自我调节学习中的议程调节与习惯性反应:独立加工抑或并行加工
ABR and Habitual Responding in the Self-Regulated Learning: Process Exclusively or Parallelly

作者: 付春林 * , 李伟健 :浙江师范大学心理研究所;

关键词: 自我调节学习议程调节习惯性反应Self-Regulated Learning ABR Habitual Responding

摘要: 自我调节学习是学习者为了实现目标主动运用学习策略,并对学习行为进行自我监测、自我调整的过程。它是一种终身学习技能,该技能的研究能使个体有效地控制学习活动,提高学习效率。自我调节学习的加工机制存在争议。近年来,研究者提出自我调节学习受议程调节(指学习计划)或习惯性反应的影响。议程调节或习惯性反应的激活受分值、难度、时间限制等情景因素制约。后来的研究提出自我调节学习同时受到议程调节和习惯性反应的影响。未来的研究应在生态化情景下,继续验证、完善自我调节学习中的议程调节和习惯性反应及其交互作用。
In the process of self-regulated learning, learners are initiative to use strategies, self-monitoring and self-adjustment. Self-regulated learning is a lifelong learning skill. Study on the skill makes the people effectively to regulate learning and improve one’s learning efficiency. But the processing mechanism of self- regulated learning is controversial. In recent years, researchers propose that the self-regulation learning is influenced by agenda-based regulation (ABR) or habitual responding activated by value, difficulty, time con- straints and other factors. Later researchers put forward that self-regulated learning is influenced by ABR and habitual responding at the same time. In the future, researchers should continue to validate and improve the self-regulation learning of habitual responding and ABR.

文章引用: 付春林 , 李伟健 (2013) 自我调节学习中的议程调节与习惯性反应:独立加工抑或并行加工。 心理学进展, 3, 215-220. doi: 10.12677/AP.2013.35033

参考文献

[1] 方平(2003). 初中生自我调节学习发展特征及相关因素的研究. 北京: 首都师范大学.

[2] Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based moni- toring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 432- 447.

[3] Ariel, R., Al-Harthy, I., Was, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1015-1021.

[4] Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition, 41, 416-428.

[5] Bargh, J. A. (2007). Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes. New York: Psychology Press.

[6] Barrett, L., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differ- ences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553-573.

[7] Castel, A. D. (2007). The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: Evaluative processing and value-directed remembering. In A. S. Benjamin, & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Skill and strategy in memory use (Vol. 48, pp. 225-270). London: Academic Press.

[8] Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

[9] De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428-433.

[10] Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 56, 5-18.

[11] Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allo- cation of study time: Differential and sufficient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 274-296.

[12] Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011). The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study. Journal of Expe- rimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 899- 912.

[13] Dunlosky, J., & Connor, L. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 25, 691-700.

[14] Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249-275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

[15] Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32, 779-788.

[16] Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of rea- soning. Trends in Cog-nitive Sciences, 7, 454-459.

[17] Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[18] Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1988). A cognitive model of planning. In A. M. Collins, & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 496-513). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

[19] Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2001).Individual differences in executive attention and the stroop. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.

[20] Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate rela-tionships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36-69.

[21] Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 609-622.

[22] Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 20, 1309-1312.

[23] Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3-19.

[24] Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 463-477.

[25] Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Di-rections in Psychological Science, 18, 159-163.

[26] Murphy, J., Hofacker, C., & Mizerski, R. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com- munication, 11, 522-535.

[27] Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676-686.

[28] Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe, & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[29] Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elabora-tion-likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.

[30] Shaki, S., Fischer, M., & Petrusic, W. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 328-331.

[31] Sobel, K. V., Gerrie, M. P., Poole, B. J., & Kane, M. J. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: The roles of top-down and bottom-up processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 840-845.

[32] Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204-221.

[33] Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2006). Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, 30, 759-774.

[34] Souchay, C., & Isingrini, M. (2004). Age related differences in meta- cognitive control: Role of executive functioning. Brain and Cogni- tion, 56, 89-99.

[35] Teasdale, J. D. (1999). Metacognition, mindfulness and the modifica- tion of mood disorders. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 6, 146-155.

[36] Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024-1037.

[37] Van Reekum, C. M., & Scherer, K. R. (1997). Levels of processing for emotion-antecedent appraisal. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 259-300). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[38] Waldron, S. M., Patrick, J., & Duggan, G. B. (2011). The influence of goal-state access cost on planning during problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 485-503.

[39] Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the REVERSE SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 5, 165- 190.

分享
Top