Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques
Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques
复制标题
通过有效的学习技巧改善学生的学习
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
25.4
通讯作者：
Daniel T. Willingham
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Dunlosky;Katherine A. Rawson;Elizabeth J. Marsh;Mitchell J. Nathan;Daniel T. Willingham
许多学生被一些人认为处于危机中的教育系统抛在后面。提高教育成果需要在许多方面做出努力，但本专著的一个中心前提是，解决方案的一部分涉及帮助学生通过使用有效的学习技术来更好地调节他们的学习。幸运的是，认知和教育心理学家一直在开发和评估易于使用的学习技术，可以帮助学生实现他们的学习目标。在这本专著中，我们详细讨论了10种学习技巧，并就它们的相对实用性提出了建议。我们选择的技术预计是相对容易使用，因此可以通过许多学生。此外，一些技术（例如，突出显示和重读）被选中，因为学生报告说，他们严重依赖它们，这使得检查它们的效果尤为重要。这些技术包括精心询问，自我解释，总结，突出显示（或下划线），关键字记忆，用于文本学习的图像，重读，练习测试，分布式练习和交叉练习。为了提供有关这些技术的相对效用的建议，我们评估了它们的好处是否适用于四类变量：学习条件，学生特征，材料和标准任务。学习条件包括实施该技术的学习环境的各个方面，例如学生是独自学习还是与小组一起学习。学生特征包括年龄、能力和先前知识水平等变量。材料从简单的概念到数学问题再到复杂的科学文本。标准任务包括与学生成绩相关的不同结果测量，例如挖掘记忆，解决问题和理解。我们试图对每种技术进行彻底的评论，因此这本专著相当冗长。然而，我们也以模块化的方式编写了专题论文，因此很容易使用。特别是，每一个审查分为以下几个部分：一般描述的技术和为什么它应该工作如何一般是这种技术的影响？ 2a.学习条件2b. 学生特点2c. 材料2d. 标准任务在代表性教育环境中的效果实施问题总体评估每种技术的评论可以独立于其他技术阅读，并且可以很容易地在技术之间比较感兴趣的特定变量。为了预示我们的最终建议，这些技术在其普遍性和改善学生学习的承诺方面差异很大。实践测试和分布式实践获得了很高的效用评估，因为它们使不同年龄和能力的学习者受益，并已被证明可以提高学生在许多标准任务甚至教育环境中的表现。详细的询问，自我解释，交错的做法收到中等效用评估。这些技术的好处确实在一些变量上具有普遍性，但尽管它们有希望，但由于其有效性的证据有限，它们没有达到高效用评估。例如，精心设计的审讯和自我解释在教育环境中没有得到充分的评估，交错的好处刚刚开始被系统地探索，因此这些技术的最终有效性目前尚不清楚。尽管如此，获得中等效用评级的技术显示出足够的承诺，我们建议在适当的情况下使用它们，我们在对每种技术的评论中详细描述。五种技术得到了低效用评估：摘要，突出显示，关键字记忆，图像用于文本学习，重读。这些技术被评为低效用的原因有很多。摘要和图像用于文本学习已被证明可以帮助一些学生完成一些标准任务，但这些技术产生效益的条件是有限的，仍然需要大量的研究来充分探索它们的整体有效性。关键词记忆法在某些情况下很难实现，它似乎有利于学生有限数量的材料和短的保留间隔。大多数学生报告重读和突出显示，但这些技术并不能始终如一地提高学生的表现，所以应该使用其他技术（例如，练习测试而不是重读）。我们的希望是，这本专著将促进学生学习的改善，不仅通过展示哪些学习技术可能具有最普遍的效果，而且通过鼓励研究人员继续研究最有前途的技术。因此，在我们的结束语中，我们讨论了一些问题，这些技术可以由教师和学生实施，我们强调未来的研究方向。
Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique? 2a. Learning conditions 2b. Student characteristics 2c. Materials 2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students’ performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique. Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students’ performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading). Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research.
登录
查看更多内容
间隔重复对幼儿和成人识别记忆的影响。
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Toppino,TC;Kasserman,JE;Mracek,WA
通讯作者：
Mracek,WA
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
D. Balota;J. Duchek;Ronda Paullin
通讯作者：
D. Balota;J. Duchek;Ronda Paullin
DOI：
10.1037//0278-7393.16.3.430
发表时间：
1990-05
期刊：
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
影响因子：
--
作者：
M. Gernsbacher;K. R. Varner;M. Faust
通讯作者：
M. Gernsbacher;K. R. Varner;M. Faust
DOI：
10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.51
发表时间：
1993-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
RANEY, GE
通讯作者：
RANEY, GE
遗忘率在年轻人和老年人中扩大等距检索的益处中的作用。
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Maddox,GeoffreyB;Balota,DavidA;Coane,JenniferH;Duchek,JanetM
通讯作者：
Duchek,JanetM