| 算术应用题二重变异样例学习的迁移效果 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 张奇,赵弘. 算术应用题二重变异样例学习的迁移效果[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(4): 409-417. DOI: |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 张奇 赵弘 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 辽宁师范大学教育学院心理学系，大连 116029 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 辽宁省教育厅人文社科研究基地重点项目 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 设计并运用了三种表面特征变异的二重样例和三种结构特征变异的二重样例，对二年级小学生解决算术应用题的迁移效果进行了实验研究。结果表明：一个原样例的学习就能明显促进了二年级小学生解决与原样例表面特征不同而结构特征相同的近迁移问题；学习三种表面特征变异的二重样例后没有产生明显的远迁移效果；而学习了三种结构特征变异的二重样例后产生了不同程度的远迁移效果，其中，规则平行组合二重样例学习的远迁移效果最好，其次是规则变异二重样例学习的远迁移效果，规则镶嵌组合变异二重样例学习的远迁移效果最差
|
| 关 键 词： | 算术应用题 表面特征 结构特征 变异样例 迁移 |
| 收稿时间： | 2007-03-30 |
| 修稿时间： | 2007-03-30 |
Transfer Effects of Learning through Two Varied Worked Examples on Word-problem Solving |
| |
| ZHANG Qi,ZHAO Hong. Transfer Effects of Learning through Two Varied Worked Examples on Word-problem Solving[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2008, 40(4): 409-417. DOI: |
| |
| Authors: | ZHANG Qi ZHAO Hong |
| |
| Affiliation: | Department of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029,China |
| |
| Abstract: | There is disagreement with regard to the transfer effects of learning through varied worked examples. Ross (1989) found that multiple examples should be made very similar to each other; even a small difference in the surface feature could make the learner pay more attention to solving the problem. Gentner (2003) discovered that comparing examples with the same structure could prompt the learners’ transition to problem solving. Holyoak (1987) pointed out that deeper structural differences had an impact on the transfer. Based on these researches, the present study hypothesized that the variability of the surface feature of two examples could have some effect on the near transfer of pupils’ word-problem solving, and the proper variability of the structural feature of the two examples could have an impact on the far transfer of pupils’ word-problem solving. A total of 210 second-grade students from a primary school were selected using a pretest and were divided into six experimental groups and a control group. Each group learnt a word problem example. Then, the pupils of three experimental groups learned one kind of word problem example that varied from the first example with regard to the surface feature: the pupils in the first group learned a number and substance varied example; the pupils in the second group learned a story varied example; and those in the third group learned an expression varied example. The pupils in the other three experimental groups learned another kind of worked example that varied from the first problem with regard to the structural feature. The first group learned a rule varied example, the second group learned a rule repeated example; the third group, learned a rule of speed composed example. The pupils in the control group did not learn any worked example. Finally, all the pupils of the six experimental groups and the control group were given a test with 15 word problems. Three of them varied from the first example with regard to the surface feature, three of them varied from the first example with regard to the structural feature, and the others varied from the first example with regard to the surface and structural features. The experimenters recorded the pupils’ test scores. The results were as follows. First, the pupils in the control group who learned the first word problem example could solve the word problems whose example varied with regard to the surface feature, but could not solve the other word problems. Second, the pupils in the three experimental groups who learned the word problem example that varied with regard to the surface feature could solve the word problems that varied from the first example with regard to the surface feature, but could not solve the other word problems. Third, a different effect was observed for the pupils in the three experimental groups who learned the word problem example that varied with regard to the structural feature. The pupils who learned the rule parallel combined example solved more word problems than the pupils in the other groups. The pupils who learned the rule varied example solved more word problems than those who learned the rule embedding combined example. The pupils who learned the rule embedding combined example solved the fewest number of word problems. The variability of the surface feature of the two examples could have some impact on the near transfer of pupils’ word-problem solving. The rule parallel combined example had the best effect on the far transfer of the pupils’ word-problem solving. The rule varied example had a more positive effect than the rule embedding combined example on the pupils’ word-problem solving far transfer. Finally, the rule embedding combined example had the poorest effect on the far transfer of the pupils’ word-problem solving |
| |
| Keywords: | word problem surface feature structural feature varied worked example transfer |
| 本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《心理学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《心理学报》下载全文 |
|
