提示对学习者自我生成教学过程和学习效果的作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00469

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究主要探讨了自我生成教学中不同类型的提示对学习效果和学习感知的影响。实验1发现自我生成教学的学习效果好于重复学习。实验2对比了图片、文字、关键词三种提示和无提示的效果。结果发现图片和关键词提示具有更好的学习效果。实验3设置了关键词提示组、生成提示组和无提示组。结果发现关键词提示和生成提示的保持成绩好于无提示, 生成提示的迁移成绩好于无提示。此外, 关键词提示和生成提示可以促进学习者产生更多的概念单元。结论认为: (1)在自我生成教学时获得图片提示能促进知识保持, 获得关键词提示能促进知识保持和迁移。(2)相比于被动获得提示, 学习者主动生成提示更能促进知识迁移。(3)概念单元数量在提示影响学习效果中起中介作用。

关键词: 自我生成教学, 提示, 检索练习, 关键词, 生成性学习

Abstract:

Learning by teaching is an important generative learning strategy which mainly promotes learners’ knowledge building in educational psychology. It refers to learners teach others what they have learned as the role of a teacher after learning the materials. However, learners cannot fully retrieve all concept units contained in learning materials in the retrieval activities of learning by teaching, which hinders learners’ active generation and final learning performance. According to the Retrieval Practice Theory (RPT) and Generative learning Theory (GLT), prompts can serve as a cue and activates learners' retrieval and generating activity. Therefore, the aim of current study was to explore the effects of different types of prompts on learning outcomes and subjective perceptions in learning by teaching.

In Experiment 1, fifty-six college students were randomly assigned to teaching group and control group. Participants in teaching group were told to explain the learning materials by making a lecture video, then complete a final exam. The control condition didn’t include teaching process. In Experiment 2, Participants were one hundred and fourteen college students that were randomly assigned to picture-prompt group, text-prompt group, keyword-prompt group and non-prompt group. Four conditions all include teaching process. The difference between conditions is whether there is a prompt when learners are teaching. In Experiment 3, to compare the effects of learners' passive reception and active generation of prompts, eighty-seven college students were randomly assigned to keyword-prompt group, generated-prompt group and non-prompt group.

The results showed that: (1) the retention and transfer test performance of the teaching group were better than that of the control group; (2) picture and keyword prompts could effectively improve learners' retention test scores, while keyword prompts could also improve learners' transfer test scores; (3) the retention test performance of the keyword-prompt group and the generated-prompt group were better than those of the non-prompt group, while the transfer test performance of the generated-prompt group were better than those of the non-prompt group; (4) Experiment 2 and Experiment 3 both found that the number of concept units plays a mediating role in the effect of prompts on learning performance.

The conclusions are as follows: (1) Providing picture prompts in the process of learning by teaching can promote knowledge retention, while providing keyword prompts can promote knowledge retention and transfer; (2) Compared to passively obtaining prompts, learners' active generation of prompts is more conducive to knowledge transfer. (3) The number of idea units generated by learners plays a mediating role in the effect of prompts on learning. Above all, the study verified the effectiveness of RPT and GLT in the process of learning by teaching in multimedia learning environment.

Key words: learning by teaching, prompts, retrieval practice, keyword, generative learning

中图分类号:

B849: G44

王福兴, 黄宇, 张洋, 祝婉玲, 冷晓雪. (2024). 提示对学习者自我生成教学过程和学习效果的作用. 心理学报, 56(4), 469-481.

WANG Fuxing, HUANG Yu, ZHANG Yang, ZHU Wanling, LENG Xiaoxue. (2024). Prompts affect learning-by-teaching process and learning outcome in multimedia learning. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(4), 469-481.

