I've mentioned this study before but Sweller et al. (1998) point out that humans are bad at complex reasoning particularly long chains of complex reasoning in working memory. They're esp bad when they have no previous experience to reference. +
Sweller & co looked at chess players & asked them to reproduce board configurations. Experts were able to reproduce board configurations more accurately than novices as long as those board configs came from previous matches they had played. If the experts were given random +
Also, if you've recently started following me, I just started my PhD studies because I want to improve scaffolds around pair programming. Follow for more pair programming and other random learning sciences/cognitive science content... To the research!
There is research that supports and refutes the usefulness of pair programming. More in the support than refute. The challenge in pair programming research is how do you measure success (research design & methodological rigor) and who is doing the pairing?
My tech folks interested in learning & mentoring, this one's for you. A while back someone tweeted asking, “when do we introduce abstracts?” I explained a bit websonthewebs.com/tackling-the-a… but now I have research to back it up
In the article "Cognitive architecture and instructional design" Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas examine the difference between novice & grandmaster chess players. When asked to re-create board configurations from previous games, chess grandmasters were able to do that easily.
However, when asked to re-create random board configurations, chess grandmasters were no better at re-creating the configurations than novice players.