阅读方式和学习次数对中文词汇的产生效应的影响

谭秀娟; 李馨; 白学军

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.05.004

心理与行为研究 >

2022 , Vol. 20 >Issue 5: 600 - 606

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.05.004

基础心理学

阅读方式和学习次数对中文词汇的产生效应的影响

谭秀娟 ,
李馨 ,
白学军

展开

1. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300387;
2. 山西师范大学教育科学学院，太原 030006;
3. 天津师范大学心理学部，天津 300387;
4. 学生心理发展与学习天津市高校社会科学实验室，天津 300387

收稿日期: 2022-04-20

网络出版日期: 2022-09-20

基金资助

天津市教委科研计划项目（2018SK045）

收起

The Influence of Reading Mode and Learning Frequency on Production Effect of Chinese Written Word

TAN Xiujuan ,
LI Xin ,
BAI Xuejun

Expand

1. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
2. School of Educational Science, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030006;
3. Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
4. Tianjin Social Science Laboratory of Students’ Mental Development and Learning, Tianjin 300387

Received date: 2022-04-20

Online published: 2022-09-20

Fold

摘要

产生效应是指朗读单词的记忆成绩要好于默读单词的。目前存在特异观和强度观两种理论解释，特异观强调朗读的相对特殊性，强度观强调朗读单词的编码强度高于默读单词的。为了检验两种理论，本研究采用“学习-再认”的实验范式，将阅读方式分别设置为被试内和被试间变量，通过两项实验考察阅读方式和学习次数对中文词汇的产生效应的影响。实验1采用被试内设计考察阅读方式和学习次数对产生效应的影响。结果发现阅读方式和学习次数的主效应显著，二者的交互作用不显著。实验2将阅读方式设置为被试间变量，采用混合设计考察阅读方式和学习次数对产生效应的影响。结果发现学习次数的主效应显著，阅读方式的主效应和二者的交互作用不显著。结果表明产生效应未随着项目编码强度的增强而增强，支持特异观。

关键词： 朗读; 默读; 学习次数; 产生效应

本文引用格式

谭秀娟 , 李馨 , 白学军 . 阅读方式和学习次数对中文词汇的产生效应的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022 , 20(5) : 600 -606 . DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.05.004

Abstract

The distinctiveness account and strength account are two theories to account for the production effect. To discriminate these two accounts, we conducted two experiments to investigate the influence of reading mode and learning frequency on the production effect of Chinese written words. In Experiment 1, reading mode and learning frequency were manipulated to examine the production effect, both of which were within-subjects variables. The main effects of reading mode and learning frequency occurred, but their interaction was not significant. Experiment 2 adopted the same paradigm. However, reading mode was a between-subject variable while learning frequency was a within-subject variable. The main effect of reading mode and its interactive effect with learning frequency in Experiment 2 did not occur, but there was robust main effect of learning frequency. Our findings suggest that the production effect of Chinese written words is not caused by the increased coding strength in loud reading which supports the distinctiveness account.

