背景图相关度与知觉流畅性对意义材料学习的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 可取难度理论和不流畅理论认为不流畅加工可促进学习，认知负荷理论则认为知觉不流畅所激发的额外认知负荷可能阻碍学习。研究采用2（知觉流畅性：流畅，不流畅）×3（背景图相关度：相关背景图、无关背景图和空白背景）被试间实验设计，考察学习意义材料时认知负荷（通过插入的背景图控制）与知觉流畅性的相互作用。结果发现：（1）知觉流畅性的主效应显著，知觉流畅时的学习成绩显著高于知觉不流畅时的成绩；背景图相关度的主效应显著，相关背景图条件下的成绩显著高于空白背景和无关背景图。（2）知觉流畅性与背景图相关度的交互作用显著，在知觉流畅条件下，呈现相关背景图的得分显著高于空白背景和无关背景图，后二者无显著差异；知觉不流畅条件下，三者间无显著差异。研究结果表明，在知觉流畅的条件下插入相关背景图有利于意义材料的学习；该结果支持认知负荷理论。

关键词: 知觉流畅性, 背景信息, 认知负荷

Abstract: Based on desirable difficulty theory and disfluency theory, disfluency prosessing can benefit learning. However according to cognitive load theory, disfluency perceived during learning may bring extra cognitive load thus impair learning outcome. A 2(perceptual fluency:fluency, disfluency) ×3(background information:relevant, irrelevant, control) between subject experiment was conducted to investigate how cognitive load (valued by relevant level of background information) and perceptual fluency interact when learning meaningful text. The results showed that, the main effect of two variables was significant, which turned out that subjects learned better when presented fluent material, and relevant background information led to better performance than the other two conditions. The interaction effect was significant:Under fluency condition, subjects who were provided relevant background information learned better than subjects provided irrelevant information or none (control), and there was no significant difference between the latter two. Under disfluency condition, there was no significant difference between different levels of background information. These results indicated that for meaningful material learning, enhancing the perceptual fluency and providing relevant background information should be more desirable ways, which is consistent with the theory of cognitive load.

Key words: perceptual fluency, background information, cognitive load

中图分类号:

B842.1

张锦坤, 刘晓倩, 杨丽娴. 背景图相关度与知觉流畅性对意义材料学习的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(6): 757-762.

ZHANG Jinkun, LIU Xiaoqian, YANG Lixian. The Effects of Background Graph and Perceptual Fluency on Meaningful Text Learning[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(6): 757-762.

参考文献

孙崇勇. (2016). 英语多媒体学习中言语关联手势对认知负荷的影响. 心理与行为研究, 14(5), 633-639, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2016.05.009
谢和平, 王福兴, 王玉鑫, 安婧. (2016). 越难读意味着学得越好?学习过程中的不流畅效应. 心理科学进展, 24(7), 1077-1090
周爱保, 刘沛汝, 张彦驰, 尹玉龙, 张奋. (2015). 自我情绪一致性效应及其可逆性: 探究负荷理论. 心理与行为研究, 13(4), 433-440, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.04.001
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Epley, N. (2013). Disfluency prompts analytic thinking—But not always greater accuracy: Response to Thompson et al. (2013). Cognition, 128(2), 252-255, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.006.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569-576, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569.
Ball, B. H., Klein, K. N., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 336-348, doi: 10.1037/xap0000023.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Hirshman, E. (1998). Predicting the future and reconstructing the past: A Bayesian characterization of the utility of subjective fluency. Acta Psychologica, 98(2-3), 267-290, doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00046-2.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.
Bjork, R. A., & Yue, C. L. (2016). Commentary: Is disfluency desirable? Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 133-137, doi: 10.1007/s11409-016-9156-8.
Carpenter, S. K., Wilford, M. M., Kornell, N., & Mullaney, K. M. (2013). Appearances can be deceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1350-1356.
Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111-115, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012.
Eitel, A., Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: Does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 488-501, doi: 10.1002/acp.v28.4.
French, M. M. J., Blood, A., Bright, N. D., Futak, D., Grohmann, M. J., Hasthorpe, A., .. Tabor, J. (2013). Changing fonts in education: How the benefits vary with ability and dyslexia. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(4), 301-304, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.736430.
Kühl, T., Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). A call for an unbiased search for moderators in disfluency research: Reply to oppenheimer and alter (2014). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 805-806, doi: 10.1002/acp.v28.5.
Miele, D. B., & Molden, D. C. (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139(3), 535-557, doi: 10.1037/a0019745.
Oppenheimer, D. M., & Alter, A. L. (2014). The search for moderators in disfluency research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 502-504, doi: 10.1002/acp.v28.4.
Oppenheimer, D. M., & Frank, M. C. (2008). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106(3), 1178-1194, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.010.
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Schwede, A. (2016). Fortune is fickle: Null-effects of disfluency on learning outcomes. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 57-70, doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9151-5.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1988). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. In A. M. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 190-223). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Strukelj, A., Scheiter, K., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2016). Exploring the lack of a disfluency effect: Evidence from eye movements. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 71-88, doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9146-2.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296, doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205.

[1]	赵婷婷, 杨晓梦, 张洋, 王燕青, 谢和平, 王福兴. 多媒体学习中线索原则是否存在经验逆转效应？——来自两项元分析的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 22-29.
[2]	孙崇勇, 刘丽丽, 高春阳. 翻转教学法对高中生认知负荷及学习成绩的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(3): 369-375.
[3]	干加裙, 张曼曼, 胡锦慧, 郭云飞, 陈幼贞. 执行意向影响事件性前瞻记忆的加工机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 53-59.
[4]	龚少英, 韩雨丝, 王祯, 徐升, 刘小先. 基于计算机的反馈复杂性和先前知识对学习的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 765-772.
[5]	张冬梅, 路海东. 文本学习中运用先行组织者策略的知识反转效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(1): 83-90.
[6]	干加裙, 郭盈秀, 郭云飞, 张哲, 陈幼贞. 执行意向在不同认知负荷下对前瞻记忆的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(6): 743-749.
[7]	龚少英, 张盼盼, 上官晨雨. 学习者控制和任务难度对多媒体学习的影响^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(3): 335-342.
[8]	孙崇勇. 英语多媒体学习中言语关联手势对认知负荷的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(5): 633-639.
[9]	刘丽,李晖. 认知负荷和控制性注意对工作记忆广度任务成绩的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2008, 6(2): 112-116.