议程与习惯性反应对学习时间分配的影响：来自眼动的证据

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用眼动记录技术，操作三种词对位置，探讨议程与习惯性反应对学习时间分配的影响。实验一设置无时间限制条件，结果发现，20名大学生被试均优先选择左边的项目，项目的自定步调学习时间不存在词对位置效应。结果表明，被试的习惯性反应影响项目选择，不影响自定步调学习时间。实验二设置有时间限制条件，结果发现，20名大学生被试均优先选择容易项目并分配更多的时间学习容易项目，且容易项目的选择存在词对位置效应。结果表明，议程驱动主导被试的项目选择和自定步调学习时间，但不能完全消除习惯性反应对项目选择的影响。

关键词: 学习时间分配, 时间限制, 议程, 习惯性反应, 眼动

Abstract: Ariel, Dunlosky and Bailey (2009) proposed Agenda-Based Regulation (ABR) framework. This explains the internal mechanisms of study time allocation from the perspective of information processing, that learners develop an agenda on how to allocate time to various study items and use this agenda when selecting items for study. When the limits of the central executive have been exceeded, habitual responses may gain control of study-time allocation.
This study aims to revealed the habitual response of the study time allocation. It further explored the relationship between the habitual response of the study time allocation and agenda-driven. Using Metcalfe's paradigm, two experiments independently were conducted in present research to examined twenty undergraduates's habitual response on study time allocation on condition of different time limit. Multi-factor experimental design was employed in this study. The independent variables were item difficulty, and words position, and the dependent variables were fixation duration and fixation points. On condition of no time limitation, the result revealed that habitual responses on item selection was found, but no effects on the self-paced study time. On condition of a time limit, there was no habitual response on study time allocation. Learners gave preference to easy items in all three words position. However, for easy items, there were also habitual responses. Which demonstrates learners' agendas can dominate item selection and self-paced study time, but can not completely eliminate the habitual responses to the item selection.

Key words: study time allocation, time limitation, agenda-driven, habitual response, eye tracking technique

中图分类号:

G442

李伟健, 谢瑞波, 陈海德, 黄杰. 议程与习惯性反应对学习时间分配的影响：来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(3): 277-283.

LI Wei-Jian, XIE Rui-Bo, CHEN Hai-De, HUANG Jie. The Effects of Habitual Response and Agenda-Driven on Study Time Allocation：Evidence from Eye Movement[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2014, 30(3): 277-283.

参考文献

Ariel, R. (2012).Learning what to learn: the effects of task experience on strategy shifts in the allocation of study time. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Kent State University.
Ariel, R., Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time.Psychonomic Bulletin &Rreview, 18(5), 1015-1021.
Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition, 41(3) 416-428.
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(3), 432-447.
Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011a). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 54, pp. 103-140). San Diego:Academic.
Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011b). The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 899-912.
Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: helping older adults educate themselves. In Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice. 1998. (pp. 249-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect self-paced study.Acta Psychologica, 98(1),37-56.
Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349-363.
Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 159-163.
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463-477.
Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (Eds.). (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing.Cambridge MA:The MIT Press.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Bower, G. (Ed). The Psychology of learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (Eds.). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing(pp.1-25), Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (2002). Applied metacognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Price, J., Hertzog, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Self-regulated learning in younger and older adults: does aging affect metacognitive control? Aging, neuropsychology, and cognition, 17(3), 329-359.
Soderstrom, N. C., & McCabe D. P. (2011). The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: evidence for agenda-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5):1236-1242.
Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204-221.
Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2006). Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 759-774.
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 10-24.
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.
Waldron, S. M., Patrick, J., & Duggan, G. B. (2011). The influence of goal-state access cost on planning during problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 485-503.
贾宁, 白学军, 臧传丽, 阎国利. (2008). 学习时间分配机制的眼动研究. 心理科学, 31 (1), 93-96.
李伟健. (2011). 学习困难儿童学习时间分配的特征. 博士学位论文, 北京师范大学.

相关文章 15

[1]	王敬欣, 赵赛男, 徐倩倩. 字间空格与词频对青年人和老年人阅读的影响:眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 781-787.
[2]	高子惠, 焦雨, 王曦, 刘肖岑. 电子绘本文字的动静态呈现方式对幼儿阅读体验和学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 817-824.
[3]	于晓, 张涵, 陈英和, 戚玥, 刘爱芳, 刘丽丽. 类比推理的眼动研究:揭示个体类比推理策略发展的有效手段[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 897-903.
[4]	施芳婷, 郑晨烨, 颜秀琳, 陆露, 王静梅, 邸波, 卢英俊. 5~6岁幼儿对不同文化背景卡通面孔再认的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 323-334.
[5]	马安然, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周治金. 教学微视频的播放速度对学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 391-399.
[6]	辛聪, 张曼曼, 郭盈秀, 郭云飞, 陈幼贞. 前瞻记忆意向后效应的加工机制:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(2): 138-145.
[7]	刘志方, 仝文, 张骏. 中文阅读中词汇加工的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 665-677.
[8]	王薇, 徐知宇, 李永鑫, 程奕芸. 情绪主题绘本阅读对自闭症谱系障碍儿童情绪理解障碍的干预效果[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 566-572.
[9]	张骏, 仝文, 刘志方. 不同词长中文句子阅读知觉广度的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 312-319.
[10]	陈朝阳, 刘志方, 苏永强, 程亚华. 高低阅读技能聋生词汇加工的语境预测性效应特点:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 692-699.
[11]	童钰, 王福兴. 威胁性刺激蛇一定会被更快觉察吗?蛇与蜥蜴的对比[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(5): 524-534.
[12]	苏永强, 付福音, 刘志方, 陈朝阳. 阅读中词汇视觉编码年老化的原因:基于消失文本实验的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(4): 433-440.
[13]	李文静, 童钰, 王福兴, 康素杰, 刘华山, 杨超. 动画教学代理对多媒体学习的影响:学习者经验与偏好的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(4): 453-462.
[14]	钱莹莹, 王福兴, 段朝辉, 周宗奎. 动画速度和学习者经验对多媒体学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(2): 191-197.
[15]	张玉晶, 买合甫来提·坎吉, 阻木然提古丽·然木吐拉. 不同水平五年级维吾尔族学生母语阅读知觉广度[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2015, 31(6): 703-709.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed