本文選題：任務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)　切入點(diǎn)：學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配　出處：《浙江師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：自上個世紀(jì)八、九十年代以來,學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配的內(nèi)在機(jī)制成為自我調(diào)節(jié)學(xué)習(xí)領(lǐng)域關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)。在自我調(diào)節(jié)學(xué)習(xí)中,學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配是一個動態(tài)變化的過程。根據(jù)ABR模型的觀點(diǎn),學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配動態(tài)變化的原因可能是由于議程的改變。然而,該議程是如何變化的?這個問題有待進(jìn)一步討論。 研究采用Dunlosky范式,選取164名大學(xué)生作為被試,選擇困難5分和容易1分兩類項(xiàng)目共20對,每種類型項(xiàng)目10對,通過4個試次的學(xué)習(xí)-測試過程,在高測試可能性為90%(實(shí)驗(yàn)1)和高測試可能性為100%(實(shí)驗(yàn)2)兩種情境下考察任務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)對學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配策略轉(zhuǎn)移的影響,進(jìn)一步探討學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配的動態(tài)變化過程,以及議程建構(gòu)的內(nèi)在機(jī)制。兩個實(shí)驗(yàn)都采用2(高測試項(xiàng)目類型：類型1,類型2)×2(提示：提示,非提示)×4(試次：試次1,試次2,試次3,試次4)的三因素混合設(shè)計(jì)。高測試項(xiàng)目類型為組間變量,類型1是困難5分項(xiàng)目為高的測試可能性項(xiàng)目,容易1分項(xiàng)目為低的測試可能性項(xiàng)目,類型2是高的測試可能性項(xiàng)目為容易1分項(xiàng)目,低的測試可能性項(xiàng)目為困難5分項(xiàng)目；提示(即參與者被告知每種項(xiàng)目的要被測試的可能性)是組間變量,試次是組內(nèi)變量。因變量是高測試項(xiàng)目的重學(xué)比例和實(shí)現(xiàn)策略轉(zhuǎn)移的個體比例。兩個實(shí)驗(yàn)的區(qū)別在于,實(shí)驗(yàn)1在高測試項(xiàng)目的測試可能性為90%的條件(即高測試項(xiàng)目的測試可能性是90%,低測試項(xiàng)目的測試可能性是10%),實(shí)驗(yàn)2在高測試項(xiàng)目的測試可能性為100%的條件(高測試項(xiàng)目的測試可能性是100%,低測試項(xiàng)目的測試可能性是0%)。 實(shí)驗(yàn)1發(fā)現(xiàn),僅憑任務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn),有超過一半的被試無法實(shí)現(xiàn)學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配策略轉(zhuǎn)移,提示不能顯著預(yù)測被試的學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配策略轉(zhuǎn)移,這說明當(dāng)高測試可能性是90%時(shí),大部分被試不能發(fā)展出一個基于測試可能性的議程,學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配存在難度、分值和測試可能性的權(quán)衡過程。實(shí)驗(yàn)2發(fā)現(xiàn),僅憑任務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn),也有超過一半的被試無法實(shí)現(xiàn)策略轉(zhuǎn)移,但是提示可以顯著預(yù)測被試的策略轉(zhuǎn)移,這說明當(dāng)高測試可能性是100%時(shí),大部分被試能發(fā)展出一個基于測試可能性的議程,導(dǎo)致學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配權(quán)衡過程的破壞。這些結(jié)果說明了伴隨著被試任務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的增加,被試學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配的權(quán)衡決策也隨之發(fā)生了變化；然而,大多數(shù)的被試并不能實(shí)現(xiàn)策略轉(zhuǎn)移。
[Abstract]:Since 0th century and 90s, the internal mechanism of learning time allocation has become a hot topic in the field of self-regulated learning. In self-regulated learning, learning time allocation is a dynamic process. According to the viewpoint of ABR model, learning time allocation is a dynamic process. The dynamic change in learning time allocation may be due to a change in the agenda. However, how does the agenda change? The problem needs further discussion. The study adopted the Dunlosky paradigm and selected 164 college students as subjects. There were 20 pairs of two types of items: difficulty 5 and ease 1. 10 pairs of items of each type were selected, and four times of learning-test process were adopted. In the two situations of 90 (experiment 1) and 100 (experiment 2), the influence of task experience on the transfer of learning time allocation strategies is investigated, and the dynamic process of learning time allocation is further discussed. And the intrinsic mechanism of agenda construction. Both experiments were conducted using 2 (high test item type: type 1, type 2) 脳 2 (hint: hint, Three factors mixed design of 脳 4 (try 1, try 2, try 3, try 4). High test item type is inter-group variable, type 1 is difficult 5 sub-item is high test possibility item, The easy 1 item is the low test possibility item, the type 2 is the high test possibility item is easy 1 item, the low test possibility item is the difficult 5 item; The cue (i.e., the likelihood that participants are told that each project is to be tested) is an inter-group variable, and the trial time is an intra-group variable. Dependent variables are the relearning ratio of a high test project and the proportion of individuals implementing a strategy shift. The difference between the two experiments is that, The test possibility of experiment 1 in high test project is 90% (that is, the test possibility of high test item is 90, the test possibility of low test item is 10 times, the test possibility of experiment 2 is 100% in high test project). The test possibility of the test project is 100 and the test probability of the low test project is 0. Experiment 1 found that more than half of the subjects could not achieve learning time allocation strategy transfer based on task experience alone, suggesting that the study time allocation strategy transfer could not be significantly predicted, which indicated that when the probability of high test was 90%, Most of the subjects were unable to develop an agenda based on test possibility, and there was a tradeoff between difficulty, score and test possibility in the allocation of learning time. More than half of the participants could not achieve the policy transition, but the suggestion could predict the strategy shift significantly, which indicated that when the probability of testing was 100, most of the participants could develop an agenda based on the possibility of testing. These results show that with the increase of task experience, the tradeoff decision of learning time allocation changes. However, most of the participants can not achieve strategy transfer.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：B842.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 賈寧;白學(xué)軍;臧傳麗;閻國利;;學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配機(jī)制的眼動研究[J];心理科學(xué);2008年01期

2 張錦坤;白學(xué)軍;楊麗嫻;;國外關(guān)于“微觀”自我調(diào)節(jié)學(xué)習(xí)的研究概述[J];心理科學(xué);2009年01期

3 張錦坤;白學(xué)軍;楊麗嫻;;不同提取難度的反饋形式對測試效應(yīng)的影響[J];心理科學(xué);2010年06期

4 陳金環(huán);劉學(xué)蘭;;學(xué)習(xí)判斷與學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間分配的關(guān)系[J];心理科學(xué)進(jìn)展;2010年11期

5 李偉健;家曉余;陳海德;黃杰;蔡任娜;曹瑋;謝瑞波;;自定步調(diào)學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間的習(xí)慣性反應(yīng):來自眼動的證據(jù)[J];心理科學(xué);2013年05期

6 李偉健;蔡任娜;陳海德;汪磊;王敏敏;;不同呈現(xiàn)方式下項(xiàng)目難度與分值對自定步調(diào)學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)間的影響[J];心理科學(xué);2013年06期

，

本文編號：1573160