首页 > 最新文献

Educational Psychology Review最新文献

英文 中文
The Effect of Scoring Rubrics Use on Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation 使用评分标准对自我效能和自我调节的影响
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09906-w
Sandra Liliana Camargo Salamanca, Andy Parra-Martínez, Ammi Chang, Yukiko Maeda, Anne Traynor

This meta-analysis explores the effect of using scoring rubrics on self-efficacy and self-regulation in K-16 formal learning settings and its potential moderators. From the literature, we identified 14 relevant experimental or quasi-experimental primary studies conducted with a total of 2793 students. We retrieved 17 effect sizes for self-efficacy and 18 effect sizes for self-regulation outcomes from the primary studies. Rubric use has a statistically significant moderate to large positive effect on students’ self-efficacy (Hedges’ g = 0.39) and self-regulation (Hedges’ g = 1.00). Large within- and -between study variability of effect sizes is common: self-efficacy (Hedges’ g: −.06; 2.47) and self-regulation (Hedges’ g: −1.17; 3.30). We found no significant moderation of the effect of rubric use by students’ level of education, providing feedback, or instruction using the rubric, whereas there is evidence of an effect of rubrics on self-efficacy and self-regulation, variability of theoretical approaches, measures, and implementation quality raise questions about best practices for rubric development and use.

本荟萃分析探讨了在 K-16 正规学习环境中使用评分标准对自我效能感和自我调节的影响及其潜在的调节因素。我们从文献中确定了 14 项相关的实验或准实验性初步研究,研究对象为 2793 名学生。我们从主要研究中检索到了 17 个自我效能的效应大小和 18 个自我调节结果的效应大小。从统计学角度看,使用评分标准对学生的自我效能感(Hedges' g = 0.39)和自我调节(Hedges' g = 1.00)具有显著的中度到高度的积极影响。在自我效能(Hedges' g:-.06;2.47)和自我调节(Hedges' g:-1.17;3.30)方面,研究内部和研究之间的效应大小差异较大。我们发现,学生的受教育程度、提供反馈或使用评分标准进行指导对使用评分标准的效果没有明显的调节作用,虽然有证据表明评分标准对自我效能感和自我调节有影响,但理论方法、测量方法和实施质量的差异对评分标准开发和使用的最佳实践提出了质疑。
{"title":"The Effect of Scoring Rubrics Use on Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation","authors":"Sandra Liliana Camargo Salamanca, Andy Parra-Martínez, Ammi Chang, Yukiko Maeda, Anne Traynor","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09906-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09906-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This meta-analysis explores the effect of using scoring rubrics on self-efficacy and self-regulation in K-16 formal learning settings and its potential moderators. From the literature, we identified 14 relevant experimental or quasi-experimental primary studies conducted with a total of 2793 students. We retrieved 17 effect sizes for self-efficacy and 18 effect sizes for self-regulation outcomes from the primary studies. Rubric use has a statistically significant moderate to large positive effect on students’ self-efficacy (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = 0.39) and self-regulation (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = 1.00). Large within- and -between study variability of effect sizes is common: self-efficacy (Hedges’ <i>g:</i> −.06; 2.47) and self-regulation (Hedges’ <i>g</i>: −1.17; 3.30). We found no significant moderation of the effect of rubric use by students’ level of education, providing feedback, or instruction using the rubric, whereas there is evidence of an effect of rubrics on self-efficacy and self-regulation, variability of theoretical approaches, measures, and implementation quality raise questions about best practices for rubric development and use.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141495935","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
Desire to Find Causal Relations: Response to Robinson and Wainer’s (2023) Reflection on the Field—It’s Just an Observation 寻找因果关系的愿望:对罗宾逊和韦纳(2023)《实地反思--这只是一种观察》一文的回应
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09907-9
Cody Ding

In the article It’s Just an Observation, Robinson and Wainer (Educational Psychology Review 35, Robinson, D., & Wainer, H. (2023). It’s just an observation. Educational Psychology Review, 35(83), Published online: 14 August, 2023) lamented that educational psychology is moving toward the dark side of the quality continuum, with fewer intervention studies and randomized controlled trials and a tendency to make causal inferences based on more armchair research using observational data. This paper discussed the challenges of making causal inferences, even with intervention studies and randomized controlled trials. We argued the usefulness of causal assumptions and modeling based on observational data regarding causal discovery while acknowledging their limitations. More importantly, the research rigor can be achieved in experimental or intervention studies as well as in studies using observational data. Showing favoritism could also taint our field by limiting our perspectives, stifling creativity, and diminishing scholarly variety. We should not allow the undue overinterpretation of correlational evidence to undermine the entire field of observational studies.

在《这只是一种观察》一文中,罗宾逊和韦纳(《教育心理学评论》第 35 期,罗宾逊,D. ,& 韦纳,H. (2023 年)。这只是一种观察。教育心理学评论》,35(83),在线发表:2023 年 8 月 14 日)感叹教育心理学正走向质量连续体的阴暗面,干预研究和随机对照试验越来越少,人们倾向于根据更多使用观察数据的臂力研究做出因果推论。本文讨论了即使有干预研究和随机对照试验,在进行因果推论时所面临的挑战。我们论证了基于观察数据的因果假设和建模对发现因果关系的有用性,同时也承认了它们的局限性。更重要的是,研究的严谨性既可以在实验或干预研究中实现,也可以在使用观察数据的研究中实现。偏袒也会限制我们的视角,扼杀创造力,减少学术多样性,从而玷污我们的领域。我们不应该让对相关证据的过度解读破坏整个观察研究领域。
{"title":"Desire to Find Causal Relations: Response to Robinson and Wainer’s (2023) Reflection on the Field—It’s Just an Observation","authors":"Cody Ding","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09907-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09907-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the article <i>It’s Just an Observation</i>, Robinson and Wainer (Educational Psychology Review 35, Robinson, D., &amp; Wainer, H. (2023). It’s just an observation. Educational Psychology Review, 35(83), Published online: 14 August, 2023) lamented that educational psychology is moving toward the dark side of the quality continuum, with fewer intervention studies and randomized controlled trials and a tendency to make causal inferences based on more armchair research using observational data. This paper discussed the challenges of making causal inferences, even with intervention studies and randomized controlled trials. We argued the usefulness of causal assumptions and modeling based on observational data regarding causal discovery while acknowledging their limitations. More importantly, the research rigor can be achieved in experimental or intervention studies as well as in studies using observational data. Showing favoritism could also taint our field by limiting our perspectives, stifling creativity, and diminishing scholarly variety. We should not allow the undue overinterpretation of correlational evidence to undermine the entire field of observational studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141489542","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
Role of Gesturing Onscreen Instructors in Video Lectures: A Set of Three-level Meta-analyses on the Embodiment Effect 视频讲座中屏幕手势指导的作用:关于体现效果的一组三级元分析
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09910-0
Wenjing Li, Ziyi Kuang, Xiaoxue Leng, Richard E. Mayer, Fuxing Wang

Although gesturing onscreen instructors are widely included in video lectures, it is still unclear whether, when, and how they are conducive to learning. To clarify this issue, we conducted a set of three-level meta-analyses of 662 effect sizes from 83 articles, spanning Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar up to March 2024. We included randomized controlled trials of gesturing instructors in multimedia learning, measuring retention test score, transfer test score, fixation time, fixation count, cognitive load, and/or social perception across all languages of publication. Funnel plot and Egger sandwich test were used to assess risk of bias. Results showed that adding gesturing instructors improved retention (g = 0.28, 95% CI:[0.19,0.37]) and transfer test scores (g = 0.31, 95% CI:[0.21,0.41]), yielding an embodiment effect. This effect was stronger when the instructor displayed deictic, metaphorical, or a mixture of multiple gestures; when the instructor in the control condition was not visible; when the lecture was learner-paced and longer. Moreover, it increased learners’ social connection ratings and eye fixation time and count on core learning material (but only when deictic gestures were used). Thus, gesturing onscreen instructors may promote learning by social and cognitive paths, deepening our understanding of the role of gesturing onscreen instructors in multimedia learning and providing guidance for designing effective video lectures. More studies with clear experimental descriptions and eye-tracking studies are needed.

