Lossy Compression Configuration/ Stimuli/ Problem Ground/ Stimuli Antecedents/ Context Perception Multimodel salience maps Embodied Encodes value/ emotion/ motivational content Supported by semantic memory Manipulated by central executive operations Lossy Compression Action Procedural memory Production rules Value judgements Episodic Memory Summarizes representation Schematic/spatial Cueable, but not online Retains value/ emotion/ motivational content Semantic Memory Concepts Summarizes episodes Abstract, but linked to episodes Fast access by similar episodes Long-term working memory Perceptual chunks Challenge to be Aided by Gestalt Principles Variable representations make it dificult for students to remember and align essential components of examples to discern their common or different semantics and permit accumulation of a tranferable mental model Gestalt principles can be used to used to serve concept formation by helping us overcome these problems of forgetting and organization for variable examples Cueing Long-term working memory Representations cue semantic relatives to build upon How To? Simultaneous presentation allows perceptual organization Column continuity categorizes steps in problems Row continuity allows juxtaposing steps of different problems or allows making categories of different steps in similar problems Row continuity can highlight similarity across deep features when surface features vary (generalization) Row continuity can highlight dissimilarity across across deep features when surface features are constant (discrimination) Self-explanation questions can allow reflection and practice of these generalizations and discriminations Source of insight for transfer as representations trigger recall of related concepts Main Points Gestalt principles help us organize displays, this helps us organize memory We can overcome working memory limits (Miller, 1956; Chase 1973) during encoding We can categorize conceptual information for further recall (Tulving,1967) We can isolate infomation so concepts pop out during recall (Von Restorff, 1933) Integrating Perceptual Factors into Applied Learning Research Philip I Pavlik Jr May 30, 2010 APS Symposium: Perceptual Characteristics and Concept Mastery: What Makes a Difference? (Anderson, Snyder, Bradley, & Xing, 1997; L. Barsalou, 2003; L. W. Barsalou, 1999; Case, 1993; Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, 2000; Chi & Bassok, 1989; Deloache, Uttal, & Pierroutsakos, 1998; Endsley, 2000; Ericsson & Delaney, 1999; Gentner, 1983; Gentner, Loewenstein, & Thompson, 2003; Goldstone & Son, 2005; Goldstone & Steyvers, 2001; Gottlieb, 2007; Kintsch, Healy, Hegarty, Pennington, & Salthouse, 1999; Koedinger, Alibali, & Nathan, 2000; Rittle-Johnson, 2006; Rittle-Johnson, Siegler, & Alibali, 2001; Sloutsky, Kaminski, & Heckler, 2005; Tulving, 1962; Tulving & Markowitsch, 1998; Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966; Wood, 1967) Anderson, R. A., Snyder, L. H., Bradley, D. C., & Xing, J. (1997). Multimodal representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex and its use in planning movements. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 20, 303-330. Barsalou, L. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions B, 358, 1177. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 22, 577-609; discussion 610-560. Case, R. (1993). Theories of learning and theories of development. Educational Psychologist, 28, 219 - 233. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Deloache, J. S., Uttal, D. H., & Pierroutsakos, S. L. (1998). The development of early symbolization: educational implications. Learning and Instruction, 8, 325-339. Endsley, M. R. (2000). Situation Models: An Avenue to the Modeling of Mental Models. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 44, 61-64. Ericsson, K. A., & Delaney, P. F. (1999). Long-term working memory as an alternative to capacity models of working memory in everyday skilled performance. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 155-170. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393-405. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110. Goldstone, R. L., & Steyvers, M. (2001). The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 116-139. Gottlieb, J. (2007). From Thought to Action: The Parietal Cortex as a Bridge between Perception, Action, and Cognition. Neuron, 53, 9-16. Kintsch, W., Healy, A. F., Hegarty, M., Pennington, B., & Salthouse, T. A. (1999). Models of working memory: Eight questions and some general answers. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of Working memory: Cambridge University Press. Koedinger, K., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2000). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving (Manuscript submitted for publication). Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting Transfer: Effects of Self-Explanation and Direct Instruction. Child Development, 77, 1-15. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346-362. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 508-513. Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of "unrelated" words. Psychological Review, 69, 344-354. Tulving, E., & Markowitsch, H. J. (1998). Episodic and declarative memory: Role of the hippocampus. Hippocampus, 8, 198-204. Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 5, 381-391. Wood, G. (1967). Category names as cues for the recall of category instances. Psychonomic Science, 9, 323-324. Questions? Example 1 Crux of the Argument Gestalt principles are about ways to support representation popout of figure in ground, this limits and controls attentional focus and learning activity By creating a figure we can: KEY POINT KEY POINT According to the Model Constant reps cue prior learning well, but Constant reps build up specific semantics Variable reps cue prior learning poorly, but Variable reps build up transferable semantics Categorize items by joining them in a figure -- basic generalization Juxtapose items by joining them in a figure -- basic discrimination