The Cognition in Action lab is interested in a broad range of topics in cognitive, educational, and social psychology that have direct implications for students enrolled in higher education.
Listed below are some of the studies currently being conducted in the lab.
Math Anxiety
Math anxiety is, unfortunately, a universal phenomenon. Worldwide, increased math anxiety is linked to lower success in math both within and across countries (Foley et al., 2017). In the U.S., it is estimated that 17% of the population has high levels of math anxiety (Ashcraft & Moore, 2009). More troubling, beliefs about one’s mathematical ability can have life-altering consequences such as the career one chooses to pursue (Perez et al., 2017). Current research in the lab seeks to identify the mechanisms underlying mathematics anxiety, the prevalence of it among minority and at-risk students in higher education, and remedies to mathematics anxiety.
Math anxiety is, unfortunately, a universal phenomenon. Worldwide, increased math anxiety is linked to lower success in math both within and across countries (Foley et al., 2017). In the U.S., it is estimated that 17% of the population has high levels of math anxiety (Ashcraft & Moore, 2009). More troubling, beliefs about one’s mathematical ability can have life-altering consequences such as the career one chooses to pursue (Perez et al., 2017). Current research in the lab seeks to identify the mechanisms underlying mathematics anxiety, the prevalence of it among minority and at-risk students in higher education, and remedies to mathematics anxiety.
Noncognitive Variables and their Relation to Academic Success Among
Traditional and Nontraditional College Students
Nontraditional college students (e.g., students who are financially independent, have dependents of their own, did not enter postsecondary education immediately after graduating high school) is a growing population in higher education (Radford, Cominole, & Skomsvold, 2015). However, results from previous studies on whether nontraditional students differ from traditional college students on measures of academia success have been mixed (Eppler, & Harju, 1997; Hoyert, & O'Dell, 2009; Riehl, 1994). These findings suggest that previous researchers may not be capturing hidden, noncognitive variables (e.g., personality) that could moderate the relationship between the extent that the student is a traditional college student and his or her GPA. The purpose of the present study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of academic success (i.e., GPA, retention, and time to graduate) among nontraditional and traditional students using noncognitive measures as predictors.
Traditional and Nontraditional College Students
Nontraditional college students (e.g., students who are financially independent, have dependents of their own, did not enter postsecondary education immediately after graduating high school) is a growing population in higher education (Radford, Cominole, & Skomsvold, 2015). However, results from previous studies on whether nontraditional students differ from traditional college students on measures of academia success have been mixed (Eppler, & Harju, 1997; Hoyert, & O'Dell, 2009; Riehl, 1994). These findings suggest that previous researchers may not be capturing hidden, noncognitive variables (e.g., personality) that could moderate the relationship between the extent that the student is a traditional college student and his or her GPA. The purpose of the present study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of academic success (i.e., GPA, retention, and time to graduate) among nontraditional and traditional students using noncognitive measures as predictors.
Self-regulated Learning and Metacognitive Awareness
Two of the strongest predictors of academic success is students' ability to accurately monitor their knowledge of what they are learning and employing optimal learning strategies such as self-testing and spaced learning (Schneider & Preckel, 2017). However, research suggests that students lack these skills. For example, what study strategies do you use when you have to study for an upcoming exam? If you're like most students, you probably reread your notes or portions of the textbook. However, much research (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) shows that the rereading and other study strategies that students typically use are vastly inferior to retrieval practice (or self-testing). Current research in the lab focus on identifying the conditions under which students' metacognitive skills and self-regulated learning skills are deficient.
Two of the strongest predictors of academic success is students' ability to accurately monitor their knowledge of what they are learning and employing optimal learning strategies such as self-testing and spaced learning (Schneider & Preckel, 2017). However, research suggests that students lack these skills. For example, what study strategies do you use when you have to study for an upcoming exam? If you're like most students, you probably reread your notes or portions of the textbook. However, much research (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) shows that the rereading and other study strategies that students typically use are vastly inferior to retrieval practice (or self-testing). Current research in the lab focus on identifying the conditions under which students' metacognitive skills and self-regulated learning skills are deficient.
Retrospective Evaluation of Learning: Improving Student Learning Experience
Suppose that I asked you to place your hand in a bowl of cold water (55 degrees Fahrenheit) for 30 seconds. I then asked you to perform this task again, but this time, in addition to having your hand in 55 degrees cold water for 30 seconds, I told you to leave your hand in the bowl for an additional 15 seconds, with the water temperature slightly increased to 60 degrees, which is still an unpleasant experience. I then tell you that you have to do this task for the third time, but that you get to choose which version of the task you'd like. What would you choose? The answer should be obvious--you'd choose the first scenario because the second scenario includes the first scenario (i.e., 30 seconds of your hand submerged in cold water), but adds some additional discomfort (i.e., 15 seconds of your hand submerged in a slightly warmer but still cold water). The hypothetical described above was based on a study conducted by Kahneman, Fredrickson, Charles Schreiber, and Donald Redelmeier (1993) in which they reported that the majority of their participants (~70%) actually preferred the version in which they objectively experienced more pain! Their finding, which has been shown to generalize to other real-world scenarios (e.g., increasing patients return for repeat, preventive colonoscopies) shows that we weight our subjective experience of an event not on the totality of the event, but rather by what happened at the end. In this line of research, we explore factors that contribute to people's retrospective evaluation of events to help create more favorable learning experiences in the educational setting. In particular, we are interested in how we can make learning mathematics, a subject that most students dread, a more pleasant experience.
Suppose that I asked you to place your hand in a bowl of cold water (55 degrees Fahrenheit) for 30 seconds. I then asked you to perform this task again, but this time, in addition to having your hand in 55 degrees cold water for 30 seconds, I told you to leave your hand in the bowl for an additional 15 seconds, with the water temperature slightly increased to 60 degrees, which is still an unpleasant experience. I then tell you that you have to do this task for the third time, but that you get to choose which version of the task you'd like. What would you choose? The answer should be obvious--you'd choose the first scenario because the second scenario includes the first scenario (i.e., 30 seconds of your hand submerged in cold water), but adds some additional discomfort (i.e., 15 seconds of your hand submerged in a slightly warmer but still cold water). The hypothetical described above was based on a study conducted by Kahneman, Fredrickson, Charles Schreiber, and Donald Redelmeier (1993) in which they reported that the majority of their participants (~70%) actually preferred the version in which they objectively experienced more pain! Their finding, which has been shown to generalize to other real-world scenarios (e.g., increasing patients return for repeat, preventive colonoscopies) shows that we weight our subjective experience of an event not on the totality of the event, but rather by what happened at the end. In this line of research, we explore factors that contribute to people's retrospective evaluation of events to help create more favorable learning experiences in the educational setting. In particular, we are interested in how we can make learning mathematics, a subject that most students dread, a more pleasant experience.
The Dark Side of Peer Excellence
The learning environment in many classrooms consists of studious students intermixed with those who are apathetic to learning. One technique used by instructors hoping to elevate the motivation of underachieving students is to extol the works produced by exemplary students as model examples for all students to aspire to. The rationale of this technique is that other students, especially those who are struggling, should view these exemplary works as something that they themselves can produce. Although it is conceivable that exposure to work produced by exemplary peers can raise students’ need to achieve, in practice, this pedagogical strategy can unwittingly depress students’ motivation.
The lab is currently examining the generality of how exemplary peer performance can undermine student motivation. A secondary interest investigates whether this effect is exacerbated among students who identify with an ethnic minority group or as a nontraditional college student.
The learning environment in many classrooms consists of studious students intermixed with those who are apathetic to learning. One technique used by instructors hoping to elevate the motivation of underachieving students is to extol the works produced by exemplary students as model examples for all students to aspire to. The rationale of this technique is that other students, especially those who are struggling, should view these exemplary works as something that they themselves can produce. Although it is conceivable that exposure to work produced by exemplary peers can raise students’ need to achieve, in practice, this pedagogical strategy can unwittingly depress students’ motivation.
The lab is currently examining the generality of how exemplary peer performance can undermine student motivation. A secondary interest investigates whether this effect is exacerbated among students who identify with an ethnic minority group or as a nontraditional college student.