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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

加工流畅性对学习判断字体大小效应的影响

以自定步调学习时间和习得试验次数为加工流畅性指标,通过操纵不同字号的词对考察了加工流畅性对学习判断字体大小效应的影响。结果发现：（1）字体大小影响学习判断,但不影响回忆成绩;（2）不同字体大小的词对在加工流畅性（学习时间和学习次数）上存在差异,仅自定步调学习时间测量的加工流畅性对学习判断字体大小效应有贡献。这些结果说明学习判断的字体大小效应是一种元认知错觉现象,部分支持了加工流畅性假说。     

学习不良儿童元记忆监测与控制的发展

采用2×3×2的混合设计,在自定步调和对项目逐项评定的学习条件下,对小学四~六年级学习不良儿童的元记忆监测与时间分配策略进行了实验研究。结果表明：在对学习材料难度的有效区分上,学习不良儿童与对照组儿童间无差异,不论学习不良组还是对照组,四年级儿童均不能对实验中配对学习材料难度性质做出明确区分,五、六年级儿童能够很好的区分学习材料难度;在学习判断水平上,五、六年级学习不良儿童均低于对照组儿童,四年级两组之间无差异;从对不同难度学习材料的时间分配来看,四年级学习不良儿童与对照组儿童分配在不同难度材料上的学习时间均无显著差别。五、六年级对照组儿童能够根据学习材料的不同难度分配不同学习时间,而且学习时间分配与难度判断之间存在显著相关。五、六年级学习不良儿童能在一定程度上根据学习材料的不同难度分配不同的学习时间,但这种时间分配与难度判断之间相关未达到显著水平,提示他们尚不能在有效元记忆监测基础上对不同难度学习材料进行合理的时间分配     

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。     

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。     

部分线索效应中的记忆监控

通过三个实验,利用学习时间分配作为指标,考察了学习者对部分线索效应记忆监控的状况。实验1考察被试在单次学习条件下的学习时间分配情况,结果发现被试在两种条件下所使用的学习时间没有明显差异。这说明在一次学习后被试还不能对部分线索的消极作用进行有效控制。实验2中,经过多次学习后,被试在部分线索条件下使用了更多的学习时间。实验3在自控步调学习前加入回溯性任务难度判断任务,结果发现经过一次学习,部分线索组和自由回忆组的判断值虽无显著差异,但部分线索组的自控步调学习时间显著长于自由回忆组,并且其回忆成绩也显著提高,说明回溯性任务难度判断过程本身是学习时间分配的制约因素。研究说明,为了加速主体对部分线索的消极影响的控制,引导主体对学习任务进行难度判断是一种有效的手段。     

惩罚对学习时间分配中决策与绩效的影响*

学习时间分配中的学习决策及其如何影响后续学习绩效是学习心理研究的重要领域。但对惩罚学习条件下,学习者是如何调整学习策略的,以及这种调整与后续学习绩效之间的关系尚不明确。本研究发现,奖励和惩罚条件下,参与者都会更多地选择高分的项目进行学习。在学习时间分配上,奖励组和惩罚组都倾向于将时间更多地分配到困难和高分的项目。但惩罚条件下参与者对低分项目的选择比例显著低于奖励条件,这表明惩罚影响学习者的学习策略。而且惩罚条件也影响低分且容易项目的学习效率。有趣的是,奖励和惩罚虽然对学习策略产生影响,却对学习绩效影响不显著,这表明在不同的学习条件下,不同的学习策略可以获得相似的学习成绩。     

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。     

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.     

学习时间分配的基于议程调节模型*

作为学习时间分配研究热点的基于议程调节模型认为,学习者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。议程即学习计划,是学习时间分配的驱动力。该模型强调学习者在自我调节学习过程中有意识的进行着学习效益最大化的权衡决策来实现学习目标,包容了以往学习时间分配的经典理论。大量的新近研究支持了基于议程调节模型,并深入地探讨了议程驱动与习惯性反应之间的关系。 未来的研究应进一步考察学习时间分配权衡过程中的意识和无意识双加工机制,探讨个体变量对学习时间分配议程建构的权衡机制的影响,并在更加生态化的情境中考察学习时间分配议程建构的权衡机制。     

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。     

The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners?

College students’ ability to judge whether a studied item had been learned well enough to be recalled on a later test was examined in three experiments with self-paced learning procedures. Generally, these learners compensated for item difficulty when allocating study time, studying hard items longer than easy items, but they still recalled more easy items than hard items and tended to drop items out too soon. When provided with test opportunities during study or a delay between study and judgment, learners compensated significantly more for item difficulty and recalled substantially more. Paradoxically, good and poor learners compensated similarly for item difficulty and benefited similarly from testing during study and from delayed decision making. Thus, although the ability to make metamemory decisions was shown to be important for effective learning, these decisions were made equally well by good and poor associative learners. An analysis of tasks used to investigate metamemory-memory relationships in adult learning may provide an account for this apparent learning ability paradox.     

Self-Regulated Learning in Younger and Older Adults: Does Aging Affect Metacognitive Control?

ABSTRACT

Two experiments examined whether younger and older adults' self-regulated study (item selection and study time) conformed to the region of proximal learning (RPL) model when studying normatively easy, medium, and difficult vocabulary pairs. Experiment 2 manipulated the value of recalling different pairs and provided learning goals for words recalled and points earned. Younger and older adults in both experiments selected items for study in an easy-to-difficult order, indicating the RPL model applies to older adults' self-regulated study. Individuals allocated more time to difficult items, but prioritized easier items when given less time or point values favoring difficult items. Older adults studied more items for longer but realized lower recall than did younger adults. Older adults' lower memory self-efficacy and perceived control correlated with their greater item restudy and avoidance of difficult items with high point values. Results are discussed in terms of RPL and agenda-based regulation models.     

Allocation of self-paced study time and the "labor-in-vain effect"

This research explored the possibility that a metacognitive control process (namely, the allocation of self-paced study time) might be affected by the output from metacognitive monitoring processes (i.e., ease-of-learning and/or feeling-of-knowing judgments). In three experiments, university undergraduates received instructions that emphasized either accuracy of learning or speed of learning. The major findings were: (a) ease-of-learning judgments and feeling-of-knowing judgments are reliably related to study-time allocation, with more self-paced study time being allocated to the supposedly more difficult items; (b) even when instructed to master every item and when allowed unlimited study time to do so, people terminate study before learning is completed; and (c) large increases in self-paced study time can yield little or no increase in the subsequent likelihood of recall (the "labor-in-vain effect"). Implications are drawn for a model of the interplay between metacognitive monitoring processes and metacognitive control processes.