Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Cognitive Psychology Volume 33, 2021 - Issue 3
Submit an article Journal homepage
2,888
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Learning to avoid biased reasoning: effects of interleaved practice and worked examples

Lara M. van Peppena Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdam, the Netherlands;b Institute of Medical Education Research, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
,
Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijena Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdam, the Netherlands;c Learning and Innovation Center, Avans University of Applied SciencesBreda, the NetherlandsORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8085-5038View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Stefan V. Kolenbranderc Learning and Innovation Center, Avans University of Applied SciencesBreda, the NetherlandsView further author information
,
Anita E. G. Heijltjesc Learning and Innovation Center, Avans University of Applied SciencesBreda, the NetherlandsView further author information
,
Eva M. Janssend Department of Education, Utrecht UniversityUtrecht, the NetherlandsView further author information
&
Tamara van Gogd Department of Education, Utrecht UniversityUtrecht, the NetherlandsView further author information
Pages 304-326 | Received 05 Sep 2019, Accepted 09 Feb 2021, Published online: 26 Feb 2021

References

  • Abel, M., & Roediger, H. L. (2017). Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0641-8
  • Aczel, B., Bago, B., Szollosi, A., Foldes, A., & Lukacs, B. (2015). Measuring individual differences in decision biases: Methodological considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01770
  • Ajayi, T., & Okudo, J. (2016). Cardiac arrest and gastrointestinal bleeding: A case of medical heuristics. Case Reports in Medicine, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9621390
  • Albaret, J. M., & Thon, B. (1998). Differential effects of task complexity on contextual interference in a drawing task. Acta Psychologica, 100(1-2), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00022-5
  • Arkes, H. R. (2013). The consequences of the hindsight bias in medical decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413489988
  • Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Barreiros, J., Figueiredo, T., & Godinho, M. (2007). The contextual interference effect in applied settings. European Physical Education Review, 13(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X07076876
  • Battig, W. F. (1978). The flexibility of human memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory (pp. 23–44). Erlbaum.
  • Bernard, R. M., Zhang, D., Abrami, P. C., Sicoly, F., Borokhovski, E., & Surkes, M. A. (2008). Exploring the structure of the Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2007.11.001
  • Billings, L., & Roberts, T. (2014). Teaching critical thinking: Using seminars for 21st century literacy. Routledge.
  • Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe, & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.
  • Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938–956. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938
  • Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 145(11), 1029–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209
  • Carpenter, S. K., & Mueller, F. E. (2013). The effects of interleaving versus blocking on foreign language pronunciation learning. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 671–682. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0291-4
  • Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2019). When does interleaving practice improve learning. In J. Dunlosky, & K. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and education (pp. 183–208). Cambridge University Press.
  • Charter, R. A. (2003). Study samples are too small to produce sufficiently precise reliability coefficients. The Journal of General Psychology, 130(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300309601280
  • Cleary, T. A., Linn, R. L., & Walster, G. W. (1970). Effect of reliability and validity on power of statistical tests. Sociological Methodology, 2, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.2307/270786
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd. ed., reprint). Psychology Press.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024
  • De Croock, M. B., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2007). Paradoxical effects of information presentation formats and contextual interference on transfer of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1740–1761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.003
  • De Croock, M. B., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). High versus low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: Effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00005-3
  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
  • Elia, F., Apra, F., Verhovez, A., & Crupi, V. (2016). “First, know thyself”: Cognition and error in medicine. Acta Diabetologica, 53(2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-015-0762-8
  • Evans, J. S. B. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 978–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.978
  • Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  • Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288
  • Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2012). Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x
  • Gigerenzer, G., & Hug, K. (1992). Domain-specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition, 43(2), 127–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-U
  • Gilovich, T, Griffin, D, & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge university press
  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
  • Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2014a). Improving critical thinking: Effects of dispositions and instructions on economics students’ reasoning skills. Learning and Instruction, 29, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.003
  • Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2015). Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instructional Science, 43(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8
  • Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014b). Improving students’ critical thinking: Empirical support for explicit instructions combined with practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3025
  • Helsdingen, A., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2011a). The effects of practice schedule and critical thinking prompts on learning and transfer of a complex judgment task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022370
  • Helsdingen, A. S., Van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2011b). The effects of practice schedule on learning a complex judgment task. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.12.001
  • Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efficiency: Applications in learning and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213618
  • Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747
  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
  • Kalyuga, S., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2012). Educational implications of expertise reversal effects in learning and performance of complex cognitive and sensorimotor skills. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9195-x
