:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:基於價值的議程對學習時間分配影響的眼動研究
書刊名:心理學報
作者:姜英杰王志偉鄭明玲金雪蓮
作者(外文):Jiang, Ying-jieWang, Zhi-weiZheng, Ming-lingJin, Xue-lian
出版日期:2016
卷期:2016(10)
頁次:1229-1238
主題關鍵詞:學習時間分配基於議程的調節元記憶元認知記憶Study time allocationAgenda-based regulationMetamemoryMetacognitionMemory
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:9
通過對比不同梯度下,分值激發的議程與習慣性反應作用一致、不一致條件中,優先選擇項目和學習時間的差異,考察基于價值的議程對學習時間分配的影響及其動態過程。結果發現:(1)等分值條件下,漢語為母語被試存在從左到右的習慣性反應。(2)分值梯度對基于議程的學習時間分配的有效性具有調節作用。小分值梯度(1分、5分)激發的議程能夠克服習慣性反應對學習時間分配的影響,但不能使被試建立起優先學習高價值項目的議程;大分值梯度(1分、10分)能夠克服習慣性反應對學習時間分配影響,且能夠使被試建立起優先學習高價值項目的議程。(3)基于議程調節的學習時間分配在時程和階段上具有動態性和情境特異性。
Allocation of study time is generally considered as one of the most important indicators to show how learners adjust and control their learning processes efficiently, and it is influenced by habitual responding or an agenda-based process. In the agenda-based regulation(ABR) framework, agenda is a type of plans which can help learners finish their study in some situation. Generally, multiple factors, such as item difficulty and value, have effects on agenda-based regulation. Under the condition of limited study time and equal rewards for each item, learners often choose the item at their reading habit preferred position(left for Chinese) first to remember and then shift to another position(right for Chinese) when they feel they can fully recall the first one in the later test. However, if the rewards are unequal, especially when the item at opposite preferred position has higher rewards than those at the preferred position, habit-oriented learning may become counter-productive and learners tend to adopt a value-based agenda in item selection and study time allocation. The present study controlled the item difficulty in moderate level to observe whether the item value can influence the study decision shifting from habitual bias to value-based agendas by using the eye tracking technique. Three experiments were conducted with a paradigm devised by Metcalfe and her colleagues. Experiment 1 evaluated the habitual responding of native Chinese readers(mainly select items in a left-to-right fashion) in Chinese and provided a baseline to compare to Experiments 2 and 3. Participants were asked to learn the associations of 24 pairs of nouns. Two pairs of nouns were presented on a computer display for a total 3 s, one pair to the left and the other one to the right of the fixation. With the observation of clear bias of study time allocation to items on the left side, Experiments 2 and 3 were carried out to clarify if this habit oriented strategy was modulated by rewards, and if so, could rewards override such habit-oriented strategy and encourage the adaptation of a value-based strategy? The task procedures were the same across Experiments 2 and 3, and were similar to that of Experiment 1, only with the following two exceptions. First, the two pairs of nouns were associated with different rewards(1 vs. 5 points in Experiment 2; 1 vs. 10 points in Experiment 3). Second, participants need to complete two experimental blocks. In one block, the pairs of nouns with high rewards were presented on the left. In the other block, the pairs of nouns with high rewards were presented on the right. The results showed that: a) without rewards, participants tended to process items on the left side first, which give them more study time(Experiment 1); b) this left side bias remained when items of high rewards were presented on the left side of the display(Experiments 2 & 3); and c) when high rewards items were presented on the right side, the left side bias was disappeared if the reward contrast between left and right side items was moderate(Experiment 2), and was reversed if the reward contrast is high(Experiment 3). These observations suggest that value-based agenda can counteract or even override habitual processes in self-paced learning. The eye movements data of Experiments 2 and 3 further showed that the magnitude of reward contrast between items modulates the time course of learning decisions. High reward contrast triggers immediate selection of items associated with higher rewards, whereas the selection of higher rewards items takes a bit long time to resolve, when the reward contrast was moderate. The findings are in general consistent with the ABR framework. Study time allocation in self-paced learning is dynamic and context-specific. Item selection and study time are modulated by both habitual and value-based agendas, and the strength of value-based agenda is contingent on reward contrast.
