首页 > 最新文献

Educational Psychology Review最新文献

英文 中文
Factors Associated with Teacher Wellbeing: A Meta-Analysis 与教师福祉相关的因素:元分析
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09886-x
Sijing Zhou, Gavin R. Slemp, Dianne A. Vella-Brodrick

Teacher wellbeing has received widespread and increasing global attention over the last decade due to high teacher turnover, growing teacher shortages, and the goal of improving the quality of teaching and student performance. No review has yet sought to undertake a cumulative quantitative assessment of the literature pertaining to teacher wellbeing. Using meta-analysis, we address this gap by systematically examining the relative strength of key antecedents, consequences, and correlates of teacher wellbeing, using the Job Demands-Resources theory as a guide to positioning factors in the nomological network. Following PRISMA guidelines, our systematic search yielded 173 eligible studies for inclusion (N = 89,876). Results showed that hope, autonomous motivation, psychological capital and job competencies were the top four strongest positive predictors of overall wellbeing, whereas neuroticism and disengagement coping were the top two strongest negative predictors. Occupational commitment was the strongest positive consequence of overall wellbeing, and turnover intentions were the strongest negative consequence. Burnout and work engagement were the strongest correlates of overall wellbeing. We also found that some effects were moderated by factors such as whether teachers were in-service or pre-service, and the educational setting (e.g., K-12, initial teacher education). Our review provides a useful empirical resource that may help guide practice in terms of how teachers, school leaders, and policy makers can support teacher wellbeing.

在过去的十年中,由于教师流动率高、师资短缺问题日益突出以及提高教学质量和学生成绩的目标,教师的幸福感在全球范围内受到了越来越广泛的关注。目前还没有任何综述试图对有关教师福祉的文献进行累积定量评估。为了弥补这一空白,我们采用荟萃分析法,以 "工作要求-资源 "理论为指导,系统地研究了教师幸福感的主要前因、后果和相关因素的相对强度,并将这些因素定位在提名网络中。按照 PRISMA 准则,我们进行了系统性搜索,结果有 173 项符合条件的研究被纳入(N = 89,876)。结果显示,希望、自主动机、心理资本和工作能力是预测总体幸福感最强的四个正面因素,而神经质和脱离应对则是预测总体幸福感最强的两个负面因素。职业承诺是总体幸福感的最强正效应,而离职意向则是最强负效应。职业倦怠和工作投入是总体幸福感的最强相关因素。我们还发现,一些影响会受到在职教师还是职前教师以及教育环境(如 K-12、初始师范教育)等因素的调节。我们的综述为教师、学校领导和政策制定者提供了有用的实证资源,有助于指导他们如何支持教师的幸福感。
{"title":"Factors Associated with Teacher Wellbeing: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Sijing Zhou, Gavin R. Slemp, Dianne A. Vella-Brodrick","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09886-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09886-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Teacher wellbeing has received widespread and increasing global attention over the last decade due to high teacher turnover, growing teacher shortages, and the goal of improving the quality of teaching and student performance. No review has yet sought to undertake a cumulative quantitative assessment of the literature pertaining to teacher wellbeing. Using meta-analysis, we address this gap by systematically examining the relative strength of key antecedents, consequences, and correlates of teacher wellbeing, using the Job Demands-Resources theory as a guide to positioning factors in the nomological network. Following PRISMA guidelines, our systematic search yielded 173 eligible studies for inclusion (<i>N</i> = 89,876). Results showed that hope, autonomous motivation, psychological capital and job competencies were the top four strongest positive predictors of overall wellbeing, whereas neuroticism and disengagement coping were the top two strongest negative predictors. Occupational commitment was the strongest positive consequence of overall wellbeing, and turnover intentions were the strongest negative consequence. Burnout and work engagement were the strongest correlates of overall wellbeing. We also found that some effects were moderated by factors such as whether teachers were in-service or pre-service, and the educational setting (e.g., K-12, initial teacher education). Our review provides a useful empirical resource that may help guide practice in terms of how teachers, school leaders, and policy makers can support teacher wellbeing.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141320037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Revisiting the Metacognitive and Affective Model of Self-Regulated Learning: Origins, Development, and Future Directions 重新审视自我调节学习的元认知和情感模式:起源、发展和未来方向
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09896-9
Anastasia Efklides, Bennett L. Schwartz

Efklides and colleagues developed the Metacognitive and Affective model of Self-Regulated Learning (MASRL) to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework of self-regulated learning (SRL). The distinguishing feature of MASRL is that it stresses metacognitive experiences and other subjective experiences (e.g., motivational, affective) as critical components of SRL. The insights underlying the model are that metacognitive experiences are related to affect, and that metacognition, motivation, and affect interact in SRL rather than function independently. Moreover, the MASRL proposes that SRL takes place at two levels, the Person and the Task X Person levels, with the latter being specific to the learning task and its demands. Although SRL can start with goal setting and planning in a top-down manner, monitoring and control processes at the Task X Person level provide input for bottom-up SRL. To highlight the theory-building process that led to the MASRL theory, we present questions that inspired its conception, its theoretical underpinnings, and current evidence supporting it. We also discuss the implications of the MASRL theory for understanding SRL in the classroom and for teacher–student interactions. Finally, we discuss open questions and issues that future research on MASRL would address in the context of educational psychology and SRL promotion.

Efklides 及其同事开发了自我调节学习的元认知和情感模型(MASRL),为自我调节学习(SRL)提供了一个全面的理论框架。MASRL 的显著特点是,它强调元认知体验和其他主观体验(如动机、情感)是 SRL 的关键组成部分。该模型的基本观点是,元认知体验与情感相关,元认知、动机和情感在 SRL 中相互作用,而不是独立发挥作用。此外,"元认知学习 "模型还提出,"自学学习 "发生在两个层面,即 "人 "和 "任务 X 人 "层面,后者是针对学习任务及其要求而言的。虽然自律学习可以自上而下的方式从目标设定和规划开始,但任务 X 个人层面的监测和控制过程为自下而上的自律学习提供了输入。为了强调形成 MASRL 理论的理论构建过程,我们介绍了激发其概念的问题、其理论基础以及当前支持该理论的证据。我们还讨论了 MASRL 理论对理解课堂上的自学能力和师生互动的影响。最后,我们讨论了在教育心理学和促进自学能力方面,未来的 MASRL 研究需要解决的开放性问题和议题。
{"title":"Revisiting the Metacognitive and Affective Model of Self-Regulated Learning: Origins, Development, and Future Directions","authors":"Anastasia Efklides, Bennett L. Schwartz","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09896-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09896-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Efklides and colleagues developed the Metacognitive and Affective model of Self-Regulated Learning (MASRL) to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework of self-regulated learning (SRL). The distinguishing feature of MASRL is that it stresses metacognitive experiences and other subjective experiences (e.g., motivational, affective) as critical components of SRL. The insights underlying the model are that metacognitive experiences are related to affect, and that metacognition, motivation, and affect interact in SRL rather than function independently. Moreover, the MASRL proposes that SRL takes place at two levels, the Person and the Task X Person levels, with the latter being specific to the learning task and its demands. Although SRL can start with goal setting and planning in a top-down manner, monitoring and control processes at the Task X Person level provide input for bottom-up SRL. To highlight the theory-building process that led to the MASRL theory, we present questions that inspired its conception, its theoretical underpinnings, and current evidence supporting it. We also discuss the implications of the MASRL theory for understanding SRL in the classroom and for teacher–student interactions. Finally, we discuss open questions and issues that future research on MASRL would address in the context of educational psychology and SRL promotion.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141292687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Correction to: Citizenship in the Elementary Classroom Through the Lens of Peer Relations 更正为从同伴关系的角度看小学课堂中的公民意识
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09901-1
Minke A. Krijnen, Bjorn G. J. Wansink, Yvonne H. M. van den Berg, Jan van Tartwijk, Tim Mainhard
{"title":"Correction to: Citizenship in the Elementary Classroom Through the Lens of Peer Relations","authors":"Minke A. Krijnen, Bjorn G. J. Wansink, Yvonne H. M. van den Berg, Jan van Tartwijk, Tim Mainhard","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09901-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09901-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141292694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluating the Judgment of Learning: its Limited Impact and the Power of Retrieval on Inductive Learning 评估学习的判断力:其有限的影响和检索对归纳学习的力量
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09899-6
Hyorim Ha, Hee Seung Lee

Recent studies suggest that making judgments of learning (JOLs)—self-assessment of current learning status—may not merely be a neutral cognitive process, but can directly improve learning through what is called ‘JOL reactivity’. This study investigated whether making JOLs can facilitate the learning of previously studied materials (backward effect) and newly studied materials (forward effect) in inductive learning. We also examined how this effect varies depending on whether a JOL is accompanied by a retrieval attempt. Across three experiments, participants learned about various butterfly species presented in two sections (Sections A and B). Some participants made JOLs between Section A and Section B, while others did not, and then all participants took a final transfer test for both sections. In Experiment 1, merely making JOLs did not facilitate learning compared to restudy control, regardless of whether JOLs afforded covert retrieval (target-absent JOL) or not (target-present JOL). However, in Experiment 2, when participants made JOLs combined with overt retrieval prompts (retrieval practice + JOL), they outperformed the other groups in the final transfer test of Section B, showing the forward effect. Experiment 3 further revealed that the act of making JOLs combined with overt retrieval practice was as effective as (but not more than) retrieval practice without JOLs in promoting new learning. Our findings indicate that conventional forms of JOLs do not appear to enhance inductive learning; rather, they underscore the critical role of retrieval in facilitating inductive learning.

