测试自拟问题与实验者提供问题的效果。

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-17 DOI:10.1037/xap0000487
Sarah J Myers, Hannah Hausman, Matthew G Rhodes
{"title":"测试自拟问题与实验者提供问题的效果。","authors":"Sarah J Myers, Hannah Hausman, Matthew G Rhodes","doi":"10.1037/xap0000487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the finding that retrieval practice improves memory, it is frequently suggested that students test themselves while studying. This study examined whether participants benefit from testing if they create and use their own test questions. In Experiment 1, participants read passages, generated questions about the passages, and then either answered their questions as they created them (the procedure used in previous studies) or after a delay. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants either generated questions and answered them after a delay (i.e., self-testing), answered experimenter-provided questions, or reread the passages before taking a final test administered shortly after learning or following a 2-day delay. The experiments found no benefits of answering one's own questions after a delay. In fact, those who self-tested tended to have worse performance on a final assessment of learning than the other learning conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested that participants' questions often did not target material that was on the later criterion test, which may explain why self-testing was not beneficial. The present study suggests that testing may not benefit learning if students create their own test questions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":" ","pages":"241-257"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing effects for self-generated versus experimenter-provided questions.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah J Myers, Hannah Hausman, Matthew G Rhodes\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xap0000487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Given the finding that retrieval practice improves memory, it is frequently suggested that students test themselves while studying. This study examined whether participants benefit from testing if they create and use their own test questions. In Experiment 1, participants read passages, generated questions about the passages, and then either answered their questions as they created them (the procedure used in previous studies) or after a delay. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants either generated questions and answered them after a delay (i.e., self-testing), answered experimenter-provided questions, or reread the passages before taking a final test administered shortly after learning or following a 2-day delay. The experiments found no benefits of answering one's own questions after a delay. In fact, those who self-tested tended to have worse performance on a final assessment of learning than the other learning conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested that participants' questions often did not target material that was on the later criterion test, which may explain why self-testing was not beneficial. The present study suggests that testing may not benefit learning if students create their own test questions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"241-257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000487\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000487","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于检索练习能提高记忆力,人们经常建议学生在学习时进行自我测试。本研究考察了如果参与者自己创建并使用测试问题,他们是否能从测试中获益。在实验 1 中,参与者阅读段落,就段落提出问题,然后在提出问题的同时回答问题(这是以往研究中使用的程序),或者在延迟后回答问题。在实验 2 和 3 中,受试者或者提出问题并在延迟后回答问题(即自我测试),或者回答实验者提供的问题,或者在学习后不久或延迟两天后进行最终测试前重读段落。实验发现,延迟后自己回答问题没有任何益处。事实上,与其他学习条件相比,自我测试者在最终学习评估中的成绩往往更差。探索性分析表明,参与者的问题往往不是针对后来的标准测试中的材料,这也许可以解释为什么自我测试没有益处。本研究表明,如果学生自己出题,测试可能对学习无益。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Testing effects for self-generated versus experimenter-provided questions.

Given the finding that retrieval practice improves memory, it is frequently suggested that students test themselves while studying. This study examined whether participants benefit from testing if they create and use their own test questions. In Experiment 1, participants read passages, generated questions about the passages, and then either answered their questions as they created them (the procedure used in previous studies) or after a delay. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants either generated questions and answered them after a delay (i.e., self-testing), answered experimenter-provided questions, or reread the passages before taking a final test administered shortly after learning or following a 2-day delay. The experiments found no benefits of answering one's own questions after a delay. In fact, those who self-tested tended to have worse performance on a final assessment of learning than the other learning conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested that participants' questions often did not target material that was on the later criterion test, which may explain why self-testing was not beneficial. The present study suggests that testing may not benefit learning if students create their own test questions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1