Advertisement

The Goal-Free Effect

Chapter
Part of the Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies book series (LSIS, volume 1)

Abstract

The goal-free effect was the first instructional effect investigated within a ­cognitive load theory framework. Goal-free problems occur when a conventional problem with a specific goal is replaced by a problem with a non-specific goal. For example, in high school geometry, a typical problem will ask students to calculate a specific angle, such as angle ABC. In contrast, goal-free problems will not require students to specifically calculate this angle, but use a more general wording such as ‘calculate the value of as many angles as you can’. This particular wording of the problem will still allow students to calculate the targeted angle of the conventional problem (angle ABC), but students are free to calculate as many other angles as they can, and are not required to focus on one ultimate goal. Goal-free problems are ­sometimes called no-goal problems, and the goal-free effect is sometimes referred to as the goal-specificity effect. Consider an example taken from the domain of geometry. The goal-free effect occurs when students, having solved goal-free ­problems with an instruction to ‘calculate the value of as many angles as you can’ during acquisition, demonstrate superior learning outcomes to students who have solved the equivalent, conventional problems that include a goal such as ‘calculate the value of angle ABC’.

Keywords

Cognitive Load Work Memory Load Cognitive Load Theory Goal Group Work Memory Resource 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ayres, P. L. (1993). Why goal-free problems can facilitate learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, P. (1998). The effectiveness of a no-goal approach in solving Pythagorean problems. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.), Published Proceedings of the Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA 21) (pp. 68–73). Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (1990). Locus of difficulty in multistage mathematics problems. The American Journal of Psychology, 103, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209–231.Google Scholar
  5. Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1994). Demands imposed on primary-school students by geometric models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, B. D., & Vollmeyer, R. (2002). Goal specificity effects on hypothesis testing in problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 55A, 241–261.Google Scholar
  7. Geddes, B. W., & Stevenson, R. J. (1997). Explicit learning of a dynamic system with a non-salient pattern. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 742–765.Google Scholar
  8. Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greeno, J. G. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 5, pp. 239–270). Oxford/England: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (Advances in psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980a). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mawer, R. F., & Sweller, J. (1982). Effects of subgoal density and location on learning during problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23, 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Osman, M. (2008). Observation can be as effective as action in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paas, F., Camp, G., & Rikers, R. (2001). Instructional compensation for age-related cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simon, H. A., & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view. Knowledge and cognition. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition. Oxford/England: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 325–348). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Sweller, J. (1983). Control mechanisms in problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 11, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Howe, W. (1982). Consequences of history-cued and means–end strategies in problem solving. The American Journal of Psychology, 95, 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trumpower, D. L., Goldsmith, T. E., & Guynn, M. J. (2004). Goal specificity and knowledge acquisition in statistics problem solving: Evidence for attentional focus. Memory and Cognition, 32, 1379–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2002). Goal specificity and learning with a hypermedia program. Experimental Psychology, 49, 98–108.Google Scholar
  26. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science, 20, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wirth, J., Künsting, J., & Leutner, D. (2009). The impact of goal specificity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations