心理发展与教育 ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (4): 525-538.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2021.04.09

• 教与学心理 • 上一篇    下一篇

图文横排促进低熟悉词汇再认:基于8岁儿童和成人证据

袁娟娟1,2, 杨炀2,3, 郑志伟1,2, 刘萍萍1,2   

  1. 1. 中国科学院心理健康重点实验室(中国科学院心理研究所), 北京 100101;
    2. 中国科学院大学心理学系, 北京 100049;
    3. 中国科学院行为科学重点实验室 (中国科学院心理研究所), 北京 100101
  • 发布日期:2021-07-26
  • 通讯作者: 刘萍萍 E-mail:liupp@psych.ac.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金青年项目（31600887）。

Picture-text Horizontal Layout Enhances Recognition of Unfamiliar Words: Evidence from 8-year-old Children and Adults

YUAN Juanjuan1,2, YANG Yang2,3, ZHENG Zhiwei1,2, LIU Pingping1,2   

  1. 1. CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101;
    2. Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049;
    3. CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101
  • Published:2021-07-26

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

摘要： 图文信息广泛存在于书面材料中，但是图文材料相对呈现位置和熟悉性如何交互影响信息加工效率，及其认知机制尚不清楚。本研究基于认知负荷理论框架，采用学习-再认范式，结合学习者的认知能力（注意、工作记忆、识字量等），考察图文材料呈现位置（横排/竖排）和熟悉性（高/低）对32名儿童（7.89 ±0.30岁）和32名成人（22.67 ±3.48岁）词汇再认的影响。结果显示：（1）总体上，低熟悉性词汇在图文横排呈现时再认正确率较高，但高熟悉性词汇不受位置影响；（2）儿童对高熟悉性词汇的再认正确率较高，但成人对低熟悉性词汇的再认正确率较高；（3）儿童识字量越大，词汇再认速度越快；成人注意力、工作记忆广度、识字量成绩越高，再认正确率越高。结果表明，无论对儿童还是成人，外在负荷（呈现位置）和内在负荷（熟悉性）之间均存在交互作用，即外在负荷显著影响高内在负荷信息的加工，但对低内在负荷信息的加工影响较弱，验证了认知负荷理论。本研究成果为不同难度水平的教材排版设计和词汇识别学习提供了科学依据。

关键词: 图文位置, 熟悉性, 认知负荷, 词汇再认, 儿童

Abstract: Although pictures and texts are widely used as written material in education, they are often arranged with high cognitive load regardless of their characteristics and readers' cognitive development. Generally, the familiar and feasible picture-text layout could be processed effectively, but the underlying cognitive mechanism is still unclear. In terms of the Cognitive Load Theory, this study explored how picture-text layout (horizontal/vertical) and familiarity (high/low) interactively affect children's and adults' word recognition using the old-new recognition task.
There were three major findings. First, there was a significant interaction between extraneous cognitive load (layout) and intrinsic cognitive load (familiarity) for word recognition. Both children and adults recognized the low-familiarity words more accurately at the horizontal layout, but the processing of high-familiarity words was not influenced by layout. Second, the effects of familiarity on word recognition were different for children and adults, respectively. High-familiarity words were recognized more accurately for children, while low-familiarity words were recognized more accurately for adults. Third, the vocabulary size was negatively related to processing speed for children, and the cognitive ability (i.e., attention and working memory) and vocabulary size were positively related to recognition accuracy for adults. Taken together, horizontal layout could enhance information processing by decreasing the extraneous cognitive load of unfamiliar words, while the picture-text layout could not influence the processing of high-familiarity words. These results verify the Cognitive Load Theory and provide clear suggestions for textbooks' picture-text arrangement and word recogniton for children.

