Under which conditions are physical versus virtual representations effective? Contrasting conceptual and embodied mechanisms of learning.
Under which conditions are physical versus virtual representations effective? Contrasting conceptual and embodied mechanisms of learning.
复制标题
物理表示和虚拟表示在什么条件下有效？
DOI：
10.1037/edu0000689
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Herder, Tiffany
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rau, Martina A.;Herder, Tiffany
大量的研究比较了物理和虚拟操作对学生概念学习的影响。然而，大多数先前的研究是基于概念突显理论，也就是说，它解释了模式效应的操纵的能力，提请学生注意概念相关（视觉或触觉）的功能。然而，基于具身图式理论的研究表明，不依赖于学生对特定特征的外显注意的其他机制也会影响学生对操纵词的学习。本文提出了一项研究，通过比较物理和虚拟操作的多个版本，对比不同的理论观点的预测。具体来说，我们进行了一个实验室实验与119名本科生谁学习了3个概念有关的原子结构使用1的4个版本的能量图操作。4个版本改变了表征模式（即物理与虚拟）和学生用来操纵表征的动作（即通过引起注意或激活具体图式的动作）。我们通过复制和迁移后测和访谈来评估学生的学习情况，这些测试和访谈测量了学生解释概念的质量和他们在解释概念时使用的手势。我们的研究结果表明，体现图式理论解释的效果，再现后测，而概念突显理论解释的效果，迁移后测。此外，当物理操作提供相关的触觉线索，我们发现物理操作的优势转移。我们解释这些结果的基础上的复杂性体现图式和概念的显着性学习机制和评估任务的复杂性。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2021阿帕，保留所有权利）
Abundant prior research has compared effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual learning. However, most prior research has been based on conceptual salience theory; that is, it has explained mode effects by the manipulative’s capability to draw students’ attention to conceptually relevant (visual or haptic) features. Yet, research based on embodied schema theory suggests that other mechanisms, which do not rely on students’ explicit attention to specific features, also affect students’ learning from manipulatives. This paper presents a study that contrasts predictions by different theoretical perspectives by comparing multiple versions of physical and virtual manipulatives. Specifically, we conducted a lab experiment with 119 undergraduate students who learned about 3 concepts related to atomic structure using 1 of 4 versions of energy diagram manipulatives. The 4 versions varied the representation mode (ie, physical vs. virtual) and the actions students used to manipulate the representation (ie, via actions that draw attention or activate embodied schemas). We assessed students’ learning via reproduction and transfer posttests and interviews that measured the quality of students’ explanation and the gestures they used while explaining the concepts. Our results suggest that embodied schema theory accounts for effects on the reproduction posttest, whereas conceptual salience theories account for effects on the transfer posttest. Further, when physical manipulatives offered relevant haptic cues, we found an advantage of physical manipulatives on transfer. We interpret these results based on the complexity of embodied schema and conceptual salience learning mechanisms and the complexity of the assessment tasks.(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)