最近的研究表明,做出学习判断(JOL)--对当前学习状况的自我评估--可能不仅仅是一个中性的认知过程,而是可以通过所谓的 "JOL反应性 "直接提高学习效果。本研究调查了在归纳学习中,做出 JOL 是否能促进对以前学习过的材料的学习(后向效应)和对新学材料的学习(前向效应)。我们还研究了这一效应如何随 JOL 是否伴有检索尝试而变化。在三次实验中,参与者学习了分两部分(A 部分和 B 部分)展示的各种蝴蝶种类。一些参与者在 A 部分和 B 部分之间进行了 JOL,而另一些参与者则没有,然后所有参与者都参加了两个部分的最终转移测试。在实验 1 中,与复习对照组相比,无论 JOL 是否提供隐蔽检索(目标不存在的 JOL),仅进行 JOL 并不能促进学习。然而,在实验 2 中,当被试在做 JOL 时结合公开的检索提示(检索练习 + JOL),他们在 B 部分的最终迁移测试中的表现优于其他组,显示了前向效应。实验 3 进一步显示,在促进新学习方面,制作 JOL 与公开检索练习相结合的行为与不制作 JOL 的检索练习一样有效(但并不更有效)。我们的研究结果表明,传统形式的JOL似乎并不能促进归纳学习;相反,它们强调了检索在促进归纳学习中的关键作用。
{"title":"Evaluating the Judgment of Learning: its Limited Impact and the Power of Retrieval on Inductive Learning","authors":"Hyorim Ha, Hee Seung Lee","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09899-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09899-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent studies suggest that making judgments of learning (JOLs)—self-assessment of current learning status—may not merely be a neutral cognitive process, but can directly improve learning through what is called ‘JOL reactivity’. This study investigated whether making JOLs can facilitate the learning of previously studied materials (backward effect) and newly studied materials (forward effect) in inductive learning. We also examined how this effect varies depending on whether a JOL is accompanied by a retrieval attempt. Across three experiments, participants learned about various butterfly species presented in two sections (Sections A and B). Some participants made JOLs between Section A and Section B, while others did not, and then all participants took a final transfer test for both sections. In Experiment 1, merely making JOLs did not facilitate learning compared to restudy control, regardless of whether JOLs afforded covert retrieval (target-absent JOL) or not (target-present JOL). However, in Experiment 2, when participants made JOLs combined with overt retrieval prompts (retrieval practice + JOL), they outperformed the other groups in the final transfer test of Section B, showing the forward effect. Experiment 3 further revealed that the act of making JOLs combined with overt retrieval practice was as effective as (but not more than) retrieval practice without JOLs in promoting new learning. Our findings indicate that conventional forms of JOLs do not appear to enhance inductive learning; rather, they underscore the critical role of retrieval in facilitating inductive learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141287224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Effects of Test Anxiety on Self-Testing and Learning Performance 考试焦虑对自我测试和学习成绩的影响
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09882-1
Shaohang Liu, Wenbo Zhao, David R. Shanks, Xiao Hu, Liang Luo, Chunliang Yang

Practice testing (i.e., practice retrieval) has been established as an effective learning strategy. Uncovering potential factors influencing self-testing usage is a prerequisite to promote its practical use. The present study reports five experiments exploring whether test anxiety (TA) and test stake (1) affect self-testing usage (Experiments 1–5) and (2) influence learning performance through their negative effects on self-testing usage (Experiments 1, 4, and 5). Experiment 1 analyzed data from 459 high school students collected via a survey and found both that TA negatively predicted students’ daily use of self-testing and that self-testing usage mediated the negative association between TA and academic performance. The negative association between TA and self-testing usage was further replicated in a laboratory experiment (Experiment 2). Another quasi-experiment (Experiment 3) showed that students were less likely to test themselves when preparing for a high-stake than a low-stake exam. Experiment 4 replicated this finding and additionally demonstrated that a high-stake test led to poorer learning via its negative influence on self-testing usage. Experiment 5 demonstrated that a high-stake test provoked high state anxiety, which then induced avoidance of self-testing and ultimately impaired learning. Overall, these findings demonstrate a negative effect of TA on self-testing usage, in turn leading to poor learning. Practical implications are discussed.

实践测试(即实践检索)已被确定为一种有效的学习策略。揭示影响自我测试使用的潜在因素是促进其实际应用的前提。本研究报告了五个实验,探讨考试焦虑(TA)和考试利害关系(1)是否影响自我测试的使用(实验1-5),以及(2)是否通过对自我测试使用的负面影响来影响学习成绩(实验1、4和5)。实验一分析了通过调查收集到的459名高中生的数据,发现助教对学生日常使用自我测试有负面影响,而自我测试的使用在助教和学习成绩之间起着中介作用。实验室实验(实验 2)进一步证实了助教与自我测试使用之间的负相关。另一项准实验(实验 3)表明,学生在准备高分考试时进行自我测试的可能性低于低分考试。实验 4 复制了这一结果,并进一步证明,高风险考试通过对自我测试使用的负面影响,导致学习效果较差。实验 5 表明,高风险考试会引发高度的状态焦虑,进而诱发对自我测试的回避,最终影响学习效果。总之,这些研究结果表明,TA 对自我测试的使用有负面影响,进而导致学习效果不佳。本文还讨论了其实际意义。
{"title":"Effects of Test Anxiety on Self-Testing and Learning Performance","authors":"Shaohang Liu, Wenbo Zhao, David R. Shanks, Xiao Hu, Liang Luo, Chunliang Yang","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09882-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09882-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Practice testing (i.e., practice retrieval) has been established as an effective learning strategy. Uncovering potential factors influencing self-testing usage is a prerequisite to promote its practical use. The present study reports five experiments exploring whether test anxiety (TA) and test stake (1) affect self-testing usage (Experiments 1–5) and (2) influence learning performance through their negative effects on self-testing usage (Experiments 1, 4, and 5). Experiment 1 analyzed data from 459 high school students collected via a survey and found both that TA negatively predicted students’ daily use of self-testing and that self-testing usage mediated the negative association between TA and academic performance. The negative association between TA and self-testing usage was further replicated in a laboratory experiment (Experiment 2). Another quasi-experiment (Experiment 3) showed that students were less likely to test themselves when preparing for a high-stake than a low-stake exam. Experiment 4 replicated this finding and additionally demonstrated that a high-stake test led to poorer learning via its negative influence on self-testing usage. Experiment 5 demonstrated that a high-stake test provoked high state anxiety, which then induced avoidance of self-testing and ultimately impaired learning. Overall, these findings demonstrate a negative effect of TA on self-testing usage, in turn leading to poor learning. Practical implications are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141287237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization 安慰剂还是助手?介于外化与拟人之间的生成式人工智能
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x
Alexander Skulmowski

Generative AIs have been embraced by learners wishing to offload (parts of) complex tasks. However, recent research suggests that AI users are at risk of failing to correctly monitor the extent of their own contribution when being assisted by an AI. This difficulty in keeping track of the division of labor has been shown to result in placebo and ghostwriter effects. In case of the AI-based placebo effect, users overestimate their ability while or after being assisted by an AI. The ghostwriter effect occurs when AI users do not disclose their AI use despite being aware of the contribution made by an AI. These two troubling effects are discussed in the context of the conflict between cognitive externalization and anthropomorphization. While people tend to offload cognitive load into their environment, they also often perceive technology as human-like. However, despite the natural conversations that can be had with current AIs, the desire to attribute human-like qualities that would require the acknowledgment of AI contributions appears to be lacking. Implications and suggestions on how to improve AI use, for example, by employing embodied AI agents, are discussed.

希望卸下(部分)复杂任务的学习者已经开始使用生成式人工智能。然而,最近的研究表明,人工智能用户在人工智能的帮助下,有可能无法正确监控自己的贡献程度。这种难以掌握分工的情况已被证明会导致安慰剂效应和鬼才效应。在基于人工智能的安慰剂效应中,用户会在接受人工智能协助时或之后高估自己的能力。当人工智能用户在意识到人工智能所做贡献的情况下,却不披露其使用人工智能的情况时,就会产生鬼才效应。这两种令人不安的效应将在认知外化与拟人化冲突的背景下进行讨论。虽然人们倾向于将认知负荷卸载到环境中,但他们也常常认为技术与人类相似。然而,尽管可以与当前的人工智能进行自然的对话,但人们似乎并不愿意赋予人工智能类似人类的品质,这就需要承认人工智能的贡献。本文讨论了如何改进人工智能使用的影响和建议,例如,通过采用人工智能代理。
{"title":"Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization","authors":"Alexander Skulmowski","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Generative AIs have been embraced by learners wishing to offload (parts of) complex tasks. However, recent research suggests that AI users are at risk of failing to correctly monitor the extent of their own contribution when being assisted by an AI. This difficulty in keeping track of the division of labor has been shown to result in placebo and ghostwriter effects. In case of the AI-based placebo effect, users overestimate their ability while or after being assisted by an AI. The ghostwriter effect occurs when AI users do not disclose their AI use despite being aware of the contribution made by an AI. These two troubling effects are discussed in the context of the conflict between cognitive externalization and anthropomorphization. While people tend to offload cognitive load into their environment, they also often perceive technology as human-like. However, despite the natural conversations that can be had with current AIs, the desire to attribute human-like qualities that would require the acknowledgment of AI contributions appears to be lacking. Implications and suggestions on how to improve AI use, for example, by employing embodied AI agents, are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141251659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Effects of Contextual Interference Learning on the Acquisition and Relatively Permanent Gains in Skilled Performance: A Critical Systematic Review with Multilevel Meta-Analysis 情境干扰学习对获得和相对永久提高技能表现的影响:多层次元分析的批判性系统回顾
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09892-z
Achraf Ammar, Khaled Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali Boujelbane, Atef Salem, Omar Boukhris, Jordan M. Glenn, Piotr Zmijewski, Haitham A. Jahrami, Hamdi Chtourou, Wolfgang I. Schöllhorn

The paradoxical effects of contextual interference (CI) assume that high CI practices hinder performances during the acquisition phase of learning, while providing more permanent enhancement during the retention phase. This meta-analysis evaluates the possible generalizability of the CI phenomenon in physical education (PE) and sports contexts, with regard to the acute and relatively permanent gains in performance outcomes. A total of 933 records from five electronic databases were screened using the PICOS criteria, of which 36 studies were selected. Outcomes evaluating the performance changes (Δ) from pre-post, post-retention, and pre-retention tests were included. Out of 183 overall pooled outcomes, Δ in only 37 performance outcomes (20%) agreed with the paradoxical CI effects on the acquisition or the relatively permanent gains. No statistically significant overall difference was detected for “Δ pre-post” between low (blocked) (28.9 ± 59.5%) and high (random/serial) (27.9 ± 52.8%) CI (effect size (ES) = 0.1, p = 0.35). An overall significant difference (p = 0.001) in favor of high CI practice was detected in “Δ post-retention.” However, this difference was not large enough (ES = − 0.35) to produce an overall greater long-term gain following high (24.56 ± 4.4%), compared to low (21.9 ± 9.8%) CI (ES = − 0.13, p = 0.18). Out of 10 tested variables, only the age significantly moderated both CI effects (p < 0.0001 for both Δ pre-post and Δ pre-retention) and the female proportion significantly moderated only the first CI effect (p = 0.009 for Δ pre-post). These findings found very limited evidence supporting the recommendation to employ high CI practices to gain a longer-term performance advantage, calling into question the generalization of the CI model to PE and sports practices. High-quality follow-up research evaluating alternative motor-learning models are therefore needed.

情境干扰(CI)的悖论效应假定,高CI练习会在学习的习得阶段阻碍成绩的提高,而在保持阶段则会提供更持久的提高。本荟萃分析评估了在体育教育(PE)和体育运动中,情境干扰现象可能具有的普遍性,以及在成绩提高方面的急性和相对持久性。采用 PICOS 标准从五个电子数据库中筛选出 933 条记录,并从中选出 36 项研究。研究结果评估了前后、保持后和保持前测试的成绩变化(Δ)。在 183 项汇总的总体结果中,只有 37 项成绩结果(20%)的 Δ 与 CI 对习得或相对永久性收益的悖论效应一致。在 "Δ 前-后 "方面,低 CI(封锁)(28.9 ± 59.5%)和高 CI(随机/串行)(27.9 ± 52.8%)之间没有发现有统计学意义的整体差异(效应大小 (ES) = 0.1,p = 0.35)。在 "Δ后保留 "中发现了有利于高 CI 实践的总体重大差异(p = 0.001)。然而,这种差异还不够大(ES = - 0.35),不足以使高 CI(24.56 ± 4.4%)与低 CI(21.9 ± 9.8%)相比产生更大的长期收益(ES = - 0.13,p = 0.18)。在 10 个测试变量中,只有年龄能显著调节两种 CI 效应(Δ 前-后和 Δ 前-保留的 p < 0.0001),而女性比例仅能显著调节第一种 CI 效应(Δ 前-后的 p = 0.009)。这些研究结果发现,支持采用高 CI 实践以获得长期成绩优势的建议的证据非常有限,这使人们对将 CI 模型推广到体育和运动实践中产生了疑问。因此,需要对其他运动学习模式进行高质量的后续评估研究。
{"title":"The Effects of Contextual Interference Learning on the Acquisition and Relatively Permanent Gains in Skilled Performance: A Critical Systematic Review with Multilevel Meta-Analysis","authors":"Achraf Ammar, Khaled Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali Boujelbane, Atef Salem, Omar Boukhris, Jordan M. Glenn, Piotr Zmijewski, Haitham A. Jahrami, Hamdi Chtourou, Wolfgang I. Schöllhorn","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09892-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09892-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The paradoxical effects of contextual interference (CI) assume that high CI practices hinder performances during the acquisition phase of learning, while providing more permanent enhancement during the retention phase. This meta-analysis evaluates the possible generalizability of the CI phenomenon in physical education (PE) and sports contexts, with regard to the acute and relatively permanent gains in performance outcomes. A total of 933 records from five electronic databases were screened using the PICOS criteria, of which 36 studies were selected. Outcomes evaluating the performance changes (Δ) from pre-post, post-retention, and pre-retention tests were included. Out of 183 overall pooled outcomes, Δ in only 37 performance outcomes (20%) agreed with the paradoxical CI effects on the acquisition or the relatively permanent gains. No statistically significant overall difference was detected for “Δ pre-post” between low (blocked) (28.9 ± 59.5%) and high (random/serial) (27.9 ± 52.8%) CI (effect size (ES) = 0.1, <i>p</i> = 0.35). An overall significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.001) in favor of high CI practice was detected in “Δ post-retention.” However, this difference was not large enough (ES = − 0.35) to produce an overall greater long-term gain following high (24.56 ± 4.4%), compared to low (21.9 ± 9.8%) CI (ES = − 0.13, <i>p</i> = 0.18). Out of 10 tested variables, only the age significantly moderated both CI effects (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001 for both Δ pre-post and Δ pre-retention) and the female proportion significantly moderated only the first CI effect (<i>p</i> = 0.009 for Δ pre-post). These findings found very limited evidence supporting the recommendation to employ high CI practices to gain a longer-term performance advantage, calling into question the generalization of the CI model to PE and sports practices. High-quality follow-up research evaluating alternative motor-learning models are therefore needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"102 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141246506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Psychometric Properties of Statistics Anxiety Measures: A Systematic Review 统计焦虑测量的心理计量特性:系统回顾
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09897-8
Palmira Faraci, Gaia Azzurra Malluzzo

The phenomenon of statistics anxiety, prevalent particularly among students engaged in non-mathematical disciplines such as the social sciences, has been linked to a multitude of detrimental outcomes. Over time, several instruments have been developed to measure this construct; however, a comprehensive analysis of these instruments and an adequate evaluation of their psychometric properties have been conspicuously absent. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we undertook a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. Our focus was on studies that were published in peer-reviewed English journals and reported a self-report measure of statistics anxiety. These included both original developments and further validations. We employed Skinner’s three-stage framework to assess the methodological quality of the instruments that were retrieved. Out of the 225 results that our search yielded, a mere 28 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The resulting papers reported on the psychometric properties of eight scales. The identified measures undoubtedly provide the potential of capturing some of the key features of the construct. However, our analyses unveiled certain psychometric limitations. Consequently, we advise researchers to either use the most psychometrically robust measures or conduct additional evaluations to ensure the accuracy of their results.

统计焦虑现象在非数学学科(如社会科学)的学生中尤为普遍,这种焦虑与多种有害结果有关。随着时间的推移,人们开发了多种工具来测量这种焦虑;然而,对这些工具的全面分析以及对其心理测量特性的充分评估却明显缺乏。为了填补这一空白,我们根据系统性综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,利用 PsycINFO、Scopus、Web of Science、MEDLINE 和 PubMed 进行了系统性综述。我们关注的重点是发表在同行评审的英文期刊上并报告了统计焦虑自我报告测量结果的研究。这些研究包括原始开发和进一步验证。我们采用了斯金纳的三阶段框架来评估所检索工具的方法质量。在我们检索到的 225 项结果中,仅有 28 项符合纳入标准。这些论文报告了八个量表的心理测量特性。所确定的测量方法无疑有可能捕捉到该结构的一些关键特征。然而,我们的分析揭示了某些心理测量的局限性。因此,我们建议研究人员要么使用心理测量学上最可靠的测量方法,要么进行额外的评估以确保其结果的准确性。
{"title":"Psychometric Properties of Statistics Anxiety Measures: A Systematic Review","authors":"Palmira Faraci, Gaia Azzurra Malluzzo","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09897-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09897-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The phenomenon of statistics anxiety, prevalent particularly among students engaged in non-mathematical disciplines such as the social sciences, has been linked to a multitude of detrimental outcomes. Over time, several instruments have been developed to measure this construct; however, a comprehensive analysis of these instruments and an adequate evaluation of their psychometric properties have been conspicuously absent. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we undertook a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. Our focus was on studies that were published in peer-reviewed English journals and reported a self-report measure of statistics anxiety. These included both original developments and further validations. We employed Skinner’s three-stage framework to assess the methodological quality of the instruments that were retrieved. Out of the 225 results that our search yielded, a mere 28 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The resulting papers reported on the psychometric properties of eight scales. The identified measures undoubtedly provide the potential of capturing some of the key features of the construct. However, our analyses unveiled certain psychometric limitations. Consequently, we advise researchers to either use the most psychometrically robust measures or conduct additional evaluations to ensure the accuracy of their results.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141185145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A Motivational Perspective on (Anticipated) Mental Effort Investment: The Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat 关于(预期)心理努力投资的动机视角:挑战与威胁的生物心理社会模型
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09861-6
Tamara van Gog, Eva Janssen, Florence Lucas, Maaike Taheij

Research in cognitive load theory is increasingly recognizing the importance of motivational influences on students’ (willingness to invest) mental effort, in particular in the context of self-regulated learning. Consequently, next to addressing effects of instructional conditions and contexts on groups of learners, there is a need to start investigating individual differences in motivational variables. We propose here that the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat may offer a useful model to study the motivational antecedents of (anticipated) mental effort. We also report four experiments as initial tests of these ideas, exploring how feedback valence affects students’ challenge/threat experiences, self-efficacy, and mental effort investment. The results showed that negative feedback leads participants to expect that they will have to invest significantly more effort in future problems than positive feedback (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or no feedback (Experiment 3). Had we not considered the motivational variables in investigating the effect of feedback conditions on effort investment, we would not have known that this effect was fully mediated and thus explained by participants’ feelings of self-efficacy (Experiments 1/2) and threat (Experiment 1). We would also have concluded that feedback does not affect the willingness to invest effort in future problems (all four experiments), whereas actually, there were significant indirect effects of feedback on willingness to invest effort via challenge (in Experiments 1/2) and threat (in all experiments). Thus, our findings demonstrate the added value of considering challenge and threat motivational states to explain individual differences in effort investment.

认知负荷理论的研究越来越认识到,动机对学生(愿意投入)脑力劳动的影响非常重要,特别是在自我调节学习的背景下。因此,除了研究教学条件和情境对学习者群体的影响之外,还需要开始研究动机变量的个体差异。我们在此提出,挑战和威胁的生物心理社会模型可以为研究(预期)脑力劳动的动机前因提供一个有用的模型。作为对这些观点的初步检验,我们还报告了四项实验,探讨了反馈情绪如何影响学生的挑战/威胁体验、自我效能感和脑力投入。结果表明,与积极反馈(实验 1、2 和 3)或无反馈(实验 3)相比,消极反馈会使参与者预期在未来的问题中需要投入更多的精力。如果我们在研究反馈条件对努力投入的影响时没有考虑动机变量,我们就不会知道这种影响完全是由参与者的自我效能感(实验 1/2)和威胁感(实验 1)所中介,从而得到解释的。我们还会得出这样的结论:反馈不会影响对未来问题投入努力的意愿(所有四个实验),而实际上,反馈通过挑战(实验 1/2)和威胁(所有实验)对投入努力的意愿产生了显著的间接影响。因此,我们的研究结果表明,考虑挑战和威胁动机状态来解释努力投资的个体差异具有附加价值。
{"title":"A Motivational Perspective on (Anticipated) Mental Effort Investment: The Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat","authors":"Tamara van Gog, Eva Janssen, Florence Lucas, Maaike Taheij","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09861-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09861-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research in cognitive load theory is increasingly recognizing the importance of motivational influences on students’ (willingness to invest) mental effort, in particular in the context of self-regulated learning. Consequently, next to addressing effects of instructional conditions and contexts on groups of learners, there is a need to start investigating individual differences in motivational variables. We propose here that the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat may offer a useful model to study the motivational antecedents of (anticipated) mental effort. We also report four experiments as initial tests of these ideas, exploring how feedback valence affects students’ challenge/threat experiences, self-efficacy, and mental effort investment. The results showed that negative feedback leads participants to expect that they will have to invest significantly more effort in future problems than positive feedback (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or no feedback (Experiment 3). Had we not considered the motivational variables in investigating the effect of feedback conditions on effort investment, we would not have known that this effect was fully mediated and thus explained by participants’ feelings of self-efficacy (Experiments 1/2) and threat (Experiment 1). We would also have concluded that feedback does not affect the willingness to invest effort in future problems (all four experiments), whereas actually, there were significant indirect effects of feedback on willingness to invest effort via challenge (in Experiments 1/2) and threat (in all experiments). Thus, our findings demonstrate the added value of considering challenge and threat motivational states to explain individual differences in effort investment.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141085330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Cracking Chicken-Egg Conundrums: Juxtaposing Contemporaneous and Lagged Reciprocal Effects Models of Academic Self-Concept and Achievement’s Directional Ordering 破解 "鸡-蛋 "难题:并列学术自我概念和成就方向排序的同期和滞后互惠效应模型
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09887-w
Herbert W. Marsh, Jiesi Guo, Reinhard Pekrun, Oliver Lüdtke, Fernando Núñez-Regueiro

