建构主义教学与元思维的关系:认知压力的解释

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.02.07

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究采用建构主义教学评估问卷、认知压力问卷、一般元思维量表与情境元思维量表对381名学生进行测量，考察了建构主义教学与元思维之间的关系，以及一级、二级认知压力在其中的中介或解释作用。研究采用结构方程模型分析，结果显示：（1）仅考虑一级认知压力时，建构主义教学能正向预测两种元思维，一级认知压力在建构主义教学与两种元思维间皆起部分中介作用；（2）仅考虑二级认知压力时，其在建构主义教学与两种元思维间皆起完全中介作用；（3）同时加入两种认知压力时，仅二级认知压力的中介作用显著。

关键词: 建构主义教学, 一级认知压力, 二级认知压力, 元思维

Abstract: Constructivist pedagogy may exert more cognitive holding power on students, so as to make them think more about their thinking process, i.e., to strengthen their metathinking. In the present study, the constructivist pedagogy evaluation questionnaire, the cognitive holding power questionnaire, and the scales of general metathinking and situational metathinking were administrated to a sample of 381 students in the grades of 5, 8, and 11 to explore the relationship among constructivist pedagogy, cognitive holding power and metathinking. It was found that (1) scores of constructivist pedagogy could positively predict levels of participants' general metathinking and situational metathinking; and (2) the first order cognitive holding power partly mediated the prediction relations, when adding the first order cognitive holding power as the only mediator; (3) while adding the second order cognitive holding power as the only mediator into the original direct path from constructivist pedagogy to general metathinking and situational metathinking, the direct path became not significant, whereas the mediating path was significant; (4) when the first and second order cognitive holding power were added into the direct path at the same time, constructivist pedagogy could only predict the level of the second order cognitive holding power, and the latter could affect participants' general metathinking and situational metathinking.

Key words: constructivist pedagogy, first order cognitive holding power, second order cognitive holding power, metathinking

中图分类号:

G442

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.

CHI Liping, ZONG Zheng, XIN Ziqiang, CHEN Yinghe. The Relationship of Constructivist Pedagogy and Metathinking: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Holding Power[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2018, 34(2): 181-190.

参考文献

Baeten, M., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., Parmentier, E., & Vanderbruggen, A. (2016). Student-centred learning environments:An investigation into student teachers' instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 19(1), 43-62.

Bay, E., Bagceci, B., & Cetin, B. (2012). The effects of social constructivist approach on the learners' problem solving and metacognitive levels. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 343-348.

Conner, L. N. (2014). Students' use of evaluative constructivism:Comparative degrees of intentional learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(4), 472-489.

de Jager, B., Jansen, M., & Reezigt, G. (2005). The development of metacognition in primary school learning environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(2), 179-196.

Desch, I., Basten, M., Großmann, N., & Wilde, M. (2017). Gender differences in perceived fulfillment of the process characteristics moderated in constructivist learning environment:The effects of autonomy support in student selection. Journal for Educational Research Online, 9(2), 156-182.

Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect:What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3-14.

Hsu, L. L., & Hsieh, S. I. (2014). Factors affecting metacognition of undergraduate nursing students in a blended learning environment. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 20(3), 233-241.

Hwang, Y. S., & Vrongistinos, K. (2002). Elementary in-service teachers' self-regulated learning strategies related to their academic achievements. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 147-154.

Iofciu, F., Miron, C., & Antohe, S. (2012). Constructivist approach of evaluation strategies in science education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 292-296.

Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger Ⅲ, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning:Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471-479.

Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008). Relationships between students' conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies. Instructional Science, 36, 445-462.

Luckay, M. B., & Laugksch, R. C. (2015). The development and validation of an instrument to monitor the implementation of social constructivist learning environments in grade 9 science classrooms in South Africa. Research in Science Education, 45(1), 1-22.

Özerba?, M. A. (2015). Evaluation of new primary education curriculum based on constructivist learning approach through the viewpoints of teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2292-2300.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., Nanty, I., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Metacognition and low achievement in mathematics:The effect of training in the use of metacognitive skills to solve mathematical word problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 16(3), 198-220.

Quiles, C., Verdoux, H., & Prouteau, A. (2014). Assessing metacognition during a cognitive task:Impact of "on-line" metacognitive questions on neuropsychological performances in a non-clinical sample. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 20(5), 547-554.

Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In T. Perfect, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.

Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children's knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51-79.

Stevenson, J. C. (1986). Adaptability:Theoretical considerations. Journal of Structural Learning, 9(2), 107-117.

Stevenson, J. C. (1990). Conceptualisation and measurement of cognitive holding power in technical and further education learning settings. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Sydney, New South Wales.

Stevenson, J. C. (1998). Performance of the cognitive holding power questionnaire in schools. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 393-410.

Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice:An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 87-111.

Tunca, N. (2015). The regression level of constructivist learning environment characteristics on classroom environment characteristics supporting critical thinking. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 181-200.

Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., Lin, H. M., & Chuang, S. C. (2004). Cognitive-metacognitive and content-technical aspects of constructivist Internet-based learning environments:a LISREL analysis. Computers & Education, 43(3), 237-248.

Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q.,& Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition Learning, 4(1), 63-85.

Xin, Z. Q., & Zhang, L. (2009). Cognitive holding power, fluid intelligence, and mathematical achievement as predictors of children's realistic problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 124-129.

Yildirim, A., & Yilmaz, S. S. (2016). The effect of context:Based chemical equilibrium on grade 11 students' learning, motivation and constructivist learning environment. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(9), 3117-3137.

陈英和, 韩瑽瑽. (2012). 儿童青少年元认知的发展特点及作用的心理机制.心理科学,35(3), 537-543.

董奇, 林崇德. (2011).中国儿童青少年心理发育标准化测验简介. 北京:科学出版社.

姜英杰. (2008). 元认知:理论质疑与界说.东北师大学报:哲学社会科学版, (2), 135-140.

黎坚, 唐云, 张厚粲. (2008). 元认知的调节过程及其领域一般性问题的分析.心理科学,31(3), 748-750.

牛华伟, 张厚超. (2009). 数学建模在经济管理中的应用.牡丹江教育学院学报, (5), 62-63.

王彦华. (2012). 运用构建主义思想提升微积分教学的有效性.数学学习与研究:教研版, (3), 15-16.

辛自强, 池丽萍. (2005). 认知压力促进知识建构:另眼看减负.教育科学研究, (9), 52-55.

辛自强, 池丽萍, 张丽. (2006). 建构主义视野下的教学评估.教育研究, (4), 55-60.

辛自强, 林崇德. (2006). 创新素质培养的建构主义视角.中国教育学刊, (5), 5-8.

辛自强, 宁良强, 池丽萍. (2005). 认知压力与建构主义数学教学的关系.心理科学,28(6), 1324-1329.

辛自强, 张睆, 李福洪, 陈英和. (2016). 一般元思维与情境元思维量表的编制.心理技术与应用,4(6), 365-375.

张志戎. (2006). 基于建构主义的微积分教学.湖州师范学院学报,28(2), 138-140.

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]	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.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	王伟, 雷雳, 王兴超. 大学生主动性人格对学业成绩的影响:学业自我效能感和学习适应的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(5): 579-586.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed