建设性检索:对学习、动机和元认知监控的益处

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Tino Endres , Shana Carpenter , Alexander Renkl
{"title":"建设性检索:对学习、动机和元认知监控的益处","authors":"Tino Endres ,&nbsp;Shana Carpenter ,&nbsp;Alexander Renkl","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>We tested whether combining constructive learning prompts with retrieval practice (constructive retrieval) positively affects delayed learning outcomes (factual knowledge, comprehension), metacognitive accuracy, and motivation.</p></div><div><h3>Sample &amp; methods</h3><p>Undergraduate students (<em>N</em> = 152) learned from a video-recorded lecture, and then engaged in follow-up learning activities involving retrieval practice, restudy, elaboration, or a combination of retrieval practice with elaboration. We ensured that initial retrieval success was high and that all groups had the same expectations about the nature of content to be tested. We assessed both factual knowledge and comprehension, as well as the respective indicators of metacognitive-monitoring accuracy (metamemory, metacomprehension). We assessed self-efficacy and situational interest as motivational variables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In a one-week-delayed posttest, elaboration improved factual knowledge and comprehension. This pattern held whether learners just elaborated or additionally engaged in retrieval practice. Having students self-generate their own examples during retrieval practice improved comprehension, but merely letting students retrieve experimenter-provided examples did not. Students' self-reported mental effort mediated the factual knowledge benefits of retrieval practice. The number of students’ self-generated elaborations mediated comprehension benefits. Students engaging in constructive retrieval while learning revealed the highest metacognitive-monitoring accuracy in factual knowledge and comprehension. We found no differences between conditions regarding situational interest and self-efficacy. Motivation to reuse the respective learning strategies was higher in all conditions compared to restudy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Constructive retrieval seems advantageous when considering its benefits on learning outcomes and metacognition. When working on retrieval tasks, students only profited from self-generated, but not from provided, examples with respect to comprehension.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"94 ","pages":"Article 101974"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001014/pdfft?md5=730437360ea757ae6c726ae229b285be&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224001014-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructive retrieval: Benefits for learning, motivation, and metacognitive monitoring\",\"authors\":\"Tino Endres ,&nbsp;Shana Carpenter ,&nbsp;Alexander Renkl\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>We tested whether combining constructive learning prompts with retrieval practice (constructive retrieval) positively affects delayed learning outcomes (factual knowledge, comprehension), metacognitive accuracy, and motivation.</p></div><div><h3>Sample &amp; methods</h3><p>Undergraduate students (<em>N</em> = 152) learned from a video-recorded lecture, and then engaged in follow-up learning activities involving retrieval practice, restudy, elaboration, or a combination of retrieval practice with elaboration. We ensured that initial retrieval success was high and that all groups had the same expectations about the nature of content to be tested. We assessed both factual knowledge and comprehension, as well as the respective indicators of metacognitive-monitoring accuracy (metamemory, metacomprehension). We assessed self-efficacy and situational interest as motivational variables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In a one-week-delayed posttest, elaboration improved factual knowledge and comprehension. This pattern held whether learners just elaborated or additionally engaged in retrieval practice. Having students self-generate their own examples during retrieval practice improved comprehension, but merely letting students retrieve experimenter-provided examples did not. Students' self-reported mental effort mediated the factual knowledge benefits of retrieval practice. The number of students’ self-generated elaborations mediated comprehension benefits. Students engaging in constructive retrieval while learning revealed the highest metacognitive-monitoring accuracy in factual knowledge and comprehension. We found no differences between conditions regarding situational interest and self-efficacy. Motivation to reuse the respective learning strategies was higher in all conditions compared to restudy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Constructive retrieval seems advantageous when considering its benefits on learning outcomes and metacognition. When working on retrieval tasks, students only profited from self-generated, but not from provided, examples with respect to comprehension.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101974\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001014/pdfft?md5=730437360ea757ae6c726ae229b285be&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224001014-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001014\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001014","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们测试了将建设性学习提示与检索练习(建设性检索)相结合是否会对延迟学习结果(事实知识、理解能力)、元认知准确性和学习动机产生积极影响。我们确保最初的检索成功率很高,而且所有小组对测试内容的性质都抱有相同的期望。我们评估了事实知识和理解能力,以及元认知监控准确性的相应指标(元记忆、元理解)。我们还评估了作为动机变量的自我效能感和情境兴趣。无论学习者只是进行了详细阐述还是额外进行了检索练习,这种模式都是成立的。在检索练习中,让学生自己生成例子可以提高理解能力,但仅仅让学生检索实验者提供的例子并不能提高理解能力。学生自我报告的脑力劳动对检索练习带来的事实知识益处起到了中介作用。学生自我阐述的数量对理解能力的提高有中介作用。在学习过程中进行建设性检索的学生在事实知识和理解方面的元认知监控准确性最高。在情境兴趣和自我效能感方面,我们没有发现不同条件下的差异。与重新学习相比,所有条件下重复使用相应学习策略的动机都更高。在完成检索任务时,学生只从自我生成的例子中获益,而不是从提供的例子中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constructive retrieval: Benefits for learning, motivation, and metacognitive monitoring

Aims

We tested whether combining constructive learning prompts with retrieval practice (constructive retrieval) positively affects delayed learning outcomes (factual knowledge, comprehension), metacognitive accuracy, and motivation.

Sample & methods

Undergraduate students (N = 152) learned from a video-recorded lecture, and then engaged in follow-up learning activities involving retrieval practice, restudy, elaboration, or a combination of retrieval practice with elaboration. We ensured that initial retrieval success was high and that all groups had the same expectations about the nature of content to be tested. We assessed both factual knowledge and comprehension, as well as the respective indicators of metacognitive-monitoring accuracy (metamemory, metacomprehension). We assessed self-efficacy and situational interest as motivational variables.

Results

In a one-week-delayed posttest, elaboration improved factual knowledge and comprehension. This pattern held whether learners just elaborated or additionally engaged in retrieval practice. Having students self-generate their own examples during retrieval practice improved comprehension, but merely letting students retrieve experimenter-provided examples did not. Students' self-reported mental effort mediated the factual knowledge benefits of retrieval practice. The number of students’ self-generated elaborations mediated comprehension benefits. Students engaging in constructive retrieval while learning revealed the highest metacognitive-monitoring accuracy in factual knowledge and comprehension. We found no differences between conditions regarding situational interest and self-efficacy. Motivation to reuse the respective learning strategies was higher in all conditions compared to restudy.

Conclusion

Constructive retrieval seems advantageous when considering its benefits on learning outcomes and metacognition. When working on retrieval tasks, students only profited from self-generated, but not from provided, examples with respect to comprehension.

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
11.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.
×
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