学习次数和材料难度对学习判断绝对准确性的影响

心理发展与教育 ›› 2013, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (6): 625-630.

学习次数和材料难度对学习判断绝对准确性的影响

姜英杰, 杨玲, 严燕

东北师范大学教育学部心理学院, 长春 130024

出版日期:2013-11-15 发布日期:2013-11-15
通讯作者: 姜英杰，E-mail：Jiangyj993@nenu.edu.cn E-mail:Jiangyj993@nenu.edu.cn
基金资助:
教育部人文社科规划基金项目（12YJA90008）；吉林省哲学社会科学规划项目（2011B069）；吉林省教育科学规划重点项目（ZC11012）.

The Influence of Learning Times and Material Difficulty on Judgment of Learning’s Absolute Accuracy

JIANG Ying-jie, YANG Ling, YAN Yan

School of Psychology, Faulty of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024

Online:2013-11-15 Published:2013-11-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究采用5（学习次数）×2（材料难度）被试内设计，考察材料难度和学习次数对即刻和延迟学习判断绝对准确性的影响。45名大学生被试参加实验，共收集有效数据37个。结果表明：（1）即刻条件下，高、低难度词对都出现了练习伴随低估效应；（2）延迟条件下，高、低难度词对均未出现练习伴随低估效应。对低难度词对的学习判断准确预测了回忆成绩，高难度词对则出现了练习伴随高估效应；（3）随着学习次数的增加，不同难度词对在即刻条件下的练习伴随低估效应趋于消失，延迟条件下高难度词对的练习伴随高估效应趋于消失。

关键词: 学习判断, 练习伴随低估效应, 练习伴随高估效应

Abstract: This research explored the effect of material difficulty and study times on the absolute accuracy of immediate and delayed Judgment of Learning (JOL). The design of this experiment was 5(learning times)×2(material difficulty), and every participant joined all conditions. All items which composed by 24 paired easy items and 24 paired difficult items were assigned separately in the immediate and delayed conditions. The difficulty of all items was evaluated by passing rate. 45 participants who were undergraduates attended this experiment and studied all the items for five times. We adopted the classical paradigm of the judgment of learning: study-judgment-recall. All responses which were grades of judgment of learning and memory performance were recorded by computer, while absolute accuracy of JOL was evaluated as indexes. We collected 37 effective data in the end. The results were as follows:(1) In the immediate-JOL condition, the Underconfidence-With-Practice effect appeared both in easy and difficult items;(2) In the delayed Judgment of Learning condition, there was no Underconfidence-With-Practice effect in any items, but there were no bias in easy items and Overconfidence-With-Practice effect in difficult items;(3) Both Underconfidence-With-Practice and Overconfidence-With-Practice effects disappeared gradually following the repeating times.

Key words: judgment of learning, Underconfidence-With-Practice effect, Overconfidence-With-Practice effect

中图分类号:

G442

姜英杰, 杨玲, 严燕. 学习次数和材料难度对学习判断绝对准确性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(6): 625-630.

JIANG Ying-jie, YANG Ling, YAN Yan. The Influence of Learning Times and Material Difficulty on Judgment of Learning’s Absolute Accuracy[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(6): 625-630.

参考文献

Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 238-244.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 126(4), 349-370.
Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma'ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgment of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 141-162.
Koriat, A., & Ma'ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 475-492.
Koriat, A., Ma'ayan, H., Sheffer, L., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Exploring a mnemonic debiasing accout of the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 595-608.
Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2003). Multiple study trials and judgments of learning. Acta Psychologica, 113(2), 123-132.
Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676-686.
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (Jols) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The "delayed JOL effect". Psychological Science, 2, 267-270.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In Metacalfe, J. Shimaura, A. P. (Eds.), Metacognition: knowing about knowing(pp.1-25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consiciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102-116.
Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2005). Does retrieval fluency contribute to the underconfidence-with-practice effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1258-1266.
Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 26, 204-221.
Tiede, H. L., Derksen, C., & Leboe, J. P. (2009). An investigation of increases in metamemory con?dence across multiple study trials. Memory, 17(3), 288-300.
Tiede, H. L., & Leboe, J. P. (2009). Metamemory judgments and the benefits of repeated study: Improving recall predictions through the activation of appropriate knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 822-828.
陈功香. (2004). 内外部线索在学习判断中的作用. 中国科学院博士学位论文.
陈功香, 余鹏. (2010). 学习判断中的UWP效应. 济南大学学报, 24(4), 428-432.
刘宁, 张峰, 张庆林, 梁娜. (2007). 重复学习判断中的低自信效应. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 788-794.
刘宁. (2008). 学习判断中UWP效应的实证研究. 西南大学硕士学位论文.
刘希平, 方格, 杨小冬. (2004). 国外有关学习时间分配决策能力的研究概述. 心理科学进展, 12(4), 524-535.
郑日昌. (2008). 心理测量与测验. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 155-156.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	丛佩瑶, 贾宁. 元认知监测中容易度判断与学习判断的分离:来自行为与近红外脑成像的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 522-531.
[2]	贾宁, 代景华. 小学高年级学生的学习判断绝对准确性及预见偏差[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2012, 28(1): 54-60.
[3]	贾宁, 白学军, 沈德立. 学习判断准确性的研究方法[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2006, 22(3): 103-109.
[4]	俞国良, 张雅明. 学习不良儿童元记忆监测特点的研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2006, 22(3): 1-5.