图/表 12

参考文献 53

[1]	Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration. Learning and Instruction, 27,1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.002 URL
[2]	Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 514-527. doi: 10.1080/09541440701326097 URL
[3]	Cheng, M. X., Kuang, Z. Y., Leng, X. X., Zhang, Y., & Wang, F. X. (2016). Can learning by non-interactive teaching promote learning? Advances in Psychological Science, 31(5), 769-782. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00769 URL
	[成美霞, 匡子翌, 冷晓雪, 张洋, 王福兴. (2023). 以教促学:学习者自我生成教学对学习的影响. 心理科学进展, 31(5), 769-782.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00769
[4]	Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28,48-63. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002 URL
[5]	Fiorella, L. (2022). Learning by explaining after pauses in video lectures: Are provided visuals a scaffold or a crutch? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(5), 1142-1149. doi: 10.1002/acp.v36.5 URL
[6]	Fiorella, L., & Kuhlmann, S. (2020). Creating drawings enhances learning by teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 811-822. doi: 10.1037/edu0000392 URL
[7]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281-288. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001 URL
[8]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press.
[9]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9 URL
[10]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). The generative activity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 339-350). Cambridge University Press.
[11]	Fiorella, L., Pyres, M., & Hebert, R. (2021). Explaining and drawing activities for learning from multimedia: The role of sequencing and scaffolding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(6), 1574-1584. doi: 10.1002/acp.v35.6 URL
[12]	Fiorella, L., Stull, A. T., Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2020). Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 895-906. doi: 10.1037/edu0000408 URL
[13]	Gallagher, S. E., Dulain, M., Mahony, N., Kehoe, C., McCarthy, F., & Morgan, G. (2017). Instructor-provided summary infographics to support online learning. Educational Media International, 54(2), 129-147. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2017.1362795 URL
[14]	Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 251-273. doi: 10.1146/psych.2018.69.issue-1 URL
[15]	Hiller, S., Rumann, S., Berthold, K., & Roelle, J. (2020). Example-based learning: Should learners receive closed- book or open-book self-explanation prompts? Instructional Science, 48,623-649. doi: 10.1007/s11251-020-09523-4
[16]	Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video, not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45,95-106. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.005 URL
[17]	Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S. M., & van Gog, T. (2014). Effects of creating video-based modeling examples on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 33,108-119. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.005 URL
[18]	Hoogerheide, V., Renkl, A., Fiorella, L., Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2019). Enhancing example-based learning: Teaching on video increases arousal and improves problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 45-56. doi: 10.1037/edu0000272
[19]	Horovitz, T., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 119,106724. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724 URL
[20]	Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Learning by explaining orally or in written form? Text complexity matters. Learning and Instruction, 68,101344. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101344 URL
[21]	Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long‐term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 528-558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620 URL
[22]	Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 317-326. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3 URL
[23]	Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775. doi: 10.1126/science.1199327 pmid: 21252317
[24]	Karpicke, J. D, Blunt, J. R., & Smith, M. A. (2016). Retrieval-based learning: Positive effects of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,350. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00350 pmid: 27014156
[25]	Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401-418. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2 URL
[26]	Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning:An episodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 237-284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
[27]	Kobayashi, K. (2019). Learning by preparing-to-teach and teaching: A meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(3), 192-203. doi: 10.1111/jpr.12221
[28]	Koh, A. W. L., Lee, S. C., & Lim, S. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401-410. doi: 10.1002/acp.v32.3 URL
[29]	Kuhlmann, S., & Fiorella, L. (2022). Effects of instructor- provided visuals on learner-generated explanations. Educational Psychology, 42(9), 1068-1088. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2022.2117276 URL
[30]	Lachner, A., Jacob, L., & Hoogerheide, V. (2021). Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining? Learning and Instruction, 74,101438. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101438 URL
[31]	Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005 URL
[32]	Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[33]	Mayer, R. E. (2014). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43-71). Cambridge University Press.
[34]	Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[35]	Mayer, R. E. (2022). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 57-72). Cambridge University Press.
[36]	McCabe, J. A. (2015). Learning the brain in introductory psychology: Examining the generation effect for mnemonics and examples. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 203-210. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587617 URL
[37]	Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 URL
[38]	Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Xu, K., Chen, Y., Yang, J., & Zhao, Q. (2021). Learning by explaining to oneself and a peer enhances learners’ theta and alpha oscillations while watching video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 659-679. doi: 10.1111/bjet.v52.2 URL
[39]	Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Méndez, E.E. (2022). Effects of learner-generated highlighting and instructor-provided highlighting on learning from text: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34,989-1024. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09654-1
[40]	Rittle-Johnson, B., & Loehr, A. M. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1501-1510. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5 URL
[41]	Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: The complexity of the tasks matters. Learning and Instruction, 49,142-156. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.008 URL
[42]	Roelle, J., & Nückles, M. (2019). Generative learning versus retrieval practice in learning from text: The cohesion and elaboration of the text matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1341-1361. doi: 10.1037/edu0000345 URL
[43]	Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge- building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42,327-351. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4 URL
[44]	Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1463. doi: 10.1037/a0037559 pmid: 25150680
[45]	Sibley, L., Fiorella, L., & Lachner, A. (2022). It's better when I see it: Students benefit more from open-book than closed-book teaching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1347-1355. doi: 10.1002/acp.v36.6 URL
[46]	Smith, M. A., Blunt, J. R., Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Does providing prompts during retrieval practice improve learning? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 544-553. doi: 10.1002/acp.v30.4 URL
[47]	Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22,123-138.
[48]	Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31,261-292. doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
[49]	Waldeyer, J., Heitmann, S., Moning, J., & Roelle, J. (2020). Can generative learning tasks be optimized by incorporation of retrieval practice? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 355-369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.05.001 URL
[50]	Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87-95. doi: 10.1080/00461527409529129 URL
[51]	Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40-45. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433554 URL
[52]	Zhang, Q., & Fiorella, L. (2019). Role of generated and provided visuals in supporting learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59,101808. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101808 URL
[53]	Zhang, Q., & Fiorella, L. (2021). Learning by drawing: When is it worth the time and effort? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66(3), 101990.

