ISSN 1671-3710
CN 11-4766/R
主办:中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理科学进展 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (10): 1924-1936.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01924

• 研究前沿 • 上一篇    下一篇

动作化学习的有效性及其影响机制

匡子翌1, 祝婉玲1, 成美霞1, 王福兴1(), 胡祥恩1,2()   

  1. 1青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室暨华中师范大学心理学院, 武汉 430079
    2孟菲斯大学心理学系, 孟菲斯 38152, 美国
  • 收稿日期:2023-04-05 出版日期:2023-10-15 发布日期:2023-07-25
  • 通讯作者: 王福兴, E-mail: fxwang@ccnu.edu.cn;胡祥恩, E-mail: xiangenhu@gmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(62277025);国家自然科学基金重点项目(61937001)

The effectiveness of learning by enacting and its mechanisms

KUANG Ziyi1, ZHU Wanling1, CHENG Meixia1, WANG Fuxing1(), HU Xiangen1,2()   

  1. 1Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, and School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
    2Department of Psychology, The University of Memphis, Memphis 38152, USA
  • Received:2023-04-05 Online:2023-10-15 Published:2023-07-25

摘要:

动作化学习(learning by enacting)是一种在学习时执行与任务相关的身体动作或操作的学习方式, 而一种典型的动作化学习就是操作教学模型。综述已有研究发现, 目前有两方面的理论去解释动作化学习: 其中具身认知理论和生成学习理论支持动作化对学习的促进作用; 而认知负荷理论为动作化学习的干扰作用提供了解释。通过汇总以往实证研究得出如下结论: 在学习结果上, 动作化学习促进学习结果具有中等效应, 即动作化学习提升了学习者的保持成绩和迁移成绩。实物动作化学习与虚拟动作化学习在保持成绩与迁移成绩上没有差异。在主观体验方面, 动作化学习促进学习兴趣具有小的促进效应。实物动作化学习比虚拟动作化学习更能提高学习信心和学习兴趣, 但在认知负荷上两种动作化学习差异比较微弱。未来研究需要在优化动作化学习、确定影响因素、整合及验证理论等方面进一步探讨。

关键词: 动作化学习, 操作, 生成学习, 具身认知, 具身学习

Abstract:

Learning by enacting is a generative learning activity that allows students to engage in task-relevant movements, such as manipulating objects. There are different theories to explain learning by enacting: embodied cognition theory and generative learning theory support the positive effect while cognitive load theory provides evidence for negative effect of learning by enacting. This comprehensive review of previous empirical studies aims to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of learning by enacting and explore the potential for future research. On retention test, a majority of the reviewed studies (11 of 13 studies, 85%) found that enactment could improve retention test scores, while a smaller proportion (2 of 13 studies, 15%) did not find a facilitation effect. The median effect size for enactment facilitating retention test performance was d = 0.57. When comparing physical enactment (experimental group) to virtual enactment (control group), 2 (50%) of 4 studies demonstrated that the physical enactment group outperformed the virtual enactment group on retention tests, while the other half found lower retention scores for the physical enactment group. The median effect size for physical enactment facilitating retention test performance, compared to virtual enactment, was d = 0.01. On transfer test, most studies (17 of 20 studies, 85%) found that enactment could improve transfer test scores, while a smaller proportion (2 of 20 studies, 10%) did not find a facilitation effect. 1 (5%) of 20 studies showed that learning by enacting decreased learners' transfer scores. The median effect size for learning by enacting facilitating transfer test performance was d = 0.63. When examining the effects of different types of learning by enacting on transfer tests, a minority of studies (3 of 23 studies, 13%) found better transfer test scores in physical enactment conditions than in virtual enactment conditions. While 4 (17%) of 23 studies found lower transfer scores for the physical enactment group. The majority of studies (16 of 23 studies, 70%) did not find differences between the two types of learning by enacting. The median effect size for physical enactment facilitating transfer test performance, compared to virtual enactment, was d = 0.01. On subjective experience, only five studies compared conditions with and without learning by enacting and measured subjective experiences. One study found that learning by enacting increased students' learning confidence. Two studies explored perceived cognitive load during learning by enacting, and three other studies measured learning interest (d = 0.21), but none found significant effects of learning by enacting on these subjective experiences. When comparing physical enactment and virtual enactment, four studies measured learning confidence. Half of the studies found that students in the physical enactment group perceived higher learning confidence than those in the virtual enactment group, while the other half found no difference. The median effect size for physical enactment improving learning confidence, compared to virtual enactment, was d = 0.28. Additionally, in the studies comparing physical enactment and virtual enactment, four studies measured cognitive load. Half of the studies found that physical enactment decreased cognitive load compared to virtual enactment, while the other half found no difference. The median effect size for physical enactment increasing cognitive load, compared to virtual enactment, was d = -0.16. Furthermore, two studies measured learners' learning interest, with both finding that physical enactment induced higher learning interest than virtual enactment. The median effect size for physical enactment increasing learning interest, compared to virtual enactment, was d = 0.40. These findings generally support the embodied cognitive theory and generative learning theory, suggesting that learning by enacting can be an effective method for improving retention and transfer test performance. Further research needs to optimize learning by enacting, identify influencing factors, and integrate and verify the theories that support this pedagogical approach.

Key words: learning by enacting, manipulation, generative learning, embodied cognition, embodied learning

中图分类号: