心理发展与教育 ›› 2017, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3): 313-320.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2017.03.08

• 教与学心理学 • 上一篇    下一篇

线索强度:检验提取练习效应内部机制的重要变量

马小凤, 周爱保, 杨小娥   

  1. 西北师范大学心理学院学生学习指导中心, 兰州 730070
  • 出版日期:2017-05-15 发布日期:2017-05-15
  • 通讯作者: 周爱保,E-mail:zhouab@nwnu.edu.cn E-mail:zhouab@nwnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:

    教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(15YJC190015);西北师范大学青年教师科研能力提升计划项目(NWNU-LKQN-13-25)。

Cue Strength: The Important Variables of The Examination of Retrieval Practice Effect Mechanism

MA Xiaofeng, ZHOU Aibao, YANG Xiaoe   

  1. Guidance Center on Student Learning, School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
  • Online:2017-05-15 Published:2017-05-15

摘要: 研究采用提取练习效应研究的经典范式,通过比较学习材料的线索强度对不同学习策略效果的影响来探讨提取练习效应的内部机制。结果发现:(1)当最终测试为线索回忆时,线索强度与学习策略交互作用显著,强线索条件下两组成绩差异不显著,弱线索条件下提取练习组显著高于精细加工组;(2)当最终测试为再认测验时,线索强度与学习策略在虚报率和目标词再认反应时上交互作用显著,精细加工组在弱线索条件下的虚报率显著高于强线索条件,在强弱线索条件下的目标词再认反应时差异不显著;提取练习条件组在强弱线索条件下的虚报率差异不显著,在强弱线索条件下的目标词再认反应时差异边缘显著,弱线索条件下反应时要比强线索条件下更长。上述结果表明材料的线索强度是区分提取练习与精细加工的重要变量,揭示了提取练习的内部加工机制不同于精细加工,反驳了精细提取假设,支持情景语境假设。

关键词: 提取练习, 精细提取, 情景语境, 语义激活

Abstract: Retrieval practice refers to retrieval (test) learning materials for once or more times in an equivalent time. Retrieval practice induced better knowledge transfer and more lasting memory than repetition and fine processing, the phenomenon known as retrieval practice effect, also known as the test effect. Controversial interpretation exists of the retrieval practice effect mechanism. The fact is the retrieval practice effect has been repeated over and gets lots of empirical results, while the related theoretical research is relatively less. The main point of view has not yet formed a unified conclusion, and there are serious differences mainly on the interpretation of the retrieval practical effect by the elaborative retrieval hypothesis and the episodic context account. The present research used the classical paradigm of retrieval practice effect to explore the important role of the cue strength of learning material to explaining the retrieval practice effect mechanism. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypotheses. The two experiments all use 2 (cue strength:strong vs. weak)×2 (study strategy type:retrieval practice vs. elaborate processing) between-subjects design. In experiment 1, 94 college students were engaged and completed cued recall in final test. In experiment 2, 75 college students participated in experiment and completed recognition in final test.The results showed that:1) the cued recall condition, the interaction effect of the stress of cue and learning strategy was significant, under the strong cue condition, the difference between memory performance of elaborate processing and retrieval practice was not significant; while significant under the weak cue condition. 2) the recognition test showed significant interaction effect between cue strength and strategy on the false alarm rate of the semantic relative words. There's no significant difference between the weak cue condition and strong cue condition under the retrieval practice group; while the false alarm rate of weak cue condition was significant higher than the strong cue condition under the elaborate processing group. 3) the reaction time of recognition target word showed significant interaction effect on the recognition test between the strength of cue and learning strategy. There's no significant difference between elaborate processing groups under different strength of cue condition; while the weak cue condition showed significant longer reaction time than the strong cue effect under the retrieval practice group. The results implied that the cue strength is the key variable to distinguish retrieval practice and elaborate processing. The internal processing mechanism of retrieval practice is different to elaborate processing, refuted the elaborative retrieval hypothesis, supported the episodic context account.

Key words: retrieval practice, elaborate retrieval, episodic context, semantic activation

中图分类号: 

  • G442

Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect:the benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563-1569.

Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributed to later retention:Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1547-1552.

Carpenter, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2007). Testing beyond words:Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 474-478.

Chan, J. C. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). The testing effect in recognition memory:a dual process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 431-437.

Earhard, M. (1967). Cued recall and free recall as a function of the number of items per cue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(2), 257-263.

Hicks, J. L., & Starns, J. J. (2004). Retrieval-induced forgetting occurs in tests of item recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 125-130.

Jones, T. C., & Roediger, H. L. (1995).The experiential basis of serial position effects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 65-80

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science,331(6018), 772-775.

Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Chapter seven-retrieval-based learning:an episodic context account. Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 61, 237-284.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger Ⅲ, H. L. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition,33(4), 704-709.

Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 17-29.

Lehman, M., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning:Dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1787-1794.

Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. 1998 http://www. usf. edu. FreeAssociation.[PubMed]

Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory:Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330(6002), 335.

Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1998). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory:New frontiers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71(2), 194-209.

Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(1), 20-27.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science, 17(3), 249-255.

Roediger, H.L., & McDermott, K. B.(1995). Creating false memories:Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814.

Rowland, C. A. (2014).The Effect of Testing Versus Restudy on Retention:A Meta-Analytic Review of the Testing Effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6),1432-1463.

Verde, M. F.(2004). The retrieval practice effect in associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1265-1272.

Verkoeijen, P. P., Bouwmeester, S., & Camp, G. (2012). A short-term testing effect in cross-language recognition. Psychological Science, 23(6), 567-571.

Watkins, M. J. (1979). Engrams as cuegrams and forgetting as cue overload:A cueing approach to the structure of memory. In C. R. Puff (Ed.), Memory organization and structure. New York. Academic Press.

Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Learning and Memory, 1(4), 442-452.

Wilson, M. (1988). MRC Psycholinguistic Database:Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20(1), 6-10.

Yonelinas, A. P. (1997). Recognition memory ROCs for item and associative information:The contribution of recollection and familiarity. Memory & Cognition, 25(6), 747-763.

李岩松, 周仁来. (2008). 再认记忆双加工的理论模型及研究方法. 北京师范大学学报 (自然科学版), 44(3), 243-246.

郑俊,张伟, 罗良. (2014). 线索强度对测试效应的调节:时间间隔上的差异. 心理发展与教育, 30(6), 609-615.
[1] 刘岩, 张宏飞, 卢鑫, 曲可佳. 数学概率问题解决学习中的测试效应及有效促进[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 215-223.
[2] 马小凤, 文美琪, 史凯, 杜青青, 姚贝, 穆缘, 霍小宁. 记忆编码策略对心境一致性记忆的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 161-170.
[3] 郑俊, 张玮, 罗良. 线索强度对测试效应的调节:时间间隔上的差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 609-615.
[4] 刘兆敏, 罗良, 张玮. 记忆提取促进学习:实验证据与机制解释[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2011, 27(4): 441-447.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!