Modality Matters: Evidence for the Benefits of Speech-Based Adaptive Retrieval Practice in Learners with Dyslexia.

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Thomas Wilschut, Florian Sense, Hedderik van Rijn
{"title":"Modality Matters: Evidence for the Benefits of Speech-Based Adaptive Retrieval Practice in Learners with Dyslexia.","authors":"Thomas Wilschut, Florian Sense, Hedderik van Rijn","doi":"10.1111/tops.12769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Retrieval practice-the process of actively calling information to mind rather than passively studying materials-has been proven to be a highly effective learning strategy. However, only recently, researchers have started to examine differences between learners in terms of the optimal conditions of retrieval practice in applied educational settings. In this study (N = 118), we focus on learners with dyslexia. We compare their performance to the performance of typical learners in an adaptive retrieval practice task using both typing-based and speech-based response conditions. We find that typical learners outperform learners with dyslexia when they are asked to respond by typing, but that this difference disappears when learners respond by speech. Using a mathematical model to decompose response times, we demonstrate that this typing-specific disadvantage in learners with dyslexia is mainly a consequence of processing delays, rather than poorer memory performance. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying declarative learning in dyslexia, and they can be used to tailor educational technology toward the needs of neurodiverse learners.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12769","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Retrieval practice-the process of actively calling information to mind rather than passively studying materials-has been proven to be a highly effective learning strategy. However, only recently, researchers have started to examine differences between learners in terms of the optimal conditions of retrieval practice in applied educational settings. In this study (N = 118), we focus on learners with dyslexia. We compare their performance to the performance of typical learners in an adaptive retrieval practice task using both typing-based and speech-based response conditions. We find that typical learners outperform learners with dyslexia when they are asked to respond by typing, but that this difference disappears when learners respond by speech. Using a mathematical model to decompose response times, we demonstrate that this typing-specific disadvantage in learners with dyslexia is mainly a consequence of processing delays, rather than poorer memory performance. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying declarative learning in dyslexia, and they can be used to tailor educational technology toward the needs of neurodiverse learners.

方式很重要:基于语音的适应性检索练习对阅读障碍学习者的益处证据。
事实证明,检索练习--主动将信息唤起而不是被动地学习材料的过程--是一种非常有效的学习策略。然而,直到最近,研究人员才开始研究在应用教育环境中,不同学习者在检索练习的最佳条件方面存在的差异。在本研究(N = 118)中,我们重点关注有阅读障碍的学习者。我们将他们的表现与典型学习者在适应性检索练习任务中的表现进行了比较,该任务同时使用了基于打字和基于语音的应答条件。我们发现,当要求有阅读障碍的学习者打字回答时,典型学习者的表现优于有阅读障碍的学习者,但当学习者用语音回答时,这种差异就消失了。我们利用数学模型分解反应时间,证明阅读障碍学习者在打字方面的劣势主要是处理延迟造成的,而不是较差的记忆表现。这些发现有助于更好地理解阅读障碍患者的陈述性学习机制,并可用于调整教育技术,以满足神经多样性学习者的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信