Optimizing group collaboration to improve later retention |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States;2. Virginia Commonwealth University, United States;3. Stony Brook University, United States;1. School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia;2. Bruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;3. School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;4. Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, New South Wales, Australia;5. Department of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia;6. Clinical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia;1. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier St., Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada;2. Department of Psychology, Bishop’s University, 2600 College St., Sherbrooke, QC J1M 1Z7, Canada;1. Climate Change Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;2. Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement (LGGE), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Grenoble, Grenoble, France;3. Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentation et Approches Numériques, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Paris, France;4. Mercator Ocean, Toulouse, France;5. Institut de Recherche pour le Dévelopement, Nouméa, New Caledonia;6. National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, India |
| |
| Abstract: | In educational settings, collaborative learning and recall are often encouraged and sometimes required. Yet, we know very little about the cognitive processes that operate during collaboration, and how they can be optimized to improve later individual retention. The current study aimed to address this gap by testing how the operations of three cognitive processes during collaboration: (1) retrieval disruption, (2) re-exposure and (3) cross-cuing, influence the formation of individual and group recall strategies. Across two experiments, 252 undergraduates studied a word list and recalled it in a Collaborative–Collaborative–Individual–Individual (CCII), an Individual–Collaborative–Individual–Individual (ICII), or an Individual–Individual–Individual–Individual (IIII) sequence. A 40-min delay was inserted early (CC-delay-II, IC-delay-II and II-delay-II; Experiment 1) or later in the recall sequence (CCI-delay-I, ICI-delay-I and III-delay-I; Experiment 2) to assess the differential benefits of different recall sequences. Regardless of where the delay occurred in the recall sequence, both collaboration conditions (CC and IC) benefited later individual recall to a greater extent than the individual recall condition (CCII > III and ICII > IIII). Repeated collaboration (CC) generated greater post-collaborative recall benefits than single collaboration (IC) when the delay was inserted early in the recall sequence (CC-delay-II > IC-delay-II), but the benefits were equivalent when the delay was inserted later in the recall sequence (CCI-delay-I–ICI-delay-I). Implications for future research and educational applications are discussed. |
| |
| Keywords: | Collaborative memory Group memory Collaborative inhibition Collaboration benefits Post-collaborative recall benefits Retrieval disruption Re-exposure Cross-cuing |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
