学习率的心理现实性及其对项目选择的影响

心理与行为研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (2): 255-260,267.

学习率的心理现实性及其对项目选择的影响

贾宁¹, 刘伟¹, 代景华²

1. 河北师范大学教育学院，石家庄 050024;
2. 河北中医学院，石家庄 050200

收稿日期:2019-03-14 出版日期:2020-03-20 发布日期:2020-06-08
通讯作者: 代景华
基金资助:
河北省教育厅科学技术研究项目（QN2018152）

The Psychological Reality of the Rate of Learning and Its Impact on Item Selection

JIA Ning¹, LIU Wei¹, DAI Jinghua²

1. College of Education, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024;
2. Hebei University of Chinese Medicine, Shijiazuang 050200

Received:2019-03-14 Online:2020-03-20 Published:2020-06-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 项目选择一直是元认知控制研究中的热点问题。本研究以不同难度和分值的计算题为实验材料，通过两个实验探讨学习率的心理现实性及其对项目选择的影响。实验1中，在不限时条件下，被试者需要完成不同难度的计算题并赋予不同分值。实验2中，在限时条件下，通过变化计算题的难度和分值设计了三种不同学习率的项目，被试只能选择其中一种项目来计算以获得更高的分值。研究表明：第一，当项目所用时间增多时，被试对该项目所赋分值就增大，而时间（难度）与分值的比例是不变的，即学习率是相同的；第二，被试倾向于选择学习率更高的项目来完成计算任务，而当学习率相同时，被试倾向于优先选择高分困难项目。研究证实了学习率的心理现实性，并确定了学习率是项目选择的主要依据。

关键词: 学习率, 心理现实性, 项目选择

Abstract: Item selection is one of the hot issues in metacognitive control. In the present study, the experimental materials were composed of calculation questions with different scores and difficulty. Two experiments were conducted to explore the psychological reality of the rate of learning (ROL) and its impact on item selection. In Experiment 1, under the condition of unlimited-time, participants were asked to complete calculation questions with different difficulty and then assigned scores. In Experiment 2, the ROL of the items was set by changing the difficulty and score. The participants were asked to calculate the items to get more scores within a limited time. The results showed that: 1) The longer the calculation time was, the higher the score of the item was. However, the ratio of time (difficulty) and score was not change, that is, the ROL was consistent. 2) The participants tended to choose the items with higher ROL to calculate. When the ROL was the same, items with higher scores and more difficult were preferred. In sum, the results confirm the psychological reality of ROL and indicate that ROL is the main basis of item selection.

Key words: rate of learning, psychological reality, item selection

中图分类号:

B842

贾宁, 刘伟, 代景华. 学习率的心理现实性及其对项目选择的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 255-260,267.

JIA Ning, LIU Wei, DAI Jinghua. The Psychological Reality of the Rate of Learning and Its Impact on Item Selection[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(2): 255-260,267.

参考文献

曹晓华, 王本驰, 家晓余, 李锋盈. (2014). 惩罚对学习时间分配中决策与绩效的影响. 心理与行为研究, 12(4), 462-468, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2014.04.005
贾宁, 白学军, 臧传丽, 阎国利. (2008). 学习时间分配机制的眼动研究. 心理科学, 31(1), 93-96, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2008.01.021
姜英杰, 王志伟, 郑明玲, 金雪莲. (2016). 基于价值的议程对学习时间分配影响的眼动研究. 心理学报, 48(10), 1229-1238
李伟健, 蔡任娜, 陈海德, 汪磊, 王敏敏. (2013). 不同呈现方式下项目难度与分值对自定步调学习时间的影响. 心理科学, 36(6), 1363-1368
李伟健, 谢瑞波, 陈海德, 黄杰. (2014). 议程与习惯性反应对学习时间分配的影响: 来自眼动的证据. 心理发展与教育, 30(3), 277-283
Ariel, R. (2013). Learning what to learn: The effects of task experience on strategy shifts in the allocation of study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1697-1711, doi: 10.1037/a0033091.
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, doi: 10.1037/a0015928.
Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249-275). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jia, X. Y., Li, W. J., Cao, L. R., Li, P., Shi, M. L., Wang, J. J., … Li, X. Y. (2018). Effect of individual thinking styles on item selection during study time allocation. International Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 83-91, doi: 10.1002/ijop.12267.
Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 349-363, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.3.349.
Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159-163, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x.
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 530-542, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.530.
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463-477, doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001.
Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204-221, doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204.
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024-1037, doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024.
Wang, F. Y., Qin, Q. W., & Jiang, Y. J. (2016). Allocation of study time in Chinese junior school students: Habitual responding, item difficulty, and time constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 639.
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2017). The forward testing effect on self-regulated study time allocation and metamemory monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(3), 263-277, doi: 10.1037/xap0000122.