THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE PROCESSES OF THE LEARNER - KEY CONCEPTS FOR EDUCATIONAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE PROCESSES OF THE LEARNER - KEY CONCEPTS FOR EDUCATIONAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1207/s15326985ep2702_6
复制
发表时间：
1992-03-01
影响因子：
8.8
通讯作者：
ABBOTT, RD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BERNINGER, VW;ABBOTT, RD
在“大脑的十年”中，教育心理学不仅应该追随认知心理学，采用神经心理学的观点，而且应该在发展与教育相关的认知神经科学方面发挥领导作用。我们认为，教育心理学有两个观点将有助于这一努力：(a)分析单元限制了研究结果的普遍性，(b)不仅教学，学习者的建设性过程也会影响学习结果。为了说明这些观点的重要性，我们应用了四种数据分析方法对同一数据集的阅读相关的处理措施在一个一级样本。当在成就水平组（第一种方法）或教学组（第二种方法）内的儿童之间的差异被视为错误时，结果与一种学习过程的概念一致，但个体掌握该过程的比率存在差异。然而，当教学组中儿童之间的差异被视为系统差异（第三种方法）或对教学组中的每个个体进行单独分析（第四种方法）并使用个体对刺激试验的反应来估计误差时，结果表明了多个过程，与正常的脑功能生物学变化一致。同一教学小组在一年级开始、中期和结束时的个别科目分析结果显示，在同一时间点和全年的变化与发展中的神经系统处理相同刺激信息和任务要求的替代机制的概念一致。因此，关于建设性学习过程的结论应基于对个人的统计分析，而不是基于对个人的汇总；否则，关于学习中大脑机制的重要信息将被遗漏。
During the "decade of the brain" educational psychology should not only follow the lead of cognitive psychology in adopting a neuropsychological perspective but should also take a leadership role in developing a cognitive neuroscience that is educationally relevant. We argue that educational psychology has two perspectives that will contribute to this endeavor: (a) that the unit of analysis places limitations on the generalizability of findings, and (b) that not only teaching but also the constructive processes of the learner affect learning outcomes. To illustrate the importance of these perspectives, we applied four data analysis approaches to the same data set of reading-related processing measures in a first-grade sample. When variation among children within achievement-level groups (first approach) or within instructional groups (second approach) was treated as error, results were consistent with the notion of one learning process but variation in individual rates of mastering that process. However, when variation among children in an instructional group was treated as systematic variance (third approach) or separate analyses were performed for each individual in an instructional group (fourth approach) and individual's responses over stimulus trials were used to estimate error, results indicated multiple processes, consistent with normal biological variation in brain function. Results of individual subject analyses within the same instructional group at the beginning, middle, and end of first grade showed variation at the same point in time and across the year consistent with the notion of alternative mechanisms in the developing nervous system for dealing with the same stimulus information and task requirements. Conclusions about constructive learning processes should therefore be based on statistical analysis of individuals rather than on groups aggregated over individuals; otherwise, important information about brain mechanisms in learning will be missed.