Key words: picture-text layout, familiarity, cognitive load, word recognition, children

中图分类号: 

  • G442
Allen, L. R., & Garton, R. F. (1968). The influence of word-knowledge on the word-frequency effect in recognition memory. Psychonomic Science, 10(12), 401-402.
Aue, W. R., Fontaine, J. M., & Criss, A. H. (2018). Examining the role of context variability in memory for items and associations. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 940-954.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing:Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). Lme4:Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42.
Chall, J. S. (Ed.).(1983). Learning to read:The great debate. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
Collewijn, H., & Tamminga, E. P. (1984). Human smooth and saccadic eye movements during voluntary pursuit of different target motions on different backgrounds. The Journal of Physiology, 351(1), 217-250.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC:A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204-256.
Deacon, S. H., & Francis, K. A. (2017). How children become sensitive to the morphological structure of the words that they read. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1469.
Deng, X., Kahn, B. E., Unnava, H. R., & Lee, H. (2016). A "wide" variety:Effects of horizontal versus vertical display on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 682-698.
Dong, J., & Salvendy, G. (1999). Designing menus for the Chinese population:Horizontal or vertical? Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(6), 467-471.
Eilola, T. M., & Havelka, J. (2010). Affective norms for 210 British English and Finnish nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 134-140.
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüller, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 451-461.
Foulsham, T., Teszka, R., & Kingstone, A. (2011). Saccade control in natural images is shaped by the information visible at fixation:Evidence from asymmetric gaze-contingent windows. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 73(1), 266-283.
Gathercole, S. E., Brown, L., & Pickering, S. J. (2003). Working memory assessments at school entry as longitudinal predictors of national curriculum attainment levels. Educational and Child Psychology, 20(3), 109-122.
Gregg, V. H., Montgomery, D. C., & Castano, D. (1980). Recall of common and uncommon words from pure and mixed lists. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(2), 240-245.
Grobbel, J., Dietzsch, J., Johnson, C. A., Vonthein, R., Stingl, K., Weleber, R. G., & Schiefer, U. (2016). Normal values for the full visual field, corrected for age and reaction time, using semiautomated kinetic testing on the Octopus 900 perimeter. Translational Vision Science & Technology, 5(2), 5.
Gupta, P., & Mac Whimmey, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory:Computational and Neural Bases. Brain and Language, 59 (2), 267-333.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations:On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92-102.
Henderson, J. M., & Luke, S. G. (2014). Stable individual differences in saccadic eye movements during reading, pseudoreading, scene viewing, and scene search. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1390-1400.
Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2010). Experimental effects and individual differences in linear mixed models:Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 238.
Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2013). Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 802-823.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
Law, F., Mahr, T., Schneeberg, A., & Edwards, J. (2017). Vocabulary size and auditory word recognition in preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(1), 89-125.
Liu, D., Chen, X., & Wang, Y. (2016). The impact of visual-spatial attention on reading and spelling in Chinese children. Reading and Writing, 29(7), 1435-1447.
