不假思索的教学:对照本宣科教学法的负面评价。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Ilona Bass, Cristian Espinoza, Elizabeth Bonawitz, Tomer D. Ullman
{"title":"不假思索的教学:对照本宣科教学法的负面评价。","authors":"Ilona Bass,&nbsp;Cristian Espinoza,&nbsp;Elizabeth Bonawitz,&nbsp;Tomer D. Ullman","doi":"10.1111/cogs.13470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When people make decisions, they act in a way that is either automatic (“rote”), or more thoughtful (“reflective”). But do people notice when <i>others</i> are behaving in a rote way, and do they care? We examine the detection of rote behavior and its consequences in U.S. adults, focusing specifically on pedagogy and learning. We establish <i>repetitiveness</i> as a cue for rote behavior (Experiment 1), and find that rote people are seen as worse teachers (Experiment 2). We also find that the more a person's feedback seems similar across groups (indicating greater rote-ness), the more negatively their teaching is evaluated (Experiment 3). A word-embedding analysis of an open-response task shows people naturally cluster rote and reflective teachers into different semantic categories (Experiment 4). We also show that repetitiveness can be decoupled from perceptions of rote-ness given contextual explanation (Experiment 5). Finally, we establish two additional cues to rote behavior that can be tied to quality of teaching (Experiment 6). These results empirically show that people detect and care about scripted behaviors in pedagogy, and suggest an important extension to formal frameworks of social reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teaching Without Thinking: Negative Evaluations of Rote Pedagogy\",\"authors\":\"Ilona Bass,&nbsp;Cristian Espinoza,&nbsp;Elizabeth Bonawitz,&nbsp;Tomer D. Ullman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.13470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>When people make decisions, they act in a way that is either automatic (“rote”), or more thoughtful (“reflective”). But do people notice when <i>others</i> are behaving in a rote way, and do they care? We examine the detection of rote behavior and its consequences in U.S. adults, focusing specifically on pedagogy and learning. We establish <i>repetitiveness</i> as a cue for rote behavior (Experiment 1), and find that rote people are seen as worse teachers (Experiment 2). We also find that the more a person's feedback seems similar across groups (indicating greater rote-ness), the more negatively their teaching is evaluated (Experiment 3). A word-embedding analysis of an open-response task shows people naturally cluster rote and reflective teachers into different semantic categories (Experiment 4). We also show that repetitiveness can be decoupled from perceptions of rote-ness given contextual explanation (Experiment 5). Finally, we establish two additional cues to rote behavior that can be tied to quality of teaching (Experiment 6). These results empirically show that people detect and care about scripted behaviors in pedagogy, and suggest an important extension to formal frameworks of social reasoning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13470\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13470","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当人们做出决定时,他们的行为要么是自动的("生搬硬套"),要么是经过深思熟虑的("深思熟虑")。但是,人们是否会注意到他人的生搬硬套行为,他们又是否会在意呢?我们研究了美国成年人对死记硬背行为的察觉及其后果,尤其侧重于教学法和学习。我们将重复性作为死记硬背行为的线索(实验 1),并发现死记硬背的人被视为较差的教师(实验 2)。我们还发现,一个人在不同群体中的反馈越是相似(表明他越是死记硬背),他的教学就越会受到负面评价(实验 3)。对开放式回答任务的词嵌入分析表明,人们会自然地将死记硬背型教师和反思型教师归为不同的语义类别(实验 4)。我们还表明,在语境解释的情况下,重复性可以与对死记硬背的感知脱钩(实验 5)。最后,我们还建立了两个可与教学质量挂钩的死记硬背行为线索(实验 6)。这些结果从经验上表明,人们会发现并关注教学中的照本宣科行为,并为社会推理的正式框架提供了重要的延伸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teaching Without Thinking: Negative Evaluations of Rote Pedagogy

When people make decisions, they act in a way that is either automatic (“rote”), or more thoughtful (“reflective”). But do people notice when others are behaving in a rote way, and do they care? We examine the detection of rote behavior and its consequences in U.S. adults, focusing specifically on pedagogy and learning. We establish repetitiveness as a cue for rote behavior (Experiment 1), and find that rote people are seen as worse teachers (Experiment 2). We also find that the more a person's feedback seems similar across groups (indicating greater rote-ness), the more negatively their teaching is evaluated (Experiment 3). A word-embedding analysis of an open-response task shows people naturally cluster rote and reflective teachers into different semantic categories (Experiment 4). We also show that repetitiveness can be decoupled from perceptions of rote-ness given contextual explanation (Experiment 5). Finally, we establish two additional cues to rote behavior that can be tied to quality of teaching (Experiment 6). These results empirically show that people detect and care about scripted behaviors in pedagogy, and suggest an important extension to formal frameworks of social reasoning.

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
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
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