Abstract
According to Geary’s evolutionary approach, humans are able to easily acquire primary knowledge and, with more efforts, secondary knowledge. The present study investigates how primary knowledge contents can facilitate the learning of formal logical rules, i.e., secondary knowledge. Framing formal logical problems in evolutionary salient contexts should increase learners’ efficiency, motivation, and engagement in learning compared with framing logical problems in secondary knowledge. In two experiments, high school students (n = 210) had to train with syllogisms of unknown content (to reduce the use of prior knowledge) and which could be related to primary knowledge (rules about invented food and animals) or secondary knowledge (fictitious mathematics and grammar rules) in order to best pass a final test. The training phase was compulsory or left to learners’ choice. In a third experiment, participants (university students, n = 227) were confronted with three phases: (i) a priming phase consisting of problems with primary or secondary knowledge contents, then (ii) a training phase consisting of secondary knowledge only, and (iii) the final test. Results confirmed the positive influence of primary knowledge in a learning task: participants were more efficient, more motivated, more confident, and experienced less cognitive load when confronted with primary knowledge compared to secondary knowledge. In particular, primary knowledge favored the involvement and persistence of learners in the training phase regardless of their personal characteristics unlike secondary knowledge. Finally, presenting primary knowledge first and then secondary knowledge was more efficient both in terms of performance and motivation. The evolutionary approach to knowledge would provide a framework for developing a way to present new content that is cost-efficient in keeping learners motivated, whatever their age or personal characteristics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allison, P. D. (2014). Event history and survival analysis: regression for longitudinal event data. USA: SAGE publications.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht: Springer.
Braver, T. S., Krug, M. K., Chiew, K. S., Kool, W., Westbrook, J. A., Clement, N. J., Adcock, R. A., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Carver, C. S., Cools, R., Custers, R., Dickinson, A., Sweck, C. S., Fishbach, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Hess, T. M., Isaacowitz, D. M., Mather, M., Murayama, K., Pessoa, L., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., & Somerville, L. H. (2014). Mechanisms of motivation–cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(2), 443–472. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: three potential moderators of effectiveness. Computers & Education, 85, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.022.
Chu, F. W., vanMarle, K., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Early numerical foundations of young children’s mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.006.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2004). Knowing thyself: the evolutionary psychology of moral reasoning and moral sentiments. In R. E. Freeman & P. Werhane (Eds.), Business, science, and ethics: The Ruffin series (pp. 93–128). Charlottesville, VA: Society for Business Ethics.
Darnon, B., & Butera, F. (2005). Buts d'accomplissement, stratégies d'étude, et motivation intrinsèque: présentation d'un domaine de recherche et validation française de l'échelle d'Elliot et McGregor (2001). L'Année Psychologique, 105(1), 105–131.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613.
Ellis, G. F. (2008). Commentary on “An evolutionarily informed education science” by David C. Geary. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392216.
Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Educating the evolved mind: conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology (pp. 1–99). Greenwich: Information Age.
Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133.
Geary, D. C., & Berch, D. (2015). Evolutionary approaches to understanding children’s academic achievement. In R. A. Scott & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–10). Hoboken: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0123.
Geary, D. C., & Berch, D. (2016). Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development. In D. C. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development (pp. 217–249). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_9.
Geary, D. C., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child Development, 71(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00118.
Gelin, M., Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2018). Do animacy effects persist in memory for context? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1307866.
Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7.
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Huff, S. M., Stripling, C. T., Boyer, C., & Stephens, C. A. (2016). Investigating factors that influence achievement goal orientation and educational practices in undergraduate agricultural sciences and natural resource students. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 60(4), 423–431.
Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Relational reasoning in a neurally plausible cognitive architecture an overview of the Lisa Project. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00350.x.
Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2006). Do children need concrete instantiations to learn an abstract concept? In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 411–416). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kim, C., Park, S. W., & Cozart, J. (2014). Affective and motivational factors of learning in online mathematics courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01382.x.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011a). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011b). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.001.
Leding, J. K. (2018). The animacy advantage in memory: manipulations of levels of processing and survival processing. American Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.131.3.0273.
Legault, L. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1139-1.
Lespiau, F., & Tricot, A. (2018). Primary knowledge enhances performance and motivation in reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 56, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.02.007.
Markovits, H., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2011). Conditional reasoning with false premises facilitates the transition between familiar and abstract reasoning. Child Development, 82(2), 646–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01526.x.
Mavilidi, M. F., Okely, A. D., Chandler, P., Cliff, D. P., & Paas, F. (2015). Effects of integrated physical exercises and gestures on preschool children’s foreign language vocabulary learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9337-z.
McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.001.
Morsanyi, K., Devine, A., Nobes, A., & Szűcs, D. (2013). The link between logic, mathematics and imagination: evidence from children with developmental dyscalculia and mathematically gifted children. Developmental Science, 16(4), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12048.
Nairne, J. S. (2016). Adaptive memory: fitness-relevant “tunings” help drive learning and remembering. In C. D. Geary & B. D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 251–269). Cham: Springer International.
Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Thompson, S. R. (2008). Adaptive memory: the comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science, 19(2), 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.x.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8.
Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: a broader view on the role of memory in learning and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.
Ping, R., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 602–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01102.x.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roszkowski, M. J., & Soven, M. (2010). Did you learn something useful today? An analysis of how perceived utility relates to perceived learning and their predictiveness of satisfaction with training. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20082.
Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2017). Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: a cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction, 52, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.007.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(05), 701–717.
Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional implications of David C. Geary’s evolutionary educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 214–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392208.
Sweller, J. (2015). In academe, what is learned, and how is it learned? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569570.
Sweller, J. (2016). Cognitive load theory, evolutionary educational psychology, and instructional design. In D. C. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development (pp. 291–306). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_9.
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400135.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Toumpaniari, K., Loyens, S., Mavilidi, M. F., & Paas, F. (2015). Preschool children’s foreign language vocabulary learning by embodying words through physical activity and gesturing. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9316-4.
Tricot, A. (2018). Scientific reasoning as domain specific knowledge. In F. Fisher, C. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: the roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 271–277). New York: Routledge.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009). The mirror neuron system and observational learning: implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3.
Youssef, A., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Using general problem-solving strategies to generate ideas in order to solve geography problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2888.
Youssef-Shalala, A., Ayres, P., Schubert, C., & Sweller, J. (2014). Using a general problem-solving strategy to promote transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national guidelines and with the Declaration of Helsinki (2008). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lespiau, F., Tricot, A. Using Primary Knowledge: an Efficient Way To Motivate Students and Promote the Learning of Formal Reasoning. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 915–938 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09482-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09482-4