学习时间分配研究的新进展及展望

以往的学习时间分配研究主要关注项目难度的作用。Dunlosky等人(2009)基于任务奖励结构等因素对学习时间分配的影响,提出了基于议程调节模型。该模型认为,个体是在学习目标的指导下,建构并执行议程来进行学习时间分配。该模型突破项目难度驱动学习时间分配的传统理论,将议程视为学习时间分配的驱动力。未来研究还需关注议程建构过程和元认知监控关系等问题。     

有时间压力下学习率对学习时间分配议程的影响:来自眼动的证据

利用眼动分析技术,通过设置不同难度和分值的计算项目,探讨了在有时间压力下学习者的学习时间分配。结果发现:(1)在首次项目选择上,学习者优先选择学习率最高的项目;(2)在学习过程中,学习者的项目选择次序也是根据学习率由高到低。总之,在学习时间分配上,如果需要权衡难度与分值,学习者会考虑单位时间的获益,也就是以学习率为议程的主要依据。研究不仅利用眼动分析技术证实了基于议程的学习时间分配模型,而且进一步揭示了学习率是设置学习时间分配议程的重要依据。     

不同学习目标条件下学习时间分配的习惯性反应

采用眼动记录技术,探讨不同学习目标条件下词对位置对学习时间分配的影响。实验结果发现：在高学习目标条件下,词对位置对项目选择存在显著影响,对自定步调学习时间不存在显著影响;在低学习目标下,词对位置对项目选择和自定步调学习时间均不存在显著影响。表明议程驱动和习惯性反应是影响学习时间分配的两种认知机制,学习者会根据学习情境采用议程驱动或习惯性反应来有效地进行学习时间分配,以最小的努力实现学习目标。     

基于价值的议程对学习时间分配影响的眼动研究

通过对比不同梯度下, 分值激发的议程与习惯性反应作用一致、不一致条件中, 优先选择项目和学习时间的差异, 考察基于价值的议程对学习时间分配的影响及其动态过程。结果发现：(1)等分值条件下, 汉语为母语被试存在从左到右的习惯性反应。(2)分值梯度对基于议程的学习时间分配的有效性具有调节作用。小分值梯度(1分、5分)激发的议程能够克服习惯性反应对学习时间分配的影响, 但不能使被试建立起优先学习高价值项目的议程; 大分值梯度(1分、10分)能够克服习惯性反应对学习时间分配影响, 且能够使被试建立起优先学习高价值项目的议程。(3)基于议程调节的学习时间分配在时程和阶段上具有动态性和情境特异性。     

项目分值对学习时间分配的影响：一种动态的过程

摘 要 研究考察了不同学习时段上,项目分值对学习时间分配的影响。结果发现: (1)分值的主效应显著,被试会选择更多的高分值项目学习, 且在高分值项目上分配更多的学习时间; (2)分值与学习时段存在交互作用,被试首先学习高分值项目,随后逐渐将学习重心转向中等分值项目,最后在临近测试前重点重学高分值项目。结果表明：学习时间分配是动态变化的,个体为了尽可能实现学习目标会在学习过程中不断调整所建构的议程。     

项目难度与分值对自定步调学习时间的影响

为了探讨项目难度与分值对自定步调学习时间的影响及学习时间分配的内在机制。实验1a和实验1b分别检验项目难度与分值对自定步调学习时间的影响,发现学习者倾向于将更多学习时间分配到困难或高分值的项目上;实验2设置”难1分项目-中5分项目-易5分项目”和“难1分项目-中1分项目-易5分项目”两种情境,在前者中发现难1分项目与中5分项目的自定步调学习时间显著多于易5分项目,后者中发现难1分项目的自定步调学习时间显著多于中1分项目和易5分项目,表明了学习者在自定步调学习中存在权衡过程。     

难度－价值权衡情境下的项目选择及其眼动特征

本研究采用行为和眼动技术,通过设置难度—价值权衡情境,考察在学习时间有限的条件下,学习者如何选择学习项目,以及该过程如何发生。结果发现：(1)被试更多选择得分期望最高的项目,而非分值最高或最简单的项目。(2)选择学习项目的过程不存在计算项目得分期望的过程。结果表明,学习者项目选择不仅基于难度或价值,而是会权衡难度和价值,选择得分期望最高的项目。该过程不符合补偿性决策理论的预期,与非补偿性理论预期一致。     

编码后奖赏影响基于议程的学习：奖赏预期和结果的作用

基于ABR模型考察奖赏预期和奖赏结果对不同难度词对记忆与元记忆的影响。结果发现：(1)限时学习条件下,奖赏结果促进不同难度词对记忆成绩和学习判断,奖赏预期仅提高简单词对的记忆成绩。(2)自定步调学习条件下,定时学习判断时奖赏结果仅影响学习判断;奖赏预期促进高难度词对的学习时间分配,从而提高记忆成绩和学习判断。(3)在自定步调学习时,奖赏预期超越难度成为影响学习时间分配的因素。以上结果表明,个体会综合奖赏预期、奖赏结果和难度构建学习议程,足够大的奖赏预期会超越难度成为议程构建的主导因素。但奖赏预期和奖赏结果对记忆成绩、学习时间分配和学习判断的影响受学习条件调节。     

