work hard to organize/integrate material

3. After feedback, students may develop metacognitive skills for gauging their understanding

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; What is generative learning?

Active processing in the learner in regards to attending to relevant material, mentally organizing material, integrating material with prior knowledge

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; What does cognitive activity during learning cause?

Learning

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; Mayer distinguishes between two things, Instructional Medium and Instructional Method. What are these?

Instructional medium: physical device (the clicker)

Instructional method: techniques used to foster cognitive processing (the pedagogy/teaching)

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; Who were the subjects for Study 1?

Educational psychology students at UCSB

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; What were the procedures for Study 1?

Participants were randomly assigned to either the clicker, no clicker (group questioning with paper and pencil) or control (no technology or group questioning) groups and were given exams in which some questions were similar to the clicker questions and some were dissimilar to clicker questions.

The same instructor, readings, lectures and exams were used across groups (no clicker group responded on paper, clicker group spent 5-10 minutes on questions, control group were asked if they had questions)

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; What were the results on exam performance for Study 1?

On both similar and dissimilar items,

1. The clicker group did better than the no clicker group

2. The clicker group did better than the control group

3. The no clicker group did equally the same as the control group, which COUNTERS the hypotheses

(Mayer 2009) Clickers in Large College Classrooms; Why were the no clicker group and the control group the same in terms of performance?

1. Paper and pencil questions were more disruptive

2. Clicker use was seamless within lecture (better able to support instructional method)

3. All paper and pencil questions were provided at the end of the lecture rather than being integrated into the lecture

(Mayer 2009) Clicker in Large Classrooms; What was consistent with the Generative Theory of Learning?

1. Active processing in the learner (improvement on dissimilar items)

2. Metacognition (learn to gauge how well you understand/know the material)

(Mayer 2009) Clicker in Large Classrooms; What were the limitations of this study?

1. Researcher bias (if this was truly manipulated correctly, the no clicker condition would not have been equal to the control condition in terms of performance)

2. Novelty effects (excitement for trying new piece of technology at the time; Hawthorne Effect: anything new seems to be a novelty)

3. Confounds (differing incentives across conditions and the amount of time it took to carry out the treatment)

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What did past research on clickers say that they have a positive effect on?

1. Attendance

2. Class participation

3. Class enjoyment

4. Factual knowledge acquisition

5. Conceptual understanding

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What might affect clicker assisted learning?

1. Prior knowledge

2. Self regulated learning/metacognition

3. Deep learning strategies

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What were the researchers looking for in Experiment 1?

The test effect of clickers on comprehension and learning of in class material in a lecture course

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What were the hypotheses for Experiment 1?

1. Factual and conceptual clicker questions will boost performance on factual exam questions

2. Conceptual clicker questions will boost performance on conceptual exam questions

3. Prior knowledge and approach to learning will mediate the effect of clicker use on learning

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; Who were the subjects for Experiment 1?

Undergraduate Intro Bio students

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What were the procedures for Experiment 1?

Students were shown lectures on slides in the Factual Clicker condition (definition, finding, formula), Conceptual clicker condition (make connections to real life), Simple control (no emphasis), and/or the Enhanced Control (direct attention to important details) over four consecutive semesters. The clicker questions were posed at unpredictable times, typically after the concept was presented

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What were the dependent variables for Experiment 1?

1. Performance on target exam questions

2. Student Learning survey (measured student learning style, metacognition, prior knowledge)

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What were the results for retention of factual material?

Factual clicker questions, conceptual clicker questions, and enhanced control all did better than the simple control condition

(Shapiro 2017) Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention But Impede Conceptual Understanding; What were the results for Conceptual material?

1. Enhanced control did better than factual clicker and conceptual clicker conditions

2. No condition performed better than the simple control condition (FAILED to support hypothesis)

(3). Whether students used deep strategies or didn't use deep strategies, enhanced control did better than all other conditions

(4). In simple control, deep learners performed better than non deep learners