Error-management-training - which explicitly allows participants to make errors during training - has been shown to lead to better test performance than error-avoidant training which tries to prevent participants from making errors. Recently some authors suggest to take personal characteristics of the learner into account when choosing the appropriate training for different individuals. We examined the effect of error-management-instructions (rules of thumb that encourage trainees to make errors and learn from them) and the impact of cognitive ability, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, goal orientation, achievement motivation and learning strategies on performance depending on the training method. 109 participants took part in a group software training. The groups were randomly assigned to one of 4 training conditions: error training with and without error-management-instructions and error-avoidant training with and without error-management-instructions. Results showed no difference between the 4 training conditions in task performance and declarative knowledge. The error-management-instructions seem to be crucial to error training but obviously did not work in this study. We found 4 interactions that indicate a wipe out effect of error-management-training for the impact of personal characteristics on learning success.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Error-Management-Training
1.2 Error-Management-Instructions
1.3 Aptitude-Treatment-Interactions (ATI)
1.3.1 Learning strategies
1.3.2 Cognitive ability
1.3.3 Conscientiousness
1.3.4 Neuroticism
1.3.5 Openness to experience
1.3.6 Goal orientation
1.3.7 Achievement motivation
2. METHOD
2.1 Participants
2.2 Training Design
2.3 Procedure
2.4 Personal Variables
2.5 Dependant Variables
2.6 Manipulation Checks and Controls
3. RESULTS
3.1 Preliminary Analysis
3.2 Manipulation Checks
3.3 Performance Effects
3.4 Interactions of Personal Variables and Training Method
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Strengths and Limitations of the Study
4.2 Implications for Theory and Future Research
5. REFERENCES
Research Objectives & Topics
This thesis investigates whether "error-management-training" functions as a universal training method or if its effectiveness depends on the specific personal characteristics of the learner. The primary research goal is to examine how error-management instructions and various personality variables (such as cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation) interact to influence performance outcomes, specifically testing for a "wipe out" effect of error-management training on these individual differences.
- Effects of error-management instructions on training performance and knowledge acquisition.
- Aptitude-treatment interactions (ATI) between training methods and personality variables.
- Mechanisms of action in error-management versus error-avoidant training.
- The role of "strong" versus "weak" situational characteristics in training effectiveness.
- Influence of learning strategies and achievement motivation on performance.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 Error-Management-Training
In every learning situation people make errors because of insufficient knowledge or skills, inappropriate goal setting and planning, interruptions during action or wrong interpretation of system feedback (Zapf, Brodbeck, Frese, Peters, & Prümper, 1992). In general, errors are linked with negative emotions and are said to lead to frustration, anger and despair (Brodbeck, Zapf, Prümper, & Frese, 1993). For a long time errors were seen as something that should be avoided to prevent the trainee from adopting wrong routines (Ausubel, 1968). Skinner (1953) equated errors with punishment that leads to emotional arousal and can therefore paralyse the learner and prevent him or her from further action. The result of this belief was the famous programmed learning machine which guides the trainee through the learning task and tries to minimize the possibility of errors to enhance learning by giving positive reinforcement (Skinner, 1968).
The error-management-training approach proposes just the opposite of these opinions. Errors are considered a functional part of the learning process and a very useful source of feedback (Frese & Altmann, 1989). This feedback is crucial to the learning process to evaluate the adequacy of action. So the principle of error-management-training is free exploration of the training task with the possibility of making a great number of errors. In practice the trainee gets a short introduction into the training material (e.g., a short description about the basic functions of a software program) and is then left to explore the training tasks on his or her own. Here the initiation of the 'Undo'-function is important because novices tend to go from one error to the next and therefore get deeper and deeper in the error state (Frese & Altmann, 1989). This is why a possibility to leave the error state is essential. Besides this, going backward in action to the point where the error occurred is the most used strategy to eliminate the error (Zapf, Lang, & Wittmann, 1991).
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter introduces error-management training, its theoretical foundations in action theory, and the concept of aptitude-treatment interactions (ATI) as a framework for understanding individual differences in training success.
2. METHOD: This section details the experimental design, participants, training procedures using PowerPoint, and the diverse range of psychological instruments used to measure personal variables, dependent variables, and manipulation checks.
3. RESULTS: This chapter presents the statistical analyses, including ANCOVAs for training effects and moderated hierarchical regressions to identify interactions between personal variables and training methods.
4. DISCUSSION: This chapter interprets the findings, addresses the unexpected lack of main effects, discusses the limitations of the study regarding group size and participant pre-knowledge, and offers implications for future research.
5. REFERENCES: This section lists all scientific sources cited within the thesis.
Keywords
Error-management training, aptitude-treatment interaction, ATI, software training, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, goal orientation, neuroticism, learning strategies, achievement motivation, error management instructions, exploratory learning, action theory, training performance, declarative knowledge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this diploma thesis?
The thesis investigates whether error-management training is a "one size fits all" approach or if its success is dependent on the individual personal characteristics of the trainees.
What are the central thematic fields?
The study revolves around instructional design, specifically comparing error-management training with error-avoidant training, and explores how personality traits moderate the effectiveness of these different methods.
What is the primary research question?
The study examines if aptitude-treatment interactions exist, specifically whether error-management training can "wipe out" the impact of personal characteristics that normally influence success in error-avoidant training.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The research employs a 2x2 experimental design with 109 participants, involving standardized software training, multiple personality assessment questionnaires, and moderated hierarchical regression analyses.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main part covers the theoretical background of error management, the methodology for software training, statistical performance results, and a comprehensive discussion on the implications of personality variables on learning.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include error-management training, aptitude-treatment interactions, cognitive ability, personality traits, and software learning strategies.
Why were specific personality variables like neuroticism included in the study?
Neuroticism was included because the author hypothesized a link between this construct, the fear of errors, and potential performance impairment caused by the emotional stress of making errors during training.
How does the "wipe out" effect relate to the study's conclusions?
The "wipe out" effect hypothesis posits that error-management training creates a sufficiently strong situational environment to render individual personality differences irrelevant, potentially proving it to be a more effective, universal training method.
- Quote paper
- Heiko Müller (Author), 2003, Does one size fit all? - Aptitude treatment interaction and error management training, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/27159
