Affiliation:
1. Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Abstract
The present research compares the effects of mentally recreating the experience of realizing that a desirable goal had been achieved (outcome simulation exercise) with those of mentally recreating the actions that might lead to the desirable goal (process simulation exercise). It asked whether the performance benefits of process simulations over outcome simulations, which have been reported in students enrolled in face-to-face classes, would generalize to an online environment. The process simulation exercise was expected to foster attention to the antecedents of good grades, thereby improving class performance relative to the outcome simulation exercise which was intended to be merely motivational. College students from the Middle East, who were taking classes online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participated. Type of simulation impacted students’ performance on assignments, but differently depending on the timing of the assessment. It did not influence behavioral engagement, midterm test performance, or predictions of performance before or after the test. Instead, process simulation enhanced students’ confidence in their predictions. These findings suggest that process simulation exercises may be useful learning props for activities that challenge students’ problem-solving skills (e.g., assignments) rather than engage well-practiced study habits (e.g., tests).
Publisher
FSFEI HE Don State Technical University
Subject
Cognitive Neuroscience,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Education
Reference50 articles.
1. Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/18345
2. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
3. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
4. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. McGraw Hill. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1977-22073-000
5. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Cognitive domain. McKay.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献