期刊論文
1.Ariel, R.、Al-Harthy, I. S.、Was, C. A.、Dunlosky, J.(2011)。Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time。Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,18(5),1015-1021。  new window
2.Ariel, R.、Dunlosky, J.(2013)。When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study?。Memory and Cognition,41(3),416-428。  new window
3.Ariel, R.、Dunlosky, J.、Bailey, H.(2009)。Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring。Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,138(3),432-447。  new window
4.Castel, A. D.、Humphreys, K. L.、Lee, S. S.、Galván, A.、Balota, D. A.、McCabe, D. P.(2011)。The development of memory efficiency and value-directed remembering across the life span: A cross-sectional study of memory and selectivity。Developmental Psychology,47(6),1553-1564。  new window
5.Dunlosky, J.、Ariel, R.(2011)。The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition,37(4),899-912。  new window
6.Dunlosky, J.、Ariel, R.(2011)。Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time。Psychology of Learning and Motivation,54,103-140。  new window
7.Glöckner, A.、Witteman, C.(2010)。Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making。Thinking & Reasoning,16(1),1-25。  new window
8.Kim, B. E.、Seligman, D.、Kable, J. W.(2012)。Preference reversals in decision making under risk are accompanied by changes in attention to different attributes。Frontiers in Neuroscience,6,109。  new window
9.Koriat, A.、Ackerman, R.(2010)。Metacognition and mindreading: Judgments of learning for self and other during self-paced study。Consciousness and Cognition,19(1),251-264。  new window
10.Koriat, A.、Ackerman, R.、Lockl, K.、Schneider, W.(2009)。The memorizing effort heuristic in judgments of learning: A developmental perspective。Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,102(3),265-279。  new window
11.Koriat, A.、Nussinson, R.(2009)。Attributing study effort to data-driven and goal-driven effects: Implications for metacognitive judgments。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,35(5),1338-1343。  new window
12.Kornell, N.、Metcalfe, J.(2006)。Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,32(3),609-622。  new window
13.Krätzig, G. P.、Arbuthnott, K. D.(2009)。Metacognitive learning: The effect of item-specific experience and age on metamemory calibration and planning。Metacognition and Learning,4(2),125-144。  new window
14.李偉健、謝瑞波、陳海德、黃杰(2014)。議程與習慣性反應對學習時間分配的影響:來自眼動的證據。心理發展與教育,3,277-283。  延伸查詢new window
15.Lipowski, S. L.、Merriman, W. E.、Dunlosky, J.(2013)。Preschoolers can make highly accurate judgments of learning。Developmental Psychology,49(8),1505-1516。  new window
16.Lyons, K. E.、Ghetti, S.(2013)。I don't want to pick! Introspection on uncertainty supports early strategic behavior。Child Development,84(2),726-736。  new window
17.Metcalfe, J.(2002)。Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning?。Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131(3),349-363。  new window
18.Metcalfe, J.、Finn, B.(2013)。Metacognition and control of study choice in children。Metacognition and Learning,8(1),19-46。  new window
19.Metcalfe, J.、Kornell, N.(2005)。A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation。Journal of Memory and Language,52(4),463-477。  new window
20.牛勇、邱香、傅小蘭(2010)。不同時間限制下分值對學習時間分配的影響。心理科學,33(4),815-818。  延伸查詢new window
21.Price, J.、Hertzog, C.、Dunlosky, J.(2010)。Self-regulated learning in younger and older adults: Does aging affect metacognitive control?。Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition,17(3),329-359。  new window
22.Price, J.、Murray, R. G.(2012)。The region of proximal learning heuristic and adult age differences in self-regulated learning。Psychology and Aging,27(4),1120-1129。  new window
23.任潔、李偉健、謝瑞波、李平、陳海德(2014)。項目分值對學習時間分配的影響:一種動態的過程。心理科學,37(4),907-911。  延伸查詢new window
24.魏子晗、李興珊(2015)。決策過程的追踪:基於眼動的證據。心理科學進展,23(12),2029-2041。  延伸查詢new window
25.嚴燕、姜英杰、楊玲(2013)。價值導向元記憶中價值順序效應初探。心理學報,45(10),1094-1103。  延伸查詢new window
26.Zhou, L.、Zhang, Y. Y.、Wang, Z. J.、Rao, L. L.、Wang, W.、Li, S.、Li, X.、Liang, Z. Y.(2016)。A scanpath analysis of the risky decision-making process。Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,29(2/3),169-182。  new window
會議論文
1.Hristova, E.、Grinberg, M.(2008)。Disjunction effect in prisoner's dilemma: Evidences from an eye-tracking study。The Proceedings of the 30th Annual conference of the cognitive science society。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE