提取练习效应

1、提取练习优势研究 汇报概览汇报概览 v当前研究背景介绍 v相关实证研究报告 v总结及评价 v讨论 当前研究背景介绍当前研究背景介绍 一直以来，心理学界和教育学界暗含着一条基本假设： 学习主要发生在对知识和经验进行编码的阶段；提取只能测 量先前学习经验的产出，但本身并不能产生学习。然而，美 国普渡大学Karpicke博士自2008年以来，在世界顶级杂志 科学上相继发表的有关记忆提取的数篇文章揭示，提取并 非是学习过程中的一个中性事件，而是会对学习产生重要影 响的相关事件，每一次提取动作都会改变记忆和重构知识。 v 提取式学习的基本观点是：提取是理解学习和促进学习的 关键过程，提取练习能产生有意义

2、的学习，知识提取是由 线索驱动的目标搜索过程。 提取练习(Retrieval Practice), 又称测试效应(Test Effect), 是近 10 年来学习与记忆研究的热点问题。在相关 研究基础上, 有研究者指出：“提取练习策略相比于传统 的学习策略, 如重复学习、过度学习, 能够产生更长时间的 记忆保持” (Roediger Karpicke Karpicke Karpicke Carpenter Karpicke Roediger, 2000)。 v 人们依照当下的线索来回忆目标信息, 并依据线索排除掉 提取的竞争项, 人们每提取一次知识, 就会增加一些在未来 再次成功提取的可能性(

3、Karpicke Karpicke Rohrer, Taylor, Karpicke, 2012). v 提取练习是让学习者不顾他们正在学习的材料，并用他们自己 的方式积极地练习重建。当学生们能够成功地提取知识时，并 且当他们反复的练习它时，提取练习便促进学习，这种学习是 有效的、持久的，可转化新内容的。 v 1.2、Grades 35 represent a critical time in chil-drens educational development, because by these grade levels children have learned to read, and

4、they are now increasingly “read-ing to learn.” That is, late elementary school children are beginning to read material and implement strategies on their own in order to learn from what they are reading. Thus it is essential to examine retrieval practice in elementary school children. v 三到五年级的儿童是教育发展

5、的关键时期，因为这些年级的 儿童已经学习了阅读，并且现在正在增长为从阅读中学习。 为了学习他们正在学习的内容，这些儿童开始用他们自己的 方式读材料并实施策略。因此，在小学儿童中检查提取练习 是必要的。 问题提出问题提出 v 1、从教育内容中，检查学习以提取为基础的策略。 v 2、对大学生有效的提取练习策略（自由回忆和概念地图） 对小学生是否是有效的。 v 3、检查对小学生有效的提取练习的新方式。 2、实验设计、实验设计 v Experiment 1 v 2.1Method： v 2.1.1被试 v 在实验一中采用9到11岁的94名儿童作为被试，在学校总 人口中有52%的非裔美国人,27%的西班

6、牙裔,14%的白 人,7%其他种族/族裔。父母和孩子都同意。并不是所有的 孩子都参加了8个实验序列，由于实验持续四周，所以54 位儿童完成了四个条件，33个完成了3个条件，6位完成了 2个条件。 v 2.1.2 材料 v Four brief texts were adapted from elementary science text-books Each text covered a single topic (Learning More about Rocks, Surviving in the Wild, ClassifyingAnimals, and The Earths Chang

7、ing Surface). The texts were 273, 251,226, and 238 words in length v 实验材料采用了小学科学课本的四个简单的内容。每一个 内容都覆盖一个独立的主题（岩石的学习、野外生存、动 物的分类和地表面的变化），这些内容分别是273、251、 226、238个单词组成。 v The texts were modifiedto increase coherence, for example, by replacing pronouns withnouns, replacing difficult or unfamiliar words, a

8、nd adding explicitconnections among concepts in the text (see Graesser, McNamara,Louwerse, Roediger,Putnam, F(1,38) = 13.90, MSE = 0.01, p = .001, 2 2 p p = .27)， M = .21, SE = .04 . In terms of metacognitive monitoring accuracy, retrieval practice failure affected participants monitoring accuracy,

9、whereas retrieval practice success did not. In particular, retrieval failure prior to the final memory test allowed participants to adjust their predictions. That is, after retrieval failure, participants reduced their predictions and became less overconfident. In Experiment 2, we directly manipulat

10、ed retrieval success and failure to examine their effects on metacognitive monitoring accuracy. 提取练习失败影响了被试记忆监测的准确性，而提取成功不影响。提取练习失败影响了被试记忆监测的准确性，而提取成功不影响。 最后测试之前的提取失败让被试调整了他们的预测，也就是说提取失最后测试之前的提取失败让被试调整了他们的预测，也就是说提取失 败之后，被试降低了预测，不再过分自信。败之后，被试降低了预测，不再过分自信。 实验实验2直接操纵了提取的成功与失败，来考察元认知监测准确性的直接操纵了提取的成功与失败，

11、来考察元认知监测准确性的 影响。影响。 3. Experiment 2 More participants would fail to retrieve the difficult practice item than the easy practice item . Retrieval practice failure is more beneficial for metacognitive accuracy than retrieval practice success. Hypothesis: 3. Experiment 2 3.1. Method and materials 3.1.1

12、. Participants Ninety younger adults (52% male) between the ages of 18 and 29 (M = 19.74, SE = .21) participated in return for partial course credit. Participants were undergraduate students with between 12 and 16 years of education (M = 13.74, SE = .11).Across conditions, participants did not diffe

13、r in average age or education (Fs 1.5). 3.1.2. Design Experiment 2 used a 2 Condition (Easy Retrieval Practice and Difficult Retrieval Practice) 2 Performance Prediction (Original and Adjusted) mixed randomized repeated model. Participants were randomly assigned to either the Easy (n = 45) or the Di

14、fficult retrieval practice condition (n = 45) and made two performance predictions. 3.1.3. Materials and procedure We used the same 40 LithuanianEnglish paired associates as Experiment 1 from Grimaldi et al. (2010). Easy Retrieval Practice condition : recall the English equivalent of sesuo (sister)(

15、50%). 不告诉被试他们是在容易提取条件下还是困难提取 条件下，程序和实验1大致相似。 Difficult Retrieval Practice condition : recall the English equivalent of muilas (soap)(4%). 图图1 实验实验1和实验和实验2中被试在初始预测和调整预测中总的百分比。中被试在初始预测和调整预测中总的百分比。 虚线为每种条件下的平均回忆成绩。虚线为每种条件下的平均回忆成绩。 u But results from experiment 2 do not explain why retrieval practice fa

16、ilure is better for metacognitive accuracy than retrieval success. u Practice items must be diagnostic of the final memory test (i.e., the diagnosticity assumption; Dunlosky, Rawson, therefore participants had practice with a test item that was representative, or diagnostic, of the final test. Thus,

17、 the difficult test condition benefitted participants metacognitive accuracy. 一种可能的推断是困难提取练习项目是记忆测试的诊断，因此 被试用一个典型的诊断性的练习项目来测试。 4. Experiment 3 4.1. Method and materials 实验实验1 1和和2 2的结果表明，提取练习失败对提高元认知的准的结果表明，提取练习失败对提高元认知的准 确性比提取成功有更大的益处。确性比提取成功有更大的益处。 预测预测1 1，较高的提取失败的数量对元认知准确性的提高比，较高的提取失败的数量对元认知准确性的提

18、高比 较低的更有益。较低的更有益。 预测预测2 2，过多的提取失败将会使被试过度降低预测成绩，过多的提取失败将会使被试过度降低预测成绩， 导致信心不足的元认知错误。导致信心不足的元认知错误。 预测预测3 3，根据诊断假设理论（，根据诊断假设理论（ diagnosticity assumption ） (Dunlosky et al., 2002)，人们不太关心提取成功或失败的，人们不太关心提取成功或失败的 总体数目，而关心提取练习测试上的成绩和最后测试成绩总体数目，而关心提取练习测试上的成绩和最后测试成绩 的相似性。的相似性。 练习项目的成绩和最后测试成绩越相近就代表被试的元认练习项目的成绩和

19、最后测试成绩越相近就代表被试的元认 知准确性越好。知准确性越好。 实验实验3 3就是梳理这些潜在的假设，为什么提取失败提高元就是梳理这些潜在的假设，为什么提取失败提高元 认知的准确性。认知的准确性。 Two hundred and seventy-four younger adults (26% male) between the ages of 17 and 28 (M = 18.85, SE = .10) participated in return for partial course credit. Participants were undergraduate students wi

20、th between 12 and 16 years of education (M = 12.50, SE = .05). Participants did not differ in average age or education across conditions (Fs 1.0). 4.1.1. Participants 4.1.2. Design Experiment 3 used a 4 Condition (No Retrieval Practice Control, Easy Retrieval Practice, Medium Retrieval Practice, Dif

21、ficult Retrieval Practice Difficult) 2 Performance Prediction (Original and Adjusted) mixed randomized repeated model. Participants were randomly assigned to either the No Retrieval Practice Control (n = 68), Easy (n = 69), Medium (n = 70), or difficult retrieval practice (n = 67) and made two performance predictions. 4.1.3. Materials and procedure The materials and procedure were nearly identical to the previous experiments with the key exceptions being that participants in the retrieval practice conditions attempted to recall four practice items,