Patterns of Response Times and Response Choices to Science Questions: The Influence of Relative Processing Time
Patterns of Response Times and Response Choices to Science Questions: The Influence of Relative Processing Time
复制标题
科学问题的响应时间模式和响应选择：相对处理时间的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thomas M. Scaife
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Heckler;Thomas M. Scaife
我们报告的五个实验调查的反应选择和反应时间，以简单的科学问题，唤起学生的“误解”，我们构建了一个简单的模型来解释的模式的反应选择。物理系的学生被要求在简单的物理图形上比较一个由斜率表示的物理量，比如速度。我们发现，由于比较高度而导致的错误答案的反应时间比比较斜率的正确答案的反应时间要快。这一结果本身可能是由这样一个事实来解释的，即在这种任务中，高度通常比斜率处理得更快，我们在另一个实验中证实了这一点。然而，我们假设响应时间的差异是响应选择的原因（而不是结果）的指标。为了支持这一点，我们发现，施加3秒的延迟响应增加了学生的数量比较斜坡（正确回答）的任务。此外，相当大比例的学生认识到正确的书面规则（比较斜率），但在图形任务中，他们错误地比较了高度。最后，使用重复的示例或提供一般规则进行训练都可以提高分数，但只有重复的示例对响应时间有很大的影响，因此提供了解决方案的双重路径或过程的证据。考虑到语言学模型、信息积累模型以及与Stroop效应相关的模型，我们构建了一个简单的相对加工时间模型，该模型可以被看作是一种流利性启发式。研究结果表明，一些科学问题的答案在测试中常见的误解模式，可能会部分解释的自动过程，涉及考虑的尺寸和优先级的相对处理时间快速回答。
We report on five experiments investigating response choices and response times to simple science questions that evoke student "misconceptions," and we construct a simple model to explain the patterns of response choices. Physics students were asked to compare a physical quantity represented by the slope, such as speed, on simple physics graphs. We found that response times of incorrect answers, resulting from comparing heights, were faster than response times of correct answers comparing slopes. This result alone might be explained by the fact that height was typically processed faster than slope for this kind of task, which we confirmed in a separate experiment. However, we hypothesize that the difference in response time is an indicator of the cause (rather than the result) of the response choice. To support this, we found that imposing a 3-s delay in responding increased the number of students comparing slopes (answering correctly) on the task. Additionally a significant proportion of students recognized the correct written rule (compare slope), but on the graph task they incorrectly compared heights. Finally, training either with repetitive examples or providing a general rule both improved scores, but only repetitive examples had a large effect on response times, thus providing evidence of dual paths or processes to a solution. Considering models of heuristics, information accumulation models, and models relevant to the Stroop effect, we construct a simple relative processing time model that could be viewed as a kind of fluency heuristic. The results suggest that misconception-like patterns of answers to some science questions commonly found on tests may be explained in part by automatic processes that involve the relative processing time of considered dimensions and a priority to answer quickly.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
M. Usher;James L. McClelland
通讯作者：
M. Usher;James L. McClelland
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
FREYD, JJ
通讯作者：
FREYD, JJ
DOI：
10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.107
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Bergert, F. Bryan;Nosofsky, Robert M.
通讯作者：
Nosofsky, Robert M.
在存在和不存在运动的情况下对自然和异常轨迹的判断。
DOI：
10.1037//0278-7393.11.1-4.795
发表时间：
1985
期刊：
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
影响因子：
--
作者：
Kaiser,MK;Proffitt,DR;Anderson,K
通讯作者：
Anderson,K