Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving.

Bruce D Burns; Regina Vollmeyer

doi:10.1080/02724980143000262

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11873850

Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving.

Bruce D Burns·Regina Vollmeyer

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Previous research has found that having a nonspecific goal (NSG) leads to better problem solving and transfer than having a specific goal (SG). To distinguish between the various explanations of this effect requires direct evidence showing how a NSG affects a participant's behaviour. Therefore we collected verbal protocols from participants learning to control a linear system consisting of 3 outputs by manipulating 3 inputs. This system was simpler than the one we had used previously, so in Exp. 1 we generalized our earlier goal specificity findings to this system. In Exp. 2 protocol analysis confirmed our prediction (based on dual-space theories of problem solving) that NSG participants focused on hypothesis testing whereas SG participants focused on the goal. However, this difference only emerged over time. We also replicated the goal specificity effect on performance and showed that giving participants a hypothesis to test improved performance.

Explore related subjects

Goals Humans Problem Solving Psychological Theory Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Bruce D Burns, Regina Vollmeyer. 2002. Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving.. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000262

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Infants' imitation of goal-directed actions: the role of movements and action effects.

This paper reviews studies on infants' imitation of goal-directed actions in the first two years of life. Special emphasis is given to the role of the two observable components of an action, that is, the movement and the action effects, on infants' replication of target actions. The reviewed studies provide evidence that infants benefit most from a full demonstration of both movements and effects. If movements are demonstrated in isolation, infants may encode this information, but they preferentially reproduce actions that lead to salient effects. If action effects are presented in isolation, infants younger than 19 months usually fail to emulate the unseen movements that would be necessary to produce these effects. Infants' ability to predict action effects or to infer unseen movements from incomplete demonstrations improves substantially at the end of the second year of life. It is concluded that the capability to learn relations between movements and action effects by observation, and the knowledge about movement-effect relations acquired so far, may be important factors underlying the developmental changes in infants' imitation of goal-directed actions.

Goals↗

PubMed2006

What do you do for a living? Toward a more succinct definition of health services research.

This commentary discusses the need for, and the advantages of, a more concise, revised definition of the field of health services research. It argues for a definition that includes not only the topics on which health services research focuses but also the goals of health services research. A number of condensed definitions are provided for consideration.

Goals↗

PubMed2006

Do student-defined learning issues increase quality and quantity of individual study?

An experiment was conducted in the context of a problem-based learning course to investigate the influence of a learning-goal-free problem scenario on the quality and quantity of individual study. In half of the tutorial groups, the problem scenario was constructed in such a way that it provided useful learning issues (goal-specified condition), whereas in the other half of the tutorial groups, the problem scenario did not provide learning issues (goal-free condition). It was demonstrated that students in the goal-free condition read more articles, studied longer, and spent more time reporting the studied literature than their peers in the goal-specified condition. These findings suggest that the use of goal-free problems has a positive effect on the students' individual study and the extensiveness of the tutorial group meeting.

Goals↗