尽管视频讲座中广泛使用了屏幕上的教师手势,但这些手势是否、何时以及如何有助于学习仍不清楚。为了澄清这一问题,我们对截至 2024 年 3 月的 83 篇文章中的 662 个效应大小进行了三级荟萃分析,这些文章涵盖了 Web of Science、PsycINFO、ERIC、Education Research Complete、ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 和 Google Scholar。我们纳入了多媒体学习中手势指导的随机对照试验,这些试验测量了所有语言出版物中的保持测试得分、迁移测试得分、固定时间、固定次数、认知负荷和/或社会感知。采用漏斗图和 Egger 夹心测试评估偏倚风险。结果表明,增加手势指导能提高保留率(g = 0.28,95% CI:[0.19,0.37])和迁移测试得分(g = 0.31,95% CI:[0.21,0.41]),产生了体现效应。当讲师展示的手势是指代性的、隐喻性的或多种手势的混合体时;当对照条件中的讲师不可见时;当讲课节奏是学习者节奏且时间较长时,这种效应更强。此外,手势还能增加学习者的社会联系评分,以及眼睛停留在核心学习材料上的时间和次数(但仅限于使用了指代手势的情况)。因此,屏幕手势指导可以通过社会和认知路径促进学习,从而加深我们对屏幕手势指导在多媒体学习中的作用的理解,并为设计有效的视频讲座提供指导。还需要更多具有明确实验描述的研究和眼动追踪研究。
{"title":"Role of Gesturing Onscreen Instructors in Video Lectures: A Set of Three-level Meta-analyses on the Embodiment Effect","authors":"Wenjing Li, Ziyi Kuang, Xiaoxue Leng, Richard E. Mayer, Fuxing Wang","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09910-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09910-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although gesturing onscreen instructors are widely included in video lectures, it is still unclear whether, when, and how they are conducive to learning. To clarify this issue, we conducted a set of three-level meta-analyses of 662 effect sizes from 83 articles, spanning Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete, ProQuest Dissertations &amp; Theses, and Google Scholar up to March 2024. We included randomized controlled trials of gesturing instructors in multimedia learning, measuring retention test score, transfer test score, fixation time, fixation count, cognitive load, and/or social perception across all languages of publication. Funnel plot and Egger sandwich test were used to assess risk of bias. Results showed that adding gesturing instructors improved retention (<i>g</i> = 0.28, 95% CI:[0.19,0.37]) and transfer test scores (<i>g</i> = 0.31, 95% CI:[0.21,0.41]), yielding an <i>embodiment effect</i>. This effect was stronger when the instructor displayed deictic, metaphorical, or a mixture of multiple gestures; when the instructor in the control condition was not visible; when the lecture was learner-paced and longer. Moreover, it increased learners’ social connection ratings and eye fixation time and count on core learning material (but only when deictic gestures were used). Thus, gesturing onscreen instructors may promote learning by social and cognitive paths, deepening our understanding of the role of gesturing onscreen instructors in multimedia learning and providing guidance for designing effective video lectures. More studies with clear experimental descriptions and eye-tracking studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141462485","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 Relation Between Perceived Mental Effort, Monitoring Judgments, and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis 感知心理努力、监测判断和学习结果之间的关系:元分析
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-26 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09903-z
Louise David, Felicitas Biwer, Martine Baars, Lisette Wijnia, Fred Paas, Anique de Bruin

Accurately monitoring one’s learning processes during self-regulated learning depends on using the right cues, one of which could be perceived mental effort. A meta-analysis by Baars et al. (2020) found a negative association between mental effort and monitoring judgments (r = -.35), suggesting that the amount of mental effort experienced during a learning task is usually negatively correlated with learners’ perception of learning. However, it is unclear how monitoring judgments and perceptions of mental effort relate to learning outcomes. To examine if perceived mental effort is a diagnostic cue for learning outcomes, and whether monitoring judgments mediate this relationship, we employed a meta-analytic structural equation model. Results indicated a negative, moderate association between perceived mental effort and monitoring judgments (β = -.19), a positive, large association between monitoring judgments and learning outcomes (β = .29), and a negative, moderate indirect association between perceived mental effort and learning outcomes (β = -.05), which was mediated by monitoring judgments. Our subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant differences across moderators potentially due to the limited number of studies included per moderator category. Findings suggest that when learners perceive higher levels of mental effort, they exhibit lower learning (confidence) judgments, which relates to lower actual learning outcomes. Thus, learners seem to use perceived mental effort as a cue to judge their learning while perceived mental effort only indirectly relates to actual learning outcomes.

在自我调节学习过程中,准确监控自己的学习过程取决于使用正确的线索,其中之一可能是感知到的脑力劳动。Baars 等人(2020 年)的一项荟萃分析发现,脑力劳动与监控判断之间存在负相关(r = -.35),这表明学习任务中的脑力劳动量通常与学习者的学习感知呈负相关。然而,目前还不清楚监控判断和脑力劳动感知与学习结果之间的关系。为了研究感知到的脑力劳动是否是学习结果的诊断线索,以及监控判断是否会调解这种关系,我们采用了元分析结构方程模型。结果表明,感知脑力劳动与监测判断之间存在中度负相关(β = -.19),监测判断与学习结果之间存在中度正相关(β = .29),感知脑力劳动与学习结果之间存在中度间接负相关(β = -.05),而监测判断在其中起中介作用。我们的分组分析没有发现不同调节因子之间的显著差异,这可能是由于每个调节因子类别所包含的研究数量有限。研究结果表明,当学习者感知到较高的脑力劳动水平时,他们会表现出较低的学习(信心)判断,这与较低的实际学习效果有关。因此,学习者似乎将感知到的脑力劳动作为判断其学习效果的线索,而感知到的脑力劳动只是间接地与实际学习效果相关。
{"title":"The Relation Between Perceived Mental Effort, Monitoring Judgments, and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Louise David, Felicitas Biwer, Martine Baars, Lisette Wijnia, Fred Paas, Anique de Bruin","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09903-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09903-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurately monitoring one’s learning processes during self-regulated learning depends on using the right cues, one of which could be perceived mental effort. A meta-analysis by Baars et al. (2020) found a negative association between mental effort and monitoring judgments (<i>r</i> = -.35), suggesting that the amount of mental effort experienced during a learning task is usually negatively correlated with learners’ perception of learning. However, it is unclear how monitoring judgments and perceptions of mental effort relate to learning outcomes. To examine if perceived mental effort is a diagnostic cue for learning outcomes, and whether monitoring judgments mediate this relationship, we employed a meta-analytic structural equation model. Results indicated a negative, moderate association between perceived mental effort and monitoring judgments (β = -.19), a positive, large association between monitoring judgments and learning outcomes <i>(</i>β = .29), and a negative, moderate indirect association between perceived mental effort and learning outcomes (β = -.05), which was mediated by monitoring judgments. Our subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant differences across moderators potentially due to the limited number of studies included per moderator category. Findings suggest that when learners perceive higher levels of mental effort, they exhibit lower learning (confidence) judgments, which relates to lower actual learning outcomes. Thus, learners seem to use perceived mental effort as a cue to judge their learning while perceived mental effort only indirectly relates to actual learning outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141453117","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
How Learners’ Visuospatial Ability and Different Ways of Changing the Perspective Influence Learning About Movements in Desktop and Immersive Virtual Reality Environments 学习者的视觉空间能力和改变视角的不同方式如何影响桌面和沉浸式虚拟现实环境中的移动学习
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-22 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09895-w
Birgit Brucker, Georg Pardi, Fabienne Uehlin, Laura Moosmann, Martin Lachmair, Marc Halfmann, Peter Gerjets

Virtual reality (VR) applications are developing rapidly, becoming more and more affordable, and offer various advantages for learning contexts. Dynamic visualizations are generally suitable for depicting continuous processes (e.g., different movement patterns), and particularly dynamic virtual 3D-objects can provide different perspectives on the movements. The present study investigated through a low immersive (desktop “VR”, Study 1) and a high immersive virtual environment (immersive VR; Study 2) the effectiveness of different interaction formats to view 3D-objects from different perspectives. Participants controlled either the orientation of the 3D-objects (Study 1, mouse interaction; Study 2, hand interaction via VR controllers) or their viewpoint in relation to the 3D-objects (Study 1, camera position; Study 2, position of participants’ own body). Additionally, the moderating influence of learners’ visuospatial ability was addressed. Dependent variables were pictorial recognition (easy, medium, difficult), factual knowledge, presence, and motion sickness. Results showed that higher-visuospatial-ability learners outperformed lower-visuospatial-ability learners. In Study 1, higher-visuospatial-ability learners showed higher recognition performance (difficult items) by controlling the camera position, whereas lower-visuospatial-ability learners suffered from this interaction format. In Study 2, higher-visuospatial-ability learners achieved better recognition performance (easy items) by controlling the 3D-models, whereas lower-visuospatial-ability learners tended to profit from moving around the 3D-objects (medium items). The immersive VR yielded more presence and higher motion sickness. This study clearly shows that different interaction formats to view 3D-objects from multiple perspectives in Desktop-VR are not transferable on a one-to-one basis into immersive VR. The results and implications for the design of virtual learning environments are discussed.