Liu, L., Tao, R., Gao, D. Q., Qi, T., Gao, Y., & Dai, B. H. (Eds.).(2013). A Chinese character reading test for college students. Committee of Psychometrics, Chinese Psychological Society.
Meier, B., Rey-Mermet, A., Rothen, N., & Graf, P. (2013). Recognition memory across the lifespan:The impact of word frequency and study-test interval on estimates of familiarity and recollection. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 787.
Miles, W., & Shen, E. (1925). Photographic recording of eye movements in the reading of Chinese in vertical and horizontal axes:Method and preliminary results. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8(5), 344-362.
Ning, X., Li, C., & Yang, J. (2018). Word familiarity modulated the effects of category familiarity on memory performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1429.
Norris, D. (2013). Models of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(10), 517-524.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design:Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
Prull, M. W. (2019). The attentional boost effect for words in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 34(3), 405-417.
R Core Team. (2019). R:A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.1)[Computer software]. Vienna, Austria:R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Rahman, R. A., & Melinger, A. (2007). When bees hamper the production of honey:Lexical interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(3), 604-614.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing:20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Shen, E. (1927). An analysis of eye movements in the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(2), 158-183.
Shi, S. W., Wedel, M., & Pieters, F. G. (2013). Information acquisition during online decision-making:A model-based exploration using eye-tracking data. Management Science, 59(5), 1009-1026.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing:II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127-190.
Siok, W. T., & Fletcher, P. (2001). The role of phonological awareness and visual-orthographic skills in Chinese reading acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 886-899.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures:Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Learning & Memory, 6(2), 174-215.
Song, S., Su, M., Kang, C., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., McBride-Chang, C., …Shu, H. (2015). Tracing children's vocabulary development from preschool through the school-age years:An 8-year longitudinal study. Developmental Science, 18(1), 119-131.
Sun, F., Morita, M., & Stark, L. (1985). Comparative patterns of reading eye movement in Chinese and English. Perception & Psychophysics, 37(6), 502-506.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving:Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory. In M. S. Norbert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 601-605). Berlin, Germany:Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Syodorenko, T. (2010). Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language learning & Technology, 14(2), 95-110.
Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424-436.
Tatler, B. W., & Vincent, B. T. (2008). Systematic tendencies in scene viewing. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(2), 1-18.
Van der Sluis, I., Eppinga, A. N., & Redeker, G. (2017, September). Text-Picture relations in multimodal instructions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Computational Semantics:Proceedings of the FMSC workshop on Foundations of Situated or Multimodal Communication. Montpellier, France.
Wechsler, D.(Ed.).(1981). WAIS-R manual:Wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised. New York:Psychological Corporation.
Williams, R. S., & Morris, R. K. (2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 312-339.
