质性比较专家与新手的物理问题解决过程

本实验致力于回答两个问题 :(1 )在何种任务限制下 ,专家表现出对新手的解题优势 ;(2 )可以采用何种实验手段 ,来细致刻画解题过程中运用的程序性知识 (“条件 -行动”)。本实验以物理学领域的“欧姆定律”为研究内容 ,采用专家 -新手比较范型 ,对被试的言语报告进行编码与分析 ,进而描绘了解题活动所依赖的“条件 -行动”关系 ,从中展现了专家解题相对于新手的整体优势。对这些优势的进一步个案分析表明 ,物理学解题专长的实质在于 :(1 )条件化操作 (从已知条件得出复杂关系 ) ;(2 )精致化知识 (比例公式与嵌套公式 )。     

专家医生的知识结构及诊断推理方式

医学专长研究中“中间者效应”的发现,引发了研究者对专家医生知识结构的探讨。在“知识打包”的基础上,医生的临床知识以“疾病脚本”的方式组织起来。随着临床经验的增加,专家医生积累了丰富的疾病脚本。在临床诊断中,他们无需对病人所有的体征和症状进行仔细地和系统地分析,而是通过非分析性的推理方式——“模式识别”或“样例识别”便可自动激活与之匹配的疾病脚本,据此对病人做出迅速而准确的诊断。医学专长的本质就在于专家医生以“疾病脚本”的方式组织起来的知识结构。“适应性专长”代表了未来医学专长研究的新方向     

浅谈外语教学与程序性知识及陈述性知识

外语知识属于什么样的知识?如何学习外语知识?也就是说我们应该怎样去教、怎样去学外语?本文便是在认知心理学知识分类的基础上对这些问题加以探讨的。     

学前儿童对“知道”和“会”的认知

72名3至5岁儿童接受了陈述性知识和程序性知识的学习任务,探查他们在获得新知识前后对自己是否“知道”和 “会”的认知和知识获取方式的认知 。结果显示,有部分学前儿童在不知道或不会的情况下报告自己“知道”或“会”,对自己的判断倾向于作出肯定回答;在学习新知识之后,学前儿童对自己是否“知道”的认识要比是否“会”的认知准确;儿童对陈述性知识的获取方式的认识好于程序性知识,3岁儿童对知识获取方式的认识存在困难。     

专家和新手不确定决策认知过程的比较研究

本研究将风险投资决策作为不确定决策任务,采用专家-新手比较研究范型,通过出声思维法和访谈法,探讨了专家和新手不确定决策认知过程的差异。研究发现,这种差异体现在专家和新手所拥有的关于决策任务的认识和观念、决策信息选择、推理过程和决策策略等方面。     

教学计划过程中教学专长的专家一新手比较研究

教学专长的研究多出现在教学实施阶段,且很少描绘教师知识及其组织.本研究运用出声思维法对4组专家与新手教师进行了教学计划过程中知识提取量与质的比较研究,研究发现,与新教师相比,专家教师的教学计划过程更周密、审慎,表现出更精致、联系性更强的教学专长.     

现代知识分类思想下的学习迁移理论述评

本文概括并评论了在知识分类思想前提下三种主要的迁移理论,即认知结构迁移理论,产生式迁移理论和反省认知迁移理论。     

专家与新手决策知识的获取与结构分析

本研究以有关计算机系统开发的“人与计算机界面层次模型”为理论框架,运用网络通径搜寻法,对20名企业经理(专家)和40名学生(新手)的决策知识结构进行了知识获取实验,取得了专家与新手决策知识表征模式,发现专家的决策知识围绕界面层次关键概念呈网络结构,而新手的知识结构呈链状。本文讨论了实验结果对于决策辅助的理论意义以及网络通径搜寻法对于知识结构分析的实际价值。     

21世纪医学教育的知识结构初探

在知识爆炸的今天,个人全面系统掌握医学基础知识只能是一个幻想,新世纪要求有关教育知识结构的变革。继续延用经典医学学科多平层型知识结构进行21世纪医学教育已不适应,可满足需求的应是以可持续发展的新知识为核心的核心－壳层型新知识结构。目前似应以细胞知识为核心重组医学教育知识结构体系,按应用基础、临床等知识壳层对冗杂的经典学科知识进行精炼与重组。     

