解释的悖论:当感到自己一无所知时,学习者就无法采用有效的学习策略。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Stav Atir, Jane L Risen
{"title":"解释的悖论:当感到自己一无所知时,学习者就无法采用有效的学习策略。","authors":"Stav Atir, Jane L Risen","doi":"10.1037/xge0001679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People often need to learn complex information as part of their daily lives. One of the most effective strategies for understanding information is to explain it, for instance to a hypothetical other (Pilots 1 and 2). Yet, we find that learners prefer equally effortful but less effective learning strategies, even when incentivized to perform well (Study 1). Critically, we propose and find that learners' reluctance to explain is tied to their subjective knowledge of the material; learners who feel less knowledgeable about what they learned are most reluctant to explain it, despite the strategy being as effective for them (Study 2). An intervention that increased subjective knowledge (by having learners answer a few easy questions) increased learners' choice to explain, which was mediated by learners believing that explaining would be more pleasant and effective (Study 3). Directly manipulating beliefs about how fun and effective explaining is also boosted learners' willingness to explain (Study 4). Finally, because Studies 1-4 incentivized performance financially, we replicated key results in the classroom with students, finding improved scores on a class quiz (Study 5). The paradoxical implication of these findings is that those who need effective learning strategies the most are the ones least likely to use them. Put together, we find that subjective knowledge plays a key role in learning decisions and that boosting subjective knowledge is a simple intervention that can improve learning-related choices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The paradox of explaining: When feeling unknowledgeable prevents learners from engaging in effective learning strategies.\",\"authors\":\"Stav Atir, Jane L Risen\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>People often need to learn complex information as part of their daily lives. One of the most effective strategies for understanding information is to explain it, for instance to a hypothetical other (Pilots 1 and 2). Yet, we find that learners prefer equally effortful but less effective learning strategies, even when incentivized to perform well (Study 1). Critically, we propose and find that learners' reluctance to explain is tied to their subjective knowledge of the material; learners who feel less knowledgeable about what they learned are most reluctant to explain it, despite the strategy being as effective for them (Study 2). An intervention that increased subjective knowledge (by having learners answer a few easy questions) increased learners' choice to explain, which was mediated by learners believing that explaining would be more pleasant and effective (Study 3). Directly manipulating beliefs about how fun and effective explaining is also boosted learners' willingness to explain (Study 4). Finally, because Studies 1-4 incentivized performance financially, we replicated key results in the classroom with students, finding improved scores on a class quiz (Study 5). The paradoxical implication of these findings is that those who need effective learning strategies the most are the ones least likely to use them. Put together, we find that subjective knowledge plays a key role in learning decisions and that boosting subjective knowledge is a simple intervention that can improve learning-related choices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001679\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001679","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

人们在日常生活中经常需要学习复杂的信息。理解信息的最有效策略之一是解释信息,例如向假设的其他人解释(试验 1 和 2)。然而,我们发现,学习者更喜欢同样费力但效果较差的学习策略,即使在激励下也是如此(研究 1)。重要的是,我们提出并发现,学习者不愿意解释与他们对材料的主观认识有关;尽管学习策略对他们同样有效,但对所学知识了解较少的学习者最不愿意解释(研究 2)。增加主观知识的干预措施(让学习者回答几个简单的问题)增加了学习者解释的选择,而学习者认为解释会更愉快、更有效,这就起到了中介作用(研究 3)。直接操纵关于解释是多么有趣和有效的信念也提高了学习者解释的意愿(研究 4)。最后,由于研究 1-4 在经济上激励了学生的表现,我们在课堂上与学生一起复制了主要结果,发现学生在课堂测验中的成绩有所提高(研究 5)。这些研究结果的矛盾之处在于,那些最需要有效学习策略的人却最不可能使用这些策略。综上所述,我们发现主观知识在学习决策中起着关键作用,而增强主观知识是一种简单的干预措施,可以改善与学习有关的选择。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The paradox of explaining: When feeling unknowledgeable prevents learners from engaging in effective learning strategies.

People often need to learn complex information as part of their daily lives. One of the most effective strategies for understanding information is to explain it, for instance to a hypothetical other (Pilots 1 and 2). Yet, we find that learners prefer equally effortful but less effective learning strategies, even when incentivized to perform well (Study 1). Critically, we propose and find that learners' reluctance to explain is tied to their subjective knowledge of the material; learners who feel less knowledgeable about what they learned are most reluctant to explain it, despite the strategy being as effective for them (Study 2). An intervention that increased subjective knowledge (by having learners answer a few easy questions) increased learners' choice to explain, which was mediated by learners believing that explaining would be more pleasant and effective (Study 3). Directly manipulating beliefs about how fun and effective explaining is also boosted learners' willingness to explain (Study 4). Finally, because Studies 1-4 incentivized performance financially, we replicated key results in the classroom with students, finding improved scores on a class quiz (Study 5). The paradoxical implication of these findings is that those who need effective learning strategies the most are the ones least likely to use them. Put together, we find that subjective knowledge plays a key role in learning decisions and that boosting subjective knowledge is a simple intervention that can improve learning-related choices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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