Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:32:06.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Heads Are Not Always Better Than One: Defining Parameters for Collaboration in Training

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Amy E. Crook  and
Margaret E. Beier
Amy E. Crook*
Affiliation:
Rice University
Margaret E. Beier
Affiliation:
Rice University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-25, Houston, TX 77005
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 484 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, Rice University

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., Bennett, W. Jr., McNelly, T. L., & Jordan, J. A. (1997). Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 783–791.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Kuncel, N. R. (2002). Individual and team training. In Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology: Vol. 1. Personnel psychology (pp. 278–312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. R. (2007). Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 107–111.Google Scholar
Crook, A. E. (2008). Training in dyads: Cost-effective or costly for later performance? Unpublished master’s thesis, Rice University, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
Day, E. A., Arthur, W. Jr., Bell, S. T., Edwards, B. D., Bennett, W. Jr., Mendoza, J. L., et al. (2005). Ability-based pairing strategies in the team-based training of a complex skill: Does the intelligence of your training partner matter? Intelligence, 33, 39–65.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: Web-based instruction as enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 454–467.Google Scholar
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 187–194.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Touron, D. R., & Hertzog, C. (2004). Distinguishing age differences in knowledge, strategy use, and confidence during strategic skill acquisition. Psychology and Aging, 19, 452–466.Google Scholar