专家与新手教师内隐与外显学习的比较

教师作为典型的知识密集、技术密集的群体,其隐性知识也自然比较集中和典型,而专长研究可以有效地揭示教师的知识获取特点和学习规律。然而,以往的专长研究往往通过测量专家教师和新手教师在某方面的外显行为或外显知识的差异了解教师的知识结构和行为特点,这种做法由于忽略了教师的内隐学习和隐性知识,因此难以有效地揭示专家教师与新手教师在知识和能力结构上的真实差异。本研究借鉴认知心理学对专长的研究方式（即专家--新手比较）,运用经典的序列反应时任务（SRT）调整后的范式,采用带颜色边框的同一个学生的四种真实课堂表情图片作为刺激材料,以表情作为内隐学习的维度,以颜色作为外显学习的维度,对61名专家教师与88名新手教师在内隐/外显序列学习上的差异进行了比较研究。结果发现：（1）专家和新手教师被试群体均能够习得内隐/外显序列规则;（2）专家教师与新手教师在内隐学习上存在显著差异,专家教师内隐学习效果要优于新手教师;（2）专家教师与新手教师在外显学习维度上差异并不显著。结论：专家教师与新手教师有着近乎相当的外显学习能力和外显知识水平,但专家教师的内隐学习能力和隐性知识水平要显著高于新手教师。     

Analogy Generation in Science Experts and Novices

There is a critical inconsistency in the literature on analogical retrieval. On the one hand, a vast set of laboratory studies has found that people often fail to retrieve past experiences that share deep relational commonalities, even when they would be useful for reasoning about a current problem. On the other hand, historical studies and naturalistic research show clear evidence of remindings based on deep relational commonalities. Here, we examine a possible explanation for this inconsistency—namely, that remindings based on relational principles increase as a function of expertise. To test this claim, we devised a simple analogy-generation task that can be administered across a wide range of expertise. We presented common events as the bases from which to generate analogies. Although the events themselves were unrelated to geoscience, we found that when the event was explainable in terms of a causal principle that is prominent in geoscience, expert geoscientists were likely to spontaneously produce analogies from geoscience that relied on the same principle. Further, for these examples, prompts to produce causal analogies increased their frequency among nonscientists and scientists from another domain, but not among expert geoscientists (whose spontaneous causal retrieval levels were already high). In contrast, when the example was best explained by a principle outside of geoscience, all groups required prompting to produce substantial numbers of analogies based on causal principles. Overall, this pattern suggests that the spontaneous use of causal principles is characteristic of experts. We suggest that expert scientists adopt habitual patterns of encoding according to the key relational principles in their domain, and that this contributes to their propensity to spontaneously retrieve relational matches. We discuss implications for the nature of expertise and for science instruction and assessment.     

Intact Procedural Knowledge in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease: Evidence from Golf Putting

Can Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients efficiently learn to perform a complex motor skill when relying on procedural knowledge? To address this question, the authors compared the golf-putting performance of AD patients, older adults, and younger adults in 2 different learning situations: one that promotes high error rates (thus increasing the reliance on declarative knowledge) or one that promotes low error rates (thus increasing the reliance on procedural knowledge). Motor performance was poorer overall for AD patients and older adults relative to younger adults in the high-error condition but equivalent between similar groups in the low-error condition. Also, AD patients in the low-error condition had better performance at the final putting distance relative to those in the high-error condition. This performance facilitation for AD patients likely stems from intact procedural knowledge.     