儿童学习时间分配决策能力发展的研究进展

学习时间分配的研究进行了将近40年,而对儿童学习时间分配的发展研究也走过了近40年的历史。从最初的他控步调的学习到后来的自控步调的学习,从关注学习材料的难度这一外部线索到关注学习者内部的活动机制,从讨论学习时间分配活动本身到探讨影响学习时间分配发展的各种因素,对于学习时间分配发展的研究始终在不断深入。文章从上述视角,对学习时间分配的新近研究进行了总结。并对今后的研究趋势进行了展望。     

自定步调学习时间的习惯性反应：来自眼动的证据

习惯性反应指学习者根据自身阅读习惯来进行学习时间分配,它通常由词对位置这一外部线索激发。研究运用眼动记录技术,采用Metcalfe范式探讨词对位置和难度对学习时间分配的影响,以检验自定步调学习时间的习惯性反应。结果发现：（1）在自定步调总学习时间上,学习者倾向于对难度越大的项目分配越多的学习时间;（2）在前期自定步调学习进程上,当词对位置为易-中-难条件时,学习者倾向于优先在容易项目上分配较多的学习时间,接着是中等难度项目,最后是困难项目;当词对位置为难-中-易条件时,结果相反。这说明学习者的自定步调总学习时间受项目难度驱动,而前期自定步调学习时间受习惯性反应影响。     

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

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。     

The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: evidence for agenda-based monitoring

Two experiments are reported examining how value and relatedness interact to influence metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Participants studied unrelated and related word pairs, each accompanied by point values denoting how important the items were to remember. These values were presented either before or after each pair in a between-subjects design, and participants made item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs) predicting the likelihood that each item would be remembered later. Results from Experiment 1 showed that participants used value and relatedness as cues to inform their JOLs. Interestingly, JOLs increased as a function of value even in the after condition in which value had no impact on cued recall. Participants in Experiment 2 were permitted to control study time for each item. Results showed that value and relatedness were simultaneously considered when allocating study time. These results support a cue-weighting process in which JOLs and study time allocation are based on multiple cues, which may or may not be predictive of future memory performance, and complements the agenda-based regulation model of study time (Ariel, Dunlosky, & Bailey, 2009) by providing evidence for agenda-based monitoring.     

The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study

Research on study-time allocation has largely focused on agenda-based regulation, such as whether learners select items for study that are in their region of proximal learning. In 4 experiments, the authors evaluated the contribution of habitual responding to study-time allocation (e.g., reading from left to right). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants selected items for study from a 3-item array. In Experiment 1, pairs were ordered by learning ease from left to right or in the reverse order. In Experiment 2, pairs were in a column with the easiest item either in the top or bottom position. Participants more likely chose to study the easiest item first when it was presented in the prominent position of an array, but when the difficult item was in the prominent position, it was more often chosen first for study. In Experiment 3, a 3 × 3 array was used. In 1 group, the 3 easy items were in the left column and the 3 difficult ones were in the right column; in another group, these columns were reversed. Participants largely chose items in a top-down or left-to-right order. In Experiment 4, items were presented sequentially for item selection, with either the difficult items presented first (followed by progressively easier items) or in the reverse order. Participants could choose half the items for restudy, and they were more likely to choose items presented earlier in the list, regardless of presentation order. These and other outcomes indicate that both agenda-based regulation (in terms of using the region of proximal learning) and habitual responding contribute to people's selection of items for study.     

Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time

Item order can bias learners’ study decisions and undermine the use of more effective allocation strategies, such as allocating study time to items in one’s region of proximal learning. In two experiments, we evaluated whether the influence of item order on study decisions reflects habitual responding based on a reading bias. We manipulated the order in which relatively easy, moderately difficult, and difficult items were presented from left to right on a computer screen and examined selection preference as a function of item order and item difficulty. Experiment 1a was conducted with native Arabic readers and in Arabic, and Experiment 1b was conducted with native English readers and in English. Students from both cultures prioritized items for study in the reading order of their native language: Arabic readers selected items for study in a right-to-left fashion, whereas English readers largely selected items from left to right. In Experiment 2, native English readers completed the same task as participants in Experiment 1b, but for some participants, lines of text were rotated upside down to encourage them to read from right to left. Participants who read upside-down text were more likely to first select items on the right side of an array than were participants who studied right-side-up text. These results indicate that reading habits can bias learners’ study decisions and can undermine agenda-based regulation.