Multi-wave-cross-lagged-panel models (CLPMs) of directional ordering are a focus of much controversy in educational psychology and more generally. Extending traditional analyses, methodologists have recently argued for including random intercepts and lag2 effects between non-adjacent waves and giving more attention to controlling covariates. However, the related issues of appropriate time intervals between waves (lag1 intervals across waves) and the possibility of contemporaneous (lag0) effects within each wave are largely unresolved. Although philosophers, theologians, and scientists widely debate sequential (lagged) and simultaneous (lag0) theories of causality, CLPM researchers have mostly ignored contemporaneous effects, arguing causes must precede effects. In a substantive-methodological synergy, we integrated these issues and designed new structural equation models to reanalyze one of the strongest CLPM studies of academic self-concept (ASC) and achievement (five annuals of mathematics data; 3527 secondary school students). A taxonomy of models incorporating various combinations of lag0, lag1, and lag2 effects, random intercepts, and covariates consistently supported a priori reciprocal effect model (REM) predictions—medium or large reciprocal effects of ASC and achievement on each other. Consistent with self-concept theory, effects of ASC on achievement evolved over time (lag1, not lag0 effects), whereas effects of achievement on ASC effects were more contemporaneous (lag0, not lag1 effects). We argue that lag0 effects reflect proximal events occurring subsequent to the previous data wave, suggesting the need for shorter intervals but also leaving open the possibility of contemporaneous effects that are truly instantaneous. We discuss limitations and future directions but also note the broad applicability of our statistical models.

定向排序的多波跨滞后面板模型(CLPMs)是教育心理学乃至更广泛意义上的争议焦点。在传统分析的基础上,方法论专家们最近主张在非相邻波次之间加入随机截距和滞后2效应,并更加重视控制协变量。然而,与此相关的波与波之间的适当时间间隔(跨波的滞后 1 间距)以及每个波内的同期效应(滞后 0)的可能性等问题在很大程度上仍未得到解决。尽管哲学家、神学家和科学家广泛争论因果关系的顺序(滞后)和同步(滞后 0)理论,但 CLPM 研究人员大多忽略了同期效应,认为原因必须先于效应。在实质与方法的协同作用下,我们整合了这些问题,并设计了新的结构方程模型,以重新分析学业自我概念(ASC)和成绩(五个年度的数学数据;3527 名中学生)方面最有力的 CLPM 研究之一。包含各种滞后 0、滞后 1 和滞后 2 效应、随机截距和协变量组合的分类模型始终支持先验的互效模型(REM)预测--ASC 和成绩对彼此产生中等或较大的互效效应。与自我概念理论相一致的是,ASC 对成绩的影响随着时间的推移而变化(滞后 1 效应,而非滞后 0 效应),而成绩对 ASC 的影响则更多地表现为同期效应(滞后 0 效应,而非滞后 1 效应)。我们认为,lag0效应反映的是在前一数据波之后发生的近似事件,这表明需要更短的时间间隔,但也为真正的瞬时效应留下了可能性。我们讨论了局限性和未来发展方向,但也指出了我们统计模型的广泛适用性。
{"title":"Cracking Chicken-Egg Conundrums: Juxtaposing Contemporaneous and Lagged Reciprocal Effects Models of Academic Self-Concept and Achievement’s Directional Ordering","authors":"Herbert W. Marsh, Jiesi Guo, Reinhard Pekrun, Oliver Lüdtke, Fernando Núñez-Regueiro","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09887-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09887-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Multi-wave-cross-lagged-panel models (CLPMs) of directional ordering are a focus of much controversy in educational psychology and more generally. Extending traditional analyses, methodologists have recently argued for including random intercepts and lag2 effects between non-adjacent waves and giving more attention to controlling covariates. However, the related issues of appropriate time intervals between waves (lag1 intervals across waves) and the possibility of contemporaneous (lag0) effects within each wave are largely unresolved. Although philosophers, theologians, and scientists widely debate sequential (lagged) and simultaneous (lag0) theories of causality, CLPM researchers have mostly ignored contemporaneous effects, arguing causes <i>must</i> precede effects. In a substantive-methodological synergy, we integrated these issues and designed new structural equation models to reanalyze one of the strongest CLPM studies of academic self-concept (ASC) and achievement (five annuals of mathematics data; 3527 secondary school students). A taxonomy of models incorporating various combinations of lag0, lag1, and lag2 effects, random intercepts, and covariates consistently supported a priori reciprocal effect model (REM) predictions—medium or large reciprocal effects of ASC and achievement on each other. Consistent with self-concept theory, effects of ASC on achievement evolved over time (lag1, not lag0 effects), whereas effects of achievement on ASC effects were more contemporaneous (lag0, not lag1 effects). We argue that lag0 effects reflect proximal events occurring subsequent to the previous data wave, suggesting the need for shorter intervals but also leaving open the possibility of contemporaneous effects that are truly instantaneous. We discuss limitations and future directions but also note the broad applicability of our statistical models.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141079232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Educational Psychology Review
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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