用有效的学习技巧提高学生的学习:认知与教育心理学的发展方向。

John Dunlosky, Katherine A Rawson, Elizabeth J Marsh, Mitchell J Nathan, Daniel T Willingham
{"title":"用有效的学习技巧提高学生的学习:认知与教育心理学的发展方向。","authors":"John Dunlosky,&nbsp;Katherine A Rawson,&nbsp;Elizabeth J Marsh,&nbsp;Mitchell J Nathan,&nbsp;Daniel T Willingham","doi":"10.1177/1529100612453266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique?  2a. Learning conditions  2b. Student characteristics  2c. Materials  2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students' performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique. Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students' performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading). Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research. </p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"14 1","pages":"4-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612453266","citationCount":"177","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.\",\"authors\":\"John Dunlosky,&nbsp;Katherine A Rawson,&nbsp;Elizabeth J Marsh,&nbsp;Mitchell J Nathan,&nbsp;Daniel T Willingham\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1529100612453266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique?  2a. Learning conditions  2b. Student characteristics  2c. Materials  2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students' performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique. Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students' performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading). Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"4-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612453266\",\"citationCount\":\"177\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 177

摘要

许多学生被一些人认为处于危机中的教育体系抛在了后面。提高教育成果需要多方面的努力,但本专著的一个中心前提是,解决方案的一部分包括帮助学生通过使用有效的学习技巧来更好地管理他们的学习。幸运的是,认知和教育心理学家一直在开发和评估易于使用的学习技巧,这些技巧可以帮助学生实现学习目标。在这本专著中,我们详细讨论了10种学习技术,并就它们的相对效用提出了建议。我们选择了相对容易使用的技术,因此可以被许多学生采用。此外,选择一些技巧(例如,突出显示和重读)是因为学生报告严重依赖它们,这使得检查它们的效果变得尤为重要。这些技巧包括精细化的询问、自我解释、总结、高亮(或下划线)、关键词助记、文本学习中的图像使用、重读、练习测试、分布式练习和交错练习。为了提供有关这些技术的相对效用的建议,我们评估了它们的好处是否可以概括为四类变量:学习条件、学生特征、材料和标准任务。学习条件包括实施该技术的学习环境的各个方面,例如学生是单独学习还是与小组一起学习。学生的特征包括年龄、能力和先验知识水平等变量。材料从简单的概念到数学问题再到复杂的科学文本都有。标准任务包括与学生成绩相关的不同结果测量,例如挖掘记忆、解决问题和理解能力。我们试图为每一种技术提供全面的回顾,所以这本专著相当长。然而,我们也以模块化的方式编写了专论,因此它很容易使用。特别地,每篇综述分为以下几个部分:该技术的一般描述及其工作原理该技术的效果有多普遍?2 a。学习条件学生特点材料2 d。标准任务在代表性教育环境中的影响实施的问题总体评估每种技术的评论都可以独立于其他技术阅读,并且可以很容易地比较不同技术之间的特定变量。为了预示我们最后的建议,这些技术在其通用性和改善学生学习的承诺方面差异很大。实践测试和分布式实践获得了很高的效用评估,因为它们有益于不同年龄和能力的学习者,并且已被证明可以提高学生在许多标准任务甚至教育环境中的表现。详细的询问、自我解释和交叉练习获得中等效用评估。这些技术的好处确实跨越了一些变量,然而,尽管它们有希望,但由于其有效性的证据有限,它们缺乏高效用评估。例如,在教育背景下,详细的审讯和自我解释还没有得到充分的评估,交错的好处才刚刚开始被系统地探索,所以这些技术的最终效果目前是未知的。尽管如此,获得中等效用评级的技术显示出足够的前景,我们可以在适当的情况下推荐它们的使用,我们将在对每种技术的回顾中详细描述。总结、高亮、关键词助记、文本学习中使用图像和重读这五种技巧的效用评估较低。由于许多原因,这些技术被评为低效用。摘要和图像在文本学习中的使用已经被证明可以帮助一些学生完成一些标准任务,但是这些技术产生效益的条件是有限的,仍然需要大量的研究来充分探索它们的整体有效性。关键字助记在某些情况下很难实现,它似乎有利于学生有限数量的材料和较短的记忆间隔。大多数学生报告说重读和强调,然而这些技巧并不能持续提高学生的表现,所以应该使用其他技巧来代替它们(例如,练习测试而不是重读)。我们希望这本专著能够促进学生学习的进步,不仅通过展示哪些学习技术可能具有最普遍的效果,而且通过鼓励研究人员继续研究最有前途的技术。 因此,在我们的结束语中,我们讨论了教师和学生如何实施这些技术的一些问题,并指出了未来的研究方向。
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
Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.

Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique?  2a. Learning conditions  2b. Student characteristics  2c. Materials  2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students' performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique. Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students' performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading). Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research.

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
68.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI) is a unique journal featuring comprehensive and compelling reviews of issues that are of direct relevance to the general public. These reviews are written by blue ribbon teams of specialists representing a range of viewpoints, and are intended to assess the current state-of-the-science with regard to the topic. Among other things, PSPI reports have challenged the validity of the Rorschach and other projective tests; have explored how to keep the aging brain sharp; and have documented problems with the current state of clinical psychology. PSPI reports are regularly featured in Scientific American Mind and are typically covered in a variety of other major media outlets.
期刊最新文献
About the Authors. Addiction: Where Framing Can Be a Matter of Life and Death: Response to Flusberg et al. (2024). How Frames Can Promote Agency: Response to Flusberg et al. (2024). The Psychology of Framing: How Everyday Language Shapes the Way We Think, Feel, and Act. About the Authors.
×
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