难度与分值对高一学生选择停止、集中或分散学习的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 选取50名高一学生,选用反义词对和人工词对两种学习材料,赋予学习材料不同的分值,探讨项目难度和分值对学习者集中学习或分散学习选择及其效果的影响,并通过问卷调查被试对不同学习方式的认识。结果发现:(1)只有44%的被试报告分散学习更有效,被试总体上也更多地选择了集中学习;(2)在困难项目上,分散学习比集中学习的效果更好;(3)被试对容易项目更多选择停止学习,对困难项目更少选择停止学习,特别是困难高分项目;对困难项目比对容易项目更多选择分散学习,而在困难与容易项目上,对集中学习的选择不存在显著差异。

关键词: 集中学习, 分散学习, 停止学习, 最近学习区

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of the difficult levels and values of the items on learners' choice of stop study, massed study and spaced study. The participants included 50 senior one students. In the study, antonymous and artificial paired-words were adopted as easy and difficult items, which were randomly assigned to different values. A questionnaire was used to investigate the cognition of the students on massed study and spaced study. Results indicated that: (1) Only 44% of the participants reported that spaced study was more effective, and more participants tended to choose massed study rather than spaced study. (2) The recall of difficult items was improved with spaced study. (3) The participants tended to stop studying the easy items, but when the difficulty of the items increased, they were less like to stop studying, especially for the items with higher values; the more difficult the item was, the more tendency to choose spaced study, but it remained unchanged for the choice of massed study.

Key words: massed study, spaced study, stop study, the Region of Proximal Learning

中图分类号:

G442

魏飞, 刘儒德, 何伊丽, 刘林澍, 魏军. 难度与分值对高一学生选择停止、集中或分散学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(3): 285-291.

WEI Fei, LIU Ru-de, HE Yi-li, LIU Lin-shu, WEI Jun. The Influence of Difficulty and Value on Senior One Students’Choice of Stop Study, Massed Study and Spaced Study[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(3): 285-291.

参考文献

Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 432-447.

Baddeley, A. D., & Longman, D. J. A. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21, 627-635.

Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., & Paullin, R. (1989). Age-related differences in the impact of spacing, lag, and retention interval. Psychology and Aging, 4, 3-9.

Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). Does expanded retrieval produce benefits over equal-interval spacing? Explorations of spacing effects in healthy aging and early stage Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 21, 19-31.

Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126-137.

Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mis-measur of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a meta-cognitive index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68.

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-380.

Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43, 627-634.

Glenberg, A. M. (1976). Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 1-16.

Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8, 528-538.

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219-224.

Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349-363.

Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463-477.

Pyc, M. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Toward an understanding of students' allocation of study time: When do they decide to mass or space their practice? Memory & Cognition, 38, 431-440.

Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 907-912.

Smith, S. M., & Rothkopf, E. Z. (1984). Contextual enrichment and distribution of practice in the classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 341-358.

Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one's study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 601-604.

Son, L. K. (2010). Metacognitive Control and the Spacing Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 255-262.

Toppino, T. C., Cohen, M. S., Davis, M., & Moors, A. (2009). Metacognitive control over the distribution of practice: When is spacing preferred? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1352-1358.

Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2010). Metacognitive Control and Spaced Practice: Clarifying What People Do and Why. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1480-1491.

Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition, 109, 163-167.

Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 41-44.

安晓娟. (2007). ADHD儿童学习时间分配能力的发展. 硕士学位论文.天津师范大学.

刘希平, 方格. (2006). 不同任务定向下小学儿童学习时间分配决策水平的发展. 心理学报, 38(6), 859-867.

李文君. (2010). 成就目标定向对学习时间分配的影响. 硕士学位论文. 北京师范大学.

牛勇, 邱香, 傅小兰. (2010). 不同时间限制下分值对学习时间分配的影响. 心理科学, 33(4), 815-818.

王恩国, 阴国恩, 吕勇. (2007). 中学生学习策略发展研究. 心理与行为研究, 5(3), 183-187.

张俊, 刘儒德. (2011). 学习策略选择的过程与影响因素. 北京师范大学学报, 6, 21-29.

赵俊峰, 杨易, 师保国. (2005). 大学生学习策略的发展特点. 心理发展与教育, 4,79-82.

相关文章 15

[1]	王明忠, 王梦然, 王静. 父母冲突损害青少年学业成绩:努力控制与课堂参与的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 434-442.
[2]	高瑞彦, 牛美心, 杨涛, 周新林. 4~8年级学生分数数量表征的准确性及形式[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 443-452.
[3]	张婕, 黄碧娟, 司继伟, 官冬晓. 乡镇小学生的数学焦虑与数学成绩:数学自我效能感和数学元认知的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 453-460.
[4]	池丽萍, 宗正, 辛自强, 陈英和. 建构主义教学与元思维的关系:认知压力的解释[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 181-190.
[5]	洪伟, 刘儒德, 甄瑞, 蒋舒阳, 金芳凯. 成就目标定向与小学生数学学习投入的关系:学业拖延和数学焦虑的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 191-199.
[6]	刘影, 柴晓运, 龚少英, 桑标. 父母参与作业的自主动机与小学生积极作业情绪:学生作业自主动机与教师支持的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(5): 577-586.
[7]	马小凤, 周爱保, 杨小娥. 线索强度:检验提取练习效应内部机制的重要变量[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(3): 313-320.
[8]	蒋虹, 吕厚超. 青少年未来时间洞察力与学业成绩的关系:坚韧性的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(3): 321-327.
[9]	魏淑华, 宋广文, 张大均. 不同职业认同水平教师对职业生活事件的社会认知加工特征[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(1): 45-55.
[10]	王道阳, 陆祥, 殷欣. 流动儿童消极学业情绪对学习自我效能感的影响:情绪调节策略的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(1): 56-64.
[11]	潘斌, 张良, 张文新, 纪林芹. 青少年学业成绩不良、学业压力与意志控制的关系:一项交叉滞后研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 717-724.
[12]	张晓辉, 赵宏玉. 政策满意度、教师支持对免费师范生职业认同的作用:从教动机的中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 725-732.
[13]	李利平, 伍新春, 熊翠燕, 程亚华, 阮氏芳. 元语言意识和快速命名对小学生汉字听写的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 698-705.
[14]	王翠翠, 徐琴芳, 陶沙. 干预-应答模式鉴别学习障碍的有效性及其调节因素:20年研究的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 706-716.
[15]	王玉鑫, 谢和平, 王福兴, 安婧, 郝艳斌. 多媒体学习的图文整合:空间邻近效应的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(5): 565-578.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed