Anique de BruinErasmus University Rotterdam

Metacognition and cognitive load

The effect of self-explanation when learning to play chess

Goal present studies

• Initial framework:

Expertise development

• Deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993):

metacognitive activities crucial for expertise development

Rehearsal and correction of errors

Metacognitive strategies

• Self-explanations:

– Process more deliberately

– Recognizing inconsistencies

– Stimulate integration new information

Enhances accuracy metacognition

Metacognition in skill acquisition

To what extent do metacognitive activities foster learning in skill domains (chess)?

- non-verbal nature of material

- no explicit information provided

- novices

Self-explanations in chess

• Three groups (N = 15 per group):

1. Observation only (O)

2. Predict next move (PO)

3. Predict and self-explain next move (PSE)

Procedure

• Three phases: – Basic rules

– Learning phase:

• Predict and self-explain

• Prediction only

• Observation

– Test phase: play against computer

Discover chess principles

• Chess rules: too little information to play endgame

Chess principles necessary:• King checkmated at the edge of the

board• Rook minimizes space of the King

What instruction fosters development of principled understanding most?

Results learning phase

Principles applied in learning phase

3040

506070

8090

1 2

Practice Session

Perc

en

tage

pri

nci

ple

s co

rrect

PSE condition

PO condition

Self-explanations

• Three categories:

1. Basic chess rules

2. Partial explanation of principles

3. Complete explanation of principles

Results self-explanations

• Median split on number of SEs:• High-explainers: >51 (mean=95.1)• Low-explainers: <51 (mean=32.4)

Compare differences in SE and chess performance between high- and low-explainers

Chess rule explanations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2

Session

Nu

mber

of

self-e

xpla

nati

on

s

High-explainers

Low-explainers

Partial principle explanations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2

Session

Num

ber

of s

elf-

expl

anat

ions

High- explainers

Low- explainers

Complete principle explanations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2

Session

Num

ber

of s

elf-

expl

anat

ions

High- explainers

Low- explainers

Results self-explanations

• Test exercises: high-expl more checkmate than low-expl

• However: No difference in time needed to self-explain

Results test phase

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Test exercise

Mea

n p

erce

nta

ge

chec

kmat

e PSE condition

PO condition

Observationcondition

Cognitive load

• From CL perspective surprising:– Despite low prior knowledge, prediction

+ self-explanation foster learning better principled understanding

What (meta)cognitive mechanisms explain SE effect in novices?

Conclusions I

• More explanation of basic chess rules better discovery of principles

• Rehearsing basic rules frees up processing resources for principle discovery

Conclusions II

• Verbalization of self-explanations crucial: No effect in PO condition

– Meaningful self-explanations

• Wording of the SE instruction: Explain why the computer would make that move

• No re-reads (as in text learning) possible

– Verbalized (partial) discoveries of principles receive more activation in WM

Future research

• Examine covert self-explanation in PO condition

• Test effect SE only

• Manipulate rehearsal of basic chess rules to test effect on principle discovery

Thank you

Questions?