Key words： loud reading; silent reading; learning frequency; production effect

参考文献

郭秀艳, 周楚, 周梅花. (2004). 错误记忆影响因素的实验研究. 应用心理学, 10(1), 3–8
李丹, 胡克定, 陈国鹏, 金瑜, 李眉. (1988). 瑞文测验联合型(CRT)上海市区试测报告. 心理科学, (4), 29–33
李宏英, 连榕, 翁洁. (2008). 预警、重复学习和反馈对错误记忆的影响——错误记忆的信号检测论分析. 心理科学, 31(6), 1507–1509, 1430.
毛伟宾, 杨治良. (2008). 重复学习对错误记忆通道效应的影响. 心理科学, 31(6), 1326–1329, 1325.
王协顺, 苏彦捷. (2018). 高难度材料的元记忆监测更受记忆广度的制约. 心理学探新, 38(2), 123–129
Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., Gunn, D. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (2003). The complexities of complex span: Explaining individual differences in working memory in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 71–92, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.71.
Benjamin, A. S. (2001). On the dual effects of repetition on false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 941–947.
Bodner, G. E., & Taikh, A. (2012). Reassessing the basis of the production effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1711–1719, doi: 10.1037/a0028466.
Bodner, G. E., Taikh, A., & Fawcett, J. M. (2014). Assessing the costs and benefits of production in recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 149–154, doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0485-1.
Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS One, 5(6), e10729, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010729.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309–331, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309.
Forrin, N. D., Groot, B., & MacLeod, C. M. (2016). The d-Prime directive: Assessing costs and benefits in recognition by dissociating mixed-list false alarm rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(7), 1090–1111, doi: 10.1037/xlm0000214.
Forrin, N. D., & MacLeod, C. M. (2018). This time it’s personal: The memory benefit of hearing oneself. Memory, 26(4), 574–579, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1383434.
Forrin, N. D., MacLeod, C. M., & Ozubko, J. D. (2012). Widening the boundaries of the production effect. Memory & Cognition, 40(7), 1046–1055, doi: 10.3758/s13421-01200210-8.
Hintzman, D. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 16(2), 96–101, doi: 10.3758/BF03202365.
Hopkins, R. H., & Edwards, R. E. (1972). Pronunciation effects in recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(4), 534–537, doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80036-7.
Jamieson, R. K., Mewhort, D. J. K., & Hockley, W. E. (2016). A computational account of the production effect: Still playing twenty questions with nature. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 70(2), 154–164, doi: 10.1037/cep0000081.
Jones, A. C., & Pyc, M. A. (2014). The production effect: Costs and benefits in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 300–305, doi: 10.1037/a0033337.
Kell, C. A., Darquea, M., Behrens, M., Cordani, L., Keller, C., & Fuchs, S. (2017). Phonetic detail and lateralization of reading-related inner speech and of auditory and somatosensory feedback processing during overt reading. Human Brain Mapping, 38(1), 493–508, doi: 10.1002/hbm.23398.
MacLeod, C. M., Gopie, N., Hourihan, K. L., Neary, K. R., & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 671–685, doi: 10.1037/a0018785.
MacLeod, C. M., Ozubko, J. D., Hourihan, K. L., & Major, J. C. (2022). The production effect is consistent over material variations: Support for the distinctiveness account. Memory. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2022.2069270.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Mama, Y., & Icht, M. (2018). Production on hold: Delaying vocal production enhances the production effect in free recall. Memory, 26(5), 589–602, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1384496.
Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1960). The distinctiveness of stimuli. Psychological Review, 67(1), 16–31, doi: 10.1037/h0042382.
Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2010). Motor movement matters: The flexible abstractness of inner speech. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1147–1160, doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1147.
Ozubko, J. D., Hourihan, K. L., & MacLeod, C. M. (2012). Production benefits learning: The production effect endures and improves memory for text. Memory, 20(7), 717–727, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2012.699070.
Ozubko, J. D., & MacLeod, C. M. (2010). The production effect in memory: Evidence that distinctiveness underlies the benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6), 1543–1547, doi: 10.1037/a0020604.
Ozubko, J. D., Major, J., & MacLeod, C. M. (2014). Remembered study mode: Support for the distinctiveness account of the production effect. Memory, 22(5), 509–524, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2013.800554.
Peng, P., Wang, T. F., Wang, C. C., & Lin, X. (2019). A meta-analysis on the relation between fluid intelligence and reading/mathematics: Effects of tasks, age, and social economics status. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2), 189–236, doi: 10.1037/bul0000182.
Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. L. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 24–33, doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.24.
Pritchard, V. E., Heron-Delaney, M., Malone, S. A., & MacLeod, C. M. (2020). The production effect improves memory in 7- to 10-year-old children. Child Development, 91(3), 901–913, doi: 10.1111/cdev.13247.
Tussing, A. A., & Greene, R. L. (1999). Differential effects of repetition on true and false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(4), 520–533, doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2636.
Zhou, Y. C., & MacLeod, C. M. (2021). Production between and within: Distinctiveness and the relative magnitude of the production effect. Memory, 29(2), 168–179, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2020.1868526

Options

文章导航

模态框（Modal）标题

摘要

本文引用格式

Abstract

参考文献