Using Primary Knowledge: an Efficient Way To Motivate Students and Promote the Learning of Formal Reasoning

Lespiau, Florence; Tricot, André

doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09482-4

REPLICATION
Published: 26 April 2019

Using Primary Knowledge: an Efficient Way To Motivate Students and Promote the Learning of Formal Reasoning

Educational Psychology Review volume 31, pages 915–938 (2019)Cite this article

970 Accesses
6 Citations
17 Altmetric
Metrics details

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, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

Allison, P. D. (2014). Event history and survival analysis: regression for longitudinal event data. USA: SAGE publications.
Book Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
Geary, D. C., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child Development, 71(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00118.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Article Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(05), 701–717.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Chapter Google Scholar
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400135.
Article Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Book Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

UMR 5263 CLLE-LTC, University of Toulouse 2 Jean Jaurès, Maison de la Recherche, 5 allées Antonio Machado, 31058, Toulouse Cedex 9, France
Florence Lespiau & André Tricot

Authors

Florence Lespiau
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
André Tricot
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Lespiau.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

Published: 26 April 2019
Issue Date: December 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09482-4

Keywords

Primary/secondary knowledge
Evolutionary approach
Engagement
Learning