January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Generic Prompts and Specific Prompts on Learning Outcomes
Reflection can play an important role in improving learning performance (Chen, Kinshuk, Wei, Liu, 2011).
Generally, the study does not completely confirm the hypothesis that generic prompts are more effective than
specific prompts in terms of learning outcomes. In most cases of this study, the differences between the GP group
and SP group were not statistically significant. However, one should note that the GP group outperformed
significantly than both NP and SP students in the transfer test when all students used the basic version of agent tutee
with prompts removed. It indicated that generic prompts brought more transfer effects to students as time progressed
and domain was changed.
Such a result could be explained from the perspective of double loop learning theory. The differentiation of the two
types of prompts is respectively based on the single-loop learning to result in an incremental change and double-loop
learning to lead to a transformative change, the kind that brings about ultimate changes in an individual or
organization (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Akbar, 2003; Moore, Fowler, Watson, 2007). Single-loop learning is to
correct an action to solve or avoid a mistake. This type of learning solves problems but ignores the question of why
the problem arose in the first place, which has been referred to as “adaptive learning” by Senge (1992). Meanwhile,
double-loop learning is to correct the underlying causes behind the problematic action. This type of learning focuses
on transformational change that changes the status quo, which has been referred to as “generative learning” by Senge
(1992). As Senge (1992) notes, unlike adaptive learning, generative learning requires a new mindset and the capacity
to create new visions for future realities. Essentially, generative learning builds in a redesign process based on
optimal problem solving. This is in contrast to adaptive learning or single-loop learning where the focus is on solving
current problems without examining the root causes of the problem or the learning behaviors that underpin the
problem-solving process.
A similar study comparing generic prompts and specific prompts within an Intelligent Tutoring System for legal
arguments (Aleven, Pinkwart, Ashley and Lynch, 2006) has a quite similar result. Generic and specific prompts
could be both helpful for students to learn in the main study while the difference between the two prompted
conditions is not prominent. As Aleven, Pinkwart, Ashley and Lynch (2006) have argued, generic prompts may be
useful because they draw the students’ attention to particular passages in the transcript, without restricting students to
a small set of inferences. They leave individual student more latitude in discovering deficits in his or her own
knowledge. Comparatively, specific prompts may be helpful because they lead students to useful inferences and
possible identification of gaps in their understanding (although the latter function is less certain in an ill-defined
domain such as the current). They might provide more help in leading students towards specific deficits and possible
ways of addressing them. Aleven, Pinkwart, Ashley and Lynch (2006) also note that specific prompts may be
harmful in that they are likely to focus students’ attention on a narrower set of inferences than they would otherwise
have attended to.
These relevant arguments and findings can be helpful to explain why the GP group can outperform the SP group in
the transfer test of this study. Since specific prompts eliciting single-loop reflection only focus on solving current
problems, the students in the SP group are not likely to make broader inferences by themselves without the help of
specific prompts in the transfer test. Meanwhile, generic prompts eliciting double-loop reflection could bring
transformative change for future learning contexts. Thus, the students in the GP group are more likely to make
broader inferences by themselves even without the generic prompts.
Agent Prompts and Reflection
The analysis of student’s response statements showed that the GP group was more likely to respond with
contemplative statements representing a higher level of reflection. Comparatively, the SP group responded more with
reactive statements representing a lower level of reflection which means they paid more attention to the task-specific
aspects than the GP group.
Such a result could be linked to the context of reflective practice of pre-service teachers. Mezirow (1981) and Bolton
(2001) have emphasized that reflective practice is learning and developmental process enacted through the
examination of one’s own practice, including experiences, thoughts, feelings, actions and knowledge. In other words,
for pre-service teachers to fully engage in reflection they need to have a clear view of their own philosophy and be
350