The effects of generating examples on comprehension and metacomprehension.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-04 DOI:10.1037/xap0000490
Tricia A Guerrero, Thomas D Griffin, Jennifer Wiley
{"title":"The effects of generating examples on comprehension and metacomprehension.","authors":"Tricia A Guerrero, Thomas D Griffin, Jennifer Wiley","doi":"10.1037/xap0000490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Teachers and students often report using examples to support learning. Research has shown benefits of viewing provided examples and generating examples during declarative concept learning; however, there is less work showing clear benefits when learners generate their own examples on comprehension measures while students are attempting to learn from expository science texts. The present study tested whether generating examples would be useful for improving comprehension and comprehension monitoring in the context of an undergraduate science course. In a pre-post design, students completed an initial reading activity, followed by taking practice tests on each topic. Some students were assigned to complete an additional example generation activity after taking the practice tests. Some students also evaluated the quality of generated examples and received explanatory feedback. While there was an overall improvement in comprehension for all students, those who generated examples without the opportunity to evaluate the quality had the smallest overall learning gains. Students who evaluated the quality of examples showed the greatest learning gains on application-based test questions. And, although overall overconfidence decreased, there were no differences between conditions. These results suggest that example generation may not always be as helpful for improving learning as many students and teachers assume. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":" ","pages":"318-330"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000490","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Teachers and students often report using examples to support learning. Research has shown benefits of viewing provided examples and generating examples during declarative concept learning; however, there is less work showing clear benefits when learners generate their own examples on comprehension measures while students are attempting to learn from expository science texts. The present study tested whether generating examples would be useful for improving comprehension and comprehension monitoring in the context of an undergraduate science course. In a pre-post design, students completed an initial reading activity, followed by taking practice tests on each topic. Some students were assigned to complete an additional example generation activity after taking the practice tests. Some students also evaluated the quality of generated examples and received explanatory feedback. While there was an overall improvement in comprehension for all students, those who generated examples without the opportunity to evaluate the quality had the smallest overall learning gains. Students who evaluated the quality of examples showed the greatest learning gains on application-based test questions. And, although overall overconfidence decreased, there were no differences between conditions. These results suggest that example generation may not always be as helpful for improving learning as many students and teachers assume. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生成示例对理解和元理解的影响
教师和学生经常报告使用实例来支持学习。研究表明,在陈述性概念学习过程中,查看提供的示例和生成示例都有好处;然而,当学生试图从说明性科学课文中学习时,很少有研究表明学习者生成自己的示例对理解测量有明显的好处。本研究测试了在本科科学课程中,生成示例是否有助于提高理解能力和理解监控能力。在前-后设计中,学生完成了初步的阅读活动,然后参加了每个题目的练习测试。一些学生在参加完练习测试后,还被指定完成额外的示例生成活动。一些学生还对生成的示例进行了质量评估,并获得了解释性反馈。虽然所有学生的理解能力都有了整体提高,但那些没有机会对质量进行评估的生成示例的学生的整体学习收益最小。对示例质量进行评估的学生在应用型测试题上的学习收获最大。虽然总体过度自信有所减少,但不同情况下没有差异。这些结果表明,范例的生成并不总是像许多学生和教师认为的那样有助于提高学习效果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1