Memorizing plans with an app: Large individual differences in the effectiveness of retrieval-based and generative learning activities in a naturalistic context

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Learning and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102641
Daniel Biedermann , Jasmin Breitwieser , Lea Nobbe , Hendrik Drachsler , Garvin Brod
{"title":"Memorizing plans with an app: Large individual differences in the effectiveness of retrieval-based and generative learning activities in a naturalistic context","authors":"Daniel Biedermann ,&nbsp;Jasmin Breitwieser ,&nbsp;Lea Nobbe ,&nbsp;Hendrik Drachsler ,&nbsp;Garvin Brod","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>What are effective learning activities in mobile, real-world contexts? We compared three learning activities in a planning app for children. The activities differed in their intended cognitive engagement according to the ICAP framework: a passive reading activity, an active retrieval activity, and a generative activity. Children (<em>N</em> = 106, 9–14 years) used the app to memorize one plan per day for 27 days. Unexpectedly, neither the retrieval activity nor the generative activity was associated with better overall recall than the passive activity. However, time spent on these activities and reported positive attitudes toward them moderated their effectiveness. Motivational and developmental factors predicted time spent on the retrieval and generative activities, and time on task in turn predicted their effectiveness. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of learning activities in real-world contexts depends on the ability and willingness of learners to engage with them repeatedly over time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 102641"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608025000172","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What are effective learning activities in mobile, real-world contexts? We compared three learning activities in a planning app for children. The activities differed in their intended cognitive engagement according to the ICAP framework: a passive reading activity, an active retrieval activity, and a generative activity. Children (N = 106, 9–14 years) used the app to memorize one plan per day for 27 days. Unexpectedly, neither the retrieval activity nor the generative activity was associated with better overall recall than the passive activity. However, time spent on these activities and reported positive attitudes toward them moderated their effectiveness. Motivational and developmental factors predicted time spent on the retrieval and generative activities, and time on task in turn predicted their effectiveness. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of learning activities in real-world contexts depends on the ability and willingness of learners to engage with them repeatedly over time.
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
在现实世界的移动环境中,什么是有效的学习活动?我们比较了儿童规划应用程序中的三种学习活动。根据 ICAP 框架,这些活动在预期的认知参与方面有所不同:一种是被动阅读活动,一种是主动检索活动,还有一种是生成活动。儿童(106 人,9-14 岁)使用该应用程序在 27 天内每天记忆一个计划。出乎意料的是,检索活动和生成活动的总体记忆效果都没有被动活动好。然而,在这些活动上花费的时间和报告的对这些活动的积极态度调节了它们的效果。动机和发展因素预测了检索和生成活动所花费的时间,而完成任务的时间反过来又预测了它们的有效性。这些研究结果表明,真实世界情境中学习活动的有效性取决于学习者长期反复参与这些活动的能力和意愿。
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
Learning and Individual Differences
Learning and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).
期刊最新文献
Directional or reciprocal? A random intercept cross-lagged panel analysis of the relationships between emotions, motivation, willingness to communicate, and L2 achievement Memorizing plans with an app: Large individual differences in the effectiveness of retrieval-based and generative learning activities in a naturalistic context Taking the next step with generative artificial intelligence: The transformative role of multimodal large language models in science education A scoping review of research on individual differences in the testing effect paradigm Stability of early number sense competencies for predicting mathematics difficulties
×
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