选择退出是教学设计中尚未开发的资源:回顾与启示

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Yael Sidi, Rakefet Ackerman
{"title":"选择退出是教学设计中尚未开发的资源:回顾与启示","authors":"Yael Sidi, Rakefet Ackerman","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09879-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When faced with challenging thinking tasks accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, people often prefer to opt out (e.g., replying “I don’t know”, seeking advice) over giving low-confidence responses. In professions with high-stakes decisions (e.g., judges, medical practitioners), opting out is generally seen as preferable to making unreliable decisions. Contrarily, in educational settings, despite being designed to prepare students for real-life challenges, opting out is often viewed as an indication of low motivation or an avoidance of challenges. Presenting a complementary perspective, metacognitive research dealing with knowledge management and problem-solving shows substantial empirical evidence that both adults and children can use opt-out options to enhance the quality of their responses. Moreover, there are initial signs that strategic opting out can increase the efficiency of self-regulated effort. These opportunities to improve self-regulated learning have yet to be exploited in instructional design. Research guided by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), which focuses on effort allocation in the face of cognitive challenges, has largely ignored the benefits of opting out as a strategy for improving effort allocation. The present review summarizes advantages and pitfalls within the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, we propose new avenues of inquiry for examining the impact of incorporating explicit opt-out options in instructional design to support knowledge and skill acquisition. As a novel avenue, we urge educators to develop effective opting-out skills in students to prepare them for real-life challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opting Out as an Untapped Resource in Instructional Design: Review and Implications\",\"authors\":\"Yael Sidi, Rakefet Ackerman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09879-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>When faced with challenging thinking tasks accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, people often prefer to opt out (e.g., replying “I don’t know”, seeking advice) over giving low-confidence responses. In professions with high-stakes decisions (e.g., judges, medical practitioners), opting out is generally seen as preferable to making unreliable decisions. Contrarily, in educational settings, despite being designed to prepare students for real-life challenges, opting out is often viewed as an indication of low motivation or an avoidance of challenges. Presenting a complementary perspective, metacognitive research dealing with knowledge management and problem-solving shows substantial empirical evidence that both adults and children can use opt-out options to enhance the quality of their responses. Moreover, there are initial signs that strategic opting out can increase the efficiency of self-regulated effort. These opportunities to improve self-regulated learning have yet to be exploited in instructional design. Research guided by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), which focuses on effort allocation in the face of cognitive challenges, has largely ignored the benefits of opting out as a strategy for improving effort allocation. The present review summarizes advantages and pitfalls within the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, we propose new avenues of inquiry for examining the impact of incorporating explicit opt-out options in instructional design to support knowledge and skill acquisition. As a novel avenue, we urge educators to develop effective opting-out skills in students to prepare them for real-life challenges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09879-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09879-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在面对具有挑战性的思考任务并伴有不确定感时,人们往往宁愿选择放弃(如回答 "我不知道"、寻求建议),也不愿做出信心不足的回答。在需要做出高风险决定的职业中(如法官、医生),人们通常认为选择放弃比做出不可靠的决定更可取。相反,在教育环境中,尽管教育的目的是让学生为应对现实生活中的挑战做好准备,但选择退出往往被视为动力不足或逃避挑战的表现。关于知识管理和问题解决的元认知研究提出了一个互补的视角,该研究显示,大量经验证据表明,成人和儿童都可以利用退出选项来提高他们的反应质量。此外,有初步迹象表明,策略性退出可以提高自我调节努力的效率。这些改善自我调节学习的机会还有待于在教学设计中加以利用。以认知负荷理论(CLT)为指导的研究侧重于面对认知挑战时的努力分配,在很大程度上忽视了选择退出作为改善努力分配策略的好处。本综述总结了当前知识水平下的优势和缺陷。此外,我们还提出了新的探究途径,以研究在教学设计中加入明确的 "退出 "选项对知识和技能学习的影响。作为一种新的途径,我们敦促教育工作者培养学生有效的退出技能,为他们应对现实生活中的挑战做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Opting Out as an Untapped Resource in Instructional Design: Review and Implications

When faced with challenging thinking tasks accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, people often prefer to opt out (e.g., replying “I don’t know”, seeking advice) over giving low-confidence responses. In professions with high-stakes decisions (e.g., judges, medical practitioners), opting out is generally seen as preferable to making unreliable decisions. Contrarily, in educational settings, despite being designed to prepare students for real-life challenges, opting out is often viewed as an indication of low motivation or an avoidance of challenges. Presenting a complementary perspective, metacognitive research dealing with knowledge management and problem-solving shows substantial empirical evidence that both adults and children can use opt-out options to enhance the quality of their responses. Moreover, there are initial signs that strategic opting out can increase the efficiency of self-regulated effort. These opportunities to improve self-regulated learning have yet to be exploited in instructional design. Research guided by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), which focuses on effort allocation in the face of cognitive challenges, has largely ignored the benefits of opting out as a strategy for improving effort allocation. The present review summarizes advantages and pitfalls within the current state of knowledge. Furthermore, we propose new avenues of inquiry for examining the impact of incorporating explicit opt-out options in instructional design to support knowledge and skill acquisition. As a novel avenue, we urge educators to develop effective opting-out skills in students to prepare them for real-life challenges.

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
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
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