任务经验对学习时间分配策略转移的影响

发布时间：2018-03-06 03:28

本文选题：任务经验　切入点：学习时间分配　出处：《浙江师范大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：自上个世纪八、九十年代以来,学习时间分配的内在机制成为自我调节学习领域关注的热点。在自我调节学习中,学习时间分配是一个动态变化的过程。根据ABR模型的观点,学习时间分配动态变化的原因可能是由于议程的改变。然而,该议程是如何变化的?这个问题有待进一步讨论。研究采用Dunlosky范式,选取164名大学生作为被试,选择困难5分和容易1分两类项目共20对,每种类型项目10对,通过4个试次的学习-测试过程,在高测试可能性为90%(实验1)和高测试可能性为100%(实验2)两种情境下考察任务经验对学习时间分配策略转移的影响,进一步探讨学习时间分配的动态变化过程,以及议程建构的内在机制。两个实验都采用2(高测试项目类型：类型1,类型2)×2(提示：提示,非提示)×4(试次：试次1,试次2,试次3,试次4)的三因素混合设计。高测试项目类型为组间变量,类型1是困难5分项目为高的测试可能性项目,容易1分项目为低的测试可能性项目,类型2是高的测试可能性项目为容易1分项目,低的测试可能性项目为困难5分项目；提示(即参与者被告知每种项目的要被测试的可能性)是组间变量,试次是组内变量。因变量是高测试项目的重学比例和实现策略转移的个体比例。两个实验的区别在于,实验1在高测试项目的测试可能性为90%的条件(即高测试项目的测试可能性是90%,低测试项目的测试可能性是10%),实验2在高测试项目的测试可能性为100%的条件(高测试项目的测试可能性是100%,低测试项目的测试可能性是0%)。实验1发现,仅凭任务经验,有超过一半的被试无法实现学习时间分配策略转移,提示不能显著预测被试的学习时间分配策略转移,这说明当高测试可能性是90%时,大部分被试不能发展出一个基于测试可能性的议程,学习时间分配存在难度、分值和测试可能性的权衡过程。实验2发现,仅凭任务经验,也有超过一半的被试无法实现策略转移,但是提示可以显著预测被试的策略转移,这说明当高测试可能性是100%时,大部分被试能发展出一个基于测试可能性的议程,导致学习时间分配权衡过程的破坏。这些结果说明了伴随着被试任务经验的增加,被试学习时间分配的权衡决策也随之发生了变化；然而,大多数的被试并不能实现策略转移。
[Abstract]:Since 0th century and 90s, the internal mechanism of learning time allocation has become a hot topic in the field of self-regulated learning. In self-regulated learning, learning time allocation is a dynamic process. According to the viewpoint of ABR model, learning time allocation is a dynamic process. The dynamic change in learning time allocation may be due to a change in the agenda. However, how does the agenda change? The problem needs further discussion. The study adopted the Dunlosky paradigm and selected 164 college students as subjects. There were 20 pairs of two types of items: difficulty 5 and ease 1. 10 pairs of items of each type were selected, and four times of learning-test process were adopted. In the two situations of 90 (experiment 1) and 100 (experiment 2), the influence of task experience on the transfer of learning time allocation strategies is investigated, and the dynamic process of learning time allocation is further discussed. And the intrinsic mechanism of agenda construction. Both experiments were conducted using 2 (high test item type: type 1, type 2) 脳 2 (hint: hint, Three factors mixed design of 脳 4 (try 1, try 2, try 3, try 4). High test item type is inter-group variable, type 1 is difficult 5 sub-item is high test possibility item, The easy 1 item is the low test possibility item, the type 2 is the high test possibility item is easy 1 item, the low test possibility item is the difficult 5 item; The cue (i.e., the likelihood that participants are told that each project is to be tested) is an inter-group variable, and the trial time is an intra-group variable. Dependent variables are the relearning ratio of a high test project and the proportion of individuals implementing a strategy shift. The difference between the two experiments is that, The test possibility of experiment 1 in high test project is 90% (that is, the test possibility of high test item is 90, the test possibility of low test item is 10 times, the test possibility of experiment 2 is 100% in high test project). The test possibility of the test project is 100 and the test probability of the low test project is 0. Experiment 1 found that more than half of the subjects could not achieve learning time allocation strategy transfer based on task experience alone, suggesting that the study time allocation strategy transfer could not be significantly predicted, which indicated that when the probability of high test was 90%, Most of the subjects were unable to develop an agenda based on test possibility, and there was a tradeoff between difficulty, score and test possibility in the allocation of learning time. More than half of the participants could not achieve the policy transition, but the suggestion could predict the strategy shift significantly, which indicated that when the probability of testing was 100, most of the participants could develop an agenda based on the possibility of testing. These results show that with the increase of task experience, the tradeoff decision of learning time allocation changes. However, most of the participants can not achieve strategy transfer.
【学位授予单位】：浙江师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：B842.3

【参考文献】