the psychology of learning and motivation - Percepts and Concepts ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Implications for Enhancing Academic Achievement 147Nugier, & Chekroun, 2009), and students from a lower socioeconomicbackground (Croizet & Claire, 1998; Desert, Preaux, Jund, 2009).Importantly, ST should not be thought of as a phenomenon that onlyindividuals from a minority or lower status group experience, since evenindividuals from a dominant group (e.g., EA males) can suffer from ST inparticular contexts. For example, white males perform poorly on a mathtest when told that their performance will be compared with a group ofAsian males (Aronson et al., 1999). Also, men perform more poorly thanwomen at interpreting others’ expressive behavior when the task isdescribed as measuring social sensitivity, but not when the task is describedas assessing complex information processing (Koenig & Eagly, 2005). Thiswork suggests that ST can be experienced by anybody, provided that theyare made aware of an existing negative stereotype about how they areexpected to perform in that particular situation.3.1. Who is most likely to fail under stereotype threat?It is important to highlight that there are individual differences in thedegree to which people are affected by ST—meaning that not all individualswithin a group are destined to perform poorly. There are certainfactors that have been identified as predictors of ST susceptibility. Forexample, individuals who strongly value success in a particular domain(e.g., domain identity) typically perform worse under ST than those whodo not value the domain (Cadinu, Maass, Frigerio, Impagliazzo, &Latinotti, 2003; Keller, 2007; Levy, 1996; Leyens, Desert, Croizet, &Darcis, 2000; Spencer et al., 1999). Also, the degree to which one identifieswith a particular group (e.g., gender identity, and ethnic identity) increasesthe likelihood that one will perform poorly when faced with a negativegroup stereotype about performance (Marx, Stapel, & Muller, 2005;Ployhart, Ziegert, & McFarland, 2003; Schmader, 2002). This makes senseas students with low group identity, who place very little value on astigmatized domain, are likely to feel indifferent about stereotypes thatassume how other members within their group should perform. Anothermajor factor that predicts susceptibility to performing poorly under ST is astudent’s own prior awareness of negative societal expectation of success(what is referred to as stigma consciousness; Pinel, 1999). In other words, itis not merely awareness of a negative expectation of success that producesSTeffects but also an activation of what one has previously known themselves(Brown & Lee, 2005; Brown & Pinel, 2003; Pinel, 1999).3.2. Toward a mechanistic explanationWork in our lab has primarily contributed to the ST literature by attemptingto address the mechanism by which ST impairs performance. Similar
148 Sian L. Beilock and Gerardo Ramirezto our work on high-pressure situations, we view WM as an essentialcomponent of the relationship between stereotypes and performance.We and others (Cadinu et al., 2003; Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008)posit that ST creates a state of imbalance between one’s concept of self andexpectation of success that interferes with the WM resources necessary forproblem solving success. However, as we have previously discussed, theprecise manner by which WM is involved in performance failure dependson the type of activity being performed. We contend that ST can reduceWM availability while at the same time increase attention to performanceprocesses and procedures best left outside WM. Similar to the performancepressure work discussed previously, disruption of WM has beenmost central to the investigation of poor performance in academiccontexts, while enhanced attention helps explain why individuals mayperform poorly in proceduralized skills that require very little WM tobegin with.Some of the earliest evidence for the role of WM in ST comes fromwork that directly implicates WM as an essential element in explainingperformance deficits of students under stereotype in the classroom.Schmader and Johns (2003) conducted a study in which female participantswere either told that they would complete a task that measures mathaptitude between men and women (ST condition) or that they wouldcomplete a task for the purpose of obtaining normative data on collegestudents (control condition). In addition, female students in the ST conditioncompleted the study in a room with a male experimenter and twoconfederates, whereas students in the control condition completed thestudy in a room with a female experimenter and two female confederates.After receiving the study instructions, all the participants completed avowel-counting WM test before moving on to the main math task.As in previous experiments, performance of the women in the STcondition was significantly lower on the math test than that of the womenin the control condition. Moreover, performance on the WM test mediated(or accounted for) the effects of the ST manipulation on mathaccuracy. These results have since been replicated in studies that employalternative WM tasks (Inzlicht, McKay, & Aronson, 2006; Regner, et al.,2010) and those that use physiological indicators of WM (e.g., heartvariability; Croizet et al., 2004).Additional confirmation of the role of WM in ST comes from work inour own lab showing that ST harms performance for those problems thatplace a heavy demand on WM (Beilock et al., 2004). In another study, wereasoned that if ST creates worries that impose a demand on the phonologicalcomponent of WM, then performance for problems that requireverbal WM resources should be most susceptible to failure under ST. Thisis exactly what we have found (Beilock et al., 2007). Thus, similar tochoking under pressure, ST appears to exert its impact on a variety of
Page 3 and 4:
Series EditorBRIAN H. ROSSBeckman I
Page 5 and 6:
Academic Press is an imprint of Els
Page 7 and 8:
viContents3. Science of Multimedia
Page 9 and 10:
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 11 and 12:
xContributorsHenry L. Roediger, III
Page 13 and 14:
xiiPrefaceand there has been much e
Page 15 and 16:
xivPrefaceInterventions for improvi
Page 17 and 18:
2 Henry L. Roediger et al.delayed t
Page 19 and 20:
4 Henry L. Roediger et al.an indire
Page 21 and 22:
6 Henry L. Roediger et al.[(Figure_
Page 23 and 24:
8 Henry L. Roediger et al.[(Figure_
Page 25 and 26:
10 Henry L. Roediger et al.seems so
Page 27 and 28:
12 Henry L. Roediger et al.interpre
Page 29 and 30:
14 Henry L. Roediger et al.Table 2
Page 31 and 32:
16 Henry L. Roediger et al.improved
Page 33 and 34:
18 Henry L. Roediger et al.this mat
Page 35 and 36:
20 Henry L. Roediger et al.length o
Page 37 and 38:
22 Henry L. Roediger et al.9. BENEF
Page 39 and 40:
24 Henry L. Roediger et al.subjects
Page 41 and 42:
26 Henry L. Roediger et al.feedback
Page 43 and 44:
28 Henry L. Roediger et al.supporti
Page 45 and 46:
30 Henry L. Roediger et al.of some
Page 47 and 48:
32 Henry L. Roediger et al.Benefit
Page 49 and 50:
34 Henry L. Roediger et al.Hasher,
Page 51 and 52:
36 Henry L. Roediger et al.Son, L.
Page 53 and 54:
38 John Sweller1. INTRODUCTIONCogni
Page 55 and 56:
40 John Sweller‘‘baby-talk.’
Page 57 and 58:
42 John Swellerof cognitive or meta
Page 59 and 60:
44 John SwellerTable 1Natural Infor
Page 61 and 62:
46 John Swellerconfigurations. A ch
Page 63 and 64:
48 John Swellerreproduction results
Page 65 and 66:
50 John Swellerto mutation, without
Page 67 and 68:
52 John Swellerusing a complex or,
Page 69 and 70:
54 John SwellerThe human cognitive
Page 71 and 72:
56 John Swellerepigenetic system ha
Page 73 and 74:
58 John SwellerWe can determine lev
Page 75 and 76:
60 John Swellerthan memorizing the
Page 77 and 78:
62 John SwellerTable 2EffectVariabi
Page 79 and 80:
64 John Swelleroccurs when students
Page 81 and 82:
66 John Sweller3.3.3. The Split-Att
Page 83 and 84:
68 John Swellermerely restates the
Page 85 and 86:
70 John SwellerThe expertise revers
Page 87 and 88:
72 John Swellerobtained a reverse m
Page 89 and 90:
74 John Swelleractivities that othe
Page 91 and 92:
76 John SwellerRenkl, A. (2005). Th
Page 93 and 94:
78 Richard E. Mayercognitive theory
Page 95 and 96:
80 Richard E. Mayerpictures beginni
Page 97 and 98:
82 Richard E. MayerThe dualchannelp
Page 99 and 100:
84 Richard E. Mayerlearner selects
Page 101 and 102:
86 Richard E. MayerRosenthal, Rosno
Page 103 and 104:
88 Richard E. MayerGenerative proce
Page 105 and 106:
90 Richard E. Mayer4.2. Evidence-ba
Page 107 and 108:
92 Richard E. Mayersituation could
Page 109 and 110:
94 Richard E. Mayer(Moreno & Mayer,
Page 111 and 112: 96 Richard E. Mayer4.3.1. Segmentin
Page 113 and 114: 98 Richard E. Mayerpresenting the w
Page 115 and 116: 100 Richard E. MayerThe multimedia
Page 117 and 118: 102 Richard E. Mayergame in industr
Page 119 and 120: 104 Richard E. MayerClark, R. C., &
Page 121 and 122: 106 Richard E. MayerMayer, R. E., &
Page 123 and 124: 108 Richard E. MayerSweller, J. (19
Page 125: 110 Timothy J. Nokes and Daniel M.
Page 128 and 129: Incorporating Motivation into a The
Page 152 and 153: CHAPTERFIVEOn the Interplay of Emot
Page 154 and 155: Implications for Enhancing Academic
Page 186 and 187: CHAPTERSIXThere Is Nothing So Pract
Page 188 and 189: There Is Nothing So Practical as a
Page 212 and 213:
There Is Nothing So Practical as a
Page 214 and 215:
CHAPTERSEVENThe Power of Comparison
Page 216 and 217:
The Power of Comparison in Learning
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
CHAPTEREIGHTThe Ubiquitous Patterns
Page 244 and 245:
The Ubiquitous Patterns of Incorrec
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
CHAPTERNINEConceptual Problem Solvi
Page 286 and 287:
Conceptual Problem Solving in Physi
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
IndexAAcademic performancedrive the
Page 316 and 317:
Index 301Correct method comparison,
Page 318 and 319:
Index 303LLabor in vain, 28Language
Page 320 and 321:
Index 305OOntological categories of
Page 322 and 323:
Index 307WWeb-delivered multimedia
Page 324 and 325:
CONTENTS OF RECENT VOLUMESVolume 40
Page 326 and 327:
Contents of Recent Volumes 311Under
Page 328 and 329:
Contents of Recent Volumes 313Volum
show all

the psychology of learning and motivation - Percepts and Concepts ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?