巴蜀易学源流考

巴蜀易学素有渊源,两汉为滥觞期,六朝为续传期.唐代为总结期,两宋为高峰期,元明以下则为流衍期.自两汉迄清末,历代巴蜀易学著作约有180余种;数量虽然不多,然特征却很鲜明,流派众多,“四道”毕备,其“尚辞”者则有苏轼之《苏氏易传》,“尚象”“尚变”者则有李鼎柞之《集解》、来知德之《集注》,其“尚占”者则如汉严遵,而尤以卜筮易、道家易源远流长.至于《易》《老》兼治者,则有严遵、扬雄;发明图书易者,则如陈抟、胡世安;其以佛陀解《易》者,则有苏轼、龙昌期.至于仿圣拟经,由扬雄开其先(撰《太玄》),而王长文(攫《通玄经》)、卫元嵩(《元苞》)诸人继其事,成为巴蜀易学之一大特色.后之治《易》《玄》,谈《图》《书》者,皆以蜀学发其轫.刘成炘曰:“易学在蜀(伊川语),如诗之有唐矣.”(《蜀学论》)信然.     

How do students improve their value-based learning with task experience?

When learning items that vary in reward, students improve their scores (i.e., earned reward) with task experience. In four experiments, we examined whether such improvements arise from better selective encoding of items that would earn more (vs. less) reward. Participants studied and recalled words across multiple study-test trials. On each trial, 12 words were slated with different values (typically from 1 to 12), and participants earned the point value assigned to a given word if it was correctly recalled. In all experiments, participants earned more points across the first two trials. In Experiment 1, participants either self-paced their study or had experimenter-paced study and in Experiment 2, some participants were penalised for each second spent during study. Improvements in points earned were related to increases in overall recall but not to selective encoding. In Experiment 3, some participants were given value-emphasised instructions, yet they did not demonstrate selective encoding. In Experiment 4, we used a larger range of point values, but selective encoding still did not account for the improvement in point scores across lists. These results suggest that metacognitively-driven selective encoding is not necessary to observe improvements in value-based learning.     

How and when do students use flashcards?

Previous survey research has documented students' use of self-regulated study strategies, with a particular interest in self-testing. These surveys indicate that students frequently use flashcards to self-test and that self-testing is primarily used as a way to monitor learning. Whereas previous surveys provide information about whether and why students self-test, they provide minimal information about how and when students choose to self-test. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current survey was to explore how and when students engage in self-testing. We surveyed 374 undergraduates about the amount of practice and the timing of practice, two factors that strongly affect the efficacy of self-testing. Results indicate that students understand the benefits of practising to higher criterion levels (amount of practice) but do not typically implement or understand the benefits of practising with longer lags (timing of practice). We discuss practical implications for supporting more successful student learning.