Zhao, J., Kwok, R. K. W., Liu, M. L., Liu, H. L., & Huang, C. (2017). Underlying skills of oral and silent reading fluency in Chinese:Perspective of visual rapid processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2082.
白学军, 李馨, 闫国利. (2015). 汉语阅读眼动控制:20年研究的总结. 心理发展与教育, 31(1), 85-91.
常欣, 王沛. (2005). 认知负荷理论在教学设计中的应用. 心理科学, 28(5), 1115-1119.
车晓玮, 张倩, 李寿欣. (2015). 干扰材料的熟悉性和认知方式对语篇阅读的影响. 心理发展与教育, 31(2), 198-203.
陈红君, 赵英, 伍新春, 孙鹏, 谢瑞波, 冯杰. (2019). 小学儿童词汇知识与阅读理解的关系:交叉滞后研究. 心理学报, 51(8), 924-934.
陈舒永, 杨博民, 高云鹏. (1989). 心理实验纲要. 北京:北京大学出版社.
陈曦, 翁秋霞. (2014). 图片命名中词汇频率效应的眼动研究. 心理与行为研究, 12(3), 310-314.
陈永香, 朱莉琪. (2015). 影响动作图片命名的因素. 心理学报, 47(1), 11-18.
程亚华, 王健, 伍新春. (2018). 小学低年级儿童汉语语素意识在阅读理解中的作用:字词阅读流畅性的中介效应. 心理学报, 50(4), 413-425.
邓园, 彭聃龄, 魏若鸿. (2002). 单字词识别中多义词识别优势效应的年龄特点. 心理发展与教育, 17(3), 46-52.
邓春暖. (2006). 不同场认知方式大学生阅读图文课文的实验研究(硕士学位论文). 云南师范大学, 昆明.
宫勇, 杨颖, 张三元, 钱晓帆. (2012). 图形面板布局特征对人机交互效率的影响. 计算机辅助设计与图形学学报, 24(9), 1145-1150.
韩松梅, 朱滢. (1995). 再认的两种机制及其与启动效应的关系. 心理学报, 27(1), 9-14.
刘儒德, 赵妍, 柴松针, 徐娟. (2007). 多媒体学习的认知机制. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 5, 22-27.
孟祥芝, 舒华, 周晓林, 罗晓辉. (2000). 不同阅读水平儿童的汉字字形输出与再认. 心理学报, 32(2), 133-138.
彭聃龄. (2010). 普通心理学(修订版). 北京:北京师范大学出版社.
任国防, 王金娥, 张庆林. (2009). "学习-再认"范式下汉字错误记忆的ERP效应. 心理科学, 32(5), 1127-1130.
宋华, 张厚粲, 舒华. (1995). 在中文阅读中字音、字形的作用及其发展转换. 心理学报, 27(2), 139-144.
王笃明, 崔正虎, 葛列众, 李永娟. (2014). 中英文横竖排版方式视认绩效差异研究. 人类工效学, 20(5), 13-17.
王晓钧, 孙昌识. (1998). 汉字材料的性质对视觉短时记忆广度影响的实验研究. 心理科学, 2, 146-149.
王孝玲, 陶保平. (1996). 小学生识字量测试题库及评价量表. 上海:上海教育出版社.
吴先强, 韦斯林. (2009). 国外认知负荷理论与有效教学的研究进展及启示. 全球教育展望, 38, 28-31.
闫国利, 刘妮娜, 梁菲菲, 刘志方, 白学军. (2015). 中文读者词汇视觉信息获取速度的发展——来自消失文本的证据. 心理学报. 47(3), 300-318.
闫国利, 张莉, 李赛男, 王亚丽. (2018). 国外儿童词汇识别发展眼动研究的新进展. 心理科学. 41(2), 351-356.
张积家, 王娟, 刘鸣. (2011). 英文词、汉字词、早期文字和图画的认知加工比较. 心理学报, 43(4), 37-363.
赵婧, 毕鸿燕, 杨炀. (2012). 汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的快速命名与正字法加工技能. 中国心理卫生杂志, 26(1), 36-40.
中文语言资源联盟. (2003). 现代汉语通用词表 (CLDC-LAC-2003-001). 北京, 中国:清华大学智能技术与系统国家重点实验室, 中国科学院自动化研究所.
周爱保, 马小凤, 李晶, 崔丹. (2013). 提取练习在记忆保持与迁移中的优势效应:基于认知负荷理论的解释. 心理学报, 45(8), 849-859.
[1] 储月, 刘希平, 徐慧, 唐卫海. 儿童社会分享型提取诱发遗忘的发展特点[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 153-159.
[2] 刘艳春, 邓玉婷, 张曦. 智力障碍儿童对不同对象的分享行为：心理理论的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 160-168.
[3] 梁丹丹, 闫晓民, 葛志林. 4~8岁汉语高功能自闭症儿童基于语言线索的情绪识别能力发展研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 169-175.
[4] 史梦梦, 任桂琴, 孙军红, 张鑫星. 词汇类型和阅读水平对小学一年级儿童阅读理解监控的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 207-214.
[5] 冷欣怡, 苏萌萌, 李文玲, 杨秀杰, 邢爱玲, 张湘琳, 舒华. 家庭环境与农村儿童早期语言发展的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 8-18.
[6] 赵京伟, 陈晓旭, 任立文, 耿喆, 徐夫真. 父母心理控制与小学儿童焦虑：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 93-102.
[7] 朱娜平, 刘雁伶, 熊红梅, 赵攀. “公无远近”有早晚:不同资源分配情境中儿童公平规范执行行为发展特点[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 772-780.
[8] 颜志强, 周可, 曾晓, 徐惠, 朱晓倩, 张娟. 学前期儿童执行功能与攻击性行为的关系:认知共情的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 788-797.
[9] 任立文, 马原驰, 张清瑶, 张玲玲, 徐夫真. 父母心理控制与儿童学校适应的关系:基于交叉滞后的分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(5): 635-644.
[10] 李甜甜, 董会芹. 父母冲突知觉与儿童焦虑情绪:正负性信息注意偏向的中介作用及性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 488-496.
[11] 银小兰, 周路军, 朱翠英. 学校环境对农村留守儿童亲社会行为的影响:心理资本与生活满意度的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 497-504.
[12] 赵纤, 王志航, 王东方, 袁言云, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 贫困家庭儿童在青少年早期的亲社会行为发展轨迹:性别及父母教养方式异质性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 323-332.
[13] 张玉平, 董琼, 宋爽, 舒华. 小学低年级儿童的阅读发展轨迹:早期语言认知技能的预测作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 210-218.
[14] 李君, 王悦, 陈夏妮, 李莹. 二语学习对汉语学龄儿童认知控制与词汇通达的作用——年龄和二语熟练程度的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 219-227.
[15] 鲁明辉, 王融, 张丽敏. 父母心理弹性与自闭症谱系障碍儿童情绪行为问题的关系:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 247-254.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
版权所有 © 2018 《心理发展与教育》编辑部
地址：北京新街口外大街19号北京师范大学院内　 邮政编码：100875
联系电话：010-58807700 E-mail:pdae@bnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发