[ACT-R-users] Is learning possible without self-explanation?

[Danielle S. McNamara]

I would say that learning is possible without self explanation, if 1) the 
material (text) conveying the information is cohesive (coherent) enough such 
that the learner need not answer questions or generate knowledge-based 
inferences while learning, AND, the learner has sufficient metacognitive 
reading skills to actively process the information (defining active as the 
process of linking the information to prior knowledge) without the cohesion 
gaps to promote that active processing.  (I could expand on that if anyone 
is interested.)
I would define self explanation (avoiding the word explain or explanation) 
as the act of answering questions (for oneself) regarding the material to be 
learned such as: Why does the author say that?; Why does that happen?; what 
is this trying to say to me?; When does this happen?; How does this work?.  
This can be accomplished silently if the learner has sufficient skills doing 
so but generally it works best if it is done aloud. 
I'd like to point out that there can be elaborations of material that are 
not self explanations or explanations of the content.  For example, if the 
text is about heart disease, I could elaborate that my uncle had a heart 
attack, but that does not explain anything about the material.  A reader 
might also paraphrase a sentence during the process of attempting to self 
explain.  While a paraphrase may help the learner at a surface level to 
better understand the sentence, it does not explain the sentence and will 
most likely have little effect on deeper learning.  (Though, paraphrasing 
for some learners may be a huge step in the right direction!)

Regarding the differentiation between SE, Scientific reasoning, and 
Metacogntive behaviour, I would say the SE is a specific process of 
answering questions regarding the material to be learned, and that this 
process can be improved by better scientific reasoning skills (including the 
knowledge of logic and science) and by better metacognitive skills.  For 
example, we have found that SE is improved by teaching readers to use 
metacognitive reading strategies such as making bridging inferences, making 
knowledge-based or logic-based inferences, etc.
Some papers on this topic can be accessed on my web site, cited below 
(follow reading strategies links). 


Danielle S. McNamara, Ph.D.       
202 Psychology Building 
The University of Memphis	         (http://www.psyc.memphis.edu)
Psychology Building, Rm. 434
Memphis, TN 38152-3230
                              
 Office Phone: 901-678-2326
 Psychology Main Office: 901-678-2145 
 FAX: 901-678-2579
                   
 EMAIL:     d.mcnamara at mail.psyc.memphis.edu
 WEB site:  http://csep.psyc.memphis.edu/McNamara

Shipping Address (e.g., Fed Ex):
Department of Psychology
University of Memphis
3693 Norri

---------- Original Message -----------
From: MacLaren <maclaren at andrew.cmu.edu>
To: act-r-users+ at andrew.cmu.edu
Sent: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:12:51 -0500
Subject: [ACT-R-users] Is learning possible without self-explanation?

> I am trying to differentiate scientific reasoning from self-
> explanation and other meta-cognitive behavior, and it got me thinking.
> 
> Chi and company claim people learn BETTER if they self-explain.  
> They learn better if they study "carefully" and ask "better" 
> questions when elaborating examples.
> 
> It seems to me that at the very least if ANY elaboration is needed 
> you MUST be self-explaining.  Perhaps you could learn simple 
> declarative facts, but it seems almost impossible to learn anything 
> without doing something that should be called self-explanation.
> 
> One definition I found for self-explanation was "generating 
> explanations to oneself to clarify a worked out solution" but this 
> seems way too specific for the process I imagine being employed more 
> generally.
> 
> Am I defining self-explanation too broadly?  Perhaps Chi et al are 
> talking only about verbalized self-explanations?  Only the type that 
> can be taught???  These seem a bit arbitrary.
> 
> So is the type of self-explanation being taught merely those subsets 
> of questions that students don't often ask themselves?   If I am 
> right then if they couldn't generate these questions they couldn't 
> solve problems at all.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ACT-R-users mailing list
> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu
> http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users
------- End of Original Message -------