  • Kanyongo, G. Y., Brook, G. P., Kyei-Blankson, L., & Gocmen, G. (2007). Reliability and statistical power: How measurement fallibility affects power and required sample sizes for several parametric and nonparametric statistics. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992480
  • Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004
  • Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002). The calibration of expert judgment: Heuristics and biases beyond the labratory. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 686–715). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x
  • Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001
  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
  • LeBel, E. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (2011). Sexy but often unreliable: The impact of unreliability on the replicability of experimental findings with implicit measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400619
  • Leppa, C. J. (1997). Standardized measures of critical thinking: Experience with the california critical thinking tests. Nurse Educator, 22(5), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006223-199709000-00012
  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
  • Likourezos, V., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2019). The variability effect: When instructional variability is advantageous. Educational Psychology Review, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09462-8
  • Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., & Roohr, K. C. (2014). Assessing critical thinking in higher education: Current state and directions for next-generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2014, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12009
  • Mamede, S., van Gog, T., Van Den Berge, K., Rikers, R. M., Van Saase, J. L., Van Guldener, C., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA, 304(11), 1198–1203. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1276
  • McLaren, B. M., Van Gog, T., Ganoe, C., Karabinos, M., & Yaron, D. (2016). The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.038
  • Moxley, S. E. (1979). Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1979.10735173
  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer or problem solving skills in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
  • Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.004
  • Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122.
  • Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. Free Press.
  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In T. Husen, & T. N. Postelwhite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 6452–6457). Pergamon Press.
  • Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2010). Blocked versus interleaved practice with multiple representations in an intelligent tutoring system for fractions. In V. Aleven, & K. J. Mostow (Eds.), International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 413–422). Springer.
  • Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003
  • Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086
  • Richland, L. E., Bjork, R. A., Finley, J. R., & Linn, M. C. (2005). Linking cognitive science to education: Generation and interleaving effects. In Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1850–1855). Erlbaum.
  • Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Burgess, K. (2014). The benefit of interleaved mathematics practice is not limited to superficially similar kinds of problems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0588-3
  • Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K., & Cheung, C.-N. (2019). A randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000367
  • Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 900–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000001
  • Sana, F., Yan, V. X., Kim, J. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2018). Does working memory capacity moderate the interleaving benefit? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.005
  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 27 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.199
  • Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2813
  • Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., Ericsson, K. A., & Bourne Jr, L. E. (1995). The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. In A. F. Healy, & L. E. Bourne, Jr (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity (pp. 95–131). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.011
  • Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.
  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
  • Stanovich, K. E., West, R. K., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. MIT Press.
  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. In Cognitive load theory. Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies (pp. 71–85). Springer.
  • Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2017). Real-world correlates of performance on heuristics and biases tasks in a community sample. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1973
  • Trauzettel-Klosinski, S., & Dietz, K. (2012). Standardized assessment of reading performance: The new international reading speed texts IReST. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 53(9), 5452–5461. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-8284
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
  • Van Brussel, S., Timmermans, M., Verkoeijen, P., & Paas, F. (2020). ‘Consider the opposite’–effects of elaborative feedback and correct answer feedback on reducing confirmation bias–A pre-registered study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Article 101844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101844
  • Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756248
  • Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7
  • Van Gog, T., Rummel, N., & Renkl, A. (2019). Learning how to solve problems by studying examples. In J. Dunlosky, & K. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and education (pp. 183–208). Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., De Croock, M. B., & Jelsma, O. (1997). The transfer paradox: Effects of contextual interference on retention and transfer performance of a complex cognitive skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84(3), 784–786. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1997.84.3.784
  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B., & Paas, F. (2002). Redirecting learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00020-2
  • Van Peppen, L. M., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Heijltjes, A. E., Janssen, E. M., Koopmans, D., & Van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of self-explaining on learning and transfer of critical thinking skills. Frontiers in Education, 3, 100. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00100
  • Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 750–763. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y
  • Wasserman, E. A., Dorner, W. W., & Kao, S. F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.509
  • West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012842
  • Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleaving effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0238-9

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.