注意差距:不完整的解释如何影响孩子的兴趣和学习行为

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Judith H. Danovitch , Candice M. Mills , Kaitlin R. Sands , Allison J. Williams
{"title":"注意差距:不完整的解释如何影响孩子的兴趣和学习行为","authors":"Judith H. Danovitch ,&nbsp;Candice M. Mills ,&nbsp;Kaitlin R. Sands ,&nbsp;Allison J. Williams","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Children rely on others’ explanations to learn scientific concepts, yet sometimes the explanations they receive are incomplete. Three studies explore how receiving incomplete or complete explanations influences children’s subsequent interest and engagement in learning behaviors to obtain additional information about a topic. Children ages 7–10 (<em>N</em> = 275; 49% female, 51% male; 55% white) viewed question-and-answer exchanges about animal behaviors that included either a complete causal explanation of the behavior or an explanation that was missing a key step. Children rated how knowledgeable they felt after hearing the explanation (Study 1) or how much information was missing from the explanation (Studies 2 and 3) and reported how interested they were in learning more about the topic. They also completed two measures of learning behaviors: a book choice task (all studies) and a card choice task (Studies 1 and 2). In the book choice task, children opted to learn about the topics of the incomplete explanations more frequently than the topics of the complete explanations. However, there was no evidence of selective learning behaviors in the card choice task and children’s self-reported interest in learning more about each animal behavior was not directly related to the type of explanation they had received. Individual differences in children’s interest and learning behaviors were linked to verbal intelligence and domain-specific biological knowledge. Implications for the information-gap theory of learning and children’s learning in multiple contexts are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 101421"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mind the gap: How incomplete explanations influence children’s interest and learning behaviors\",\"authors\":\"Judith H. Danovitch ,&nbsp;Candice M. Mills ,&nbsp;Kaitlin R. Sands ,&nbsp;Allison J. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Children rely on others’ explanations to learn scientific concepts, yet sometimes the explanations they receive are incomplete. Three studies explore how receiving incomplete or complete explanations influences children’s subsequent interest and engagement in learning behaviors to obtain additional information about a topic. Children ages 7–10 (<em>N</em> = 275; 49% female, 51% male; 55% white) viewed question-and-answer exchanges about animal behaviors that included either a complete causal explanation of the behavior or an explanation that was missing a key step. Children rated how knowledgeable they felt after hearing the explanation (Study 1) or how much information was missing from the explanation (Studies 2 and 3) and reported how interested they were in learning more about the topic. They also completed two measures of learning behaviors: a book choice task (all studies) and a card choice task (Studies 1 and 2). In the book choice task, children opted to learn about the topics of the incomplete explanations more frequently than the topics of the complete explanations. However, there was no evidence of selective learning behaviors in the card choice task and children’s self-reported interest in learning more about each animal behavior was not directly related to the type of explanation they had received. Individual differences in children’s interest and learning behaviors were linked to verbal intelligence and domain-specific biological knowledge. Implications for the information-gap theory of learning and children’s learning in multiple contexts are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"130 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101421\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002852100044X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002852100044X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

孩子们依靠别人的解释来学习科学概念,但有时他们得到的解释是不完整的。三项研究探讨了接受不完整或完整的解释如何影响儿童随后对学习行为的兴趣和参与,以获得有关主题的额外信息。7-10岁儿童(N = 275;女性49%,男性51%;55%白人)观看了关于动物行为的问答交流,其中包括对行为的完整因果解释或缺少关键步骤的解释。孩子们在听到解释(研究1)或解释中缺少多少信息(研究2和3)后对自己的知识程度进行了评分,并报告了他们对更多地了解该主题的兴趣程度。他们还完成了两项学习行为测试:选书任务(所有研究)和选卡任务(研究1和2)。在选书任务中,孩子们选择学习不完整解释的主题比学习完整解释的主题更频繁。然而,在卡片选择任务中没有选择性学习行为的证据,儿童自我报告的对学习每种动物行为的兴趣与他们收到的解释类型没有直接关系。儿童兴趣和学习行为的个体差异与语言智力和特定领域的生物知识有关。讨论了信息缺口学习理论和儿童多情境学习的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mind the gap: How incomplete explanations influence children’s interest and learning behaviors

Children rely on others’ explanations to learn scientific concepts, yet sometimes the explanations they receive are incomplete. Three studies explore how receiving incomplete or complete explanations influences children’s subsequent interest and engagement in learning behaviors to obtain additional information about a topic. Children ages 7–10 (N = 275; 49% female, 51% male; 55% white) viewed question-and-answer exchanges about animal behaviors that included either a complete causal explanation of the behavior or an explanation that was missing a key step. Children rated how knowledgeable they felt after hearing the explanation (Study 1) or how much information was missing from the explanation (Studies 2 and 3) and reported how interested they were in learning more about the topic. They also completed two measures of learning behaviors: a book choice task (all studies) and a card choice task (Studies 1 and 2). In the book choice task, children opted to learn about the topics of the incomplete explanations more frequently than the topics of the complete explanations. However, there was no evidence of selective learning behaviors in the card choice task and children’s self-reported interest in learning more about each animal behavior was not directly related to the type of explanation they had received. Individual differences in children’s interest and learning behaviors were linked to verbal intelligence and domain-specific biological knowledge. Implications for the information-gap theory of learning and children’s learning in multiple contexts are discussed.

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 Psychology
Cognitive Psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive Psychology is concerned with advances in the study of attention, memory, language processing, perception, problem solving, and thinking. Cognitive Psychology specializes in extensive articles that have a major impact on cognitive theory and provide new theoretical advances. Research Areas include: • Artificial intelligence • Developmental psychology • Linguistics • Neurophysiology • Social psychology.
×
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