结果变量		教学组		重复学习组		F	t	p
结果变量		M	SD	M	SD	F	t	p
先验知识	前测	3.82	1.52	4.64	1.06	5.51	—	0.023
学习结果	保持	14.63	3.08	12.11	3.70	10.83	—	0.002
学习结果	迁移	16.22	4.63	13.65	4.37	5.18	—	0.027
主观感受	心理努力	7.50	1.11	7.29	1.19	—	0.70	0.487
	感知难度	6.54	1.38	5.57	1.37	—	2.63	0.011
	学习兴趣	5.39	1.71	5.61	1.93	—	−0.44	0.662
	学习动机	6.21	2.08	6.29	1.68	—	−0.14	0.888

结果变量		教学组		重复学习组		F	t	p
结果变量		M	SD	M	SD	F	t	p
先验知识	前测	3.82	1.52	4.64	1.06	5.51	—	0.023
学习结果	保持	14.63	3.08	12.11	3.70	10.83	—	0.002
学习结果	迁移	16.22	4.63	13.65	4.37	5.18	—	0.027
主观感受	心理努力	7.50	1.11	7.29	1.19	—	0.70	0.487
	感知难度	6.54	1.38	5.57	1.37	—	2.63	0.011
	学习兴趣	5.39	1.71	5.61	1.93	—	−0.44	0.662
	学习动机	6.21	2.08	6.29	1.68	—	−0.14	0.888

结果变量	图片提示组		文字提示组		关键词提示组		无提示组		F	p
结果变量	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
前测	4.76	1.30	4.21	1.34	4.17	1.28	4.21	1.48	1.24	0.300
保持	16.36	2.23	13.79	3.00	16.34	2.44	14.09	3.18	7.70	<.001
迁移	17.21	4.34	14.94	5.15	18.97	4.35	14.87	4.59	7.04	<.001
概念单元	17.59	2.44	15.57	2.85	17.86	2.08	14.64	3.48	8.58	<.001
精加工语句	0.88	1.13	0.89	1.17	0.90	1.18	0.30	0.57	2.36	0.076
监控语句	2.38	1.93	2.05	1.36	3.12	1.86	1.57	1.37	4.77	0.004
心理努力	7.38	0.90	7.29	0.90	7.14	1.25	7.36	1.13	0.23	0.876
感知难度	6.10	1.63	6.46	1.58	6.17	1.37	6.46	1.50	0.41	0.746
学习兴趣	5.28	1.85	4.64	1.37	4.93	1.94	5.32	1.87	0.94	0.425
学习动机	6.28	1.44	5.75	1.65	5.93	1.56	6.39	1.81	0.94	0.425

结果变量	图片提示组		文字提示组		关键词提示组		无提示组		F	p
结果变量	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
前测	4.76	1.30	4.21	1.34	4.17	1.28	4.21	1.48	1.24	0.300
保持	16.36	2.23	13.79	3.00	16.34	2.44	14.09	3.18	7.70	<.001
迁移	17.21	4.34	14.94	5.15	18.97	4.35	14.87	4.59	7.04	<.001
概念单元	17.59	2.44	15.57	2.85	17.86	2.08	14.64	3.48	8.58	<.001
精加工语句	0.88	1.13	0.89	1.17	0.90	1.18	0.30	0.57	2.36	0.076
监控语句	2.38	1.93	2.05	1.36	3.12	1.86	1.57	1.37	4.77	0.004
心理努力	7.38	0.90	7.29	0.90	7.14	1.25	7.36	1.13	0.23	0.876
感知难度	6.10	1.63	6.46	1.58	6.17	1.37	6.46	1.50	0.41	0.746
学习兴趣	5.28	1.85	4.64	1.37	4.93	1.94	5.32	1.87	0.94	0.425
学习动机	6.28	1.44	5.75	1.65	5.93	1.56	6.39	1.81	0.94	0.425

结果变量	生成提示组		关键词提示组		无提示组		F	p
结果变量	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
前测	4.21	2.23	4.90	1.40	4.52	1.48	1.14	0.324
保持	16.00	2.73	16.21	2.86	13.10	3.21	10.96	<.001
迁移	19.72	3.49	17.31	5.12	14.35	5.59	10.02	<.001
概念单元	17.66	2.13	17.86	1.68	15.17	3.01	12.23	<.001
精加工语句	0.83	0.97	0.48	0.69	0.38	0.86	2.39	0.098
监控语句	2.69	2.00	2.07	1.65	1.91	1.30	1.78	0.176
心理努力	7.55	0.95	7.21	1.29	7.10	1.26	2.28	0.109
感知难度	5.52	1.64	6.00	1.10	6.10	0.82	1.21	0.304
学习兴趣	5.97	1.96	5.90	1.59	5.34	1.65	1.22	0.302
学习动机	6.55	1.86	6.24	1.77	6.76	1.70	0.79	0.456