Suppr超能文献

经验导致编码策略的适应性和定性变化:来自测验预期范式的证据。

Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 May;38(3):632-52. doi: 10.1037/a0026215. Epub 2011 Nov 21.

Abstract

Three experiments demonstrated learners' abilities to adaptively and qualitatively accommodate their encoding strategies to the demands of an upcoming test. Stimuli were word pairs. In Experiment 1, test expectancy was induced for either cued recall (of targets given cues) or free recall (of targets only) across 4 study-test cycles of the same test format, followed by a final critical cycle featuring either the expected or the unexpected test format. For final tests of both cued and free recall, participants who had expected that test format outperformed those who had not. This disordinal interaction, supported by recognition and self-report data, demonstrated not mere differences in effort based on anticipated test difficulty, but rather qualitative and appropriate differences in encoding strategies based on expected task demands. Participants also came to appropriately modulate metacognitive monitoring (Experiment 2) and study-time allocation (Experiment 3) across study-test cycles. Item and associative recognition performance, as well as self-report data, revealed shifts in encoding strategies across trials; these results were used to characterize and evaluate the different strategies that participants employed for cued versus free recall and to assess the optimality of participants' metacognitive control of encoding strategies. Taken together, these data illustrate a sophisticated form of metacognitive control, in which learners qualitatively shift encoding strategies to match the demands of anticipated tests.

摘要

三项实验证明了学习者能够自适应地将其编码策略从质量上适应即将到来的测试的要求。刺激是单词对。在实验 1 中,在相同测试格式的 4 个学习-测试循环中,对提示回忆(提示给出的目标)或自由回忆(仅目标)分别产生测试预期,然后是最后一个关键循环,具有预期或意外的测试格式。对于提示和自由回忆的最终测试,预期测试格式的参与者表现优于那些没有预期测试格式的参与者。这种无序交互,由识别和自我报告数据支持,表明不仅仅是基于预期测试难度的努力差异,而是基于预期任务要求的编码策略的定性和适当差异。参与者还在学习-测试循环中适当调整元认知监测(实验 2)和学习时间分配(实验 3)。项目和联想识别表现以及自我报告数据揭示了整个试验中编码策略的转变;这些结果用于描述和评估参与者在提示回忆和自由回忆中使用的不同策略,并评估参与者对编码策略的元认知控制的最优性。总之,这些数据说明了一种复杂形式的元认知控制,学习者可以从质量上改变编码策略以适应预期测试的要求。

相似文献

1
Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 May;38(3):632-52. doi: 10.1037/a0026215. Epub 2011 Nov 21.
2
Are test-expectancy effects better explained by changes in encoding strategies or differential test experience?
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Feb;47(2):195-207. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000949. Epub 2020 Sep 17.
3
The roles of encoding strategies and retrieval practice in test-expectancy effects.
Memory. 2017 May;25(5):626-635. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1202983. Epub 2016 Jun 27.
4
Judgments of learning reflect encoding fluency: conclusive evidence for the ease-of-processing hypothesis.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Sep;37(5):1264-9. doi: 10.1037/a0023719.
5
Why is test-restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 May;38(3):737-46. doi: 10.1037/a0026166. Epub 2011 Nov 7.
6
When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Jul;37(4):801-12. doi: 10.1037/a0023219.
7
Memory asymmetry of forward and backward associations in recognition tasks.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jan;39(1):253-69. doi: 10.1037/a0028875. Epub 2012 Aug 27.
8
Continuous recollection versus unitized familiarity in associative recognition.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jul;36(4):843-63. doi: 10.1037/a0019755.
9
The influence of recollection and familiarity in the formation and updating of associative representations.
Learn Mem. 2017 Jun 15;24(7):298-309. doi: 10.1101/lm.045005.117. Print 2017 Jul.
10
Cognitive load hypothesis of item-method directed forgetting.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(6):1110-22. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.644303. Epub 2012 Feb 28.

引用本文的文献

4
Examining the effect of expected test format and test difficulty on the frequency and mnemonic costs of mind wandering.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024 May;77(5):1068-1092. doi: 10.1177/17470218231187892. Epub 2023 Jul 21.
5
That person is now with or without a mask: how encoding context modulates identity recognition.
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022 Apr 1;7(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s41235-022-00379-5.
6
The retention benefits of cumulative versus non-cumulative midterms in introductory biology may depend on students' reasoning skills.
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250143. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250143. eCollection 2021.
7
Encoding dynamics in free recall: Examining attention allocation with pupillometry.
Mem Cognit. 2021 Jan;49(1):90-111. doi: 10.3758/s13421-020-01077-7.
10
Examining the Testing Effect in University Teaching: Retrievability and Question Format Matter.
Front Psychol. 2018 Dec 4;9:2412. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02412. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Variances and Covariances of Kendall's Tau and Their Estimation.
Multivariate Behav Res. 1991 Oct 1;26(4):693-707. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2604_6.
2
Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008 Dec;9(3):105-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x. Epub 2008 Dec 1.
3
The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006 Sep;1(3):181-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.
4
Encoding differences in recognition and recall.
Mem Cognit. 1973 Sep;1(3):297-300. doi: 10.3758/BF03198112.
5
Effects of organization and expectancy on recall and recognition.
Mem Cognit. 1977 May;5(3):315-8. doi: 10.3758/BF03197576.
6
Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy.
Br J Educ Psychol. 2011 Jun;81(Pt 2):264-73. doi: 10.1348/135910710X510494. Epub 2011 Mar 9.
7
On the effectiveness of self-paced learning.
J Mem Lang. 2011 Feb 1;64(2):109-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002.
8
Differences in encoding for free recall vs. recognition.
Mem Cognit. 1976 Sep;4(5):507-13. doi: 10.3758/BF03213211.
9
A propositional theory of recognition memory.
Mem Cognit. 1974 May;2(3):406-12. doi: 10.3758/BF03196896.
10
The effects of proactive interference (PI) and release from PI on judgments of learning.
Mem Cognit. 2011 Feb;39(2):196-203. doi: 10.3758/s13421-010-0010-y.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验