虚拟现实(VR)应用发展迅速,价格越来越实惠,为学习环境提供了各种优势。动态可视化通常适用于描述连续的过程(如不同的运动模式),特别是动态虚拟三维物体可以为运动提供不同的视角。本研究通过低沉浸式(桌面 "VR",研究 1)和高沉浸式虚拟环境(沉浸式 VR,研究 2)调查了不同交互形式从不同角度观察三维物体的效果。参与者可以控制三维物体的方向(研究 1,鼠标交互;研究 2,通过 VR 控制器进行手部交互),或者控制自己相对于三维物体的视角(研究 1,摄像头位置;研究 2,参与者自己身体的位置)。此外,研究还探讨了学习者视觉空间能力的调节作用。自变量包括图像识别(易、中、难)、事实知识、临场感和晕动病。结果显示,视觉空间能力较高的学习者的表现优于视觉空间能力较低的学习者。在研究 1 中,视觉空间能力较高的学习者通过控制摄像机的位置表现出了较高的识别能力(困难项目),而视觉空间能力较低的学习者则在这种互动形式中受到了影响。在研究 2 中,视觉空间能力较高的学习者通过控制三维模型取得了更好的识别成绩(简单项目),而视觉空间能力较低的学习者则倾向于在三维物体周围移动(中等项目)。身临其境的 VR 带来了更多的临场感和更强烈的晕动症。这项研究清楚地表明,在桌面虚拟现实中从多角度观看三维物体的不同交互形式并不能一对一地移植到沉浸式虚拟现实中。本文讨论了研究结果及其对虚拟学习环境设计的影响。
{"title":"How Learners’ Visuospatial Ability and Different Ways of Changing the Perspective Influence Learning About Movements in Desktop and Immersive Virtual Reality Environments","authors":"Birgit Brucker, Georg Pardi, Fabienne Uehlin, Laura Moosmann, Martin Lachmair, Marc Halfmann, Peter Gerjets","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09895-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09895-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Virtual reality (VR) applications are developing rapidly, becoming more and more affordable, and offer various advantages for learning contexts. Dynamic visualizations are generally suitable for depicting continuous processes (e.g., different movement patterns), and particularly dynamic virtual 3D-objects can provide different perspectives on the movements. The present study investigated through a low immersive (desktop “VR”, Study 1) and a high immersive virtual environment (immersive VR; Study 2) the effectiveness of different interaction formats to view 3D-objects from different perspectives. Participants controlled either the orientation of the 3D-objects (Study 1, mouse interaction; Study 2, hand interaction via VR controllers) or their viewpoint in relation to the 3D-objects (Study 1, camera position; Study 2, position of participants’ own body). Additionally, the moderating influence of learners’ visuospatial ability was addressed. Dependent variables were pictorial recognition (easy, medium, difficult), factual knowledge, presence, and motion sickness. Results showed that higher-visuospatial-ability learners outperformed lower-visuospatial-ability learners. In Study 1, higher-visuospatial-ability learners showed higher recognition performance (difficult items) by controlling the camera position, whereas lower-visuospatial-ability learners suffered from this interaction format. In Study 2, higher-visuospatial-ability learners achieved better recognition performance (easy items) by controlling the 3D-models, whereas lower-visuospatial-ability learners tended to profit from moving around the 3D-objects (medium items). The immersive VR yielded more presence and higher motion sickness. This study clearly shows that different interaction formats to view 3D-objects from multiple perspectives in Desktop-VR are not transferable on a one-to-one basis into immersive VR. The results and implications for the design of virtual learning environments are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141439809","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
Why Do Learners (Under)Utilize Interleaving in Learning Confusable Categories? The Role of Metastrategic Knowledge and Utility Value of Distinguishing 为什么学习者在学习易混淆类别时(未充分)利用交错法?元策略知识的作用和区分的实用价值
IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-06-15 DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09902-0
Roman Abel, Anique de Bruin, Erdem Onan, Julian Roelle

Distinguishing easily confusable categories requires learners to detect their predictive differences. Interleaved sequences — switching between categories — help learners to detect such differences. Nonetheless, learners prefer to block — switching within a category — to detect commonalities. Across two 2 × 2-factorial experiments, we investigated why learners scarcely engage in interleaving when learning confusable categories. In Experiment 1 (N = 190), we investigated the role of the utility value of being able to distinguish confusable mushroom doubles on their spontaneous study sequence choices and of the conditional knowledge component that for distinguishing, the detection of differences (between the doubles) matters. In Experiment 2 (N = 134), we again investigated the role of the latter and additionally of the conditional knowledge component that interleaving highlights differences. Results showed that combining two factors — increasing the utility value of distinguishing and informing learners that for distinguishing, the detection of differences matters — fostered learners’ use of interleaving. In conclusion, learners are more aware that interleaving highlights differences than previously thought. Nonetheless, learners prefer blocking because they do not recognize the utility value of distinguishing, and they lack the conditional knowledge that distinguishing requires finding predictive differences. Their blocked study sequence choices reflect a deliberate investment of effort to find commonalities rather than just avoiding effort. To make learners shift their effort allocation from finding commonalities to finding differences and engage them in spontaneous interleaving, we recommend highlighting the utility value of distinguishing and informing learners about the importance of finding differences for distinguishing.

要区分容易混淆的类别,学习者就必须发现它们之间的预测性差异。交错序列--类别之间的切换--有助于学习者发现这些差异。然而,学习者更喜欢在一个类别内进行阻断--切换--来检测共性。在两个2 × 2因子实验中,我们研究了学习者在学习可混淆类别时很少进行交错的原因。在实验 1(N = 190)中,我们研究了能够区分可混淆的蘑菇双打对学习者自发选择学习顺序的效用价值的作用,以及条件知识成分的作用,即对于区分而言,(双打之间)差异的检测很重要。在实验 2(N = 134)中,我们再次调查了后者的作用,以及交错突出差异的条件知识部分的作用。结果表明,结合两个因素--提高区分的效用价值和告知学习者对于区分来说,发现差异很重要--促进了学习者对交错法的使用。总之,学习者比以前所认为的更能意识到交错能突出差异。尽管如此,学习者还是更倾向于分块学习,因为他们没有认识到区分的实用价值,也缺乏区分需要发现预测性差异的条件性知识。他们选择分块学习顺序反映了他们有意识地投入精力去寻找共同点,而不是一味地逃避努力。为了让学习者将精力分配从寻找共同点转移到寻找差异上,并让他们参与自发的交错学习,我们建议强调区分的效用价值,并告知学习者寻找差异对于区分的重要性。
{"title":"Why Do Learners (Under)Utilize Interleaving in Learning Confusable Categories? The Role of Metastrategic Knowledge and Utility Value of Distinguishing","authors":"Roman Abel, Anique de Bruin, Erdem Onan, Julian Roelle","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09902-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09902-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Distinguishing easily confusable categories requires learners to detect their predictive differences. Interleaved sequences — switching between categories — help learners to detect such differences. Nonetheless, learners prefer to block — switching within a category — to detect commonalities. Across two 2 × 2-factorial experiments, we investigated why learners scarcely engage in interleaving when learning confusable categories. In Experiment 1 (<i>N</i> = 190), we investigated the role of the utility value of being able to distinguish confusable mushroom doubles on their spontaneous study sequence choices and of the conditional knowledge component that for distinguishing, the detection of differences (between the doubles) matters. In Experiment 2 (<i>N</i> = 134), we again investigated the role of the latter and additionally of the conditional knowledge component that interleaving highlights differences. Results showed that combining two factors — increasing the utility value of distinguishing and informing learners that for distinguishing, the detection of differences matters — fostered learners’ use of interleaving. In conclusion, learners are more aware that interleaving highlights differences than previously thought. Nonetheless, learners prefer blocking because they do not recognize the utility value of distinguishing, and they lack the conditional knowledge that distinguishing requires finding predictive differences. Their blocked study sequence choices reflect a deliberate investment of effort to find commonalities rather than just avoiding effort. To make learners shift their effort allocation from finding commonalities to finding differences and engage them in spontaneous interleaving, we recommend highlighting the utility value of distinguishing and informing learners about the importance of finding differences for distinguishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"2014 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141326882","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
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
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