学习策略与程序性知识迁移关系的研究

本研究以学习者拥有领域知识的水平差异为基点 ,结合元认知监控手段 ,考察学习策略与程序性知识迁移之间的关系。结果表明 :(1 )以揭发意义或价值、建立新旧知识信息间实质性联结的解释策略对拥有高、低领域知识组的被试具有明显促进问题解决的作用 ;而以相似性为基础的练习策略往往在学生头脑中建立的是新旧知识间表面特征的联结 ,因而程序化技能的迁移范围不如前者。 (2 )在运用获得的认知技能碰到阻碍时 ,解释策略不仅使高知组被试能够突破无关变量的影响 ,而且也在一定程度上弥补低知组被试掌握的规则缺陷。     

知识向技能转化的影响因素

将知识向技能的转化过程分为 :陈述性编码阶段、程序性编码阶段 ,并假设存在一些因素影响陈述性编码向程序性编码的转化过程 ,控制好这些关键因素将有利于提高教学质量。为证明此假设 ,设计了四个实验。实验一、二结果表明 ,发现学习和接受学习中原有知识水平、概念地图策略等因素显著影响陈述性编码阶段 ;实验三、四结果表明 ,发现学习和接受学习中变式练习、解题策略指导等因素显著影响程序性编码阶段 ,对以上实验数据的再分析得出这两阶段存在明显的相互制约关系 ,根据以上结论和 E.D.Gagne的信息加工模型 ,构建了一个智慧技能获得的信息加工模型。     

团队问题解决的知识结构转换研究

本研究利用多维标度分析法,通过计算机联网实验．对团队问题解决过程中的知识结构进行获取与分析。我们考察了团队共享知识结构在群体讨论过程中结构性的区别,结果得出团队知识结构在概念聚集度、概念群数量、结构明晰性三个指标上发生了变化。我们认为,这些指标可以作为团队综合能力的指标,为团队评估与培训提供依据。     

Evaluating Cognitive Training Outcomes: Validity and Utility of Structural Knowledge Assessment

Conventional approaches to evaluating cognitive outcomes of training typically use paper-and-pencil tests that emphasize gains or differences in declarative knowledge. Yet a key factor in differentiating expert and novice performance is the way individuals organize their knowledge. Accordingly, the acquisition of meaningful knowledge structures and methods of assessing structural knowledge are potentially important issues for designing and evaluating training programs. Two studies were conducted to examine the validity and utility of one structural assessment technique called Pathfinder (Schvaneveldt, Durso, & Dearholt, 1989). Results from academic and organizational samples indicated that Pathfinder measures of structural knowledge quality predicted individual differences in performance self-efficacy. After controlling for differences in declarative knowledge, measures of structural knowledge quality added to the prediction of performance self-efficacy in the student sample, but not in the organizational sample. The unique features and potential advantages of structural assessment for training evaluation are discussed.     

The Effect of a Computerized Decision Aid on the Development of Knowledge

This study provides evidence on how the use of a computerized decision aid affects knowledge acquisition. While the intent of such computer-based decision aids is to improve and support unaided human judgments, it is unclear whether the use of the aids actually facilitate knowledge transfer. Seventy-six subjects completed a hypothetical decision task where one of two types of decision aids was used: an expert system or traditional textual materials. Results suggest that those using a computer-based decision aid acquired and encoded in memory less declarative knowledge than those using textual reference materials. Implications of the findings are discussed.     

On the Role of Biomedical Knowledge in Clinical Reasoning by Experts,Intermediates and Novices

In two studies the role of biomedical knowledge in the diagnosis of clinical cases was explored. Experiment 1 demonstrated a decrease in the use of biomedical knowledge with increasing expertise. This result appeared to be at variance with some findings reported in the literature (e.g., Lesgold, 1984), but supported those of others (e.g., Patel, Evans, & Groen, 1989). In Experiment 2, three possible explanations for this phenomenon were investigated: (1) rudimentation of biomedical knowledge, (2) inertia, and (3) encapsulation of biomedical knowledge under higher order concepts. Using a combined think-aloud and post-hoc explanation methodology, it was shown that experts have more in-depth biomedical knowledge than novices and subjects at intermediate levels of expertise. The findings generally support a three-stage model of expertise development in medicine consisting of acquisition of biomedical knowledge, practical experience, and integration of theoretical and experiental knowledge resulting in knowledge encapsulation.